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
20-07-2013, 07:40 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this?No one can refute Kalam Cosmological Argument?
(20-07-2013 07:25 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(20-07-2013 07:08 AM)Mike Wrote:  LOL I don't think so. So all his statement in his site can't be refuted? Or it is better to leave him alone because he'll always insisting his opinions no matter how?

There's been points raised on this thread you could try, but usually when someone is so full of shit that it spills out into a blog, they're beyond hope. Big Grin

Sure I will try. But I am still not sure if he want to accept the refutation or not, as you know it.
Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 07:40 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this?No one can refute Kalam Cosmological Argument?
The existence of parallel timelines within the quantum is enough to dispel any claim that Kalam Cosmological fallacy makes. The very illogical properties of the quantum should cause one to forget the assumptions we make about cause-effect prior to the existence of the universe.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 08:05 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this?No one can refute Kalam Cosmological Argument?
(20-07-2013 07:40 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The existence of parallel timelines within the quantum is enough to dispel any claim that Kalam Cosmological fallacy makes. The very illogical properties of the quantum should cause one to forget the assumptions we make about cause-effect prior to the existence of the universe.

I think you should read this http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-infinity/ , did he really refute this?
Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 08:24 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this?No one can refute Kalam Cosmological Argument?
Taken from http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-infinity/ He said the following, :

Agnostic Contentions: Randomness and Infinity
An agnostic said: How do you see the randomness in Quantum Physics then, why does a atom decaying for no reason not equate to the universe being random as well?

Answer: The randomness spoken of in Quantum Physics does not contravene the fact that there is order, such as animals, plants, and the solar system, and developments over time. It also does not contravene the fact that the so called physical laws, even if they are incomplete, give the world around us a high degree of predictability. Events that happen for no apparent “reason,” could be because we do not know them. Even if we assumed they did not, however, this is not problematic in the Islamic Creed, as I will show you shortly.

In any case, let it be clear from the outset that the issue of cause is a metaphysical question, more than a physical question, because the assertion of cause is based on observed correlation, not that the cause itself can be observed. In short, if there is correlation, and there is an explanation for it, then it is called “cause.” So for example, if one finds that objects attract each other always, then one says that if a glass falls from the table, it is “caused” by gravity. Gravity itself, however, has no verifiable existence in itself, it is assumed to be there, because that bloody glass always falls when it is moved off the edge of the table. This is just an example, I am not saying that scientists all believe that gravity always holds true.

On the other hand, if the pattern of something is totally unpredictable, then people start saying it is “random.” This is what is meant when they say that the quark’s pattern (the element spoken of in Quantum Physics, which is supposedly the subpart of the electron, which is a subpart of the atom) is random. They mean that it’s pattern has no physical explanation; that there is no observed event or condition that somehow makes the quark’s pattern predictable.

Maybe physics, with its tools and methodologies, can prove the non-existence of cause, maybe it cannot, it is not important. The reason is that it can be proved not to exist by proving the existence of a creator, by whom nothing happens except by His Will. This proof is based merely on the existence of events, which is anything that has a beginning. It does not matter if they have apparent order or not, or whether they are contingent or not. I will get back to that when I address your next question.


If you're interested to read it further, just click the link given.
Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 08:49 AM (This post was last modified: 20-07-2013 10:04 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 08:05 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(20-07-2013 07:40 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The existence of parallel timelines within the quantum is enough to dispel any claim that Kalam Cosmological fallacy makes. The very illogical properties of the quantum should cause one to forget the assumptions we make about cause-effect prior to the existence of the universe.

I think you should read this http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-infinity/ , did he really refute this?

The issue is that this particular individual perceives order through identified patterns, but fails to recognize that the reality does not actively formulate patterns. Everything is randomized and, with parallel timelines, there are likely multiple different outcomes of randomized events. The Kalam Cosmological fallacy presupposes that said "order" existed during and prior to the big bang. There is not a shred of evidence to support that reality even necessitates a cause, let alone saying that the outer bounds do.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 08:49 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 08:24 AM)Mike Wrote:  Taken from http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-infinity/ He said the following, :

Agnostic Contentions: Randomness and Infinity
An agnostic said: How do you see the randomness in Quantum Physics then, why does a atom decaying for no reason not equate to the universe being random as well?

Answer: The randomness spoken of in Quantum Physics does not contravene the fact that there is order, such as animals, plants, and the solar system, and developments over time. It also does not contravene the fact that the so called physical laws, even if they are incomplete, give the world around us a high degree of predictability. Events that happen for no apparent “reason,” could be because we do not know them. Even if we assumed they did not, however, this is not problematic in the Islamic Creed, as I will show you shortly.

In any case, let it be clear from the outset that the issue of cause is a metaphysical question, more than a physical question, because the assertion of cause is based on observed correlation, not that the cause itself can be observed. In short, if there is correlation, and there is an explanation for it, then it is called “cause.” So for example, if one finds that objects attract each other always, then one says that if a glass falls from the table, it is “caused” by gravity. Gravity itself, however, has no verifiable existence in itself, it is assumed to be there, because that bloody glass always falls when it is moved off the edge of the table. This is just an example, I am not saying that scientists all believe that gravity always holds true.

On the other hand, if the pattern of something is totally unpredictable, then people start saying it is “random.” This is what is meant when they say that the quark’s pattern (the element spoken of in Quantum Physics, which is supposedly the subpart of the electron, which is a subpart of the atom) is random. They mean that it’s pattern has no physical explanation; that there is no observed event or condition that somehow makes the quark’s pattern predictable.

Maybe physics, with its tools and methodologies, can prove the non-existence of cause, maybe it cannot, it is not important. The reason is that it can be proved not to exist by proving the existence of a creator, by whom nothing happens except by His Will. This proof is based merely on the existence of events, which is anything that has a beginning. It does not matter if they have apparent order or not, or whether they are contingent or not. I will get back to that when I address your next question.


If you're interested to read it further, just click the link given.

I am an ordained minister in the Church of the FSM. I tell you this guy's arguments are bullshit.

I'm a minister, so I'm right.Drinking Beverage

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
20-07-2013, 09:03 AM
Kalam Cosmological Argument?
Quote:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Premise 1 isn't necessarily true. We don't know.

Premise 2 is false in some models, true in others. Specifically in the case of the Big Bang theory, time actually started existing when the universe started. Since there is no time before time, "begin" is meaningless.

2.11 This isn't known and chances are the universe as a matter of fact is infinite. There's no known way to prove this true or false.

2.12/2.13 True but only applicable if and when time actually exists. When time doesn't exist or is meaningless, IE at the start of the universe, this isn't true anymore.

2.21 Mathematically wrong. If nothing else, the function x+1 would prove it.

2.22 Not necessarily. It can be an infinite series of co-existing events as well for one thing. Secondly, this again requires time to exist.

2.21 and 2.22 Being refuted makes 2.23 False. We don't know (and it's possible we can't) is the correct conclusion to this.

3 Therefore "or not", and Stephen Hawkins' explanation of the creation of the universe in "The Grand Design", based upon the little we know of quantum physics, is another plausible explanation without a Prime Mover required.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GaëlK7's post
20-07-2013, 09:10 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Just starting with one of his links you know they're starting off with woo and bullshit.

Quote:First, it is by sound reason we know that God exists

Oh really? Such as.... circular reasoning from a book, confirmation bias and cherry picking? Hey that sounds totally logical!

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
20-07-2013, 09:45 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Thanks for the responses. I think I should show you his list of his so-called "atheism refutation" articles from the latest to the oldest. Feel free to give your opinions Big Grin :

Stephen Hawkings contradict himself

Video of the article for children

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2009/1...e-so-many/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2009/1...-the-mind/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2009/0...butes-now/

Omnipotence and the so-called unliftable stone

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/1...-of-islam/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-comments/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...imperfect/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-idiocity/
(Read this, does he admitted he lose because he started to block some atheist that keep asking him for debate?)

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...c-beliefs/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...ationally/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...ce-of-god/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...lsifiable/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-infinity/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-of-allah/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-religion/

http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-priority/
Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 09:55 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 09:10 AM)Logisch Wrote:  Just starting with one of his links you know they're starting off with woo and bullshit.

Quote:First, it is by sound reason we know that God exists

Oh really? Such as.... circular reasoning from a book, confirmation bias and cherry picking? Hey that sounds totally logical!

LMAO Laugh out load
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: