Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →


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


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

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 02:08 PM

the lost road
Yesterday at 09:25 PM

Paris murder
Yesterday at 02:46 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 12:39 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
Yesterday at 05:43 AM

Discord Group for Ex-Musl...
November 28, 2020, 10:51 PM

Shit Muslims Say To Ex-Mu...
November 27, 2020, 01:06 PM

The essence of the facts
November 27, 2020, 12:56 PM

Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
November 25, 2020, 07:35 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 25, 2020, 05:20 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
November 25, 2020, 12:38 PM

A teenage Pure Muslim kil...
November 23, 2020, 09:33 AM

Theme Changer


 (Read 2226 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
     OP - January 27, 2016, 03:48 PM

    Can sum1 debunk him plz and thanks in advance
     Reply #1 - January 28, 2016, 12:18 AM

    So it looks like he presents 3 arguments here:

    1. Conditional sentence
    2. The word Wajada
    3. Manifestation of Allahs power

    1. doesn't make sense how it's an argument against the claim. It being a conditional sentence 'until'...'then' doesn't change the truth value of the narration either way. You could have "I'm Allah and DQ found the sun set in muddy spring!" and it wouldn't change what his actual refutation is so It seems like an attempt to lengthen the argument. 3. is sophistry, parlaying facts about the world can be done in multiple different ways. It doesn't have to be in the form "I'm Allah and I say the sun sets into a murky spring".  He seems to be inventing qualifiers to his fancy on this point. So the only real discussion is about 2.

    I don't know much arabic so I'm not really the one to be refuting this point, but from the research I've done I do have problems with the way they write off the word Wajada (to find). The argument he made is that Wajada means to 'perceive something with the 5 senses' and that because you can perceive something that is incorrect it is merely relating the incorrect experience of the character being narrated.

    So the word Wajada is claimed to be used as the world 'perceive' is in the English language akin to the statement of 'he perceived that the earth was flat'. The word according to the dictionaries I've seen have a somewhat different emphasis as meaning 'to find' as the main usage such as in Han Wehr 4th edition at the bottom and His own definition in the one video linked as a response to David Wood says it was defined as to find, to perceive, to discover, to experience (strong emotion?)

    Now obviously there's a huge difference between the statements: 1. "John perceived that the world was flat" Vs. 2. "John discovered that the world was flat" and I think that difference is what's at the heart of the issue here. 1. is fine, 2. is without question a false statement. Where does 3. "John found that the world was flat" fit into? And I think the only way to really answer this question is to look at how the word wajada was used in arabic and specifically the quran. To give a spoiler, the quran (as far as I've researched) unanimously uses it to relate something akin to the latter as opposed to the former between 1. and 2. There's other arguments regarding the word such as something with 'verb of the heart' but I don't know how to determine the accuracy of that.

    If your interesting you can check out this page. There's alot of in depth information
     Reply #2 - January 28, 2016, 01:27 AM

    Can sum1 debunk him plz and thanks in advance

    thousands of  Muslims like that guy you see at his Utube page at  have serious mental problems..   There is no need to debunk or counter that foolish tube.. Circular logic is everywhere and in every sentence of what that fellow saying in it.  

    Islam brainwashed fools and other religious bums should first learn about common argumentative logical    fallacies..let me paste here some of the  most common fallacies believing preachers of any religion make during their arguments

    ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

    appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

    argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

    appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

    appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

    argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

    Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): an argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people believe that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.

    argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.

    argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)

    argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance.

    argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons.

    bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

    begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?

    circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

    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
     Reply #3 - January 28, 2016, 05:08 AM

    I guess his a bad guy, his protecting something with no knwledge.
     Reply #4 - January 28, 2016, 05:17 AM

    I guess his a bad guy, his protecting something with no knwledge.

    hello TRUTH111.. greetings and my good wishes to you...

    No... no .... ,  he is neither a bad guy nor he is protecting something with no knowledge.

    what all he is doing is trying to defend his faith as miracle from some Allah god he believes using a book that was written some 1400 years ago..

    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
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »