|
|
 |
|
|
| "The Refutation of so and so ..." - Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee |
 |
A Question issued from some of the youth in
Toronto, Canada to the Scholar of Arabia,
al-'Allaamah Zayd Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee.
Q: A question in regards to the helper of Adnaan
'Ar`oor, Saalih al-Munajjid, Ja'amatut-Tableegh
and a multitude of other opponents of the Salafee
Da'wah. The (one-time) Imaam of the hizbee masjid
(Khalid Ibnul-Waleed), Basheer Yusuf Shill stated,
"The Refutation of so and so, the refutation of so
and so, the refutation of so and so, this takes
one away from the religion of Allaah."
Al-'Allaamah Zayd al-Madkhalee responds to this
erroneous blunder issued by the supposed 'Scholar'
of Canada.
The tele-link happened in 2002 at the Reign of
Islaamic Da'wah in Toronto
Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhalee: -
He is considered the second man in the district of
Jaazaan with regard to knowledge, fatwaa, and
calling to Allaah (Da'wah) after Shaikh Ahmad bin
Yahyaa An-Najmee. May Allaah lengthen both of them
in lifespan.
Shaikh Ahmad An-Najmee was asked: "O Shaikh! What
do you say about one who says: 'I don't recognize
Shaikh Zayd Al-Madkhalee or Shaikh Rabee'
Al-Madkhalee. I don't recognize them to be from
the scholars and I won't take any knowledge from
them. I don't acknowledge anyone except Shaikh
'Abdul-'Azeez bin Baaz.' So how would you respond
to this?"
The Shaikh answered: "We ask Allaah to guide this
person and to grant him direction, for indeed,
Shaikh Rabee' Al-Madkhalee and Shaikh Zayd
Al-Madkhalee -- both of them are from the sincere
Salafee scholars. He must acknowledge and be aware
of this. And he must not disparage them, because
disparaging them means disparaging the Sunnah of
Allaah's Messenger, which they are carrying. We
are not saying that they are free from error.
However, their methodology is Salafee. So the
students of knowledge must read their books and
get to know the truth that is in them..."
http://www.troid.org/
Why Do the Scholars Write Refutations and do they
Harden One's Heart?
By Shaykh Saalih Ibn 'Abdul-'Azeez Aalush-Shaykh
http://www.troid.org/media/pdf/writerefutations.pd
f
Tags : Shaykh Zayd Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee on Refutations islam salafi salaf troid spubs muslim people bidah innovations unity |
|
Affichage : 1605
Durée : 336 s |
| Re: Proof God is Real -- Refutation (Part 1) |
 |
A refutation of the arguments proposed in:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c
Second part of this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-fkBSnmjBQg
Expanded blog post (& higher res video):
http://www.egrefen.com/Eds_Website/Philosophy/Entr
ies/2007/10/28_Against_a_%22proof%22_of_the_existe
nce_of_god.html
I've often argued it was a waste of time doing
this, but I have a certain akrasia when it comes
to procrastination pulling me away from research.
-----
Normally, I don't bother with religion much. I
think people have the right to be irrational, or
-- in more generous terms -- to fill explanatory
gaps with whatever makes them comfortable, as long
as they don't derive a wide cosmological view from
it, or allow those components of their
epistemology to take precedence over evidential
components.
But here, I have to step in. On one hand, I really
do appreciate this Sean fellow's attempt to
approach the question of the existence of God in
an argumentative and -- dare I say -- logic way.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I can really
endorse his rather immodest conclusion that he's
not only come up with a more straightforward and
simple answer to this historically dominant
question than some of the greatest theologians and
philosophers of the past (then again, this is not
to say that such an event is impossible), but also
that his arguments are bullet-proof. Unfortunately
for him, it's already quite full of holes, as I
will now demonstrate.
Sean contends that it is impossible that there
could be an infinite amount of time before us. He
attempts a reductio ad absurdem by stating that
"If at a time t, I were to say x would happen at t
+ INFINITY, then x would never happen". This is
correct. He then applies modus tollens of the
consequent of this conditional, to obtain what he
thinks is the negation of the antecedent, namely
that "there is no infinite time before us (as
demonstrated by our present existence and the
previous conditional)". The conclusion of the
modus tollens is in fact "it is not the case that
at time t, x would happen at t + INFINITY". What
does this say? Only that it is impossible that
someone could have created the universe at a time
NOW - INFINITY. Well, where does that leave us...
Either:
a) there was no beginning of the universe, in
which case the could have been an infinite amount
of time before us. This sort of idea, for example,
can be found in Einstein's cyclical model
hypothesis, or more recently, in the work of Neil
Turok, from the University of Cambridge.
OR
b) the universe came into existence an infinite
amount of time ago.
Well, the game's already up, since Sean has to
assume B to continue his argument. This, of
course, is a nice example of question begging
since his assumption will then be contained in the
conclusion (namely that an intelligent designer
created the universe a finite amount of time ago).
So for the rest of his argument to even start to
make sense, he needs to reject a pretty big
hypothesis of physics.
Let's be generous, and imagine Sean manages to do
this. Does his argument still make sense? Well
first of all, our second option only states that
the universe started some finite amount of time
ago. He also correctly points out that according
to modern physics matter cannot be created or
destroyed. Sean wishes to reject this piece of
physics with more physics: from general
relativity, he then reminds the viewer that time
and space are intricately linked, and that space
and therefore time do not exist without matter. At
this point, I'm rather impressed, and waiting for
the other shoe to drop. It does so when Sean
calmly explains that therefore, since everything
started a finite amount of time ago, linearly
speaking, then therefore there was a time before
that when matter didn't exist, therefore before
space and thus... time... existed... err, wait, so
there's time before time? Well, there are so many
things Sean is doing wrong here that it could take
a while to go through them. First of all, his talk
of existence of anything before the existence of
the universe, which he must commit to since he's
discussing a causal agent that precedes
space-time, requires a notion of absolute time. Of
course, the whole basis of his statement that
matter "wasn't always there" was based on the
Einsteinian notion of space time, which itself
postulates a relative, non-absolute time. So to
have his cake and eat it, Sean is both relying
upon an absolute notion of time to say that could
be a creator, and a relative notion of time to
explain why there must have been a creator. This
is, of course, a direct inconsistency.
Tags : Refutation God Proof Physics |
|
Affichage : 3474
Durée : 346 s |
| Analyzing aaronk1994's refutation. 2 |
 |
Here is the article that talks about the 20
percent of Americans that believe that the sun
goes around the earth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profil
e.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Here is some info on modern geocentrism, since
Aaronk1994 didn't do any research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
Tags : Refuting k87jury Part aaronk994 Americans are Fucktards |
|
Affichage : 72
Durée : 460 s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
