Arif Ahmed

Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #60 - November 24, 2014, 03:22 PM

Quote from: Rob on November 24, 2014, 02:23 PM
As I understand it he's saying that conscious exists; science cannot, and never will, explain conscious; because of this, the existence of consciousness proves the existence of god.

he is trying to be more technical. He is saying that science cannot ever explain 'the hard problem of consciousness'. It doesn't really affect the argument though. It is a god of the gaps argument. If you read his writing on the subject, the vast majority of it is talking about how science doesn't/can't explain it. He doesn't actually show that god explains it, or anything else.

I have told him that it is obviously a god of the gaps argument. His response is that it is not, because not only can science currently not explain it. Science never will be able to explain it. He is under the impression that if you are pointing to a gap in knowledge and at the same time insisting that the gap is permanent, it is no longer a god of the gaps argument.

Quote
If I'm right that seems like a dangerous argument, since he's given us a way to categorically disprove the existence of god: Find a scientific explanation for consciousness.

I wouldn't call it a 'dangerous' argument. finding the explanation for the 'hard problem' would simply debunk that argument. It wouldn't debunk god. But the argument is already debunked anyway because like every other argument from every other apologist from every other religion, it just does't work. It's simply not true that if we dont know how something works (now or ever), then god did it.

i've not come across any other Muslims using it yet. Maybe they aren't too impressed either
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #61 - November 24, 2014, 06:22 PM

How does he know it can never be explained by Science? Can Hamza Tzortzis now tell the future? LMAO

Has Hamza Tzortzis been watching Bill O Reilly ?
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #62 - November 24, 2014, 06:51 PM

Quote
If we examine the scientific method and the philosophy of science, we will understand that subjective conscious experiences are outside of the scope of the scientific enterprise. Science is restricted to only that which can be observed, and subjective conscious states cannot be observed.

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/2101/consciousness-and-the-new-scientist-magazine-reflections-on-false-materialist-assumptions/
- Jedi
- Director of Shariah Police
- Ex-Muslim
- Observe HAYYA at all times
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #63 - November 24, 2014, 09:12 PM

Before any debate progresses (or regresses in the case of Hamza) everyone should read Neil DeGrasse Tysons 'The Perimeter of Ignorance' and locate the 'God from consciousness' argument within that paradigm.

Read: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/universe/211420/the-perimeter-of-ignorance

Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxiLnC7ikw8

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!
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #64 - December 13, 2014, 07:57 PM

Anyone heard any word on whether the recent debate will be posted online?

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #65 - December 13, 2014, 11:41 PM

@justperusing

iera are notorious for releasing debates a few weeks after the debate after heavy editing to make hamza look better and the other side worse

In the future anyone who debates iera/hamza should only do so on the prior condition that they get a full unreleased copy of the debate or are allowed to record it themselves.
- Lilyesque
- The Deconverter
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #66 - December 13, 2014, 11:43 PM

Quote from: serpentofeden on December 13, 2014, 11:41 PM
@justperusing

iera are notorious for releasing debates a few weeks after the debate after heavy editing to make hamza look better and the other side worse

In the future anyone who debates iera/hamza should only do so on the prior condition that they get a full unreleased copy of the debate or are allowed to record it themselves.

Or just record it on the sly!
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #67 - December 13, 2014, 11:53 PM

i think this one is entirely in the hands of whichever student societies were involved
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #68 - December 14, 2014, 04:39 PM

@dr_sloth

IERA are know to impose their own conditions for debates and ISOC's would work with them as they have the common goal, to make their islamic side look good.

A friend of mine went to the Arif-Hamza debate and was meant to record it but he got stuck in traffic and arrive quite late about 50 mins to debate. Maybe it was Allah's plan

I remember after the Krauss-Hamza debate someone recorded the audio and uploaded it. It was something like 2 hours and 40 mins long, but the official IERA version on their youtube page released about a month after wass 2 hours and 11 minutes long.

Hamza debated Stephen Law 2-4 years ago and Law has said much of what he said demonstrating how poor Hamzas arguments were got cut out from the youtube upload which is only 90 mins long.

I don't know why any atheist would agree to share a public platform and debate with IERA especially after they repeatedly do the same duplicitous cunning tricks.
- Lilyesque
- The Deconverter
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #69 - December 14, 2014, 07:18 PM

Quote from: serpentofeden on December 14, 2014, 04:39 PM
@dr_sloth

IERA are know to impose their own conditions for debates and ISOC's would work with them as they have the common goal, to make their islamic side look good.

A friend of mine went to the Arif-Hamza debate and was meant to record it but he got stuck in traffic and arrive quite late about 50 mins to debate. Maybe it was Allah's plan

I remember after the Krauss-Hamza debate someone recorded the audio and uploaded it. It was something like 2 hours and 40 mins long, but the official IERA version on their youtube page released about a month after wass 2 hours and 11 minutes long.

Hamza debated Stephen Law 2-4 years ago and Law has said much of what he said demonstrating how poor Hamzas arguments were got cut out from the youtube upload which is only 90 mins long.

I don't know why any atheist would agree to share a public platform and debate with IERA especially after they repeatedly do the same duplicitous cunning tricks.

I would debate with them, I would just have my own video recorder or dictaphone recording the event at the same time.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #70 - January 18, 2015, 10:58 AM

Arif Ahmed, Tzortzis, and Subboor Ahmed (LDM) on BBC big questions over the last hour.
'does evidence undermine religion?'

can be found on BBC1 iplayer
- Jedi
- Director of Shariah Police
- Ex-Muslim
- Observe HAYYA at all times
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #71 - January 18, 2015, 12:29 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050c3sl/the-big-questions-series-8-episode-2

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!
- Adey5
- Pub Regular
- No Nonsense Non-believer
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #72 - January 18, 2015, 01:15 PM

Just watched it. Arif and the other rationalists really kicked butt.

From the theistic side it was the same old arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, fine tuning, shifting of the burden of proof. Yadda yadda.

I have no idea what that first guy was rambling on about some old tent with some red cloth in it. So what?

I am better than your god......and so are you.

"Is the man who buys a magic rock, really more gullible than the man who buys an invisible magic rock?.......,...... At least the first guy has a rock!"
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #73 - January 18, 2015, 01:35 PM

Quote from: Adey5 on January 18, 2015, 01:15 PM
...........................

From the theistic side it was the same old arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, fine tuning, shifting of the burden of proof. Yadda yadda.

I have no idea what that first guy was rambling on about some old tent with some red cloth in it. So what?

well on that Yadda yadda.. let me add this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxrcNqecBII

And in 18th /19th/20th century there were plenty of Arif Ahmeds who lost their life for what they said about Islam...

anyways I am glad Arif is in west and is protected..

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
- Jedi
- Director of Shariah Police
- Ex-Muslim
- Observe HAYYA at all times
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #74 - January 18, 2015, 02:24 PM

So long as you watch what you say. The events in France demonstrate that you're only protected for so long.

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!
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #75 - January 19, 2015, 01:14 AM

Hamza seemed to avoid going one vs one against Arif on the Big Questions. He knew that the recordings wouldn't be in the hands of IERA.
- Amoku
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #76 - January 19, 2015, 01:39 AM

I don't like his views on abortion.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #77 - January 19, 2015, 07:03 AM

Hamza's first defense regarding philosophy is due to his ignorance. For a logical argument to be true it must be logically valid and sound. Soundness is the analysis of truth in a premises. However in order to validate a premises for truth claims one must use science. Logic does not prove it's own premises are true. For example

All redhead are dumb
Bob is a redhead
Therefore Bob is dumb

This is logically valid but is it sound? In order prove redheads are dumb one must evaluate every redhead that has lived, is alive and those that will be born. In order to refute this view one only needs to produce one redhead which has an average or above average IQ. Bob could also not be a redhead. Bob could also be intelligent. Thus a logically valid argument can still be false. So much for his defenses since he needs an external methodology to prove his premises which happens to be found in science.

2nd defense is God of Gaps.

He only provided fallacious responses and added nothing to the debate.

I never heard Hamza's views on abortion. I had to look through youtube for a copy since BBC hates Canada. So it was probably cut out
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #78 - January 19, 2015, 11:00 AM

Quote
So much for his defenses since he needs an external methodology to prove his premises which happens to be found in science.

they wrongly believe that their arguments including all of the premises, are purely deductive, whereas 'science is based on induction' (which they are also wrong about). The science which they (again wrongly) believe supports kalam, is just a nice bonus. They already believe Kalam is deductively proven simply by considering the impossibility of an actual infinite and similar thought experiments.

They think think everything can be boiled down to 'deduction = certain; induction = uncertain', and therefore kalam is more certain, and better than whatever science has to say on the subject. Evolution too can be dismissed because 'science is based on induction', whereas Islam is deductively certain.
- David
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #79 - January 19, 2015, 03:11 PM

Quote from: bogart on January 19, 2015, 07:03 AM
Soundness is the analysis of truth in a premises. However in order to validate a premises for truth claims one must use science.
- Scheherazade
- Member
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #80 - January 19, 2015, 03:25 PM

He's hot

Run my dear, from anything that may not strengthen your precious budding wings
- questioner
- Member
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #81 - January 20, 2015, 10:21 AM

Quote from: dr_sloth on January 19, 2015, 11:00 AM
they wrongly believe that their arguments including all of the premises, are purely deductive, whereas 'science is based on induction' (which they are also wrong about). The science which they (again wrongly) believe supports kalam, is just a nice bonus. They already believe Kalam is deductively proven simply by considering the impossibility of an actual infinite and similar thought experiments.

They think think everything can be boiled down to 'deduction = certain; induction = uncertain', and therefore kalam is more certain, and better than whatever science has to say on the subject. Evolution too can be dismissed because 'science is based on induction', whereas Islam is deductively certain.

LOL there's actually a video of Hamza saying that exact thing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa-iV5jROw4 starts at 1:15.

edit: at 3 minutes Hamza states "evolution = uncertain. Qur'an = certain"
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #82 - January 20, 2015, 10:41 AM

I first noticed it in the Krauss debate. Here is "the Muslim Aristotle" correcting Lawrence Krauss's "misunderstanding concerning induction, deduction, observation and empiricism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAJD3v0_D5c

Any inconvenient science just doesn't matter because Induction and stuff. The LDM guy (a Hamza devotee) pretty much says it in the Big Questions program too. Here silly old Professor Krauss is corrected again by Hamza's underling: "Do you even know what deduction is?"

http://youtu.be/uSwJuOPG4FI?t=1h43m

The great philosopher of science, Dawahman, also felt the need to run up to Professor Krauss in the street, and correct him again on the same subject. But the less said about that, the better.
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #83 - January 20, 2015, 05:49 PM

Lol at him saying evolution is not 100% certain but the quran basically is because of all the evidence for it. I'm reminded of ken Hamm when Ken asks "were you there?" for every scientific question of origins. Further channeling Hamm he talks about whether he should trust the book of God over our current scientific understanding.

Yes hamza uses bigger words and dresses up his arguments a little better but they boil down to know better than the normal creationist arguments you could get out of every ray comfort and ken Hamm of this world

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
- NeoApostate
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #84 - January 26, 2015, 11:59 AM

Quote from: serpentofeden on January 19, 2015, 01:14 AM
Hamza seemed to avoid going one vs one against Arif on the Big Questions. He knew that the recordings wouldn't be in the hands of IERA.

I really wish Arif Ahmed could have called out Hamza and his underlings on the demon question. I mean the pathetic christian guy was being pounded upon by all and the coward Hamza kept sheepishly smiling and never came to his rescue. I just hated that Hamza was let off so lightly. Even a local-flood vs. global-flood question would have stumped him. To me, the danger of such discussions is that somehow Islam emerges as more rational than Christianity :(
- questioner
- Member
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #85 - January 26, 2015, 03:59 PM

I absolutely love philosophy. I'm thinking of getting a degree in it once I finish my current degree. Hamza seems to like it as well. I wonder how he feels about the fact that more that 70% of philosophers are atheist and less than 15% are theists of any kind (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/). He can try arguing with them using as much jargon as he likes but sadly he will be humiliated.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #86 - January 26, 2015, 06:16 PM

Quote from: dr_sloth on January 19, 2015, 11:00 AM
they wrongly believe that their arguments including all of the premises, are purely deductive, whereas 'science is based on induction' (which they are also wrong about). The science which they (again wrongly) believe supports kalam, is just a nice bonus. They already believe Kalam is deductively proven simply by considering the impossibility of an actual infinite and similar thought experiments.

They think think everything can be boiled down to 'deduction = certain; induction = uncertain', and therefore kalam is more certain, and better than whatever science has to say on the subject. Evolution too can be dismissed because 'science is based on induction', whereas Islam is deductively certain.

Logic still does not prove it's own premises regardless of logic involved. A logical argument is deductive but this can not be used to prove the premises of the argument are true. The only way for a premise to be true without evidence is by being self-evident or an axiom. Anyone can reject an axiom without an argument since one must agree with the axiom as a choice not refute the axiom. Kalam is still based on observations of things created. It is linked to Aristotle's 4 causes which are based on observation from natural philosophy of things created; material, formal, efficient and final. The impossibility of infinities is based on Aristotle's 4 causes which were develop prior to his development of a first cause. It is the application of these 4 causes deduced from one point back into. However this is induction rather than deduction. It is the mistake that believing repeated observation of an object can be traced beyond the observation in order to conclude a universal truth. This is further reinforced by the idea of an uncaused cause which is immune to the same methodology as a form of special pleading. Besides the Bell test experiments, especially the 82 one, blew classical physics out of the water which include classical caution. Classical causation was also refined by Hume to include spatial and temporal locations so outside of time and space is nonsensical when applied with caution, another form of special pleading. Bell's theorem is still used by even those that criticize the tests.

Their arguments are a century out of date. However this is not their fault but merely the people they copy have largely stopped producing arguments for god or are now considered as part of fringe views which are openly mocked by many. Hence why they have started to use ID arguments which are neither philosophical nor science, its sophistry.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #87 - January 26, 2015, 06:25 PM

Quote from: questioner on January 26, 2015, 03:59 PM
I absolutely love philosophy. I'm thinking of getting a degree in it once I finish my current degree. Hamza seems to like it as well. I wonder how he feels about the fact that more that 70% of philosophers are atheist and less than 15% are theists of any kind (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/). He can try arguing with them using as much jargon as he likes but sadly he will be humiliated.

Hamza likes it since most people know nothing about it and its pretty much a dead field. Common sense is fallacious by it's very nature hence the division between reason and common sense. It now solely relies on science for the facts of it's arguments. Without which there is no truth other than self-evident truths and axiom. This is due to the division of science from it's former role of natural philosophy. It is a useful field for apologists since it allows one to assert anything they wish as self-evident or an axiom.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #88 - January 26, 2015, 06:46 PM

Quote
Logic still does not prove it's own premises regardless of logic involved.

They think they are using purely deductive arguments and concluding undefeatable truths. They are spellbound by the certainty that is involved, regardless of the fact that deduction on it's own is useless. How could you persuade a dawah genius that they aren't quite the philosopher of science they think they are? They don't understand these responses, and they are too proud of their certainty to question it.

Neither do they get that it is self defeating to harp on about the limits of induction, and at the same time, not only induce for event that ever happened in the history (and future) of the universe, but also for the universe itself.
- justperusing
- Pub Regular
- offline
What you think Arif Ahmed(debates with William Lane Craig)
Reply #89 - January 26, 2015, 09:47 PM

In the kalam, isn't the premise that "everything begins to exist has a cause" and inductive statement in itself? Craig talks about how science confirms this premise and according to hamza, science is based on inductive reasoning. So the kalam, even if it is a deductive argument, uses inductive reasoning to establish its soundness.

I also don't see how saying that everything that begins to exist must have a cause is more self evident or logical than everything that exists has a cause. It seems to just be a way to exclude God from the logic and is therefore just special pleading

"I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
-Thomas Paine
Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »