Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2013, 06:41 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(01-09-2013 11:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-09-2013 09:59 AM)Mike Wrote:  Deviant attempts to use theories of physics against the proofs of the belief of Islam

Deviant says: The problem with the Kalam argument [the argument of the scholars of the Islamic belief] in describing how “beings” are created is that under the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed, it merely changes form.

Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji : Where does kalam describe, according to you, how beings are created? How does the changing of form affect the kalam argument?

The claim that matter cannot be destroyed is merely a theory, it is not an absolute truth. It is a hypothesis no one has been able to show false in an experiment, that is all. What is factual about all this, is only this: no one has been able to show matter being destroyed in an experiment (as far as I know.) So what? How exactly does this affect the kalam argument?


Deviant says: Thus the first premise that is used in Kalam, that beings have a beginning and an end is misleading.

Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji : This is not the first premise, there are proofs for why it must have a beginning mentioned in kalam. As for having an ending, this cannot be known by reason alone, and one does not need to prove it to show that the world is created. You seem to think that these ideas are newly claimed by physicists, when in fact they are thousands of years old, and are indeed dealt with in the books of kalam.

Deviant says: This is all observed empirically in nature. That’s why its a law of thermodynamics and not a theory of thermodynamics.

Abu Adam: Now you are resorting to lie, as expected. The so called law of thermodynamics remains a theory in that it remains falsifiable, and it remains labeled a law only because no one has shown it false in an experiment. This does not mean it is true. You are mixing what is actually observed with the interpretation of what is observed. Moreover, I can’t think of any reason why the so called laws of thermodynamics run contrary to kalam. They are merely attempted descriptions of what is normally true. It belongs to the “possible” category of things in kalam terminology. Aļļaah can create matter that cannot be destroyed in the world of physical cause (i.e. through a physical means,) as well as matter that can be destroyed (by physical means.) If it is really true that matter cannot be destroyed in the causal habits of this universe, i.e. by physical means, not that it would be indestructible in absolute terms, then this simply means that Aļļaah created it to be so. This idea, that matter changes form, and does not vanish, does not deal a blow to kalam, so we are still at loss for what you are getting at.

Deviant says: First, the parts of the universe aren’t necessarily “created” since matter/energy merely shift forms. Secondly, theoretical physics throws the entire conception of this principle out of the window because parts of a whole may be radically different from the whole.

Abu Adam: The first point is the thousands of years old argument of the Aristotelean philosophers. The books of kalam deal with this. Claiming that it is not created, i.e. not emergent, leads to logical contradictions mentioned in kalaam books. As-Sanuusiyy mentions one of these in his ˆAqiidah Aş-Şugħraa, but there are many proofs. The fact that one cannot have infinite movements/changes in the past is enough to prove this, as shown in The Foundations of the Religion.

As for the second point, the scholars of kalam admit that the parts are different from the whole. Az-Zarkashiyy (745-794 AH/ 1344-1392 AD) for one states plainly that trying to understand indivisible matter based on what we see in this world is a mistake, which I think is more than reasonable. Everything we see around us are divisible things with bulk that have different attributes, so how can we draw an analogy between these things and what is not divisible? Kalam science is not affected by this, as it is not a new idea.


Deviant says: Subatomic particles defy causal relationships and very large bodies which supersede the speed of light reverse causality. This isn’t “theory” but observations made by scientists.

Abu Adam: It is not that simple. What exactly was observed that “defy causal relationships,” and “reverse causality,” as you are claiming? What you are speaking of is the scientist’s interpretation of what he saw, not what he actually saw – if you are telling the truth about this scientist.

I do not know of any physicist that denies cause, least of all Einstein. Causality itself is not even something observable. What is observable is physical entities, large or small, and how they behave. To claim something is really a cause of their behavior is metaphysical, because causality itself cannot be seen. I mean cause in the sense of the power to actually affect events. That is, we say fire causes burning, but does this mean that it causes it in actual reality, or is fire intrinsically, and in actual reality, powerless? Of course, the belief of Muslims is that fire has no intrinsic power to burn; the fire and its burning are two different creations that Aļļaah has created, and none of them necessarily follows the other in the minds eye, only according to what is normally true. That is, Aļļaah normally creates burnt paper when it has come in contact with fire.

To claim that causal relationships are defied is highly problematic from a philosophical standpoint, because when you deny that an event has a cause, then you are questioning cause in general. Cause-effect is a first principle from which knowledge springs. Without it there is no basis to claim knowledge of the outside world. Why? Because your knowledge of the world, is not what you sense itself, but rather, the interpretation of your mind of the signals of the senses. This bridge from the physical world to the metaphysical world of the mind, and the acceptance of it as true, is based on the acceptance of cause-effect, the cause effect between your senses and your perception. In short, to question cause-effect is to question reality, and to question reality is to question your observation. So no, I do not accept the idea that this has been observed. You have either not understood, or the scientist is full of it.

Moreover, no one has observed particles beyond the speed of light. You are now turning to lies to support your attack on Islam and its scholars, as expected.


Deviant says: Moreover, the nature of entropy posits that at one point the universe was pure light….

Abu Adam: Who was there to observe this pure light? How can you claim that this is known with any level of certainty? It is no more than a guess. It is a “the chair is black, thus all chairs are black” type of argument. It is a claim about history, it cannot be proven by experiments to have actually happened.

Deviant says: If the parts of the universe were the same as the elementary subatomic particles, then the universe should imitate that, but it doesn’t.

Abu Adam: The decoherence phenomenon and environmental effects prevent that. That is, the small particles are isolated from the environment, but big particles are not. For this reason we cannot see the characteristics of quantum in them. The difference between large and small particles is not to the extent that there is no relation between them. Certainly not in a way that contradicts the principles of ĥuduutħ (emergence, having a beginning, such as any change in form of physical things) and imkaan (possibility in the minds eye), which are the basic elements of kalam arguments.

Deviant says: According to a theory of special relativity, causal relationships break down if something goes greater than the speed of light, thus one would perceive an effect before its cause.

Abu Adam: So your mother might be your daughter? What are you trying to say?

Einstein does not say that causal relationships are reversed. Einstein was a zealous defender of physical cause. What he said was that from the reference point of something traveling at less than the speed of light, the result of a cause might appear before the cause itself. No one has proven, however, that a particle, large or small, can travel faster than the speed of light. At the end of the day, what you are claiming is that the kalam argument has been contradicted by a theoretical possibility based on assuming the occurrence of a speed that has not been proven by physicists to exist. But even if this theory was true, how does this contradict kalam?


Deviant says: Modern physics has shown us that at the subatomic particle level, certain entities actually lack spatio-temporal characteristics, and in spite of this, matter and energy still exist. If the parts of matter and energy, subatomic particles, lack the attributes of spatio-temporality, then this shows that the parts of an entity can actually be different than the whole. This second point rebuts the notion that merely because the parts of the universe are created that the universe as a whole is created since modern physics has shown that the parts of the universe lack spatio-temporality.

Abu Adam: No it does not. The proofs of kalam are not based on the parts being like the whole, they are based on ĥuduutħ (emergence) and imkaan (possibility in the mind’s eye) in either what exists in itself (matter/attributed) or what exist in something else (form/attribute).

No one denies that subatomic particles differ from normal bodies. All parties know that the rules of big bodies do not necessarily apply to very small particles. The opposite, however, is not true. For example, relativity applies to both fast and slow particles, as well as big bodies, as it is the most general theory. It is the generalization of the Newtonian theory. We cannot say that it applies only to small particles. Newtonian mechanics, however, can only give correct answers for large and slow bodies. As for the fast ones, physics uses relativity because Newtonian mechanics don’t hold. This is the difference. They are not in different worlds, but models for describing, or predicting, how particles behave at different levels of size, speed, etc.

When particles become very small, physics is forced to use relativity models/theories, and when they get even smaller, then physics is forced to use QM. This does not mean that there is no relation between small particles at QM level and those at relativity level and again at “normal” level.

As for QM, it explains a lot of the strange things observed in small particles. What necessarily follows from this theory has to do with measurement of speed, position, velocity, etc. Physicists do not say that a thing is in several places at the same time, except perhaps those that are prone to silly interpretations of some observations, like the double-split experiment. A number of them do say that if we want to know the place of an electron, then we come with an instrument to see, or by our eyes. Before we look, the system was undisturbed, they say it was not in a place. When you looked or measured, then you disturbed the system, thus you obliged the electron to go into an arbitrary position. This is philosophy, not science. It is the ancient, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Einstein, for one, fiercely refused this idea. He said, “Measurement will not give you an arbitrary position every time.”


Deviant says: subatomic particles can do things that normal matter cannot do, like exist in multiple places at the same time due to the Heisenburg principle of uncertainty, and may not even exist in time.… Moreover…. photons, which are massless particles and can technically be in multiple places at one time.

Abu Adam: No one has observed a photon, or anything else, being in multiple places at the same time. It is an idea of a scientist in an attempt to interpret, and it is a silly one, or a badly phrased one.

Deviant says: Thus, both of the basic premises of the kalam cosmological argument are rendered obsolete by modern physics.

Sheikh Abu Adam Al Naruiji : We would still like to know how. Present the argument and show how physics has proven the argument I presented in “The Foundations of the religion,” wrong according to you. Show how what was actually observed contradicts the argument. We are not interested in theories.

As a final comment, a theory is just that: a theory. It is a scientist’s attempt to interpret some observation that he made. Take a look at this for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163

As Muslims we must not accept everything a person says just because he is good at math or is wearing a white jacket. Let us also not forget that the word of a kaafir is not a proof of anything. We cannot even accept as true what they claim to have observed in the laboratory. Why? Because we have only a kafir’s word for it. It is kħabar waaĥid, a singular narration, and from a kaafir, so it is like writing on water; it is only possibly true in itself. Not only that, but when it is also self-contradictory in nature, such as some of the supposed interpretations of experiments in physics, then we would not accept it from a muslim, let alone a kaafir. If you remember this, brothers and sisters, you can save yourself a lot of satanic whispers.

The habit of physicists in this age is to throw ideas/ theories and then stay with them until an experiment shows otherwise. They do not always use logic before they speak. They consider everything as possible – it is the heritage of christian sophistry. They do not care about something called impossible in the minds eye, such as the idea of standing and not standing at the same time. This type of idea-throwing as theories happens a lot. An example of discarded theories is the idea of “ether,” which was the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves travel. Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory are others (though they work fine for certain things.) There is therefore no reason to take theoretical physics into the logical debate of kalam. Some of these ideas are no more than silly, and not absolute truth. Even Hawkins states plainly in his book “A brief History of Time”:

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory (P. 10)”.

The physicists of today are philosophers of yesterday, empowered by the technological success of physics. They use this power to fool people into accepting even their ideas that are metaphysical – atheism, agnosticism, sophistry – hiding behind the achievement of physics, sometimes disguising them as physical theories. They do this just as the philosophers of yesterday did the same in light of their skills in mathematics, until the kalam scholars drove them into the corner. Today this is not happening, because the muslims are weak, and highly qualified kalam scholars, capable of critical thinking, are extremely few.


Taken from http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/1.../#comments

You've resorted to cut and paste preaching; we are no longer having a discussion.

You have become boring.Drinking Beverage

LOL. I'm not preaching btw Rolleyes, I just want to see everyone' opinions and views about that. Just read the article on what Abu Adam said and share your views or opinions about Abu Adam's statement.

Regarding the Deviant's statement about "Subatomic particles defy causal relationships and very large bodies which supersede the speed of light reverse causality. This isn’t “theory” but observations made by scientists", then Abu Adam said "I do not know of any physicist that denies cause, least of all Einstein. Causality itself is not even something observable. What is observable is physical entities, large or small, and how they behave. To claim something is really a cause of their behavior is metaphysical, because causality itself cannot be seen". What he had said was very confusing because if causality can't be seen, then the evidence of causality or everything have beginning remain doubtful and weak. That's mean we've never observed something started or begin to exist. Yet Abu Adam still asserted that everything have beginning. Huh
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 07:00 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(01-09-2013 02:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-08-2013 01:20 AM)Mike Wrote:  It is known that the ex-atheist, Antony Flew eventually converted into a weak deism because he said the following,

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

There is also a claim that Flew was persuaded by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Btw Flew "cannot recall" claiming "the kalam cosmological argument is a sound argument" for God but he confesses his memory fails him often now so he can't be sure. Nevertheless, what Antony thought of the Kalam, to which he said:

If and insofar as it is supposed to prove the existence of a First Cause of the Big Bang, I have no objection, but this is not at all the same as a proof of the existence of a spirit and all the rest of Richard Swinburne's definition of 'God' which is presently accepted as standard throughout the English speaking and philosophical world.


The Craig argument, is, as usual, bullshit. He gets so wrapped up in his jargon, he forgets he's not making any sense, and it's HIS presuppositions the are the problem. He's THE ULTIMATE Presuppositionalist. Hawking has no "metaphysical" presuppositions. Craig is just talking crap as usual. He thinks if he uses enough big words, then people won't notice he's just full of shit.
Too bad Flew knew so little about Biochemistry.
It's involved, and not simple to follow, but perfectly possible, as has been demonstrated. See the following series. No gods needed.




Flew's argument is preposterous.
It's like saying "Oh, ok I refuse to have a relationship with an elephant which might be in this room until you can provide me with a seemingly irrefutable reason why it MUST exist. If you can do that, then I will have a relationship with it". Well guess what ? There IS no elephant in the room, whether he (or anyone) decides, capriciously, to relate to the notion or not, of it's being there. Kalam is just "god of the gaps", rehashed, and presumes a deity is the "proximate" cause, (without demonstrating why that should be necessary. Theism is not ultimately about "proofs and arguments". It's about a relationship with a(n) (imaginary) being, which human cooked up about

Thanks for the response btw. Regarding the statement about Kalam is just "god of the gaps", a blogger said "This is fallacious because such an argument is predicated only on ones’ own ignorance, and the conclusion that God exists would have to be the only possible explanation in such an argument. But the Kalam Cosmological argument is not like that.

This argument is predicated upon unpacking what it means to be the cause of the universe. The cause of the universe cannot be natural because nature is part of and contingent upon the universe. It cannot be spacial or temporal, because as Rosa pointed out, space and time were proven to be contingent upon the universe. So the cause of the universe must be: beyond nature, beyond space, and beyond time.

But there are only two types of things that fit that description: abstract objects, and personal minds. But abstract objects do not stand in causal relation with anything, that is what makes them abstract. Therefore the cause of the universe must be a transcendent, personal mind.

So you see, this argument does not just insert God as a sort of explanatory hypothesis, as Rosa Rubicondior’s objection implies. It is deductive.

This is not an argument for the Christian God, for the traits attributed to God in His revelation to man would be an unjustified consequence of this argument. One cannot conclude that the personal mind has omnipotence or omniscience from this argument. To insert the Christian God, Zeus, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, a committee of Greco-Roman gods or a peanut-butter sandwich (as Rosa suggested) would all be unjustified because the traits that they contain do not follow deductively (Also a peanut-butter sandwich, Zeus and the FSM are all contingent upon space and therefore could not be the cause of space).

The traits of this personal transcendence are left in open question for future inquiry."
Taken from Why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not God Of The Gaps

I don't know if he have clearly refuted the statement. Consider Seems like he can't give a strong argument about Kalam isn't God of the Gaps.
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 02:59 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
I am beyond nature, beyond space and beyond time. So is my 6ft tall Pooka named Harvey.
Together we caused the universe.

And now billions of years later, I decided to live within it for a while as a human being.
I don't remember creating a god and neither does Harvey. It's been billions of years, so it may have slipped my mind.

PS, if it's not natural, it doesn't exist

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
02-09-2013, 04:13 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(02-09-2013 02:59 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I am beyond nature, beyond space and beyond time. So is my 6ft tall Pooka named Harvey.
Together we caused the universe.

And now billions of years later, I decided to live within it for a while as a human being.
I don't remember creating a god and neither does Harvey. It's been billions of years, so it may have slipped my mind.

PS, if it's not natural, it doesn't exist

That's what I thought btw. Not to mention that his argument is quiet unconvincing. Do you have some opinions and views regarding Abu Adam's statement that I'd shown previously? He said a scientific theory is just a theory because any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory , as Hawking stated in his book "A brief History of Time". He said a theory isn't an absolute truth because it can be falsified, how's that?
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
He is wrong and doesn't understand the definition of the word theory, nor does he understand what it takes to disprove a theory.
In the scientific sense, a theory provides an explanation. It makes predictions. It's useful.

Do you know what people can do when a million test results come out with the same results ?
You can wipe out a disease that has been killing people. You can treat water and provide homes with safe water to drink and bathe in.
You can build homes and skyscrapers. You can build planes and fly people around the world. You can create computers and a world wide net.
You can stop some crime and provide evidence in trials. You can give people a better world to live in.

This does not come as a shock to me that you would quote him.
You have yet to quote people that make any sense. You would be better served using your own quotes from yourself.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 08:36 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(02-09-2013 12:20 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  He is wrong and doesn't understand the definition of the word theory, nor does he understand what it takes to disprove a theory.
In the scientific sense, a theory provides an explanation. It makes predictions. It's useful.

Do you know what people can do when a million test results come out with the same results ?
You can wipe out a disease that has been killing people. You can treat water and provide homes with safe water to drink and bathe in.
You can build homes and skyscrapers. You can build planes and fly people around the world. You can create computers and a world wide net.
You can stop some crime and provide evidence in trials. You can give people a better world to live in.

This does not come as a shock to me that you would quote him.
You have yet to quote people that make any sense. You would be better served using your own quotes from yourself.

Actually I quoted him because I wanna see some refutations about his claims, point by point. It seems that, when I read all his refutations against atheism some of them are contradictory to what he have said and some of them are really confusing. Such as, when Deviant said the first premise of Kalam that beings have a beginning and an end is misleading, then the confusing Abu Adam replied "How exactly does this affect the kalam argument?", "But even if this theory was true, how does this contradict kalam?" and so on. I suggest to you to read the excerpt and then share some of your thoughts about it. Or maybe some refutations. Sorry if I'm annoying but I really wanna know how exactly if he really did refute Deviant's argument.
Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2013 09:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
edit: edit

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2013, 09:24 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2013 12:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Wrong. The "blogger" is attempting to use logic to prove that HIS cause is the only possible cause. He failed. Logic does not inform anyone about the ultimate nature of reality and that has been proven, by Relativity, Uncertainty, and some maths (of matricies). The entire premise of Kalam, is that logic can do, what it has been proven to be incapable of doing. The "natural and contingent" business is just the criteria a presuppositionalist set up, for himself. Not anyone else. No one else agrees on it's premises, and assumptions. Quantum Mechanics has proven it to be false. Thus the argument fails. He still has only shown, (even IF one buys his premises), that there was a PROXIMATE, (nearest) cause, he has in no way demonstrated an *ultimate* cause. There is no reason an omnipotent god could not make a race of mechanical universe makers, and THEY could have caused the universe. "Causing" anything "beyond space and time" is meaningless. "Causing" requires cause and effect, in a TEMPORAL SEQUENCE, (or the word "cause" means nothing), (and THAT requires TIME). It's meaningless. The ONLY way to assert that, is to invoke Special Pleading, (a fallacy). "Beyond" spacetime IS itself another spatial (and therefore temporal) reference. It's like saying "it's outside a door, but oh BTW, that door does not exist". It's meaningless drivel. You can't be "beyond", if there is no barrier, in the first place, to be "beyond".

There is no such thing as a "transcendent personal mind". A "personal mind" is not an infinite being, (thus not a god's mind). It's pure anthropomorphism. "Personal" is by definition, NOT *another person*. Limited to ONE "person"(ality). It's self-refuting, (limitation),for a deity. One person participates in only PART of Reality. A being that participates in PART of Reality is neither infinite, nor the creator of all of Reality. It's "limited" by (a) *structure* in Reality it could not have engineered. A "being" is not *non-being*. Where did *non-being* come from ? A *being* is only PART of Reality, and a BEING can't create *non-being*. A being has ALWAYS and ONLY been PART of Reality, by definition. A "being" (as long as it existed), been only PART of Reality, (being vs/and non-being). "Existence" itself requires time. The "blogger" cannot say ANYTHING about a being, or "existence" without invoking a temporal reference. There also exists NO "MIND" apart from matter, that we know of. Minds work because mental processes work in material (molecular) brains. There is not a shred of evidence for any other sort of "mind". You have none. He has none. No one has any. There is none. Any proposition that there *is* such a "mind" is wishful thinking. A fairy tale. A "mind" requires "experiences", motion, sensory input, memory, etc etc. They ALL require TIME. Being is a PROCESS. A god can't REQUIRE a dimension (time) needed for it's own existence.

It's neither deductive, or logical. It's crap. 100 % crap. Everything about it is crap.
"Causality" REQUIRES the *structure* of cause and effect ALREADY in place, for a creator to "cause" the universe. How did the creator *cause" Causality, unless there were ALREADY *structure* in place somewhere, to "cause" Causality ? That leads to infinite regression. As I said above, "cause" requires time. Cause PRECEDES effect. That requires time in place already, for the SEQUENCE to occur. One cannot assert that something is happening "outside" spacetime, if one is doing something that REQUIRES spacetime.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-09-2013, 10:56 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Are you all strong atheists, agnostic atheists or agnostics? Sometimes I wondering.
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 12:26 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2013 12:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
I'm a apathetic igtheist.
When and if, (and I'm not holding my breath), anyone comes up with a coherent definition for the word (or concept) they refer to when they use the word "god", maybe I'll start to care. Meanwhile, "I'm busy". Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: