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
09-09-2013, 09:54 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Someone ask this question on http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2013/09/de...d-for.html in the comment section. He said "Why do you think that naturalism is plausible? You’ve ruled out the universe causing itself, so that leaves us with option 1) the universe has always existed 2) some contingent physical object has always existed as a brute fact and caused the universe to come into being or 3) an uncaused eternally existing entity caused the universe to exist. Since you’re an atheist option three is ruled out, so do you find option one or two plausible? Why do you find this option plausible? If you can’t explain why you think that naturalism is plausible can you direct me to a wise atheist who can answer this question?"

What amazed me about this guy named Keith Rozumalki who claimed he is an ex-atheist who became a progressive intellectual Christian, doesn't he aware of how modern physics contradicted the Kalam Cosmological Argument and various evidences that show naturalism is more plausible?
Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 10:27 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(09-09-2013 09:54 PM)Mike Wrote:  Someone ask this question on http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2013/09/de...d-for.html in the comment section. He said "Why do you think that naturalism is plausible? You’ve ruled out the universe causing itself, so that leaves us with option 1) the universe has always existed 2) some contingent physical object has always existed as a brute fact and caused the universe to come into being or 3) an uncaused eternally existing entity caused the universe to exist. Since you’re an atheist option three is ruled out, so do you find option one or two plausible? Why do you find this option plausible? If you can’t explain why you think that naturalism is plausible can you direct me to a wise atheist who can answer this question?"

What amazed me about this guy named Keith Rozumalki who claimed he is an ex-atheist who became a progressive intellectual Christian, doesn't he aware of how modern physics contradicted the Kalam Cosmological Argument and various evidences that show naturalism is more plausible?


Ask him to provide evidence for the super-natural. Thus failing to do so, all we have left is the natural... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 10:38 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Nature is plausible because nature exists. I think we have a universe of evidence to back this up.
Reality is always more plausible than an imaginary, non-evidentiary, invented assertion

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
09-09-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(09-09-2013 09:54 PM)Mike Wrote:  Someone ask this question on http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2013/09/de...d-for.html in the comment section. He said "Why do you think that naturalism is plausible? You’ve ruled out the universe causing itself, so that leaves us with option 1) the universe has always existed 2) some contingent physical object has always existed as a brute fact and caused the universe to come into being or 3) an uncaused eternally existing entity caused the universe to exist. Since you’re an atheist option three is ruled out, so do you find option one or two plausible? Why do you find this option plausible? If you can’t explain why you think that naturalism is plausible can you direct me to a wise atheist who can answer this question?"

What amazed me about this guy named Keith Rozumalki who claimed he is an ex-atheist who became a progressive intellectual Christian, doesn't he aware of how modern physics contradicted the Kalam Cosmological Argument and various evidences that show naturalism is more plausible?

Disproving the existence of the supernatural simply is not possible. All efforts to find the supernatural have failed to date, but that does not disprove whether a supernatural exists. On the flip side, though, it would be simple to positively prove the supernatural does exist if on command, a physically impossible event would occur. As an example, chop off someone's arm and call on god to immediately regrow a replacement limb--we can accept willing believers for this task Smile. We're quite sure this is physically impossible for a human to regrow its own limb, but if such an effect could be verifiably repeated on command, it would be evidence in support of something supernatural.

So at a minimum, we can say there is no good reason to believe in the supernatural . It might be there, but to date there is no reason to suggest the supernatural is necessary. Lawrence Krauss lays out a possible way to get a universe from nothing--no cause, not supernatural beginnings. His argument is not a proof of a universe from nothing, but simply a plausible case consistent with current knowledge of the laws of physics. We should not assume that the universe could not cause itself. Krauss is one scientist and atheist who has ruled in the possibility that the universe had no external cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 11:03 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2013 11:06 PM by Rahn127.)
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Aren't the terms supernatural and non-existent describing the same thing ?

(natural existent stuff) in one circle and outside that circle you have that which is beyond the natural or the non-existent.

I always found it strange that god was always defined as something that was non-existent that somehow interacted with things that 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
14-09-2013, 12:32 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
A Muslim apologist response to the Problem of Evil

A Response to the Problem of Evil
Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(14-09-2013 12:32 PM)Mike Wrote:  A Muslim apologist response to the Problem of Evil

A Response to the Problem of Evil

OK, so they acknowledge that the god they invented allows evil. Big fucking deal. There is no evidence that their god exists.

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
14-09-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(14-09-2013 12:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-09-2013 12:32 PM)Mike Wrote:  A Muslim apologist response to the Problem of Evil

A Response to the Problem of Evil

OK, so they acknowledge that the god they invented allows evil. Big fucking deal. There is no evidence that their god exists.

The Problem of Evil is easily surmounted by changing the definition of god to one that allows evil. Most Christians can not, and will not, do this; thus they are addled with the paradox because their definition of their god is incompatible with the universe. Now ironically enough, the Problem of Evil is not a problem for Yahweh, but upon closer reflection, Christians don't really worship Yahweh. At base, most Christians are atheists of Yahweh, because the god they worship clearly isn't the same one that exists in the Old Testament.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
14-09-2013, 04:29 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(14-09-2013 03:56 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(14-09-2013 12:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, so they acknowledge that the god they invented allows evil. Big fucking deal. There is no evidence that their god exists.

The Problem of Evil is easily surmounted by changing the definition of god to one that allows evil. Most Christians can not, and will not, do this; thus they are addled with the paradox because their definition of their god is incompatible with the universe. Now ironically enough, the Problem of Evil is not a problem for Yahweh, but upon closer reflection, Christians don't really worship Yahweh. At base, most Christians are atheists of Yahweh, because the god they worship clearly isn't the same one that exists in the Old Testament.

Yabut, those silly Christees still have to explain Hell. Consider

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
14-09-2013, 04:47 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(14-09-2013 04:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-09-2013 03:56 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Problem of Evil is easily surmounted by changing the definition of god to one that allows evil. Most Christians can not, and will not, do this; thus they are addled with the paradox because their definition of their god is incompatible with the universe. Now ironically enough, the Problem of Evil is not a problem for Yahweh, but upon closer reflection, Christians don't really worship Yahweh. At base, most Christians are atheists of Yahweh, because the god they worship clearly isn't the same one that exists in the Old Testament.

Yabut, those silly Christees still have to explain Hell. Consider

Da devil done it. He is sort of the get out of jail free card along with "He works in mysterious ways" It makes sense if you don't think about it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: