Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Educated Muslim Apologist.

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 22626 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #60 - February 19, 2015, 11:20 PM
    the fact that he has Strawman titles to his vids like "Scientism" already tells me he's arguements are as piss poor as Tzortzis.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #61 - February 19, 2015, 11:27 PM
    It almost sounds the Scientology - does he think them synonymous?
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #62 - February 19, 2015, 11:37 PM
    Scientism is basically the view that the only worthwhile form of knowledge is scientific knowledge.

    Ironically, science itself can't validate the above statement.

    Scientism is not scientific.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #63 - February 19, 2015, 11:49 PM
    Well yes, though it could be said that it is an axiom. Though that's dubious and I'd rather not take it axiomatically.
    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 #64 - February 19, 2015, 11:51 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on February 19, 2015, 11:37 PM
    Scientism is basically the view that the only worthwhile form of knowledge is scientific knowledge.

    Ironically, science itself can't validate the above statement.

    Scientism is not scientific.




    It was a joke  Tongue! Interesting nonetheless, tho knowledge already owned!
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #65 - February 19, 2015, 11:56 PM
    Quote
    Well yes, though it could be said that it is an axiom. Though that's dubious and I'd rather not take it axiomatically.



    Yep, it would be awkward when we ask the inevitable question "Of what domain is this axiom true?"

    Science itself cannot define what "knowledge" is, imho any argument made from scientism undermines itself.
    Science is an excellent and probably our most efficient source of knowledge, but it isn't the source of all knowledge.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #66 - February 19, 2015, 11:59 PM
    Agreed. Empiricism is restricted to measuring tools, and various other aspects. Throw in the uncertainty principle from quantum mechanics and you have a whole load of madness. It's certainly never going to be perfect in itself, never mind answering the set of all questions.
    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 #67 - February 20, 2015, 12:01 AM
    Also, most people use the term "proof" in a very layman like manner. Really, proof only exists within mathematics and deductive logics. "Can you scientifically prove that?!?" pisses me off.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #68 - February 20, 2015, 12:17 AM
    Yeah! They don't know the difference between hypothesis, theory and law. They don't know proof and evidence are independent concepts. ARGH!
    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 #69 - February 20, 2015, 12:19 AM
    The same guys who will tell a creationist off for calling evolution "only a theory" will then go on to use the term "proof" in a way that is an evident misnomer.

    Domain dependent scepticism, I tell you.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #70 - February 20, 2015, 12:39 AM
    .
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #71 - February 20, 2015, 12:43 AM
    Quote from: Qtian on February 20, 2015, 12:19 AM
    The same guys who will tell a creationist off for calling evolution "only a theory" will then go on to use the term "proof" in a way that is an evident misnomer.

    Domain dependent scepticism, I tell you.




    Hehe! I admit sometimes I use that lang where people don't geddit! Bad me!
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #72 - February 20, 2015, 01:08 AM
    Quote from: Qtian on February 20, 2015, 12:39 AM
    A glaringly obvious problem with Kevin's argument, not sure why I didn't pick up on this earlier.

     
    He is defining transcendent reality to mean God, in order to prove a necessary being "God" in the conclusion. The problem here is that we could replace God with another non natural concept "X". This process is quite circular as he has already assumed God to be the "transcendent reality". It's also worth nothing that he has done nothing to show that this transcendent reality "God" is a personal cause. A theistic cause of the universe must be a personal God.

    From P3, the conclusion would then be that X is not a conception of reality derived from the natural world. Both formulations hold the same logical weight.

    This is similar to Aquinas' critique whereby you can restate and run the ontological argument without needing to define "God".




    Yes sir! This was the circularity I was speaking of in my original comment Smiley
    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 #73 - February 20, 2015, 01:38 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on February 20, 2015, 12:39 AM
    A glaringly obvious problem with Kevin's argument, not sure why I didn't pick up on this earlier.

     
    He is defining transcendent reality to mean God, in order to prove a necessary being "God" in the conclusion. The problem here is that we could replace God with another non natural concept "X".


    I think he may not be trying to prove that God exists with this argument but rather trying to to prove that "naturalism" is false i.e. there has to be some more than the natural/physical world. Then, I would assume he could use it as an inductive argument for God
    http://www.youtube.com/captaindisguise
    http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/
    http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/
    https://twitter.com/CaptainDG64

    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" ~ Nietzsche
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #74 - February 20, 2015, 01:43 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on February 19, 2015, 09:17 PM
    Another response from the friends over at Philosophy SE.

    "Likewise, conceptions of reality need not, prima facie, be a coherence of meaningful experiences (though to call it a "conception of reality" we would expect to find some coherence and meaning even if fragmented). It seems doubtful that people believe that God shares no properties with the natural world if you allow that things like "love" and "justice" can be statements about very complex processes in the natural world. People extrapolate all the time, and P5 basically says, "No extrapolation, that's cheating!"; also, advanced pure mathematics is almost entirely about stuff that is meaningful in contexts absurdly disjoint from properties of the natural world."



    I think this has to be the main problem with Ali's argument. His argument needs all meaningful concepts to be strict composites of our experiences and leaves no room for extrapolation.

    I wonder what he has to say about this. In the video, he seemed too proud of his argument and said that in 3 years no one has provided him with a single objection; which makes me wonder if he were discussing it with 12 year olds.
    http://www.youtube.com/captaindisguise
    http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/
    http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/
    https://twitter.com/CaptainDG64

    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" ~ Nietzsche
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #75 - February 20, 2015, 01:45 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on February 19, 2015, 08:01 PM
    i loved the way he announced his new argument. Three years in the making. Such a proud little Kevin.

     


    Lol. More importantly, no one give him a single objection and he "won" the debate with this argument 200 times. He counted, he says.
    http://www.youtube.com/captaindisguise
    http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/
    http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/
    https://twitter.com/CaptainDG64

    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" ~ Nietzsche
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #76 - February 20, 2015, 01:57 PM
    Quote from: captndisguise on February 20, 2015, 01:38 PM
    I think he may not be trying to prove that God exists with this argument but rather trying to to prove that "naturalism" is false i.e. there has to be some more than the natural/physical world.


    Simply put, the argument can be run without needing to define a "God" at all, and it will still hold the same weight. Even if one that naturalism is false, it doesn't logically follow that theism is then true. A proof by contradiction could possibly yield supernaturalism as being true.

    It would then involve some extra argumentation in order to ascertain that this "supernatural cause" is a personal cause.

    Even if theism is true, it doesn't follow that Islam is true. I don't care much about naturalism being false, because I'm not a metaphysical naturalist. Heck, I'll even save some time and grant the premise that naturalism is false.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #77 - February 20, 2015, 01:58 PM
    Quote from: captndisguise on February 20, 2015, 01:38 PM
    I think he may not be trying to prove that God exists with this argument but rather trying to to prove that "naturalism" is false i.e. there has to be some more than the natural/physical world. Then, I would assume he could use it as an inductive argument for God


    i think his argument for god is one of those 'fitrah' ones. In fact, I'm not sure it is even an argument for god. More of a justification of already existing theism (it isn't as irrational as the atheists say).

  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #78 - February 20, 2015, 02:07 PM
    Quote
    Then, I would assume he could use it as an inductive argument for God



    This is how one could be structured,

    Evidence to be explained: "God is not a conception of reality derived from the natural world. "

    1. Pr(E) ≈ 1
    2. Pr(N|B) is intrinsically not much more probable than Pr(T|B)
    3. Pr(E|T) > Pr(E|N)
    4. Other evidence held equal, N is probably false as Pr(T| B&E) > Pr(N|B&E)

    Analysis of this formulation

    P1. If we replace "God" with "X" as per the deductive argument, Pr(E) ≈ 1 is not true only for "God".

    P2. Does intrinsic probability actually exist?  http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=12617

    P3. This is trivially true, it borders on tautology.  Of course God is false under naturalism and true under theism, what does this actually show apart from a basic understanding of definitions?

    P4. Key phrase here is "other evidence held equal". This inductive argument is prima and not ultima facie. That means that it could still be the case that the cumulative case for naturalism > cumulative case for theism. So even if this inductive argument was successful, I could simply say that it is the man of the match in a team full of weak footballers.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #79 - February 20, 2015, 02:17 PM
    AllTruthRevealed uses something very similar to this 'unicorn = horse + horn' argument. He must be one of the great minds Kev seeked feedback from.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #80 - February 20, 2015, 02:36 PM
    .
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #81 - February 20, 2015, 02:45 PM
    What do we think "conceptions of reality" are?
    Is he talking about conceptions that accurately model reality?
    Or is he talking about conceptions of what is considered by anybody to model reality (regardless of whether they are accurate)?

    I have tried to get him to clarify, but it is upsetting him greatly.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #82 - February 20, 2015, 02:46 PM
    .
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #83 - February 20, 2015, 02:57 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on February 20, 2015, 02:45 PM
    I have tried to get him to clarify, but it is upsetting him greatly.


    Where is that happening?
    http://www.youtube.com/captaindisguise
    http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/
    http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/
    https://twitter.com/CaptainDG64

    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" ~ Nietzsche
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #84 - February 20, 2015, 02:59 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on February 20, 2015, 02:46 PM
    I don't even know what he is trying to do, it looks like a confused ontological argument that hasn't yet found its feet. It seems that our dear friend has a penchant for not clearly defining his terms.


    I have never found him to be a good debater. He is heavy on being vague and misrepresentation. Just see the comment section of the following post and how he kept attacking a strawman

    http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2013/02/qurans-error-sura-482-if-quran-had-been.html

    When I finally got around to clearing up his misrepresentation; he no longer replied.
    http://www.youtube.com/captaindisguise
    http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/
    http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/
    https://twitter.com/CaptainDG64

    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies" ~ Nietzsche
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #85 - February 20, 2015, 03:01 PM
    Quote from: captndisguise on February 20, 2015, 02:57 PM
    Where is that happening?


    Warung Atheist facebook forum. He is watching this thread too. Hey Kev
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #86 - February 20, 2015, 03:02 PM
    Hello Kev! Cheesy
    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 #87 - February 20, 2015, 03:04 PM
    Quote from: Qtian on February 20, 2015, 02:07 PM

    If Kevin wanted to try an inductive argument (doubt he knows enough about probability to do it though), this is how one could be structured.

    Evidence to be explained: "God is not a conception of reality derived from the natural world. "

    1. Pr(E) ≈ 1
    2. Pr(T|B) is intrinsically not much more probable than Pr(N  | B)
    3. Pr(E|T) > Pr(E|N)
    4. Other evidence held equal, N is probably false as Pr(T| B&E) > Pr(N|B&E)

    Analysis of this formulation

    P1. If we replace "God" with "X" as per the deductive argument, Pr(E) ≈ 1 is not true only for "God".

    P2. Does intrinsic probability actually exist?  http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=12617

    P3. This is trivially true, it borders on tautology.  Of course God is false under naturalism and true under theism, what does this actually show apart from a basic understanding of definitions?

    P4. Key phrase here is "other evidence held equal". This inductive argument is prima and not ultima facie. That means that it could still be the case that the cumulative case for naturalism > cumulative case for theism. So even if this inductive argument was successful, I could simply say that it is the man of the match in a team full of weak footballers.


    The first four definitions, what is E, T, N and B? Sorry I am just trying to follow it currently. It was a little unclear.

    Quick edit: I think I misunderstood your usage of "inductive argument" - I automatically think "proof by induction" Cheesy
    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 #88 - February 20, 2015, 03:09 PM
    You're not the first to think that Tongue

    Yeah, it's totally not proof by induction. Inductive arguments take a probabilistic (mostly Bayesian form).
    I.e. the conclusion always has some uncertainty. As a result, we can't call apply the property of validity to these arguments. Inductive arguments are either "weak" or "strong".

    Anyways, here are the definitions of the variables being used.

    E= The shit that we are trying to explain (Sometimes called "evidence to be explained")
    B = Background information (what we know about the hypotheses before "testing")
    T= Theism (H1)
    N= Naturalism (H2)

    The whole enterprise of inductive arguments based on bayesian confirmation theory can be critiqued, but I still find them to be more useful than deductive ones as they are based on degrees of belief, which can be updated in light of new evidence.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Educated Muslim Apologist.
     Reply #89 - February 20, 2015, 03:14 PM
    Hi Kev, I like the long hair.

    I used to have long hair, I miss it now.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »