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, 10:12 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Geez, where do I start?

His "proof that God exists using common sense" is just a re-iteration of the Argument from Design. Its first premise is that "design requires a designer", which is unproven and unprovable. The definition of "design" will always be open to counterexamples no matter how you define it, unless it's defined as "the product of a designer", which is logically fallacious because it begs the question (circular reasoning).

Then he tries to prove that God is perfect because God "does not have a partner". The structure of the argument is invalid, because it does the reasoning backward -- while it may be true that "having a partner" makes one imperfect, it doesn't follow that "not having a partner" makes one perfect. It's like saying that "frogs aren't yellow, so by showing you this non-yellow thing I've demonstrated that it's a frog". But even if his proof was done in the proper structure, it's still demonstrable that certain acts of God require a partner (such as a person coming to Islam, which would require that person's act of free will in addition to whatever Allah is alleged to supply).

As if these weren't bad enough, the "mathematical proof" is just a re-iteration of the Cosmological Argument (everything that exists must have been caused to exist, God is an uncaused cause, etc.) except without the conclusion (because the author of this blog doesn't fully understand how syllogisms work). What part of this is "mathematical"?

His last two proofs can't even begin to be found sound without presupposition that the Qur'an is true, because his citations are entirely from the Qur'an. If one does not believe the Qur'an (as we do not), then there's simply nothing to argue here.

I don't understand why this post is any different than the many that came before it. The arguments aren't new, and they all depend heavily on sensational semantics such as "common sense", "fundamental", "precision", "logic", "must be", "merely be", etc. I have no problem with any of these phrases in themselves, but they are all used liberally and inappropriately. The only thing that gives this argument any significance is the rhetoric, which is built upon an overuse of superlatives.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
20-07-2013, 10:19 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 08:05 AM)Mike Wrote:  I think you should read this http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-infinity/ , did he really refute this?

His arguments are poor, but then again so was the agnostic argument. Why would anyone think it was true that "atoms decay for no reason"? I had hoped (seeing the blue text) that he had linked to the actual argument to insure that he wasn't battling a straw man, but that is not the case.

So I'd say, "yes, he refuted the argument", assuming that someone had actually made that argument to him in the first place.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 10:23 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 10:12 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Geez, where do I start?

His "proof that God exists using common sense" is just a re-iteration of the Argument from Design. Its first premise is that "design requires a designer", which is unproven and unprovable. The definition of "design" will always be open to counterexamples no matter how you define it, unless it's defined as "the product of a designer", which is logically fallacious because it begs the question (circular reasoning).

Then he tries to prove that God is perfect because God "does not have a partner". The structure of the argument is invalid, because it does the reasoning backward -- while it may be true that "having a partner" makes one imperfect, it doesn't follow that "not having a partner" makes one perfect. It's like saying that "frogs aren't yellow, so by showing you this non-yellow thing I've demonstrated that it's a frog". But even if his proof was done in the proper structure, it's still demonstrable that certain acts of God require a partner (such as a person coming to Islam, which would require that person's act of free will in addition to whatever Allah is alleged to supply).

As if these weren't bad enough, the "mathematical proof" is just a re-iteration of the Cosmological Argument (everything that exists must have been caused to exist, God is an uncaused cause, etc.) except without the conclusion (because the author of this blog doesn't fully understand how syllogisms work). What part of this is "mathematical"?

His last two proofs can't even begin to be found sound without presupposition that the Qur'an is true, because his citations are entirely from the Qur'an. If one does not believe the Qur'an (as we do not), then there's simply nothing to argue here.

I don't understand why this post is any different than the many that came before it. The arguments aren't new, and they all depend heavily on sensational semantics such as "common sense", "fundamental", "precision", "logic", "must be", "merely be", etc. I have no problem with any of these phrases in themselves, but they are all used liberally and inappropriately. The only thing that gives this argument any significance is the rhetoric, which is built upon an overuse of superlatives.

Wow a very detailed and very informative response from you mate, thanks! I think you must be reading his entire articles in his site before you give your response.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mike's post
20-07-2013, 10:25 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 10:19 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(20-07-2013 08:05 AM)Mike Wrote:  I think you should read this http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...-infinity/ , did he really refute this?

His arguments are poor, but then again so was the agnostic argument. Why would anyone think it was true that "atoms decay for no reason"? I had hoped (seeing the blue text) that he had linked to the actual argument to insure that he wasn't battling a straw man, but that is not the case.

So I'd say, "yes, he refuted the argument", assuming that someone had actually made that argument to him in the first place.

I see, you say that because the agnostic argument itself is also poor. Is there anything more that you want to share and give opinions? I should recommend you to check his other articles in the site. Feel free to share your opinions Smile
Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 10:41 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 10:12 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  But even if his proof was done in the proper structure, it's still demonstrable that certain acts of God require a partner (such as a person coming to Islam, which would require that person's act of free will in addition to whatever Allah is alleged to supply).

But in that author's view (Sheikh Abu Adam's view) even human's free will is a creation of Allah therefore we can say human have no free will and all events happen according to what Allah have predestined or what Allah have Willed, according to him. So how's that?
Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 10:41 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(20-07-2013 10:12 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  But even if his proof was done in the proper structure, it's still demonstrable that certain acts of God require a partner (such as a person coming to Islam, which would require that person's act of free will in addition to whatever Allah is alleged to supply).

But in that author's view (Sheikh Abu Adam's view) even human's free will is a creation of Allah therefore we can say human have no free will and all events happen according to what Allah have predestined or what Allah have Willed, according to him. So how's that?

In that case, whether or not you worship Allah is Allah's will and you should not be blamed for being subject to that.
Free will or the absence of it are unprovable either way anyway. Therefore, worshiping him (or any other god) is worthless since it's not of your own will you do so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GaëlK7's post
20-07-2013, 01:00 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
An authors "view" is meaningless unless he can back up his view with evidence.

It is my view that Allah lives within the crevices of my anus.
Instead of giving us more and more articles to look at, please simply begin to use your own brain and think critically.
Not every bit of bullshit needs to be refuted.
It simply needs to be viewed skeptically and rationally.

The first step...Does the author provide any evidence of his or her claim.
Lots of blank assertions can be made up by anyone.

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
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
20-07-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 10:41 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(20-07-2013 10:12 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  But even if his proof was done in the proper structure, it's still demonstrable that certain acts of God require a partner (such as a person coming to Islam, which would require that person's act of free will in addition to whatever Allah is alleged to supply).

But in that author's view (Sheikh Abu Adam's view) even human's free will is a creation of Allah therefore we can say human have no free will and all events happen according to what Allah have predestined or what Allah have Willed, according to him. So how's that?

First: Provide actual evidence for the existence of Allah.
Second: Provide actual evidence that anyone has knowledge of Allah.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-07-2013, 02:58 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 01:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-07-2013 10:41 AM)Mike Wrote:  But in that author's view (Sheikh Abu Adam's view) even human's free will is a creation of Allah therefore we can say human have no free will and all events happen according to what Allah have predestined or what Allah have Willed, according to him. So how's that?

First: Provide actual evidence for the existence of Allah.
Second: Provide actual evidence that anyone has knowledge of Allah.

In most of his articles in his blog, he'll just said and keep insisting that you can provide the existence of Allah just using logic and sensory reality, which is not enough for an actual evidence.
Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 03:10 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 02:58 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(20-07-2013 01:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  First: Provide actual evidence for the existence of Allah.
Second: Provide actual evidence that anyone has knowledge of Allah.

In most of his articles in his blog, he'll just said and keep insisting that you can provide the existence of Allah just using flawed logic and sensory reality, which is not enough for an actual evidence.

There I fixed it for you.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: