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, 04:30 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
To be honest, I think this is just one big ploy to get us to visit this person's site.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Atothetheist's post
20-07-2013, 04:31 PM
Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 04:30 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  To be honest, I think this is just one big ploy to get us to visit this person's site.

"And a child shall lead them..."

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
20-07-2013, 05:56 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 04:30 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  To be honest, I think this is just one big ploy to get us to visit this person's site.

LOL! I never visited the site, so I guess I am in the clear. Drinking Beverage

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
20-07-2013, 05:58 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 04:30 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  To be honest, I think this is just one big ploy to get us to visit this person's site.

Yep - Exactly

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
20-07-2013, 06:00 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(19-07-2013 10:21 PM)Mike Wrote:  What's your opinions about this website? The Foundations of the Religion He said if someone can't refute what he have written in the article, the person is automatically lose the debate.

The author, Sheikh Abu Adam al Naruiji said in his another article, http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/0...ationally/

It is a simple and logically sound argument based on premises that no reasonable person would deny. I can tell you that I know of philosophers in this day and age that have been silenced by these types of arguments. A friend of mine has a Phd in math from Berkley, for example, and he converted because some of his students presented such proofs.

Can someone refute the website regarding his stance against atheism? Thank you.

Not plowing through all responses yet. This is a summary of the original argument and my responses to it. The original argument summary is in green, and my responses are in blue. My representation of the original argument is not an exact quote, save where I use quotation marks. There is SO much garbage here I can make snarky asides about, but I'll stick with the meat of the argument. (What there is of it.)

"There is no separation of logic and faith in Islam."
(Part of the introduction, not officially part of the argument, yet so, so, so, so key to it.)

Yeah, I kinda noticed that for most of the religious apologists. Logic BENEFITS from being separated from faith, you know that? A logical examination of a religion would HAVE to be divorced from faith, otherwise it would be circular reasoning and, you know, illogical. And by the logic of illogical logic not being logical contradiction, the only logical examination would be one without faith. Thus logical individuals would tend to separate logic and faith, at least until faith is shown to be logically valid. (So, you know, forever.)

So if the tendency for them is to separate, how does Islam keep them together? ... er, tell, don't show. Especially if it involves my beheading.


The world is ordered. Examples: The human cell and physiology at large, precision of the solar system, and earth's atmosphere.

So long as we take "ordered" to simply mean that there is an order to it rather than necessarily implying that it has been PLACED in order by someone... Granted, kinda, for human biology, if we ignore crap like cancer. But that's a given. Something like 90% of the "God is real and loving" proofs out there require us to ignore crap like cancer. Kinda granted for the solar system as well, though things like Shoemaker-Levy 9 need to be ignored. That's okay, too, ignoring cataclysmic, dinosaur-killing comets and asteroids is also a given. I have no idea how the Earth's atmosphere supports this, in a way that ANY mix of gasses, separated into layers or intermingled in ANY particular way, would fail to support it. But for the moment I'll let the claim stand based on the other two points. There is a degree of order (meaning pattern, predictability, and a tendency towards stable equilibrium or repeating cycles) in the universe. Unestablished, as yet, is what if any cause there is for such order.

Sound reasoning says this isn't at random, but must have an orderer behind it. Would you accept that a clean room could tidy itself up on its own? Therefore a willful and powerful creator. Also, metaphors about trees not turning themselves into rafts, unguided ships in hurricanes, etc.

.... crap. WHAT DID I JUST SAY??? Okay, no to the room, yes to your earlier examples, no to the raft and the ship, false analogy, why does it sound like I've had this argument before? Oh, wait, because I have, HUNDREDS OF TIMES. So let me give you the condensed version. Some things WILL, left to their own devices and the physical laws, tend to demonstrate orderly patterns, such as planets in their orbits. Absolutely no deity is required for this, JUST the laws of physics. Any object in that orbital equilibrium will tend to stay there through simple mathematics. Anything in a NON-orbital state will either be hurled out of the solar system or drawn into the sun long before we've got the telescopes to observe it. So when we finally look around, HEY! STUFF IN ORBITS! No. God. Required. Same idea for evolution, only a bit more complicated. (NINJAPUN!) The other stuff? Trees don't naturally tend towards a state of rafthood. We don't see that in nature. Agreed. So how can you take something that is a natural tendency (orbits) and something that isn't (rafts) and decide they're analogous?

.... oh, right, your logic isn't separate from your faith.

I'll leave aside the entire question of whether rafts are more "orderly" than trees.

Also, if some stuff does tend to be ordered without us doing it (orbits) and other stuff doesn't (rafts), all that means is that some stuff does and other stuff doesn't, not that there's some god involved. That's like saying, "Oh, hey! It's got a 2x4 in it! It must be a gazebo!" YOU'VE GOT A FEW DOTS LEFT TO CONNECT, FELLA.

Tell you what, every time you do something like this, I'll just shout "GAZEBO!", and you have to take a shot of tequilla. The game ends when you stop spouting nonsense and hit the floor.

.... I promise. The game's over once that happens. Just ignore this electric razor I'm hiding behind my back.

.... yeah, okay, I don't do condensed well.


Whole bunch of stuff about the nature of this Orderer.

.... go back, you lost me before you got to that.

Here's a mathematical proof: We exist here today, and there was stuff before us, therefore there had to be a beginning, because we couldn't have gone through infinite stuff to get here. If there was an eternal past, then the present would be eternity coming to an end, which is impossible.

.... why not? What's wrong with infinity? That's like saying there must be a minimum negative number because the number 1 exists. No, really, it's a pretty direct mapping from one argument to the other. And you were doing so well earlier, actually recognizing that 1+1=2 isn't a universal, but instead specifying that you were operating in the narrow range of natural numbers. You kinda lost it at the "random chance" argument earlier, but still, you were ahead of the curve in keeping your mathematical metaphors tame and free from error. And then..... this. THIS. This is BASIC stuff. It's like someone offered you the deal, "Hey, I've got this perfect proof of God's existence, and all you have to do is turn a blind eye to the most glaringly obvious counterexamples to it", and you said, "Awesome, how much do you want for it?"

...... obviously, this was not the argument that convinced the mathematics PhD. Or if it was, someone's degree needs to be revoked.

And MAYBE you could've pulled that ordering argument in, but you didn't, and you didn't even try to prove that it was WELL-ordered, so no, that don't work. (Obscure-mathematical-definition-fu!)

Also, eternity only comes to an end in the present moment if time stops right.... NOW. .... I'm still typing, right? Right. Okay, didn't stop, eternity's still rolling, wall street can calm down.... or panic... or, well... anything.... crap, how do they decide how to respond to things again?


And then a god is out of nowhere supported by this already bullshit mockery of mathematics!

GAZEBO!

Also, this god's not subject to the rules that I've already claimed imply this god exists.

.... eh, that's another apologist given. I'll wait until your gazebo consists of more than a single 2x4 before I pass the stiff wind require to knock this down.

Various Quranic references supporting stuff.

.... and ANOTHER apologist given.

Some stuff lazily slapped on at the end to distinguish the particular religion being supported by the apologist from any other religion with a Creator.

And that makes the trifecta.

... and we're done. Dangit, only two gazebos? I feel let down. Obviously only a mid-rate apologist. WLC could handle an even dozen gazebos easy.


Also, fair warning to everyone, in the future when I spot a hasty generalization, I will accompany pointing it out with an absurd shout of GAZEBO!

... to insert a little weirdness into everyone's day, that's why.

In any case, in response to the thread's titular question: No. No it is most definitely not.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2013, 07:26 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Just tell the Sheikh that Allah was the crescent phase of the Arabic moon-god, "Sin",
(for proof see the Satanic Verses" in which the author discusses the fact that both Sin and Allah had the same 3 divine daughters).

Ole Mo, (Muhammad) never existed. He was a myth.
The divine daughters were originally written into the Qur'an.
Then they said "oh the devil made me do it".





All of Islam is a moon-god cult. It's not Abrahamic. In fact the Hebrews were specifically told, time and again to stop worshiping this god, who was not Yahweh.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ns?page=25

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2013, 02:01 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Thanks for the responses everyone. Why Antony Flew finally believe in God btw? But I know that while he believes in God, he said his thinking of a God is very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins.
Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2013, 12:38 AM
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?

Sure, we can say "humans have no free will" (and I would happily agree), but that leaves Muslims without a response to the Problem of Evil argument. Plus, it's observably true that Allah does not have the force to prevent us from doing things that He would obviously disapprove of, such as my public responses to Muslim arguments. Muslims needs some sort of defense of Allah's power in the face of such "insolence" against it, and free will is such a ready defense. I doubt that any Muslim would care to abandon it... I don't know of any Christian that's willing to assume that humans are without free will.

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
22-07-2013, 12:44 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(20-07-2013 07:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All of Islam is a moon-god cult. It's not Abrahamic.

A religion doesn't become "non-Abrahamic" just because it doesn't strictly adhere to the Abrahamic rules. By that standard, Christianity is also non-Abrahamic. In fact, modern Judaism that has given up public stonings is also non-Abrahamic.

I know I've already cited this, and yet you persist in thinking the word is defined by your opinion. It has objective definitions based upon "reverence of Abraham", not your personal belief that it means "Abraham's religion" or something similar.

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
22-07-2013, 05:13 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Unfortunately I cannot see the website as it appears to be blocked here in china,but after reading some of the posts here i have come up with an idea.
Read through his posts and subsitute the word God for Allah, and Bible for Koran and see if his arguments are still as compelling..
For added fun you could try changing the web address to something bit more christian, something like answersingenesis for example, and read the same "irrefutable" arguments right there

The secret to a happy life is lowering your expectations to the point where they are already met
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: