The brief appearance of Islamic members.

@aspvenom,

Quote:

Now that's a more proper way to present it

agreed

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

this doesn't prove anything. reference this please so i may look it up for myself.

Response: To the contrary, it proves everything, supported by your inability to show otherwise.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

i never said that, all i said was unintelligence is irrelevant in a dead body.

A ded body is unintelligent, so it is relevant.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Well,
by this definition, God/Allah must be either unintelligent or not omniscient.
If he is omniscient that means he knows everything and therefore cannot learn more.
If he is unintelligent, I seriously question his worthiness for the title of "God".

Response: Having nothing to learn is not the same as having the inability to learn. So such a claim is invalid.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

The arguments you made weren't even remotely logical or evidentiary, and therefor not even worthy of a rebuttal. You need to learn what logic and evidence are before you can try to present them.

Response: Yet your inability to prove anything you just stated suports evidence to the contrary. Thus you need to folow your own advice and learn what logic is before responding.

3 Replies

@Fatihah,

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass. You have a burden of proving your claims. You haven't done so. No one here has to prove anything, you have to prove all that god bullshit you trotted out. As you have not done so, there is nothing to rebut.

1 Reply

@Fatihah,

I proved your "pattern argument" was illogical. I also gave you an escape route which would allow you to bypass your conditioned illogical responses should you have the intellect and courage to take it. You are unlikely to get a better deal from an atheist like me ! Cool

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass. You have a burden of proving your claims. You haven't done so. No one here has to prove anything, you have to prove all that god bullshit you trotted out. As you have not done so, there is nothing to rebut.

Yet we see another of your many weak rebuttals proving otherwise. Debunks as usual.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I proved your "pattern argument" was illogical. I also gave you an escape route which would allow you to bypass your conditioned illogical responses should you have the intellect and courage to take it. You are unlikely to get a better deal from an atheist like me !

Response: You proved nothing, since nothing you presented shows that a dead body or a new born baby can create a repeating pattern. Thus the fact that unintelligence cannot originate a repeating pattern still stands and proves that the order in the universe originated from intelligent design.

0 Replies

@Fatihah,

Fatihah wrote:

Matt wrote:
Well,
by this definition, God/Allah must be either unintelligent or not omniscient.
If he is omniscient that means he knows everything and therefore cannot learn more.
If he is unintelligent, I seriously question his worthiness for the title of "God".

Response: Having nothing to learn is not the same as having the inability to learn. So such a claim is invalid.

What is your definition of "learning" then?

2 Replies

@Fatihah,

Fatihah wrote:

Quote:
The arguments you made weren't even remotely logical or evidentiary, and therefor not even worthy of a rebuttal. You need to learn what logic and evidence are before you can try to present them.

Response: Yet your inability to prove anything you just stated suports evidence to the contrary. Thus you need to folow your own advice and learn what logic is before responding.

"Proving" something to you(Fatihah) would require you(Fatihah) to define what you consider valid methods of proof.
So far the only method you have even implied has relevance to "proof" is analogy, which is not generally accepted in logical discourse.

1 Reply

@fresco,

my personal opinion is i have no problem with fatihahs faith, or even a belief in intelligent design, who knows what the truth is, but if you are going to make claims like that, use good examples, and back them up with just as good reasons.

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

hehehee i was watching a vid on youtube, about the use of sacred geometry in freemason building, and where they described fibonacci they used a clip of this. just goes to show patterns really do exist everywhere, regardless of intelligent input.

can't see if she is blonde though Razz

0 Replies

@Fatihah,

Quote:

Response: To the contrary, it proves everything, supported by your inability to show otherwise.

if it proves it to the contrary, then i repeat, reference the evidence please.
my ability to show otherwise has at least included sourced examples.

kindly return the favour.

1 Reply

@Fatihah,

Quote:

A ded body is unintelligent, so it is relevant.

by that logic a rock is relevant too then.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Fatihah wrote:

Matt wrote:
by this definition, God/Allah must be either unintelligent or not omniscient.
If he is omniscient that means he knows everything and therefore cannot learn more.
If he is unintelligent, I seriously question his worthiness for the title of "God".

Response: Having nothing to learn is not the same as having the inability to learn. So such a claim is invalid.

Just as an FYI and in the spirit of education Very Happy

:

"If he is omniscient that means he knows everything and therefore cannot learn more." is an example of a deduction
Demonstrating the truth of a proposition by inferring it from the truth of another proposition (or multiple propositions).

You can think of propositions as being the logical content of a statement (sentence).

An assertion is a proposition made without any verification presented for its truth.
A claim is similar to an assertion in that no verification is needed, but it usually is used to imply that there exists some justification for it.

For example:
I assert that "Four apples are in the barrel."
I claim that "Four apples are in the barrel by virtue of my expertise as an apple-knower."
I deduce that "If the barrel was initially empty, and you put two apples in the barrel, and I put two apples in the barrel, then there will be four apples in the barrel."

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Yet note too that theists have an ultimate catch-all fall back position which can roughly be stated as: "All human knowledge, including scientific knowledge is in the gift of God".

It seems to me, that such a position will also have to include a distinction to be made between what most accept as "scientific knowledge", and that which is truly graced by God. Maybe provide some caveats for why some of that "scientific knowledge" is only apparent knowledge (ie. work of the devil).
I suspect this will prove problematic for a Muslim, in that they often pose themselves in debates with Christians as being more embracing of logic and scientific evidence.
It would be difficult to maintain credibility, when the arguments you use to debunk Christianity are then used to debunk your own apologetics given to atheists.
Perhaps Fatihah has made the determination that Christianity is the bigger threat to Islam than atheism. Why would a Muslim throw away scientific validity as a tool to bash over the head of Christians, when atheism is so much less threatening?

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

It does not require examples to understand that "pattern perception" and "intelligence" are inextricable concepts. (There is even a standardized test called Ravens Progressive Matrices which tests "IQ" by responses to a pattern completion exercise). But the corollary is not valid. What we perceive as naturally occurring patterns, DO NOT imply" an "intelligent generator", as minimally shown by crystal growth etc. Indeed the repetitive patterns of disorder which we see significantly outweigh those of order hence the corollary would also imply a malicious generator Twisted Evil

! Kant's idea of perceptual a priori (wired in propensities) was one solution to the human cognitive trait of "order seeking". Ironically, it is that human ability to seek order...plan ahead...and anticipate consequences, which over-reaches itself and manifests as a plethora of religious buffers against the ultimate failure to extrapolate ad infinitum.

So Fatihah's illogical ramblings are neither a defense of ID in general, nor Islam's version of it in particular. They are a irrelevant The central issue of Islamic fanaticism remains unaddressed and it is mostly Muslims themselves who bear the brunt of that failure.

1 Reply

@fresco,

good point, well made! lol

agree with you about corollary, and also about examples, although with that particular case i meant more, if you are going to use examples make them relevant.

i think the main problem, lies more in the fact that any truly devout believer in any religion, or even science ("blinded by science"), can only accept one POV, and will argue blindly, grasping at straws, even when they know the arguement is already lost.

i know i have been guilty of this many, many times.

1 Reply

@Fatihah,

You haven't "debunks" anything. Simple "no it's not" is the best you can come up with. That's a sad case.

0 Replies

The brief appearance of Islamic members.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know