Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 05:08 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 03:13 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 12:01 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 08, 2025, 08:16 AM

ركن المتحدثين هايد بارك ل...
by akay
November 06, 2025, 09:15 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 05, 2025, 11:34 PM

Ex-Muslims on Mythvision ...
by zeca
November 02, 2025, 07:58 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 23, 2025, 01:36 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
October 07, 2025, 09:50 AM

What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM

Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM

الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Educated Muslim Apologist.

 (Read 22620 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #120 - February 20, 2015, 06:24 PM

    You just gave me an idea for the mascot for this argument.

    Thanks Wink

    BTW, are you still sore with me or what?


     Afro

    I still dislike you greatly; but I can put that away for "...dearer still is the truth".
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #121 - February 20, 2015, 06:28 PM

    True, though I would argue that it can make certain positions more rational than others.


    You're right...based upon the assumptions your argument is flawless.

    Keep doing the good work. Most the people on this forum are without HAYYA and don't know what philosophy is.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #122 - February 20, 2015, 06:31 PM

    Captain,

    I think you're still upset about my apostasy-punishing comments (and response). You still realize the special nature of the conditions in question, correct?

    I see no reason to dislike me when I don't think you or anyone here should be killed. I'm also quite opposed to places like Malaysia and other Muslim majority countries punishing for apostasy given the lack of appropriate conditions to do so.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #123 - February 20, 2015, 07:13 PM

    .

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #124 - February 20, 2015, 07:19 PM

    Captain,

    I think you're still upset about my apostasy-punishing comments (and response). You still realize the special nature of the conditions in question, correct?

    I see no reason to dislike me when I don't think you or anyone here should be killed. I'm also quite opposed to places like Malaysia and other Muslim majority countries punishing for apostasy given the lack of appropriate conditions to do so.


    I don't want to distract away from the argument at hand and I am also certain that neither of us care, how we feel about each other.

    So if you could provide the clarifications I asked for, we can continue the dialogue.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #125 - February 20, 2015, 07:35 PM

    Quote
    extrapolation and amplification can only occur within their set contexts. You can keep going "faster, and faster, and faster, and faster", but to think that there is the possibility of something "Beyond fast" makes no sense if that which can be comprehended is only within the scope of the natural world.

    Meaning: metaphysics shouldnt even be a subject -- it shouldnt even be POSSIBLE to entertain the idea of something beyond the scope in which we exist.


    Why though, why is this impossible on naturalism?

    We can comprehend things outside the scope of the natural world. Our brains create model worlds that do not obey the laws of the natural world. Technically, no model world matches the natural world at an exact one to one correspondence, because we aren't omniscient with regards to the natural world.

    "Beyond fast" does make sense in the same way that we can get to aleph null from the natural numbers. We might not be able to ever finish if we try counting to aleph null, or run at the pace of "beyond fast", but we can still comprehend what it means.

    It's a concept, it just denotes a level of "fastness" that is endless, there is always something that is faster than what we can comprehend.

    Do you think that "X" is the fastest that we can run?
    I'll raise you an X+1, and that's beyond the previous level of fastness.

    We can keep doing this, until we establish a "beyond fast" level.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #126 - February 20, 2015, 07:51 PM

    Incorrect. This is not a circular argument. Premise 3 asserts only that people believe in something that is "transcendent" (God). Premise 4 asserts, that according to P1-2, this must therefore be derived from he natural world. Premise 5 refutes this.

    Premise 3 does not say that a transcendent reality exist -- just that people believe in one. If P3 did say that one exist, then we'd have a problem.

    As for your other questions, "meaning" is something that is "understood" -- as content -- can be comprehensible (to any degree). For instance, a meaningless concept would be a "square circle". A contradiction has no meaning because the composites cancel themselves out.

    To explain somethng, as defined by philosopher David Ruben,  "is by showing what is responsible for it or what makes it as it is." (Explaining Explanation)


    I didn't ask any questions, I said we require definitions else the structure in which this proof exists is open to question. So thank you for clarifying this. Yes this reduces it from being circular but the problem still comes into P3 at that very point where you have the idea of belief - again you cannot have such a condition, as Qtian stated earlier, in a deductive proof but is better placed in probability space (ie in an inductive argument). You are mixing Bayesian logic up with classical logic which doesn't work. I am still not convinced despite your clarifications that the argument itself is sound for the same reasons. I like Qtian's solution to the problem, where he suggests using probabilities to rectify the statements. I'd strongly advise you, if you are sincere to giving an argument we can agree upon, by resorting to probabilistic statements as opposed to deterministic ones.

    One only acquires wisdom when one sets the heart and mind open to new ideas.

    Chat: http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/#ex-muslims
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #127 - February 20, 2015, 11:26 PM

    The Philosophy Stack Exchange discussion of the argument at hand. Worth following for those interested

    http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21883/a-supposedly-new-argument-for-the-existence-of-god
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #128 - February 20, 2015, 11:31 PM

    The discussion is not very active. I'm waiting to hear what dawahfilms thinks of my attempted reformulation first, which  is near the top of this page.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #129 - February 21, 2015, 09:44 AM

    Why though, why is this impossible on naturalism?

    We can comprehend things outside the scope of the natural world. Our brains create model worlds that do not obey the laws of the natural world. Technically, no model world matches the natural world at an exact one to one correspondence, because we aren't omniscient with regards to the natural world.

    "Beyond fast" does make sense in the same way that we can get to aleph null from the natural numbers. We might not be able to ever finish if we try counting to aleph null, or run at the pace of "beyond fast", but we can still comprehend what it means.

    It's a concept, it just denotes a level of "fastness" that is endless, there is always something that is faster than what we can comprehend.

    Do you think that "X" is the fastest that we can run?
    I'll raise you an X+1, and that's beyond the previous level of fastness.

    We can keep doing this, until we establish a "beyond fast" level.


    Except that when I say "beyond", I don't mean that the quality that we understand as "fast" is retained -- as the concept has limitations.

    Being "beyond fast" is not being fast at all -- its entirely something else all-together. It negates speed even. "Fast" is only relative to our existential framework and is only a small bit of what can be understood about what is "beyond".
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #130 - February 21, 2015, 09:56 AM

    Welcome and assalamualaikum Dawahfilms.  parrot Have you made an introduction thread? I hope you stick around as I'd be very interested in reading your contributions to the forum.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #131 - February 21, 2015, 10:40 AM

    I am in agreement with the position of pattern finding, agency and error types identification as an answer regarding P3. The realities constructed is secondary to the agency with in. I would like to see this point address.

    Thanks.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #132 - February 21, 2015, 11:35 AM

    .

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #133 - February 21, 2015, 12:27 PM

    Quote
    square circle


    http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-JLXB199101003.htm

    Quote
    Evaluation and Research for Roundness Error Computing with Three Methods of Least Square Circle




    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #134 - February 21, 2015, 12:31 PM

    Dawahfilms, in order to save future confusion, I have propounded your argument as a result of previous discussions.

    Could you please confirm if this is an accurate representation of your argument?


    (1) This is pretty straightforward. If naturalism is true, then everything we experience is a result of the natural world only.

    (2) If everything we experience is a result of the natural world only, then everything must make sense with reference to the natural world only.

    (3) Premise 3 is not claiming that a transcendent reality exists, just that people believe in one. When God is said to have properties other-than the natural world, what is meant is that the natural world does not hold these limitless qualities. Of course, when said qualities become limitless, they cease to be things like ‘knowledge’ and ‘power’, because they transcend the usual constraints of what define these attributes. In other words, God’s attributes are only similar in part with attributes we believe ourselves to have, but His extend beyond the limitations of humanity– they are ultimately distinct from what can possibly be thought.

    (4) From premises 1-2, Premise 3 is a concept of reality derived from the natural world, where everything makes sense with reference to the natural world only.

    (5) Statements of the form "beyond X" where X is a feature of the natural world are unable to be comprehended on naturalism , if that which can be comprehended is only within the scope of the natural world. For instance "Beyond fast" and "Beyond love" make no sense if naturalism is true. As a result, metaphysics shouldn't even be a subject on naturalism, as it shouldn't even be possible to entertain the idea of something beyond the scope in which we exist.

    Conclusion: The transcendent reality is not a conception of reality derived from the natural world. Given naturalism, we shouldn't be able to conceive of a transcendent reality beyond the natural world. The fact that we can means that naturalism is false.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #135 - February 21, 2015, 12:37 PM

    Quote
    How did people of the medieval period explain physical phenomena, such as eclipses or the distribution of land and water on the globe? What creatures did they think they might encounter: angels, devils, witches, dogheaded people?

    This fascinating book explores the ways in which medieval people categorized the world, concentrating on the division between the natural and the supernatural and showing how the idea of the supernatural came to be invented in the Middle Ages.

    Robert Bartlett examines how theologians and others sought to draw lines between the natural, the miraculous, the marvelous and the monstrous, and the many conceptual problems they encountered as they did so.

    The final chapter explores the extraordinary thought-world of Roger Bacon as a case study exemplifying these issues. By recovering the mentalities of medieval writers and thinkers the book raises the critical question of how we deal with beliefs we no longer share.

    Fascinating study of the invention of the supernatural in the Middle Ages
    By one of Europe's leading medieval historians
    Essential reading for scholars and students of medieval history and medieval studies


    http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/european-history-1000-1450/natural-and-supernatural-middle-ages

    When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.


    A.A. Milne,

    "We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #136 - February 21, 2015, 12:50 PM

    The transcendent reality is not a conception of reality derived from the natural world. Given naturalism, we shouldn't be able to conceive of a transcendent reality beyond the natural world. The fact that we can means that naturalism is false.


    I don't think he is saying naturalism is false. He is saying those who subscribe to naturalism, are unjustified in claiming non naturalistic accounts of the natural world have no explanatory power.

    but then he immediately conflates meaningful explanations of nature, with meaning itself, and that is just the beginning of the problems.  

    I think you need to take the premises one at a time. there are too many problems to tackle all at once.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #137 - February 21, 2015, 01:15 PM

    Quote
    I don't think he is saying naturalism is false. He is saying those who subscribe to naturalism, are unjustified in claiming non naturalistic accounts of the natural world have no explanatory power.


    Isn't that trivially the same as saying that naturalism is false? If something non-natural has any level of explanatory power with respect to the natural world, then (ontological) naturalism would be false.

    If naturalism is true, then supernaturalism is false.

    The contrapositive:

     If supernaturalism isn't false, then naturalism not true.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #138 - February 21, 2015, 01:24 PM

    it depends on how he is defining everything (in this case 'explanatory power'). i think he might feel that a person can have a non naturalistic explanation that has meaning (they understand it to any extent (his definition)), even if naturalism is true.

    He is so sure that his argument is brilliant, i couldn't get him to clarify anything. He just kept telling me that plenty of academics have seen it. In fact I couldn't even get him to concede that 'a coherence of meaningful experiences' (in his first formulation) was not the best choice of words. I'm glad we have made some progress in his second formulation where at least the word 'coherent' is used correctly.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #139 - February 21, 2015, 01:29 PM

    Quote
    i think he might feel that a person can have a non naturalistic explanation that has meaning (they understand it to any extent (his definition)), even if naturalism is true.


    If that is the case, though I will wait for Dawahfilms to respond, I would contend that he is then redefining ontological naturalism to mean something completely different. And from the conversations I've had with him, I don't think that the above is true. Meaning on naturalism has to be in accord with the natural world.

    (1) Supernaturalism: The mental gives rise to the physical (disembodied mind)

    (2) Naturalism: The physical gives rise to the mental (no disembodied mind)


    If non-natural processes have explanatory power, (2) breaks down, it's a binary process.




    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #140 - February 21, 2015, 01:40 PM

    Dawahfilms, in order to save future confusion, I have propounded your argument as a result of previous discussions.

    Could you please confirm if this is an accurate representation of your argument?


    (1) This is pretty straightforward. If naturalism is true, then everything we experience is a result of the natural world only.

    (2) If everything we experience is a result of the natural world only, then everything must make sense with reference to the natural world only.

    (3) Premise 3 is not claiming that a transcendent reality exists, just that people believe in one. When God is said to have properties other-than the natural world, what is meant is that the natural world does not hold these limitless qualities. Of course, when said qualities become limitless, they cease to be things like ‘knowledge’ and ‘power’, because they transcend the usual constraints of what define these attributes. In other words, God’s attributes are only similar in part with attributes we believe ourselves to have, but His extend beyond the limitations of humanity– they are ultimately distinct from what can possibly be thought.

    (4) From premises 1-2, Premise 3 is a concept of reality derived from the natural world, where everything makes sense with reference to the natural world only.

    (5) Statements of the form "beyond X" where X is a feature of the natural world are unable to be comprehended on naturalism , if that which can be comprehended is only within the scope of the natural world. For instance "Beyond fast" and "Beyond love" make no sense if naturalism is true. As a result, metaphysics shouldn't even be a subject on naturalism, as it shouldn't even be possible to entertain the idea of something beyond the scope in which we exist.

    Conclusion: The transcendent reality is not a conception of reality derived from the natural world. Given naturalism, we shouldn't be able to conceive of a transcendent reality beyond the natural world. The fact that we can means that naturalism is false.




    Yes, though I'm attacking Scientism and not necessarily Naturalism -- though they are very close to each other.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #141 - February 21, 2015, 01:46 PM

    Oh you're attacking scientism?

    I repudiate pejorative scientism myself.

    It's self refuting, you can't ascertain the truth of scientism on science alone. Scientism requires ontology and epistemology in order to establish itself as the only true form of obtaining knowledge, but how can scientism etablish truth claims beyond its own scope?

    Any form of metaphysics on scientism is in my humblest of opinions, illusory.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #142 - February 21, 2015, 02:20 PM

    Agreed. Subjects like psychology must accept subjective views as correct without empirical evidence in direct support. Often evidence is only found in actions secondary to the view. After all one can not get into another's mind to verify expressed and/or unexpressed thoughts.

    P3 still has issues, in general. It is an oversimplification of beliefs in my opinion.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #143 - February 21, 2015, 03:29 PM

    I agree with everyone on this thread that science is awful.

    what has science ever done for us?

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #144 - February 21, 2015, 03:39 PM

    Leave my science alone! D:

    One only acquires wisdom when one sets the heart and mind open to new ideas.

    Chat: http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/#ex-muslims
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #145 - February 21, 2015, 05:28 PM

    Couldn't a basic value system, beauty, for example provide a better grounding for P3. Also since the argument is about scientism should natural not be exchanged for scientism. these are not the same position so if the topic is scientism use the proper terms. The argument as is seems more about God vs no-God than anything Ali says it is about. The argument seems more like a sleight of hand used to forestall applying rational arguments for the "transcendence" position.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #146 - February 21, 2015, 05:36 PM

    .

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #147 - February 21, 2015, 06:27 PM

    This was posted on April fools (a few years ago) as a "proof of God". Many people didn't realise that it was a joke. Check the comments section, hilarity ensues.


    Beginning with the unitarity of quantum probability you find the non-vanishing deism coefficient manifest.

    The set of neononontological logical absolutes is provably finite, whereas the set of Descartian, or singly self referencing (once recursive), logical postulates is substantially larger.  For example, permitting God to create an object so big that he can’t move it, while simultaneously noting that (being all powerful) he can certainly move it, is a statement contained within the Descartian set, and outside of standard (mortal) logic.  By necessity, the more all encompassing logic is infinitely larger.

    Indeed, using a Cantorian decomposition on the larger set one can clearly see the smaller set made apparent.  That is to say, the restrictions of mortal absolutes form a fractal “Chopra surface” on the larger set in “absolutes space”.

    The quasimobius structure of absolutes space is established by the most basic mathematical inference.  So, once a single point in the Descartian volume has been established, then the remainder of the set follows immediately by Godelian extension.  But, keep in mind that the initial premise is based on quantum unitarity (which has been mathematically and experimentally proven), and as such, the projection hypothesis holds.

    The “projection hypothesis”, an inescapable result of modern quantum theory, postulates that consciousness is an integral part of the structure of the universe.  Moreover, according to Alan Sokal, a PhD physics professor from New York city, “…the distinction between observer and observed; the (see article) of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.” (reference)

    Therefore, by psuedodyadicism, the existence of any consciousness capable of comprehending an almighty or all-encompassing system, induces (technically: “projects”) a “pocket” into absolutes space, establishing an interior point, allowing for the divining of the existence of the whole of the set of Descartian absolutes.  Obviously, this only strictly implies the existence of neoDescartian absolutes, but the paleoDescartian set follows immediately.

    Obviously, the ratio of the q-measure of the higher postulates to the totality of absolutes space is the probability that those higher postulates hold in our universe.  (This technique is common practice in most of the scientific community, but is almost unheard of in physics circles, which are mired in orthodoxy.)

    But, having a higher dimensionality than the set of mortal absolutes (being circular, they have a dimension of pi) implies immediately that the ratio is 1-1.  I.e., an almighty consciousness capable of everything must necessarily exist.  QED

    Of course this only holds for our universe.



    "A joint work by Godel, Descartes and Hawking" that should've been the giveaway, lol.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #148 - February 21, 2015, 07:22 PM

    Hahaha I'm gonna read through that entirely when I get home later...

    ...hello Kev!

    One only acquires wisdom when one sets the heart and mind open to new ideas.

    Chat: http://client01.chat.mibbit.com/#ex-muslims
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #149 - February 21, 2015, 07:49 PM

    Omg, some fool actually tried to use the above argument in a (what should have been) formal debate. The dangers of not understanding your own argument are high.

    http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-god-real/19/

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »