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
03-08-2013, 10:51 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(02-08-2013 12:48 PM)Mike Wrote:  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

I did, though I don't expect it to produce any worthwhile results.

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, 11:06 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(02-08-2013 08:34 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(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?

The 5% of the known universe we are directly aware of (galaxies and such) is limited, finite and will one day come to an end.

As far as the indivisible element goes, I'm not sure how NOT being able to divide something into an infinite number of pieces means that it can't be divided.

If I take an 8ft 2x4 and cut it into say a million pieces, it's no longer a 2x4.
The same can be said when you smash atoms in the Large Hadron Collider.
When you smash it, it ceases to be what it was, but in turn, because of the conservation of energy, new sub atomic particles come into existence.

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
03-08-2013, 11:16 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(03-08-2013 11:06 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 08:34 PM)Mike Wrote:  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?

The 5% of the known universe we are directly aware of (galaxies and such) is limited, finite and will one day come to an end.

As far as the indivisible element goes, I'm not sure how NOT being able to divide something into an infinite number of pieces means that it can't be divided.

If I take an 8ft 2x4 and cut it into say a million pieces, it's no longer a 2x4.
The same can be said when you smash atoms in the Large Hadron Collider.
When you smash it, it ceases to be what it was, but in turn, because of the conservation of energy, new sub atomic particles come into existence.

Thanks for the reply for the 2nd article. What's your opinion about this btw? What beginning to exist implies in terms of "cause" Are there such things as invulnerable matter, indestructible matter, etc.? Is the the first development of human or animal fetus indicated that this is an observable beginning of a something?
Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(03-08-2013 11:16 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 11:06 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The 5% of the known universe we are directly aware of (galaxies and such) is limited, finite and will one day come to an end.

As far as the indivisible element goes, I'm not sure how NOT being able to divide something into an infinite number of pieces means that it can't be divided.

If I take an 8ft 2x4 and cut it into say a million pieces, it's no longer a 2x4.
The same can be said when you smash atoms in the Large Hadron Collider.
When you smash it, it ceases to be what it was, but in turn, because of the conservation of energy, new sub atomic particles come into existence.

Thanks for the reply for the 2nd article. What's your opinion about this btw? What beginning to exist implies in terms of "cause" Are there such things as invulnerable matter, indestructible matter, etc.? Is the the first development of human or animal fetus indicated that this is an observable beginning of a something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay
Uranium-238 is unstable. It decays over time and emits an alpha particle to form Thorium-234
When you apply the alpha particles existence to your article link, the reasoning he is proposing doesn't hold true.

As far as invulnerable matter ? or indestructible matter ?
Sorry, no, you can only have that in a comic book.

Yes at conception we have the beginning of cells dividing and growing into what can potentially be a new member of that particular species.

These questions you are asking seems rather elementary.
I mean that by saying, it's something that an 8 yr old might be curious about.

The people you are sighting also seems to have the education of an 8 yr old

No offense

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
03-08-2013, 12:28 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.

I'm late coming into this thread, but his "sound logic" is full of assumptions. For example,
Quote:In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning).
Assumption 1: It can't be that everything had a beginning - no exceptions.
Assumption 2: It's possible that something did not have a beginning.

Now both of those might be true, but we don't really know. So they are nothing but assumptions that he claims are factual.

Quote:Rather, there must be a Creator that gave the series of events existence, since it was nonexistent before it began.
Assumption 3: Even if something did exist without a beginning, saying that this "something" therefore created everything else is a leap.

Quote:We do not believe, however, that Allah changes. Rather, we believe He is One, and doesn’t change and has no beginning.
This is Assumption 4. No one has ever seen Allah or knows much about him beyond what's in the Quran. "Doesn't change" is an assumption which probably comes from the idea of Allah being perfect. Something perfect would not change because that would bring imperfection. But the idea of Allah as perfect is also an assumption - number 5.

In fact, that last quote is a fatal flaw. That's the age old dilemma. If a creator created everything else, then who/what created the creator? Since we don't currently have a good answer for that, many people assume a) there is a creator and b) the creator always existed. But an assumption is ALL that is. And to address that with "sound reasoning", this author answers by saying we know this because we believe Allah doesn't change. He admits it's just a belief right there! But even if there is a creator that doesn't change, why couldn't that creator have come into existence, but then not change? "Not changing" doesn't prove "not beginning". Unless, of course, he is saying coming into existence is a form of "changing". But, if that's what he means, then he is claiming "not changing" is proof of "not changing". Duh...

I could keep going, but I think my point has been made. This is far from "sound logic".

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 01:01 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(03-08-2013 12:11 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 11:16 AM)Mike Wrote:  Thanks for the reply for the 2nd article. What's your opinion about this btw? What beginning to exist implies in terms of "cause" Are there such things as invulnerable matter, indestructible matter, etc.? Is the the first development of human or animal fetus indicated that this is an observable beginning of a something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay
Uranium-238 is unstable. It decays over time and emits an alpha particle to form Thorium-234
When you apply the alpha particles existence to your article link, the reasoning he is proposing doesn't hold true.

As far as invulnerable matter ? or indestructible matter ?
Sorry, no, you can only have that in a comic book.

Yes at conception we have the beginning of cells dividing and growing into what can potentially be a new member of that particular species.

These questions you are asking seems rather elementary.
I mean that by saying, it's something that an 8 yr old might be curious about.

The people you are sighting also seems to have the education of an 8 yr old

No offense

But as far as I know, everyone can edit the articles on Wikipedia so I think it's not a very reliable source. Any more credible sources other than Wikipedia? So now you are implying that there are beginning of cells dividing and so on, is this an observation of a beginning? Thus proving everything have a beginning?
Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 01:05 PM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(03-08-2013 12:28 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(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.

I'm late coming into this thread, but his "sound logic" is full of assumptions. For example,
Quote:In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning).
Assumption 1: It can't be that everything had a beginning - no exceptions.
Assumption 2: It's possible that something did not have a beginning.

Now both of those might be true, but we don't really know. So they are nothing but assumptions that he claims are factual.

Quote:Rather, there must be a Creator that gave the series of events existence, since it was nonexistent before it began.
Assumption 3: Even if something did exist without a beginning, saying that this "something" therefore created everything else is a leap.

Quote:We do not believe, however, that Allah changes. Rather, we believe He is One, and doesn’t change and has no beginning.
This is Assumption 4. No one has ever seen Allah or knows much about him beyond what's in the Quran. "Doesn't change" is an assumption which probably comes from the idea of Allah being perfect. Something perfect would not change because that would bring imperfection. But the idea of Allah as perfect is also an assumption - number 5.

In fact, that last quote is a fatal flaw. That's the age old dilemma. If a creator created everything else, then who/what created the creator? Since we don't currently have a good answer for that, many people assume a) there is a creator and b) the creator always existed. But an assumption is ALL that is. And to address that with "sound reasoning", this author answers by saying we know this because we believe Allah doesn't change. He admits it's just a belief right there! But even if there is a creator that doesn't change, why couldn't that creator have come into existence, but then not change? "Not changing" doesn't prove "not beginning". Unless, of course, he is saying coming into existence is a form of "changing". But, if that's what he means, then he is claiming "not changing" is proof of "not changing". Duh...

I could keep going, but I think my point has been made. This is far from "sound logic".

Nevermind but btw thanks for your kind and excellent response. Have you already read some of his articles on his website? What's your opinions about the development of organism, the origin of the universe, etc. Do you think that it have any sorts of REAL beginning?
Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2013, 10:18 PM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(03-08-2013 01:01 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 12:11 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay
Uranium-238 is unstable. It decays over time and emits an alpha particle to form Thorium-234
When you apply the alpha particles existence to your article link, the reasoning he is proposing doesn't hold true.

As far as invulnerable matter ? or indestructible matter ?
Sorry, no, you can only have that in a comic book.

Yes at conception we have the beginning of cells dividing and growing into what can potentially be a new member of that particular species.

These questions you are asking seems rather elementary.
I mean that by saying, it's something that an 8 yr old might be curious about.

The people you are sighting also seems to have the education of an 8 yr old

No offense

But as far as I know, everyone can edit the articles on Wikipedia so I think it's not a very reliable source. Any more credible sources other than Wikipedia? So now you are implying that there are beginning of cells dividing and so on, is this an observation of a beginning? Thus proving everything have a beginning?

Your response makes it sound like you don't know where babies come from.

When something changes, we can say that the new position of that something has begun and when it changes again, that it ends and something new begins again.

As a car is built on the assembly line in a car factory you can say that the workers begin to build a car. That would seem to be it's beginning. but the car itself isn't yet made. You could even go back further and say that the designers are beginning to draw out the design and specifications of the car.

Do you want to know when the water begins to boil or when the water began to pour into the pan or when the water pipes were installed in the house or when the well was dug that taped into the ground water ?

There are all kinds of beginnings and all kinds of endings.

And this is mine.

I'm done answering silly questions tonight.

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
04-08-2013, 12:14 AM
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(03-08-2013 01:01 PM)Mike Wrote:  But as far as I know, everyone can edit the articles on Wikipedia so I think it's not a very reliable source. Any more credible sources other than Wikipedia? So now you are implying that there are beginning of cells dividing and so on, is this an observation of a beginning? Thus proving everything have a beginning?

I dislike this "Wikipedia hate", because it is illogical -- it focuses on only the negative. Of course anyone can change Wikipedia, so the founders (not being morons) included a data sheet with every Wikipedia page that shows you every edit made and every past version of the page so that a clown tinkering with the page will be found out and his mistakes corrected (because not only can anyone add to a page, but anyone can correct misinformation as well). Everything posted on Wikipedia has to be cited, and those citations are regularly checked and marked with warnings when found to be less than credible (bright orange warning signs at the start of a Wikipedia article -- hard to miss).

The wisdom of crowds has been routinely shown to be wiser than any one person, and crowdsourcing has made Wikipedia a more reliable source than hard-copy encyclopedias. There's a bias towards these old bound volumes, which are unsourced, uncited, and still written by fallible humans. Printing in ink doesn't make something suddenly true, any more than posting information online makes it untrue.

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
04-08-2013, 12:20 AM
 
RE: Is it true that no one can refute this? KCA by Sheikh Abu Adam Naruiji
(03-08-2013 10:18 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 01:01 PM)Mike Wrote:  But as far as I know, everyone can edit the articles on Wikipedia so I think it's not a very reliable source. Any more credible sources other than Wikipedia? So now you are implying that there are beginning of cells dividing and so on, is this an observation of a beginning? Thus proving everything have a beginning?

Your response makes it sound like you don't know where babies come from.

When something changes, we can say that the new position of that something has begun and when it changes again, that it ends and something new begins again.

As a car is built on the assembly line in a car factory you can say that the workers begin to build a car. That would seem to be it's beginning. but the car itself isn't yet made. You could even go back further and say that the designers are beginning to draw out the design and specifications of the car.

Do you want to know when the water begins to boil or when the water began to pour into the pan or when the water pipes were installed in the house or when the well was dug that taped into the ground water ?

There are all kinds of beginnings and all kinds of endings.

And this is mine.

I'm done answering silly questions tonight.

Of course I know where babies come from, but asking this question doesn't absolutely mean that I don't know where babies come from obviously. But thanks for your answer btw. I'm not going to ask you "silly" questions anymore. Rolleyes

But do you believe in Big Bang theory? According to this theory, everything, including space and time itself, or even void begin when the Big Bang start. Some said before the Big Bang occurred, no space, time and anything else exist. I don't know if even "absolute nothingness" can be assert before the Big Bang occurred. My personal opinion is there are neither something nor nothing before the Big Bang, although I tend to think that there must be some kind of "something" that we can't understand or maybe it's unknowable. I also tend to think that if we say before Big Bang started nothing existed or something existed, I think it's wrong because there is no even "before" prior the Big Bang because time itself started at the very first instant of the Big Bang. But according to the religious community, they will said "it is God that created the event". What's your opinion?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: