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
06-09-2013, 08:38 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Edit : edit
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 08:39 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(05-09-2013 07:59 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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]

But then the theists will ask, "if the unicorn is invisible, how do you know it’s pink? Is it occupy the Universe? Does it have a body?" Tongue
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 08:50 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(06-09-2013 08:39 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 07:59 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Remember that the Intangible Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are also unfalsifiable.

[Image: invisible-pink-unicorn1.jpg]

But then the theists will ask, "if the unicorn is invisible, how do you know it’s pink? Is it occupied the Universe? Does it have a body?" Tongue

The point of the reversal is to make them dance to their own apologetics. This allows you to be an annoying little shit by demanding that THEY try to disprove the unfalsafiable. Anything they come up with, you'll always be able to shift the goal post or wiggle out of.

If they want to know how you know the invisible unicorn is pink, tell them that you just 'know' and that they would too if only they too had enough faith. See how well that goes over with them. Laughat

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 09:05 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(06-09-2013 08:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-09-2013 08:39 AM)Mike Wrote:  But then the theists will ask, "if the unicorn is invisible, how do you know it’s pink? Is it occupied the Universe? Does it have a body?" Tongue

The point of the reversal is to make them dance to their own apologetics. This allows you to be an annoying little shit by demanding that THEY try to disprove the unfalsafiable. Anything they come up with, you'll always be able to shift the goal post or wiggle out of.

If they want to know how you know the invisible unicorn is pink, tell them that you just 'know' and that they would too if only they too had enough faith. See how well that goes over with them. Laughat

Lol. Yeah I know they will get annoyed with their own Special Pleading, unfalsifiable apologetics and so on. And that amazed me actually.
Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2013, 10:51 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Many people said William Lane Craig won this debate and Christopher Hitchens was unable to refute any of them, neither was he able to present any valid argument for atheism. Some people said this is the reason why Dawkins refused to debate with Craig probably because Hitchens lost the debate with Craig.



Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2013, 11:19 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(08-09-2013 10:51 PM)Mike Wrote:  Many people said William Lane Craig won this debate and Christopher Hitchens was unable to refute any of them, neither was he able to present any valid argument for atheism. Some people said this is the reason why Dawkins refused to debate with Craig probably because Hitchens lost the debate with Craig.




WLC doesn't 'win' debates, he uses them as a means to evangelize. He's a fan of pseudo-profundity, sticking to a predetermined script, controlling every aspect of the debate, ensuring he has the last word, using arguments that have been shown to be bunk centuries before, and excessive use of the Gish Gallop. He gets up, does his spiel, and gets his psychological rocks off. If he's ever in a debate that he doesn't control the format (few and far between), or against someone that doesn't fall for the Gish Gallop, or even if there is a decent QA session after the debate; he very quickly begins to unravel. If you've seen one WLC debate, you've basically seen them all, as he is basically the american cheese of apologist debaters; processed, homogenized, pre-packaged, and will likely give you cancer.


Probably why his debate with Sam Harris is my favorite, because Harris did his homework and didn't fall for WLC's tactics. Harris didn't take the bait, he just kept hammering away at his own points and spending only the barest minimum of time rebutting WLC. So while WLC gets caught up in his usual pseudo-profundity and bad philosophy, Harris just kept hammering away with simple easily followed logic in plain English. If you were to judge who 'won' the debate on the criteria of who did a better job of clearing presenting their side to the audience, then Harris 'won' handily.




[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2013, 11:30 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(08-09-2013 10:51 PM)Mike Wrote:  Many people said William Lane Craig won this debate and Christopher Hitchens was unable to refute any of them, neither was he able to present any valid argument for atheism. Some people said this is the reason why Dawkins refused to debate with Craig probably because Hitchens lost the debate with Craig.

Those 'many people' would be wrong. First, let Dawkins tell you why he won't debate William Lane Craig:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...lane-craig

I doubt it was about this particular performance with the Hitch that causes any concern. Hitchens didn't have to prove atheism if the debate is "Does God Exist". Craig wants the burden of proof for disproving god on the atheist because god as formulated by theists is unfalsifiable. Because of this, the burden of proof is on the theists. Hitch does ok in this debate, but he's done better.

This guy does a good job picking apart Craig--never heard of Peter Millican before listening to this debate. He's a Philosopher by trade, which I think better prepares him to the word games that largely make up Craig's justifications for god:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JVRy7bR7zI


I see EvolutionKills posted while I looked this video up...the Harris debate with Craig is also a pretty good one. Craig really is rather predictable, and Harris does a good job teeing off on the stale arguments from Craig.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
09-09-2013, 02:37 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Here is Robert M. Price also ripping WLC a new one.








[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 05:05 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Does Kalam Cosmological Argument also prove Deism? But actually I think it is dealing with Deism more than to monotheistic religions such as Judeo-Christian and Islam. If we disproved KCA, then is it also mean that we eventually disproved the Deism right?
Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 05:31 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(09-09-2013 05:05 AM)Mike Wrote:  Does Kalam Cosmological Argument also prove Deism? But actually I think it is dealing with Deism more than to monotheistic religions such as Judeo-Christian and Islam. If we disproved KCA, then is it also mean that we eventually disproved the Deism right?

The Kalam doesn't prove anything, it is fundamentally flawed. However even grating some of it's assumptions, it gets you to deism at best. WLC likes to pull it out during a debate, then finish with '...therefore Jesus'. He does this switcharoo, making a seemingly plausible argument for a god, then swaps it out for his God at the very end without explanation. WLC is intellectually hollow and vapid in the extreme.

However refuting the KCA just refutes a bad argument, so you can no longer honestly use that argument in support of your position (not that it has ever stopped him), but it doesn't necessarily falsify that position. Unfortunately they are trying to prove the existence of something unfalsifiable, so they also try to move the burden of proof off of them and onto the skeptics. WLC is not intellectually honest, and he hasn't been for decades.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: