Taoism simply talks of the "Tao" which in my eyes, is the the universe being described As being indescribable, as being infinite so you cant attach characteristics or images too it as nothing can do its reality justice. Its very similar to pantheism. It then goes on to say we find union with this indescribable reality at death. My philosophy is wholly consistent with this. I argue we suffer due to our sense of separation from the whole.
How do you know? im sure some women could handle it, why is it that the men have to be stay at home fathers? they can work too. I feel like its generally best not to have these massive generalisations about people because of their sex, its very easy to be wrong. Not all women are emotional nor anything exceptionally weak compared to men.
Women are more emotional on average, sex characteristics exist along a spectrum. Women do just fine in most workplaces, better than men in customer service roles usually. So should big women, lets say women above 5'10 be allowed to work in construction culturally? if not why not if a 5'4 man can? Its essential for women to work in the economy these days, otherwise economic recession is destined to happen. Especially in European nations. Its just not realistic.
When i say "God" it must be clarified i more so mean the universe as God, or our sense of ego or "I" causes us suffering. I don't see God in the sense you're probably imagining.
We can know who the father is, rayhan. I don't see why women should be societally pressured into being reliant on a man their entire lives. We don't live in a time where people can have 1 parent working, we don't live in a time where women can afford to have a man do everything for her, she has no safety net if they get divorced and she has no money or anything now.
I think women should have the opportunity to be career women, even if i think that's the wrong choice for them to make, most women are happier being stay at home mums, but i shouldn't dictate what others do with their free will. I shouldn't dictate if someone is allowed to let themselves experience sad emotions. Women being in the workplace also adds so much to the economy, that without women you will lose massive amounts of a nations GDP making everyone significantly poorer.
Taoism literally teaches in spiritual immortality, where the spirit of the body joins the universe after death. Although, id argue it already is joined with the universe in life.
It does much more than you think. I'm simply talking about one aspect or the negative aspect of duality. I think to find wholeness, duality or labeling of good and evil must cease all together. Only then can you express your true individuality. As soon as you create separateness you create duality, good and evil. To feel good you now open yourself up to feel bad. This can only be fixed through the breakdown of group categorisations which can only be done through changing boundaries between things, changing identity.
I'm curious how you can argue against this philosophy, considering you're a Taoist. Maybe you thought i was arguing for the Abrahamic God? My pantheism is perfectly in alignment with the way of Tao, and its philosophy of duality. I just deify the universe a bit more.
Why would Allah command him to marry women which wont reproduce? it appears to be a double standard to me. Since he made his followers turn away baron women. Based on your own standards, if women cant have more than one husband due to not knowing who the father is, isn't it now ok for a woman to have more than one husband since we do have DNA testing? since we do have condoms now?
Why didnt prophet Muhammad simply donate money too then? why is he the exception to the rule? this same thing happened when he raided caravans, he kept most of the booty.
I think you provided a pretty good argument rayhan. Although im confused about the "men can marry 4 wives" quote. Is there a limit to how many women a man is allowed to marry in Islam?
You can say its changed, but if I google the word qatala and its descendants they are still considered interlinked in Arabic, if they weren't it would be changed to no longer be related, but it isn't. Give me ANY source saying qatala or its derivatives cant be used as a substitute for fighting to the death.
People can say they're tired instead of bored and its obvious its just sometimes a nice way of saying they're disinterested in continuing speaking to you. I'm unsure if the word cute existed 400 years ago, but if its descended from a word like beautiful it has something in common with it even today.
Using saari would of been a much better word to use, if you don't want to suggest killing. So unless that's demonstrated that the word didn't exist back then, its unlikely for you to look much better than I in the debate.
"The word fight does not necessarily mean to kill. "
Just like the word cute doesn't necessarily mean sexually attractive, but it can definitely be used that way.
But that's not what I was arguing about. The word for fight in Arabic is derived from the word to kill in that language, which means its linguistically related. In English fight isn't related to the word kill in the same sense it is in Arabic. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. If I google words descended from beautiful it will bring up words such as "cute" or "pretty." if the word fairy, is descended from beautiful, it means that when the word fairy was invented people viewed fairies as beautiful beings. A word doesn't directly mean its roots, just like cute doesn't mean the same as hot, but they generally have similar uses and suggestions.
You didn't explain qatala and its roots away, all you said was the fact that saari couldn't be used instead because the word didn't exist at the time. You failed to provide a source for that. Based on the wording, it becomes about interpretation as the word clearly isn't clear cut, if anything it leans in the side of violence. If you can prove sarri didn't exist back then as a word, offer me the link in the comments and ill verify it, then the scales are tipped in your favour.
People wont vote on it if they agree with me, as its a dodgy look. Overall the debate was rather inconclusive. I didn't prove Islam supports terrorism, and you couldn't refute it in the end either. Based on the debate title though I should of won, since you failed to prove your statement, which is what matters more. The burden of proof was on you.
Well they would be hypocritical if they are hunting endangered species for sport, then giving the money to conservation...do you know what animals they trophy hunt?
I feel like you're saying one thing in the title, then another in the description. There's a big difference between trophy hunting and hunting for population control. Are you saying they overlap? I'm sure many African species would say its making them go extinct, not controlling their populations.
"a 10-year old is denied healthcare because "abortion is illegal". Think for yourself, aye?"
not the best argument, I wont lie to you. Do better. In all seriousness, fringe cases must be taken into consideration, even if they could be considered borderline strawmen. As rare as they are, they do happen and any robust legal system should have a satisfactory answer too them.
I said Hitler not me? i clearly do equate insects to the whole, based on the scientific theory. there's no evidence of most insects being sentient so i don't have much moral contemplation for most species, i don't lose sleep when i step on a worm. I see them like a machine. Dolphins, octopus, elephants and apes i think is probably immoral to kill species like this. Although i do personally believe insects are apart of the whole, of course. I don't lose sleep over throwing a rock, even if i believe its part of me, same with most insect species.
why would someone not regret hurting others if they are you? i see it as the opposite, we only care for others in so far as we can see ourselves in them. That's what "dehumanisation" is. Hitler would equate Jews to things such as insects and diseases to create as big a distinction between himself and them as much as possible to not have to put himself in their position, that he cant possibly be like them. The definition of empathy is to imagine yourself feeling what they feel, once you accept you are others this makes that act even easier. I brought up the free will argument because your argument is an emotional one, just like people who cling to the idea that free will exists just because they feel like it exists and how obvious it is. How is it a strawman? its an analogy. If it is a strawman, explain why without simply stating so and not elaborating.
That's interesting; I believe my other theory, which is superior to this one, will provide you with an answer to this. Because it is not dependent on the material universe, but rather simply on the existence of awareness. If we assume nothing, all we can know of existing is our own awareness, but that's a debate i should be having in the future.
You as a conscious existence cease to be, but to argue parts of you don't persist in some form even as an unconscious existence would be equivalent to saying your arm is not your own. You as the lemming you are wont be, but you will live through as other facets of reality, maybe one day your energy once more being transformed into sentient life. But you're still yet to demonstrate how separation can exist, you can appeal to common sense and the senses and how obvious it seems, that doesn't make it right. You're still yet to make a case for how you can fulfill the criteria of form theory and tracking theory without contradicting one of the other, unlike i.
I'm unsure how the fact humans are individual persons and experience their own emotions and go through their own struggles defeats my argument, not made from an appeal to emotion, but from science. Just because people act as if we have free will (everyone does and believes so) doesn't mean its correct. Just because it appears to be common sense that separation exists, doesn't make it so. Science surprises us all the time. Just because people believe themselves separate, dissociating themselves from caring about others, doesn't make it so. Humans are wrong all the time about how we believe we should act, otherwise we wouldn't feel regret.
It matters if two items are energy because that which we are is what gives us being, as we're being. If we strip ourselves down and down and down, all we can be said is to be energy. That's why its far more precise than simply saying you're the brain, that's why its more precise to say your trillions of mini computers working together over the brain and it becomes more precise the deeper you go. Energy is ingrained in your identity, as it is literally your being and existence, so why wouldn't it matter? is a better question.
People can differentiate between things based on borders, based on geometry. That's how we point out division between things. We are which constitutes us, as we're being, so that which makes us must also necessarily be being. Energy is the thing which creates being, but this building block of being has no borders nor division which means it is simply one substance, as we would see a tin of red paint as one substance. If reality is then made of this one substance, how can it said to be a different substance? how does a whole new substance come from one substance and not two different substances interacting? unless it was fashioned from its own being. This then necessarily means matter is also energy, as proven by Einstein. The fact matter has a centre too it, doesn't matter mean its truly separate. Unless its an emergent property of energy, matter constantly transforms back into energy, and energy into matter. Its simply energy taking on a transient state of false separation as it still exists as energy, unless it can be proven separation is an emergent property of energy, can you do that? Matter is simply energy taking on a lower vibrational frequency. It doesn't change substance, it simply changes its own density through changing its vibration, energy is vibration.
It doesn't matter if things appear separate, or even if consciousness ceases as such if certain perceived mechanism don't interact properly. My philosophy is still consistent despite these facts, despite the theory of tracking and form. one flower petal, does live and die different to another flower petal on the same stem but this once more doesn't deny that all of this is energy of the same substance which has no divisions as something with division needs a centre. The only argument against this is an argument to emergent properties. If my debate opposition brings it up, you'll find my response to it. A split brain is still made of the same energy, but the energy that makes up the brain and sends signalling is now going to different places. Leading to a different experience of self and reality, but still energy. I'm unsure why eyes have to be conscious for this theory to make sense. This theory applies to in-animates and life all the same.
Atoms do have centres i don't deny that, i deny the fact of this then meaning we're all actually separate. As any theory not based on the most fundamental element cannot pass both the structural theory of identity and the tracking theory of identity at the same time without contradicting one or the other. All you can actually argue for is emergent propertism, if my debate opponent choose to go in that direction, i am already prepared for it. Just because you don't experience others feelings or in their body, doesn't necessarily mean you don't look through their eyes also. Its simply another version of you locked into that body. which is why you cant experience their feelings as i cant experience yours. If what we are is being, it should be that which gives us being and which constitutes our being which is us. Its more arbitrary, less laser like to draw that line on your feelings or arms or emotions as opposed to energy itself. It would be like someone saying they are their brain which isn't wrong, but if you were more precise you would say you're trillions of mini computers interacting together to form a whole.
I see that as simply human ego talking, the facts point out that your pinky being separate from the whole or its own entity is an illusion too, your pinky is constantly changing structure all throughout your life, therefore it does not pass the structural theory of identity, just because we cannot see this change doesn't necessarily mean its not happening. We notice distinctness between things based on if they have a centre. A triangle has a centre which then necessitates an edge or boundary. So does every other geometric shape, but that which has no centre cant have an edge, or this works the other way around, that which has an edge necessitates a centre. To use a syllogism:
P1. separate beings have their own centres
P2. the most fundamental building block of being has no centre
P3. all entities are the same being
Can you demonstrate on how a centre can come from something without a centre? If we look to our liver, our liver is a living mass of cells but the cells within the liver, are living and have the property of living, which gives the liver itself life as its components are living. The liver can only die when the smaller components, cells die. Following this analogy, how can something with a centre come from something with no centre or possible distinctness in its substance if it is made from the thing with no centre simply allowing itself to become denser? if energy has no centre, and matter is energy condensing itself to be harder. matter also too shouldn't have a definable centre outside of perception. If all is energy, how can the energy be distinguished even in the form of matter?
So you're aware, this isn't the argument i will be using with you when we have our debate. This is the prototype and far weaker argument than the one i have in store for you, as this argument relies on the material universe existing to begin with, the argument i have in store for you does this but even better as it doesn't even rely on the material universe, and it even kills solipsism. Or at least, the idea that you can only know of you yourself existing. I'm a freak of nature, an anomaly, a glitch in the matrix. let it be known.
I'm not currently interested in debating about Islam again, it just becomes a semantics game of, "context" or no the word really means "insert word". Although, if you want to debate that quote inparticular in DM's we can do so as i understand the Arabic terminology PERFECTLY in that quote so you cant use the fact اضربوهن translated into "strike them" has multiple meanings as an argument against me.
I'm not a catholic Christian or really a Christian at that, I'm a pantheist, like Einstein and many modern philosophers. I could be said to be a Quaker if i were anything Christian but i don't follow the book. Read my current debate on, "all is one".
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." 4:34
This verse is fairly self-explanatory. It instructs Muslims on how women should be treated. The verse states that men are in charge of women and how they spend their wealth, good women are those who obey, and if a woman disobeys then her husband can warn her, forsake her, and finally beat her. This verse clearly demonstrates that women are inferiors in multiple ways. The first is that men are in charge of them and their wealth, this sets a hierarchy among the genders where men are placed above women.
meanwhile Muslim women cannot marry non Muslim men, but Muslim men can marry non Muslim women. Girls are said to be less intelligent in the Quran by prophet Muhammad.
The pragmatic answer is the fact the universe has always existed in some form and is eternal. The only reason the something from nothing theory came about was due to Einstein's theories not working at the quantum level, we will soon come to a point where we know the universe has simply always existed, as we already know energy cannot be created or destroyed.
To use an analogy, if life is a test for us, it's almost as if God has given us a test with questions we haven't been given revision for or haven't learned anything about. Is it then the students' fault for failing this test because they are unaware of the answers? To further illustrate the analogy, suppose you fail this test and are thrown into a meat grinder, but if you succeed, you are rewarded with unlimited riches. Would anyone in their right mind willingly take this test? Would we consider a teacher just for implementing this test? if it wasn't an omnipotent God but an ordinary person we would see them like the antagonist in the SAW franchise, horror film.
I'm unsure why you find eternal damnation fair for simply being ignorant. Many scientists are sincere to know the truth of their existence, according to Islam they will rot forever, eternally. For simply being unaware. How would you justify eternal damnation to someone who asks a question like this? You can be a truly loving person and all accepting, do immeasurable good for humankind in charity work, but simply for not knowing God exists and therefore refraining belief, you will suffer forever.
Most of your arguments, such as eye gouging, I wouldn't see working on a good wrestler of the same weight. Wrestlers are all about control, and they frequently control jiu jitsu fighters on the ground, who are all about chokes and breaking bones. So the argument that they can just gouge their eyes out or "break their fingers" isn't going to work 8/10 of the time. In a fight, Bruce Lee and Jacky Chan would almost certainly be completely controlled by a wrestler. A good wrestler will take you down no matter how good your "kung fu dodging skills" and "kung fu breathing" is. In a real fight you're going to get gassed if someone doesn't get knocked out in the first 3 minutes.
Being smart and a deceiver are not mutually exclusive. He uses underhanded tactics when he's losing. He Starts unplugging microphones and censoring you. He would never upload a video of himself losing a debate. He also deletes THOUSANDS of comments on his videos to keep his viewers from questioning him or his followers on his takes. Watch Cosmic Skeptics video on him.
If you win this debate, Debate me on it. We will see how easy it is, there's a reason Catholicism isn't the only sect of Christianity.
That's hot.
I agree.
the Goddess? can you explain that? I'm confused, you believe in a goddess?
Taoism simply talks of the "Tao" which in my eyes, is the the universe being described As being indescribable, as being infinite so you cant attach characteristics or images too it as nothing can do its reality justice. Its very similar to pantheism. It then goes on to say we find union with this indescribable reality at death. My philosophy is wholly consistent with this. I argue we suffer due to our sense of separation from the whole.
How do you know? im sure some women could handle it, why is it that the men have to be stay at home fathers? they can work too. I feel like its generally best not to have these massive generalisations about people because of their sex, its very easy to be wrong. Not all women are emotional nor anything exceptionally weak compared to men.
Women are more emotional on average, sex characteristics exist along a spectrum. Women do just fine in most workplaces, better than men in customer service roles usually. So should big women, lets say women above 5'10 be allowed to work in construction culturally? if not why not if a 5'4 man can? Its essential for women to work in the economy these days, otherwise economic recession is destined to happen. Especially in European nations. Its just not realistic.
When i say "God" it must be clarified i more so mean the universe as God, or our sense of ego or "I" causes us suffering. I don't see God in the sense you're probably imagining.
We can know who the father is, rayhan. I don't see why women should be societally pressured into being reliant on a man their entire lives. We don't live in a time where people can have 1 parent working, we don't live in a time where women can afford to have a man do everything for her, she has no safety net if they get divorced and she has no money or anything now.
I think women should have the opportunity to be career women, even if i think that's the wrong choice for them to make, most women are happier being stay at home mums, but i shouldn't dictate what others do with their free will. I shouldn't dictate if someone is allowed to let themselves experience sad emotions. Women being in the workplace also adds so much to the economy, that without women you will lose massive amounts of a nations GDP making everyone significantly poorer.
Taoism literally teaches in spiritual immortality, where the spirit of the body joins the universe after death. Although, id argue it already is joined with the universe in life.
It does much more than you think. I'm simply talking about one aspect or the negative aspect of duality. I think to find wholeness, duality or labeling of good and evil must cease all together. Only then can you express your true individuality. As soon as you create separateness you create duality, good and evil. To feel good you now open yourself up to feel bad. This can only be fixed through the breakdown of group categorisations which can only be done through changing boundaries between things, changing identity.
I'm curious how you can argue against this philosophy, considering you're a Taoist. Maybe you thought i was arguing for the Abrahamic God? My pantheism is perfectly in alignment with the way of Tao, and its philosophy of duality. I just deify the universe a bit more.
Why would Allah command him to marry women which wont reproduce? it appears to be a double standard to me. Since he made his followers turn away baron women. Based on your own standards, if women cant have more than one husband due to not knowing who the father is, isn't it now ok for a woman to have more than one husband since we do have DNA testing? since we do have condoms now?
Why didnt prophet Muhammad simply donate money too then? why is he the exception to the rule? this same thing happened when he raided caravans, he kept most of the booty.
why cant any man take extra widows in as long as he's just?
I think you provided a pretty good argument rayhan. Although im confused about the "men can marry 4 wives" quote. Is there a limit to how many women a man is allowed to marry in Islam?
You can say its changed, but if I google the word qatala and its descendants they are still considered interlinked in Arabic, if they weren't it would be changed to no longer be related, but it isn't. Give me ANY source saying qatala or its derivatives cant be used as a substitute for fighting to the death.
People can say they're tired instead of bored and its obvious its just sometimes a nice way of saying they're disinterested in continuing speaking to you. I'm unsure if the word cute existed 400 years ago, but if its descended from a word like beautiful it has something in common with it even today.
Using saari would of been a much better word to use, if you don't want to suggest killing. So unless that's demonstrated that the word didn't exist back then, its unlikely for you to look much better than I in the debate.
"The word fight does not necessarily mean to kill. "
Just like the word cute doesn't necessarily mean sexually attractive, but it can definitely be used that way.
But that's not what I was arguing about. The word for fight in Arabic is derived from the word to kill in that language, which means its linguistically related. In English fight isn't related to the word kill in the same sense it is in Arabic. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. If I google words descended from beautiful it will bring up words such as "cute" or "pretty." if the word fairy, is descended from beautiful, it means that when the word fairy was invented people viewed fairies as beautiful beings. A word doesn't directly mean its roots, just like cute doesn't mean the same as hot, but they generally have similar uses and suggestions.
You didn't explain qatala and its roots away, all you said was the fact that saari couldn't be used instead because the word didn't exist at the time. You failed to provide a source for that. Based on the wording, it becomes about interpretation as the word clearly isn't clear cut, if anything it leans in the side of violence. If you can prove sarri didn't exist back then as a word, offer me the link in the comments and ill verify it, then the scales are tipped in your favour.
People wont vote on it if they agree with me, as its a dodgy look. Overall the debate was rather inconclusive. I didn't prove Islam supports terrorism, and you couldn't refute it in the end either. Based on the debate title though I should of won, since you failed to prove your statement, which is what matters more. The burden of proof was on you.
Get him Bones.
Well they would be hypocritical if they are hunting endangered species for sport, then giving the money to conservation...do you know what animals they trophy hunt?
I feel like you're saying one thing in the title, then another in the description. There's a big difference between trophy hunting and hunting for population control. Are you saying they overlap? I'm sure many African species would say its making them go extinct, not controlling their populations.
"a 10-year old is denied healthcare because "abortion is illegal". Think for yourself, aye?"
not the best argument, I wont lie to you. Do better. In all seriousness, fringe cases must be taken into consideration, even if they could be considered borderline strawmen. As rare as they are, they do happen and any robust legal system should have a satisfactory answer too them.
Get him rayhan, bring out your inner Muhammed Hijab.
I said Hitler not me? i clearly do equate insects to the whole, based on the scientific theory. there's no evidence of most insects being sentient so i don't have much moral contemplation for most species, i don't lose sleep when i step on a worm. I see them like a machine. Dolphins, octopus, elephants and apes i think is probably immoral to kill species like this. Although i do personally believe insects are apart of the whole, of course. I don't lose sleep over throwing a rock, even if i believe its part of me, same with most insect species.
To claim you know what humans should and shouldn't regret must mean you know some absolute moral imperative, care to elaborate?
why would someone not regret hurting others if they are you? i see it as the opposite, we only care for others in so far as we can see ourselves in them. That's what "dehumanisation" is. Hitler would equate Jews to things such as insects and diseases to create as big a distinction between himself and them as much as possible to not have to put himself in their position, that he cant possibly be like them. The definition of empathy is to imagine yourself feeling what they feel, once you accept you are others this makes that act even easier. I brought up the free will argument because your argument is an emotional one, just like people who cling to the idea that free will exists just because they feel like it exists and how obvious it is. How is it a strawman? its an analogy. If it is a strawman, explain why without simply stating so and not elaborating.
That's interesting; I believe my other theory, which is superior to this one, will provide you with an answer to this. Because it is not dependent on the material universe, but rather simply on the existence of awareness. If we assume nothing, all we can know of existing is our own awareness, but that's a debate i should be having in the future.
You as a conscious existence cease to be, but to argue parts of you don't persist in some form even as an unconscious existence would be equivalent to saying your arm is not your own. You as the lemming you are wont be, but you will live through as other facets of reality, maybe one day your energy once more being transformed into sentient life. But you're still yet to demonstrate how separation can exist, you can appeal to common sense and the senses and how obvious it seems, that doesn't make it right. You're still yet to make a case for how you can fulfill the criteria of form theory and tracking theory without contradicting one of the other, unlike i.
I'm unsure how the fact humans are individual persons and experience their own emotions and go through their own struggles defeats my argument, not made from an appeal to emotion, but from science. Just because people act as if we have free will (everyone does and believes so) doesn't mean its correct. Just because it appears to be common sense that separation exists, doesn't make it so. Science surprises us all the time. Just because people believe themselves separate, dissociating themselves from caring about others, doesn't make it so. Humans are wrong all the time about how we believe we should act, otherwise we wouldn't feel regret.
It matters if two items are energy because that which we are is what gives us being, as we're being. If we strip ourselves down and down and down, all we can be said is to be energy. That's why its far more precise than simply saying you're the brain, that's why its more precise to say your trillions of mini computers working together over the brain and it becomes more precise the deeper you go. Energy is ingrained in your identity, as it is literally your being and existence, so why wouldn't it matter? is a better question.
People can differentiate between things based on borders, based on geometry. That's how we point out division between things. We are which constitutes us, as we're being, so that which makes us must also necessarily be being. Energy is the thing which creates being, but this building block of being has no borders nor division which means it is simply one substance, as we would see a tin of red paint as one substance. If reality is then made of this one substance, how can it said to be a different substance? how does a whole new substance come from one substance and not two different substances interacting? unless it was fashioned from its own being. This then necessarily means matter is also energy, as proven by Einstein. The fact matter has a centre too it, doesn't matter mean its truly separate. Unless its an emergent property of energy, matter constantly transforms back into energy, and energy into matter. Its simply energy taking on a transient state of false separation as it still exists as energy, unless it can be proven separation is an emergent property of energy, can you do that? Matter is simply energy taking on a lower vibrational frequency. It doesn't change substance, it simply changes its own density through changing its vibration, energy is vibration.
It doesn't matter if things appear separate, or even if consciousness ceases as such if certain perceived mechanism don't interact properly. My philosophy is still consistent despite these facts, despite the theory of tracking and form. one flower petal, does live and die different to another flower petal on the same stem but this once more doesn't deny that all of this is energy of the same substance which has no divisions as something with division needs a centre. The only argument against this is an argument to emergent properties. If my debate opposition brings it up, you'll find my response to it. A split brain is still made of the same energy, but the energy that makes up the brain and sends signalling is now going to different places. Leading to a different experience of self and reality, but still energy. I'm unsure why eyes have to be conscious for this theory to make sense. This theory applies to in-animates and life all the same.
Atoms do have centres i don't deny that, i deny the fact of this then meaning we're all actually separate. As any theory not based on the most fundamental element cannot pass both the structural theory of identity and the tracking theory of identity at the same time without contradicting one or the other. All you can actually argue for is emergent propertism, if my debate opponent choose to go in that direction, i am already prepared for it. Just because you don't experience others feelings or in their body, doesn't necessarily mean you don't look through their eyes also. Its simply another version of you locked into that body. which is why you cant experience their feelings as i cant experience yours. If what we are is being, it should be that which gives us being and which constitutes our being which is us. Its more arbitrary, less laser like to draw that line on your feelings or arms or emotions as opposed to energy itself. It would be like someone saying they are their brain which isn't wrong, but if you were more precise you would say you're trillions of mini computers interacting together to form a whole.
I see that as simply human ego talking, the facts point out that your pinky being separate from the whole or its own entity is an illusion too, your pinky is constantly changing structure all throughout your life, therefore it does not pass the structural theory of identity, just because we cannot see this change doesn't necessarily mean its not happening. We notice distinctness between things based on if they have a centre. A triangle has a centre which then necessitates an edge or boundary. So does every other geometric shape, but that which has no centre cant have an edge, or this works the other way around, that which has an edge necessitates a centre. To use a syllogism:
P1. separate beings have their own centres
P2. the most fundamental building block of being has no centre
P3. all entities are the same being
Can you demonstrate on how a centre can come from something without a centre? If we look to our liver, our liver is a living mass of cells but the cells within the liver, are living and have the property of living, which gives the liver itself life as its components are living. The liver can only die when the smaller components, cells die. Following this analogy, how can something with a centre come from something with no centre or possible distinctness in its substance if it is made from the thing with no centre simply allowing itself to become denser? if energy has no centre, and matter is energy condensing itself to be harder. matter also too shouldn't have a definable centre outside of perception. If all is energy, how can the energy be distinguished even in the form of matter?
We can debate the moral implications of me and you being the same being but different persons, id disagree on it being a nihilistic reality.
So you're aware, this isn't the argument i will be using with you when we have our debate. This is the prototype and far weaker argument than the one i have in store for you, as this argument relies on the material universe existing to begin with, the argument i have in store for you does this but even better as it doesn't even rely on the material universe, and it even kills solipsism. Or at least, the idea that you can only know of you yourself existing. I'm a freak of nature, an anomaly, a glitch in the matrix. let it be known.
What do you think, my beloved?
I'm not currently interested in debating about Islam again, it just becomes a semantics game of, "context" or no the word really means "insert word". Although, if you want to debate that quote inparticular in DM's we can do so as i understand the Arabic terminology PERFECTLY in that quote so you cant use the fact اضربوهن translated into "strike them" has multiple meanings as an argument against me.
I'm not a catholic Christian or really a Christian at that, I'm a pantheist, like Einstein and many modern philosophers. I could be said to be a Quaker if i were anything Christian but i don't follow the book. Read my current debate on, "all is one".
"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand." 4:34
This verse is fairly self-explanatory. It instructs Muslims on how women should be treated. The verse states that men are in charge of women and how they spend their wealth, good women are those who obey, and if a woman disobeys then her husband can warn her, forsake her, and finally beat her. This verse clearly demonstrates that women are inferiors in multiple ways. The first is that men are in charge of them and their wealth, this sets a hierarchy among the genders where men are placed above women.
"Islam is not mysognistic"
meanwhile Muslim women cannot marry non Muslim men, but Muslim men can marry non Muslim women. Girls are said to be less intelligent in the Quran by prophet Muhammad.
The pragmatic answer is the fact the universe has always existed in some form and is eternal. The only reason the something from nothing theory came about was due to Einstein's theories not working at the quantum level, we will soon come to a point where we know the universe has simply always existed, as we already know energy cannot be created or destroyed.
To use an analogy, if life is a test for us, it's almost as if God has given us a test with questions we haven't been given revision for or haven't learned anything about. Is it then the students' fault for failing this test because they are unaware of the answers? To further illustrate the analogy, suppose you fail this test and are thrown into a meat grinder, but if you succeed, you are rewarded with unlimited riches. Would anyone in their right mind willingly take this test? Would we consider a teacher just for implementing this test? if it wasn't an omnipotent God but an ordinary person we would see them like the antagonist in the SAW franchise, horror film.
I'm unsure why you find eternal damnation fair for simply being ignorant. Many scientists are sincere to know the truth of their existence, according to Islam they will rot forever, eternally. For simply being unaware. How would you justify eternal damnation to someone who asks a question like this? You can be a truly loving person and all accepting, do immeasurable good for humankind in charity work, but simply for not knowing God exists and therefore refraining belief, you will suffer forever.
Most of your arguments, such as eye gouging, I wouldn't see working on a good wrestler of the same weight. Wrestlers are all about control, and they frequently control jiu jitsu fighters on the ground, who are all about chokes and breaking bones. So the argument that they can just gouge their eyes out or "break their fingers" isn't going to work 8/10 of the time. In a fight, Bruce Lee and Jacky Chan would almost certainly be completely controlled by a wrestler. A good wrestler will take you down no matter how good your "kung fu dodging skills" and "kung fu breathing" is. In a real fight you're going to get gassed if someone doesn't get knocked out in the first 3 minutes.
Being smart and a deceiver are not mutually exclusive. He uses underhanded tactics when he's losing. He Starts unplugging microphones and censoring you. He would never upload a video of himself losing a debate. He also deletes THOUSANDS of comments on his videos to keep his viewers from questioning him or his followers on his takes. Watch Cosmic Skeptics video on him.