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
23-07-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(22-07-2013 11:53 PM)Mike Wrote:  Did someone here commented on his article on the site?


I have no interest in reading nor commenting on what he says, given that everything else has been bullshit up to this point. Your only interest here would seem to be to get people to read the bullshit.

You already have your refutation of KCA in abundance.

What are your thoughts on any or all of this ?
I don't care what some author has to say. I am more interested in what YOU have to say.

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
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
24-07-2013, 11:03 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(23-07-2013 09:46 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(22-07-2013 11:53 PM)Mike Wrote:  Did someone here commented on his article on the site?


I have no interest in reading nor commenting on what he says, given that everything else has been bullshit up to this point. Your only interest here would seem to be to get people to read the bullshit.

You already have your refutation of KCA in abundance.

What are your thoughts on any or all of this ?
I don't care what some author has to say. I am more interested in what YOU have to say.

I would say you all give a lot of very good responses, of course. I only wanna know if someone here commented on his site but it seems no one gives a comment on his articles there. But nevermind, seeing all of your responses is more than enough.
Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 12:48 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
Latest so-called "atheism refutation" article from Sheikh Abu Adam Al Naruiji. What beginning to exist implies in terms of "cause"

Feel free to entertain yourself. Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 01:06 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
What's your opinion about this article? The Indivisible Element

He said atom can't be divided infinitely, so indivisible element is indeed exist. Share your opinions.
Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
You tell me your opinion and I'll tell you mine.

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
02-08-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(02-08-2013 01:06 PM)Mike Wrote:  What's your opinion about this article? The Indivisible Element

He said atom can't be divided infinitely, so indivisible element is indeed exist. Share your opinions.

My thought is that what your link points to is a largely unintelligible string of words.

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
02-08-2013, 08:34 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(02-08-2013 02:03 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  You tell me your opinion and I'll tell you mine.

About the What beginning to exist implies in terms of "cause" , he conclude "Hence, the atheist contention that we do not know if something can begin to exist without a cause is absurd". Btw, as you guys know, we never observe something BEGIN to exist. I also don't know if human life really started at the time we are started to developed in our mother's womb. If we think deeply, take this as an example, we can conclude before ourselves fully developed into what we called as "human", we are just merely a sperm or an ovum, or just a string of DNA code, or even as the parents itself, etc. Then sometimes I equate pre-born state with the state when we're sleeping. Most of the times I really don't know what happened during when I'm sleeping, and I'm rarely ever remember what I'm dream of, although I'm sure that I'm dreaming last night. I think that the moment that we're born, it's like we are awaken from our long sleep. So, what do you think, do you think that when a human or an animal is born implies a beginning of their existence? If we said YES, then we can called it as an observation of a beginning. Most people such as those religious people and in general, considered death as the end of our life, thus indicated that we have a beginning and an end, according to them.

The second article, The Indivisible Element , some guy who called himself Muslim Answers ask him, "Someone might ask that is it only transmisionally impossible for the Universe to be unlimited [i.e. not have a finite number of objects, etc.], or is it even part of the “rational-only” matters as well?", then Sheikh Abu Adam answered, "The universe, as it is a collection of bodies, cannot be infinite in size or count at any point in time. This all comes back to the rule that a quantity of infinity cannot pass or be completed in the past. I.e. once we have established that the universe has a beginning, it follows that it must be limited". Is the Universe really LIMITED and finite in its size? What's your opinion about the so-called indivisible element btw?
Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 08:26 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
I did not read the entire article but I think I have the basics.

Argument from design -

We don't detect design by complexity, order or function. We detect design when contrasted with nature. Planets, solar systems, stars, animals, plants, etc are natural. You can look everywhere on the planet or in the universe and see them occurring, naturally.

If the clown in the article wants to prove they are designed, he has to provide demonstrable evidence for his claim. Just pointing at nature and assuming because it is complex, it must have been designed, is one big argument from ignorance.

Kalam's CA -

Don't get me started on this piece of crap. The argument is fallacious, several times over.

It contains:

1. Fallacy of composition.
2. Equivocation fallacy.
3. Special pleading.

And this is before even taking the individual premises into consideration.

KCA is both invalid and unsound.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 10:34 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(22-07-2013 06:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-07-2013 12:44 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  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.


No. It's not "Abrahamic" because it has/had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham's deity, and the claims in Islam that Muhammad was descended from Abraham's son Ishmael. Abraham was a myth. A 100 % myth. Thus he had NO descendants. Jewish tradition also equates the descendants of Ishmael, (Ishmaelites), with Arabs, as the descendants of Isaac by Jacob, who was also later known as Israel, are the Israelites. It fails the history test. It also fails the god test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

I said that you made up your own definition of "Abrahamic", and so you responded by doing exactly that and then insisting strongly that you're right? What made you think this was compelling? And then you cited it with the same citation that I've given you from Wikipedia, the one that says "The Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Bahá'í Faith."... which is evidence in my favor, not yours. That's why I cited it. Did you even bother to glance at it? This line is right at the end of the introduction -- you didn't even have to scroll down to find it.

Here's an idea -- if you want to prove that my definition is wrong, cite your own definition. As I said about the Muslim proof, strong rhetoric is only convincing to the weak-minded who don't understand logic. You need more than that -- you need evidence.

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
03-08-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(02-08-2013 01:06 PM)Mike Wrote:  What's your opinion about this article? The Indivisible Element

He said atom can't be divided infinitely, so indivisible element is indeed exist. Share your opinions.

Yes, I think it's logically sound (and dare I say obvious?) that an indivisible element has to exist... at some point you find that some particle has to be the "smallest", and it would appear (at the moment) to be quarks. I don't understand why this would be evidence in favor of Allah, because the author didn't say. I would guess that he thinks it's evidence in favor of the Qur'an because he believes that this was predicted by the Qur'an, but the texts he took were out-of-context and did not, at any point, include a phrase such as "at some level, things become so small that they cannot get any smaller". Instead he looked at examples such as something being called the "smallest", as if that implies that the author knows what the smallest thing is.

But even if the Qur'an did state that some piece of matter was indivisible, that's not "divine knowledge"... it's obvious! Otherwise we would have an infinite regress into "smallness". To paraphrase The Social Network's famous line, "if the qur'an had discovered quarks, then the qur'an would be the discoverer of quarks". We found out about quarks through quantum mechanics, not through scripture study.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: