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
04-09-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-09-2013 10:56 AM)Mike Wrote:  Are you all strong atheists, agnostic atheists or agnostics? Sometimes I wondering.

We're a mixed lot here.

I consider myself a strong atheist.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
We're not " all anything". We are not even all atheists. We are all individuals with many different points of view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sandman's post
04-09-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-09-2013 10:56 AM)Mike Wrote:  Are you all strong atheists, agnostic atheists or agnostics? Sometimes I wondering.

We aren't all any one thing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 08:21 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
But IIRC someone said in another thread, the majority in here are agnostic atheists because the existence of God is neither can be proven nor can be disproven.
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 12:59 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(04-09-2013 08:21 PM)Mike Wrote:  But IIRC someone said in another thread, the majority in here are agnostic atheists because the existence of God is neither can be proven nor can be disproven.

Most of us probably would say that god has not been proven and there is no good evidence to accept existence of god, but we would not say god has been positively disproved The existence of a god is necessarily unfalsifiable, so without some positive evidence to prove such a god exists, we give as much weight to the possibility to god as we do the invisible tea pot orbiting Mars . Dawkins is an atheist of that sort, as am I. But there are a variety of opinions you'll find on these forums.

I haven't read every post on this thread, so sorry if some of this is repeat. I think a fatal flaw in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the argument resorts to special pleading. Everything requires a cause, we are told, except this one thing, namely god. The logic for what is the cause could be used to justify any belief on what caused the existence of the universe.

Modern evidence in Physics provides observations that refute the cause assumption. Virtual particles pop into existence and do not have a cause. This is evidence that contradicts the premise of a first cause.

Recent experiments in quantum mechanics have also proven that it is possible for an affect to precede the cause. The ordering of cause preceding effect is an assumption built into the KCA that science has proven is not a valid assumption.

When you think about it, this ordering assumption reveals an inconsistency in the logic of the argument KCA as a positive argument for god:
--If the KCA defender asserts that a god that exists out of time could have caused the existence of the universe, and if then time did not exist until the beginning of the universe, how can there be a cause of the universe that occurred in time before it's actual coming into existence?
--If the KCA defender argues that the universe cause happened after it existed (as physical observations have proven is possible), then a god that exists outside of time causing the universe's existence is no longer a necessary requirement.
--If a god that created the universe was a god that existed within time, then necessarily god itself would have a cause, and that cause would have its own cause, etc...infinite regress.


The Kalam Cosmological Argument assumes a world of cause and effect that is consistent with human intuition, and science has shown over and over that human intuition is a poor basis for determining truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
05-09-2013, 01:26 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(05-09-2013 12:59 AM)BryanS Wrote:  ...and science has shown over and over that human intuition is a poor basis for determining truth.

Yep, that hits the nail square on the head and drives it through the wall.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
05-09-2013, 01:59 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(05-09-2013 12:59 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Most of us probably would say that god has not been proven and there is no good evidence to accept existence of god, but we would not say god has been positively disproved The existence of a god is necessarily unfalsifiable, so without some positive evidence to prove such a god exists, we give as much weight to the possibility to god as we do the invisible tea pot orbiting Mars . Dawkins is an atheist of that sort, as am I. But there are a variety of opinions you'll find on these forums.

I haven't read every post on this thread, so sorry if some of this is repeat. I think a fatal flaw in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the argument resorts to special pleading. Everything requires a cause, we are told, except this one thing, namely god. The logic for what is the cause could be used to justify any belief on what caused the existence of the universe.

Modern evidence in Physics provides observations that refute the cause assumption. Virtual particles pop into existence and do not have a cause. This is evidence that contradicts the premise of a first cause.

Recent experiments in quantum mechanics have also proven that it is possible for an affect to precede the cause. The ordering of cause preceding effect is an assumption built into the KCA that science has proven is not a valid assumption.

When you think about it, this ordering assumption reveals an inconsistency in the logic of the argument KCA as a positive argument for god:
--If the KCA defender asserts that a god that exists out of time could have caused the existence of the universe, and if then time did not exist until the beginning of the universe, how can there be a cause of the universe that occurred in time before it's actual coming into existence?
--If the KCA defender argues that the universe cause happened after it existed (as physical observations have proven is possible), then a god that exists outside of time causing the universe's existence is no longer a necessary requirement.
--If a god that created the universe was a god that existed within time, then necessarily god itself would have a cause, and that cause would have its own cause, etc...infinite regress.


The Kalam Cosmological Argument assumes a world of cause and effect that is consistent with human intuition, and science has shown over and over that human intuition is a poor basis for determining truth.

Thanks for your response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. About your statement that I've bolded, regarding the unfalsifiable existence of God actually it depends on which God we're talking about. Abraham's God is falsifiable by any version of Bible. On the other hand, we still have lightning, proof that Zeus exists. None of the believers in Abraham's God has disproven the existence of Zeus btw. Same goes to the other God/gods. There are too many contradictions among the God/gods.
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 02:53 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(05-09-2013 01:59 AM)Mike Wrote:  Thanks for your response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. About your statement that I've bolded, regarding the unfalsifiable existence of God actually it depends on which God we're talking about. Abraham's God is falsifiable by any version of Bible. On the other hand, we still have lightning, proof that Zeus exists. None of the believers in Abraham's God has disproven the existence of Zeus btw. Same goes to the other God/gods. There are too many contradictions among the God/gods.

Except we've been to the top of Mt. Olympus, and there are no gods there. Tongue

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 04:40 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Religious people love to say, if atheists can't disprove God, then God is exist for sure and God is necessarily unfalsifiable.
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 07:59 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(05-09-2013 04:40 AM)Mike Wrote:  Religious people love to say, if atheists can't disprove God, then God is exist for sure and God is necessarily unfalsifiable.

Remember that the Intangible Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are also unfalsifiable.

[Image: invisible-pink-unicorn1.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: