Total posts: 1,201
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Turning off Yang's (or anyone's mic) i'm disappointed. Fox giving the most memorable props to Tulsi... i'm concerned.
- Oh yeah, that's some BS. They did the same to Tulsi, & denied it too... I noticed Fox gives more respect to Yang than the progressive media, like NBC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I finished watching the whole thing. Now I'm waiting for Osman. I believe they start filming in June and the first episodes are available in November.
- All my friends finished watching it & are excited about Osman. What a marathon.
Christianity is the fulfillment of the OT prophecy.
- What exactly does this mean?
Unfortunately, they say contrary things. You do not accept some of the Christian teachings about Jesus. I have studied the Judaic teachings of the OT for a long time and, as I said before, Jesus is a fulfillment of them.
- The thing is though, Judaic teachings according to the Jews do not support such a position. As you know, Jews reject Jesus (pbuh). We don't reject anyone. We reject the claim of divinity of course.
Are you saying we are both right?
- I'm saying I would argue the opposite, as in I would argue that it is your belief that is wrong.
Okay, after I attempt a debate with Ragnar.
- Good luck with that. The guy likes to be sure he could win before he attempts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
My views on Israel are complex.
- Please elaborate.
I'm a supporter of the State of Israel, but I'm appalled at Netanyahu. I think he's a truly evil person.
- What exactly do you mean by State of Israel? Yeah, Netanyahu is a real piece of work, doing his best to impress Satan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm really just making a joke, because people who are diagnosed as mentally ill get 1000 bucks or so from the government.
- Is this legit for real? Didn't know about that.
Aka the crazy check.
- Gotchu. I'd rather be crazy & get a free grand than be sane...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I know a clergyman in the church who was sent to seminary in the middle east(The Antiochan Church is actually based in Damascus right now).He was talking to a Muslim Imam over there, and it was brought up that there were good Muslims in The United States, and a town was mentioned that was all Muslim. The Imam responded that they were not good Muslims, because if they were good Muslims they would have already militarily taken over the state.Needless to say, this was a shocking response.
- WOW! A shocking response indeed. We had a guy like that at the university I went to in Paris, he was edgy at first, but thank God he has enough intelligence to come to his senses after few talks. It's an interesting position that stems from both ignorance of the religion & self-righteousness, & also a sense of fear of self-betrayal they feel if they accommodate others' beliefs. Obviously, this is true for many Christians as well. The "would have already militarily taken over the state" statement has nothing to do with the religion whatsoever, not even the effing Wahabis believe this!
I love Muslims, but it is impossible to detach theocratic dictatorship from the religion. If Muslims were to seize power where you live, they might force Christians and Jews to pay protection money(which is truly what every government does anyway)
- You'd definitely be better off under Muslim rule. First, you get to keep your own laws & customs, unlike the case of Secular rule. Second, you will be forced to pay the exorbitant amount of Jizyah which is a whopping $750 a year (per every adult male fit for military service) -unless, of course, you decide to actually join the military, in which case you shall be exempt.
but they would likely kill you for being a godless blasphemer.
- I don't know why everybody seems to think that, was never true. Atheists & agnostics (like Christians & Jews & Hindus...etc) are amongst the groups who are eligible for 'Ismat Dhimmah' (The Inviolability of Protection) which extends -same as with Muslims- the 6 basic rights of: religion, life, reason, lineage, wealth & honor. The only two groups to whom this inviolability does not extend are: apostates & Arab polytheists (who have long been extinct).
And really, they don't trest Christians and Jews thst gre as t either most of the time.
- Decidedly better than under Secular rule...
Also, apostssy from Islam is punishable by death, so it kind of discourages conversions.
- It does, for good reason.
While Christianity was from the get go established as a Kingdom not of this world, Islam is very much a seculsr government, a political ideology taking the form of religion.
- So it's a "theocratic dictatorship" & a "secular government"...? You guys love your labels don't you... Islam is a system of Morality (body), Rationality (mind) & Spirituality (soul) to guide the human being in whole, in body, mind & soul. Politics is simply the ethics of state, thus takes its root in Morality. In an Islamic system, Ethics, Law or Politics are all rooted in Islamic morality. In your Secular government, Politics is based on a Secular rationale, thus rooted in a Secular morality, as opposed to say, Christian morality. So, as a Christian, you feel in your soul Christian spirituality, while you believe in your mind Christian morality but also Secular morality -which are contradictory, yet practice with your body Secular morality when it comes to actual laws & policies. Don't you see the profound incoherence & utter nonsense in all this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Doubtful. He still thinks his holy book states his side even though he is making arguments which his holy book does not even mention.
- I see you two cuties are feasting on your delusions... You seem to be quite sure about your case, why don't we have a formal debate to settle this?
I am using the source he is. If he has a problem I can simply bring that up over and over again until he admits to it.
- Yes, you can do that in a formal debate. See, you've already got a plan to win.
I don't think it is low IQ instead they commit a special pleading fallacy. They use different standards with Religion compared to other things. Some people use that standard with everything so I would consider them the exception rather than the rule.
- LMAO, beautiful! Dunning Kruger effect in full display. It's cute. How about that debate though? I see you like debating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I would just like to say that I enjoy watching Turkish TV series such as Resurrection Ertugrul https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/80127001, What Happens To My Family (Baba Candir - turkish drama | turkish (very funny), and Kurt Sejik and Sura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Seyit_ve_%C5%9Eura.
- Ertugrul is the BEST. Still haven't finished it, damn long show.
Although we share much in common regarding religious values (and I appreciate this) I still believe your religion largely borrows from Christianity and misrepresents it in various ways.
- Indeed, well appreciated. You could say Christianity borrow from Judaism too. But it isn't really like that, we Muslims believe equally in the truth of all revelations to God's messengers ["We make no distinction between any of His messengers." (2:285)], be it Abraham or Moses or Jesus (pbut) or all the other prophets. So we don't really see it as a borrowing, rather than the same continuous divine message & tradition, concluded by the Quran. As to beliefs today, Islam is much more closer to the Judaic tradition than the Christian tradition.
I think you would agree that one of us is wrong in our belief and I would argue that it is your belief.
- I would of course argue the opposite... We could have a debate about this if you wish.
If I find the time I would like to delve into a few of your comments posted in this thread.
- Any time. Thank you ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You believe that all things were crested by and through God's word, right? That God spoke everything into existence?
- God's Word, as in God's Will, yes. Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
What's jinn in this context?
- Jinn, paranormal creatures living in the interstice world, parallel to our own, who may on conditions interact with ours, such as the case of devils (a kind of Jinn) assigned to tempt humans into doing bad things.
Is Jahannam/hell a temporary place or an eternal place for conscious creatures?
- This is actually a matter of difference of opinion among Muslim theologians. Some contend it's eternal, just like Heaven. Some others suggest it's not eternal, only Heaven is. This stems from a distinction of terminology in the Quran when referring to duration: indefinite in case of Heaven, whereas finite in case of Hell.
You said something about it attracting evil, so that kind of resembles purgatory in the bible since I imagine it as purging the evil from one's soul.
- I'm not an expert on the Bible. But indeed, Hell purifies evil.
How is it verifiable? GotQuestions.org, a Christian site claims that Christianity is correct while all other religions are false prophets. Islam claims that it is the only accurate religion. I imagine many religious faiths do the same thing.
- Of course, every ideology -wether religious or otherwise- makes the same claim, 'we have it right'. That said, the wisdom is not in the claim, it's in the substance. The authenticity of the Bible can not be verifiable for the simple reason we do not have the original Bible nor do we have any other means to conclusively reconstruct it. The oldest parchment of the Bible -a piece of paper the size of a debit card- came 100 years after the death of Jesus. The "nearly" -some 60%- complete Biblical manuscript (Codex of Sinaiticus) dates back to over 3 centuries after Jesus...
- The Quran, however, is much more easily accessible. The Quran, as the name indicates, is two things: a text but also a recitation. Thus, verifying the authenticity of the Quran entails verifying the authenticity of both its -written- transcription & its -spoken- recitation. Recitations were memorized & transmitted orally generation by generation. The transcription was collected first from the scribes of the Prophet (pbuh) into a single Codex at the time of Abu Bakr (1st Caliph) about a year after the Prophet's death, & was canonized into the Uthmanic Codex at the time of Uthman (3rd Caliph) some 20 years after the Prophet's death, of which several copies were made & sent all over the Muslim world then. Therefore, to verify the authenticity of the Quran, scholars require three condition to be met:
1. The recitation must be transmitted by Tawatur throughout the chain of transmission from beginning to end.
2. The recitation must perfectly correspond to the Uthmanic Codex text.
3. The recitation must belong -linguistically & grammatically- to one or more of the 7 Arab tongues.
1 => Tawatur means transmission by a large number of narrators at every level & throughout the chain of transmission, which eliminates any chance of error, intentional or otherwise.
2 => Aside form the fact that the Uthamic Codex was studied & recorded by Muslim scholars throughout history, the oldest Quranic manuscript found today dates back to at least the third Caliph -20 years after the Prophet's death (& might've even been written during his lifetime). The oldest *complete* Quranic manuscript (Topkapi Codex) dates back less than 100 years after the Prophet's death (which might also be a Uthmanic Codex itself), which also correspond to the cumulative 30 or so other manuscripts dating back to less than 90 years after the Prophet covering some 96% the content of the Quran.
3 => Any one of the above conditions is sufficient to authenticate the Quran, but just to be absolutely sure, why not all three conditions. There are today 10 recitations which meet all three conditions, called the Ten Mutawatir Recitations.
How is it much more accessible and verifiable?
- It's funny, but we have NO report in the Bible from anyone who actually ever met Jesus. None. Zero. Nada... In contrast, we have records of over 12600 (1600 among whom women) companions who actually met the Prophet (pbuh), some 4000 of them transcribed from him & reported to their successors, generation by generation to what later amounted to nearly 200,000 narrations collected in the Hadith compilations (including sound, good, weak & forged narrations). The 9 Canonical Collections of Hadith alone account for over 56,000 narrations relating 11,800 unique incidents (2/3rd of which are deemed sound or good narrations).
- In this context, miraculous incidents are similarly reported in abundance. For instance, the 'grieving tree' miracle was reported by 13 distinct companions who actually witnessed the incident. It is extremely unlikely that 13 witnesses would conspire to falsify a fact, especially since lying about the Prophet = apostasy in Islam. The 'flowing water' miracle was reported by +72 companions.,, etc.
...God/Allah tried to buy out the Indian Pagans with the British empire, but they refused. Same with the Chinese. Does this make sense?
- This would decidedly be against all beliefs in Islam. Allah is Singular & Transcendent Creator, as in disjoint from creation. Thus, He does not have any co-gods & does not interact with the world. This is the paramount belief in Islam: Tawheed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who won the debates?Kamala and WarrenAll the media and polls say so.Pretty obvious from anyone watching as well.
- The Media say whatever they want, as they've always done. They did the same with Bernie back in the day... The polls, however, are on Yang's side [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/poll-who-do-you-think-won-the-second-night-of-the-democratic-debate-vote-now].
Who's your favorite candidate?YangI think the UBI is an interesting concept to discuss.
- It's a very persuasive concept too...
Who's the most qualified to be president?TulsiShe wants us to get out of the Middle East Including dropping all sanctions on Iran, allowing Iran to get the bomb and let them duke it out with Israel with no US involvement.
- That's not a bad dream, but is it enough for presidential qualification? How does that help the American people?
Who do you believe is going to win this race?WarrenThe fix is in.
- I don't disagree, but the age of media monopoly is over, & last elections proved it. They messed with Bernie's success, they lost the race. They meddled with Trump, he won anyways, despite their efforts otherwise. Corporate Media doesn't have monopoly on information anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who won the debates?Kamala and WarrenWho's your favorite candidate?YangWho's the most qualified to be president?TulsiWho do you believe is going to win this race?Warren
- Can you justify your answers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So wait, instead of paying taxes to the government, the government pays me taxes?
- It's a dividend, i.e. a share of America's success. You still pay taxes, more so in fact...
That sounds crazy. If America elects this guy, tgey will certainly deserve their crazy check.
- Why do you think it's crazy?
Created:
Posted in:
- You've probably seen the debates, according to you:
Who won the debates?
Who's your favorite candidate?
Who's the most qualified to be president?
Who do you believe is going to win this race?
***
- If I had to answer I'd say:
Who won the debates?
- Andrew Yang (the polls agree), because he about said the only meaningful thing in the entire debate, 1000$ a month for every American over 18. The rest was just yapping & whining.
Who's your favorite candidate?
- Probably Andrew Yang, he's the least annoying.
Who's the most qualified to be president?
- Definitely Andrew Yang. First, he's got a *plan* & a list of policies no other candidate even remotely has. Second, he actually lives in the 21st century, as opposed to all the other candidates still in their 20th century little worlds. Third, he is 100% neutral -not White, not Black, not Hispanic, not a woman, not gay... he is 100% uncontroversial ; he's Asian for God sake. Finally, this asian dude who had no chance whatsoever of ever becoming a president, basically came up with the most genius idea to get elected guaranteed ever conceived by men: the largest wide scale bribery-at-election project in history, a cash-for-votes promise of a WHOPPING 700 Thousand USD per person in their lifetime... Now, that's just pure genius.
Who do you believe is going to win this race?
- Of course Andrew Yang. Let's not kid ourselves. Would you rather have more talks about "race" & "gun violence" & "health" & "abortion rights", or would you rather have a $1000 a month in your pocket no questions asked (on top of race & all the rest)? [*this question does not concern the top 5%]. There simply ain't enough words in this world about "race" & "abortion" that would replace $12K free money per year.
***
- That been said, although I'm not too keen on the USA succeeding because once they have problems of their own they'll get off everyone else's back & stop wrecking havoc all over the world & leave it at peace, but I do believe that $1000 a month for every American citizen should about solve virtually every problem the US has right now. Crimes would drop significantly, wealth disparity would shrink, health & education would improve, domestic violence would decrease, workplace environment would soften... etc. At least this is good for the American people, probably not for the corporations...
Tell us what YOU think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If God and Jesus are the same, as many Christians will have us believe, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus (god) beg himself (god) in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself ( god) from having to be crucified?Matthew 26:39And further, why would Jesus (god) ask himself why he (god) has forsaken himself (god) by allowing himself (god) to be crucified?Matthew 27:46This is truly a awkward subject for many Christians to discuss considering that it gives the impression that if God & Jesus are one and the same as they believe, then it shows real signs of schizophrenia at worse and a delusional disorder at least.
- Stephen, you seem to share our beliefs, why not convert?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You know more about Islam then I do. I got a few questions.
- Alright.
What are the odds of going to Jinnah/Heaven according to your religion?
- It's Jannah. According to the Hadith, 1 in 1000 of all -conscious- creatures (including humans & jinn) goes to Jannah/Heaven (those whose good deeds outweigh their bad deeds), while the other 999 goes either to Jahannam/Hell (those whose bad deeds outweigh their good deeds) or to Aaraf (those whose good & bad deeds are balanced), until they eventually leave for Jannah themselves. The idea is there is a sort of bridge (Sirat) over Hell everyone must cross, at the end of which there lies the gates of Heaven. Across this bridge there are traps that pull evil downwards & push good away. If one's good deeds outweigh one's bad deeds, they'll eventually be pushed away further & further until they escape the bridge free from any evil. If one's bad deeds outweigh one's good deeds, they'll eventually be pulled down into the Fire until all their evil is cleansed, then pushed away again out of Hell. If one's good deeds balance out their bad deeds, they should barely escape the bridge with nothing to show for, thus joined to the Aaraf until God decides to send them to Heaven. Only those of a pure soul can go into Heaven.
How do you know Islam is correct, as opposed to the other religions that exist?
- Preponderance of evidence. First, the authenticity of the Quran is easily verifiable, unlike any other religious book. Second, the claims of the Quran are equally verifiable & sound, unlike the absurdities of other religious (Trinity & such). Third, the life & teachings & miracles of the prophet of Islam, Muhammed (pbuh), are much more accessible & verifiable. We can talk more in depth about this if you wish.
Do you think the following idea has any merit:?What if every God that ever existed (The Christian one, the Muslim one, etc.) colonized this planet like Europe colonized Africa, and where the Christian God influenced became Christian majority(Most of Europe, Most of the Americas, etc) , where the Muslim God influenced became Islamic (The Arab world) etc. and areas change faiths based on the purchasing ability of the religions. An example would be the Christian God buying the Roman empire from Pagans, which explains why the Roman empire went Christian so fast. Atheism is an independence movement and the Christian God and Bhudda decided to give their colonies independence since Christian territory and China are becoming more secular.
- I don't quite understand this to be honest. Are you saying God literally conquered Europe or Africa & such?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
- You're welcome to participate in a formal debate too, disgusted...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't care about winning I just enjoy these conversations. I am less fond of formal debates. Even on ddo I did not participate in them regularly.
- Here is you chance to try a formal debate. Then you wouldn't mind losing either, no reason not to participate.
Mon sequitur. Blame shifting. Falsely conflating disagreement with defect dies nothing to prove your argument or to disprove mine.
- Do you even know what any of that means. Hint: no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
I think China's capacity as a world superpower is largely overrated. While they do have potential, it does seem as if their recent growth has been backfiring and has been met with certain deeper-rooted problems.
- 4.5 times the population of the US, 6 times its agricultural output, 2.5 times its industrial output, 1.25 its GDP & 3 times its annual growth rate. By 2030, Chinese economy will become at least twice that of the US. I don't know, sounds pretty underrated. I just love the denial.
For instance,- Chinese "mercantilism" is facing backlash at the onslaught of populism in the industrialized world. Initiating with Trump, I expect to see more trade restrictions.
- You think this is the 80s? Much of the world's trade is happening in Asia.
- Resistance to Chinese influence has risen in some areas, with tensions recently rising in Africa.
- That's what they keep telling you.
- If Russia is to improve its relations with the western world, it's possible to see "Sino-Soviet split 2.0." With this in mind, China is left without a strong ally.
- Chine-Russian relations are beyond that at this point.
- China's internal problems from its aging population, human rights abuses, environmental degradation, etc, are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.
- Which are being addressed pretty effectively...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I'm betting against it. Their one child policy is going to bite them in the ass HARD when it comes to healthcare costs while environmentally the whole country is going to complete sh*t. They will have to grapple with a lot of the problems the US slammed into in the late 20th century, but on a much more massive scale.The population demographics of European countries also effectively bars any of them from achieving superpower status, especially given the limitations on land they actually control.My money long term is on Canada of all places. If global warming really picks up, they are arguably in the best position for it as land becomes more fertile/arable and melting ice sheets unveil new access to natural resources buried underground. They recently overtook the US as having the healthiest middle class of any country, and as long as they dont go too far to the left with their policies they could certainly achieve powerful status by the end of the century (though they will still be borderline irrelevant for at least another 20 years)
- Canada?! I'm never sure when you're trolling or actually serious. Which instance is this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I see no reason to believe you would offer a better argument in a formal debate than you have offered here.
- Then it's your win, even more reason to debate.
Even blind person's are aware of the sun. It can be felt shining upon ones face. It is an undeniable part of our world but Allah is not detectable in the same way. Unless Allah is somehow demonstrable even to a non-believer he is not comparable with a documented, observable, independently and scientifically explainable object like the sun.
- I guess you're worse than blind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The sun is not a good corollary since it is observable and no god(s) are.
- Exactly my point. So really can't help someone who can't see the sun. How about that debate though?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Nice, you keeping thinking you know others. Please try to look around and get out of your narcissistic cage. I'm laughing at that bc it's kinda sad.
- More emotions...?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
- Look, there is no point is arguing with someone when I say 'look the sun is up' he closes his eyes & says 'there is no sun'. Why don't we have a formal debate over this? Maybe then you'll be forced to acquire more 'understanding'.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
.Indeed your link, the link that you have provided as some kind of evidence to counter my point, doesn't actually mention "christian" or muslim" now does it. It just says herdsmen & farmers
- How come your sources are talking about Christians & Muslims then? If not horrendously biased...
Did you not expect me to read and research your link a little further.? I was curious as to why you would post a link that actually supports the point of this thread.
- I suspect you can't differentiate between 'support' & 'disprove'.
And no, not "suddenly". Since the MUSLIM TERRORIST ATTACK on 9/11/ 2001 I have been researching why it is that thousands upon thousands ( a very small number of the 1.5 billion I know) muslims want to murder anyone who isn't muslim, .Yes my muslim awakening was right there, where on that day it took only 19 muslims to bring a massive US city to its knees murdering over 3,000 people and where muslims around the world actually celebrated this violent unprovoked attack. Nope, no outpouring of grief or outrage from the Western muslim communities. No marches by thousands of western muslims against the violence saying "not in my name", no songs of " give peace a chance", in fact as you well know, MILLIONS ( a very small number of the 1.5 billion I know) of muslims around the world were very happy.
- Have you been living under a rock? 3000 American deaths vs. 4 million Muslim deaths. What a twisted sense you have, utterly despicable.
I have found though from my own research 2001-2010 that it wasn't just white westerners that were woken up to the very real and serious threat of Islam , many muslims too realised the horror and violence of Islam and the violent instructions that are written in the Quran. And many became apostates. So that can only be a good thing can't it.
- LOL! Fantasy research, This is no new thing, these Westerns have been projecting their bloodlust savagery on others to invade & massacre them with no remorse for centuries. The world is changing buddy, the West is growing weaker, old attitudes don't work anymore & no one cares. What goes around comes around.
You seem to have totally forgotten the point of this thread:Seriously: Where Is The Outrage? Where is the Western Media? Do you see that word, WESTERN?
- No buddy, it is you who has forgotten your own point...
Jacinda Ardern tells Christchurch service "New Zealand mourns with you" – as it happenedI am still waiting for the outpouring and candlelight vigils of mourning from the Dutch muslim communities for the victims of the muslim terrorists attack in the Netherlands. You may remember this. It was first reported that this was all down to a "domestic dispute" by the media, until it simply couldn't be denied any longer that it was in fact a terrorist attack, then it was - all quiet on the western front..
- Where is your outpouring for the millions of Muslim deaths by western countries?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Limited understanding lol... says the guy obsessed with ancient ape scriptures...
- Too emotional...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Blame shifting. Moving the goal post.
- This is some deep Dunning-Kruger effect.
Created:
-->
@Uther-Penguin
The republicans will have a ravenous wolf.
- I vote vulture.
The dems get a wolf too, just dressed up like a sheep.
- I say condor, vulture pretending to be an eagle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You have still not disproved the flying spaghetti monster and until you do I see little difference between pastafarian scripture and the quran.
- Hence, 'limited understanding'. I can't help you there brother.
Created:
-->
@Alec
The GOP mascot could be a bald eagle. It represents freedom. I don't know about the left.
- Holding a dollar note... freedom for corporations...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The only gods throughout history, and there were many, who teach or command their followers to fight have been gods of war in which those particular faiths have been involved in wars as a result. Is Allah another god of war?
- Wow, you live! Hi there friend. I guess your ability to make witless remarks hasn't withered. Sup?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What is the difference between contingent and sufficient?
- Nothing in common!
Why is this the case?
- Already addressed.
They are not identical. They have different responsibilities but still are the two most powerful beings. One created life one created non-life. Why can't this be the case?
- Powerful beings, sure. Divine necessary beings, no. The moment a being is contingent/restricted/caused, that being is not a necessary being, by definition.
What do you mean by contingent?
- A contingent being, a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed. That is, it needs an explanation for its existence & for the change that occurs within it. For instance, a being unable to create life is restricted, thus requires an explanation for that restriction -exterior explanation, which makes it a non-necessary being, i.e. a contingent being.
That part wasn't the problem I have. Why can't God live off our souls and then when he has used them simply put that soul into a baby in order to revitalise it?
- Whatever that god is, it's simply not a necessary being.
Creatio Ex Nihilo as in something from nothing. Can you point to an instance this happening?
- Which is why that requires an explanation, something can not come from nothing without an explanation.
So you are incapable of translating the words or finding a site which you agrees with you to cite here? I find this rather annoying when you put in the effort to find "SEVEN" renown translations even though you sent me the arabic version not the one that is translated. Where was the translated version can you cite a source?
- Already done. Refer to previous posts.
- God = necessary being =/= contingent being. God is uncaused first cause, thus can not be caused (aka contingent).God equals necessary being while also being a contingent being?
- "=/=" means 'distinct' *not* 'equal'.
So contingent is basically an uncaused being?
- No, have you actually read ANYTHING I said you'd know it's actually the opposite.
How can something be uncaused and exist?
- God. Refer to OP.
How does this help me see your side again?
- I suspect nothing does.
I'll repeat what I said "This does not explain why God can't be a contingent being. Why being a contingent strips God out of its God-hood?"
- I'll repeat again, God = necessary being =/= contingent being.
1) Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,2) Allah, the Eternal Refuge.3) He neither begets nor is born,4) Nor is there to Him any equivalent."1st verse does support your statement.2nd verse does not. Eternal does not mean God is self-sufficient.3rd verse does support what you said with it.4th verse does support what said with it.
- Seriously, are you like dumb or something? Turn on the translations:
MUHSIN KHAN
Allah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).
PICKTHALL
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
YUSUF ALI
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
MUFTI TAQI USMANI
Allah is Besought of all, needing none.
ABUL ALA MAUDUDI
Allah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB
Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
I have a problem with the 2nd verse. Being eternal does not mean it is self-sufficient. I pointed to my souls example. Simply have God feed on souls and it would be eternal because when it is done with a soul simply give it to another baby and have it ready for a harvest. Yes some people die young or never get born but guess God got hungry. Why can't I say this and still God being eternal?
- How old are you?
Why are you getting mad when theologians are assuming self-sufficiency when the verse only mentions "Eternal"?
- LOL! I'm not getting mad, I'm LMAO this is too stupid.
Why are you putting theologians higher than the holy book that you follow?
- No. I'm putting the Prophet (pbuh) authority higher than your stupid source, as are the theologians. Narrated Ibn Abbas, "They said, 'what is Samad?' he (pbuh) said, it is He on whom all is dependent" [Maftih al-Ghayb].
I guess when you don't have a point laugh? It was easy for me to find definition. Simply type in the verse and a site came up then I checked another site and they matched. What is your excuse for not being able to find the world sufficient in the 112:4 verse?
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, this is just precious. Are you an ostrich? You like sticking your head in the sand pretending things don't exist...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
One need look no further than premises 2 and 3. There are a number of problems with these premises. One problem is that things don't have a single cause. Causality is an unbroken chain of intertwined events leading back to the beginning of the universe.
- Whatever that chain is, it's still an explanation. This is irrelevant to the premise.
Another problem is that even if a contingent thing exists that has a cause, that does not mean that all contingent things have a cause.
- Already addressed in the argument. Had you bothered to actually read it before objecting...
In fact, we know of contingent things that do not have any apparent cause: virtual particles.
- LOL! HAHAHAHAHA... You people being so funny making me laugh today.
A third problem is that saying that the cause is something other than itself ignores the fact that the matter contained in something must exist prior to it being created. So the existence of that matter is part of the cause, and insofar as that matter is part of something, it is part of the cause of something. So things do cause themselves in this sense.
- Regardless of the archaic nature of this concept (form vs. hyle), it doesn't change the validity of the argument either way.
You are cherry-picking only those attributes in the Quran that happen to match the argument.
- Not me, & not cherry-picking.
The Quran also says God is merciful, compassionate, and just, along with many other attributes. The argument makes no mention of those. So amending the conclusion to say that the argument specifically supports God as defined in the Quran is misleading.
- These are not attributes of essence, rather attributes of beauty. When specifying a definition of God in His essence, the attributes of essence (existence, oneness, transcendence & will) are those of concern, evidently.
Then you should amend the conclusion to omit the part about the Quran.
- No. Irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I suppose some god(s) could but if that is the case I'm not sure how to distinguish between the "true" godclaim and the thousands of "false" godclaims. They All have a similar level of evidence. The anecdotal experience of its followers and it's scriptural writings/recitations. I swear I am having virtually the same conversation with Yassine. "Oh allah explains everything and you can't explain anything therefore allah". Please don't bother telling me why you think Islam is incorrect by the way it doesn't matter. Islam being incorrect does not make you correct.
- Please don't blame your limited understanding & ignorance on your interlocutor. Dunning-Kruger effect much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why can't you use the word sufficient?
- Because it's the wrong word...?
Where is the logical rigor to get to God being sufficient?
- Wut?
No wait. I am speaking about 2 different creators which do different things. I didn't know you brought in the identical part. Why can't lets say 1 does 50% of the work and another does the other 50%. Why can't there two creators like this?
- If you have two different creators each 50%, then they are both restricted by each-other, which makes them contingent. A contingent being can not be God.
Why can't the creator be sufficient on humans souls and still be the creator?
- What is "sufficient on humans souls"?
So Creatio Ex Nihilo can occur without you pointing of it happening?
- Wut?
That doesn't help me. Do you have a source which can translate words into English and you can verify it to be true? I used a source and I did not get self-sufficient instead of everlasting.
- Then I can't help you. If translation of the verse is what you're looking for, then I provided not one not two but SEVEN from renown translations.
What do you even by contingent?Why can't God be divine and be contingent?
- God = necessary being =/= contingent being. God is uncaused first cause, thus can not be caused (aka contingent).
This does not explain why God can't be a contingent being. Why being a contingent strips God out of its God-hood?
- Because it strictly contradicts it.
I can't read Arabic. I would like you to find a website which you agree with the translations of the words then I can use the verse copy it there and see if the definition is changed to self-sufficient.
I doubt it is because the site only said God was everlasting and I used another site as well.Why are you using theologians tell you what it says in the Islamic holy book?
- Dude! I don't care what site you use, your obstinate ignorance is not my issue...
It was easy for me to find the definition yet you required theologians to even define words.
- LOL! You can't even read Arabic, get outta here!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I see you never graduated kindergarten playground argumentation. Run along child.
- It that an echo I'm hearing? I see you talking to yourself. Child, indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Then why do you?
- Still talking to yourself...?
Your god is contingent upon the story of Muhammad, without that story your god doesn't exist.
- Can you prove this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It is not whimsical. I have considered many ideas of god. I am agnostic btw... bc at this point, that is the only logical conclusion we can make absent hard evidence. However, i lean towards the spiritual side bc i do believe there is enough weak evidence to suspect there is more than just this. So at this point, all i can do is question which platforms make the most sense.Although there are other reasons, the question i've asked throughout this isn't a frivolous question, it's an important question your religion can't answer which is why i don't believe it is a logical choice.If i am considering which platform i favor the most, there are many traditions and philosophies that point towards this "oneness" platform that i've gone through... and, yes, in the end of the day... i used my own mind and simplified it to one thing... an infinite consciousness. The implications of which seem to be that it can manifest as a corporeal entity. if that implication alone is true, it answers most of the questions other platforms cannot, including the paradise paradox of the Abrahamic faiths. At least that's what i've noticed through debating it... no one has given me a reason not to lean towards this platform.
- So you're not looking for the truth but what suits you?
So, if you have something... just go at it. Simply telling me i can't "choose" this or that bc i feel like it ... one it's not true, and two you choose your religion so why can't i? But i truly don't want to get into that argument bc it's frivolous. I want you to tell me why my version of what i find to be "god" is incorrect?
- I already did, why don't me tell you why your version is correct?
If the paradise question makes you feel uncomfortable... maybe you can tell me how you know this statement to be true... Why can't everything be "god"? Why am i wrong to pick the infinite consciousness platform?
- Define 'god' then. God is in creator/first cause/necessary being can not be "everything".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I have a very limited education.
- Don't feel bad.
The quran is a book, the fact that you are incapable of recognising a book puts you in the brainstem only class of arab.
- You seem under the impression that the nonsense you spout can magically turn into truth if you assert it enough.
Only humans write books, your book was written by humans who claim your god exists. Nothing claimed the existence of gods before the existence of humans, ergo gods are the creration of humans.
- What an illogical mess. Are you capable of constructing an argument or formulating an objection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
How do you know i am talking from whims & fantasy (monism, pantheism, oneness, non-duality, panpsychism, etc. etc.)? You know nothing of my true beliefs yet you can already mock them? So, what you believe is not nonsense... but what other people believe is nonsense bc you don't like what they're saying.. got it; touche. How do you know god isn't feeling everything we are feeling? How do you know god doesn't know every single one of our stories? How do you know god isn't simultaneously both our happiness and sadness? You can pick anyone of these questions... but keep ignoring the main question (simple at that)... why doesn't your Koran know my paradise? What... you get to live for your paradise but i don't? That sounds pretty selfish man. It's almost like you're looking down on me. Is that how the Koran makes you feel towards me?
- Again, this is too whimsical. The existence of God -& God Himself- is independent of your perception or feeling. You can't say I believe god is... therefore god is.
Umm... projection?
- Glad you admit it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Independently verifiable evidence not the claims of men or those contained in the quran. Do you have any or not?
- Evidence for...?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Several of your premises are suspect (for instance the oversimplified view of causality)
- If you have an objection against these premises, establish it, or else dismissed.
, but this conclusion really caught my eye. The way you toss in the underlined part almost as an afterthought is striking, when nothing in the argument implies anything whatsoever about any particular theistic God.
- Is that a fact...? I don't know, you must be blind...
God is defined as a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular (simple & unique) Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (distinct from all creation) being, from the scriptural definition of Allah in Chapter 112 of the Quran....25. Therefore, a Necessary & Singular & Transcendent & Absolute being exists. [ follows from 7. & 15. & 18. & 24. ]C. Therefore, God exits. [ as defined in the Quran ]
***
Even if someone finds this argument convincing, it in no way implies the truth of any particular religion.For example, God might exist, but be named Bob, not Allah. Or God might exist, but Mohammad was not his prophet. Or God might exist, but find our worship distasteful. Or God might exist, but there is no afterlife.In short, even if the argument is sound, it could still be the case that nearly all the Quran is untrue.
- That's true indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you are claiming this can also apply to beings I'm afraid I must disagree.
- Take a philosophy class, this is pointless.
Immaterial and imaginary are synonyms.
- Take a philosophy class, I just can't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You are the one who said transcendent beings are unobservable not I
- Yes, by design. Immaterial things can not be observed...
but if you are correct the logic is sound. As for deductive reasoning you still need some observable evidence to base your deductions upon.
- No, not necessarily. Universals, for instance, are categorically unobservable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Something unobservable cannot be demonstrated. Something that cannot be demonstrated cannot be proved.
- Is this some hogwash logic? We talk about 'demonstration' in deductive reasoning, which -as it happens- concerns unobservable things. Ouch! Anything else?
If any given being is transcendent it is unobservable.If any given being is unobservable it is undeminstrable.If any given being is undeminstrable it is impossible to distinguish from a being which does not exist
- Invalid, unsound & false. Since your claim is "indemonstrable", I'm just gunna take your word for it & say it doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then you can never prove the existence of such a being. Period.
- You seem pretty pushful there fella, I'm sure you are about to tell us why that is the case? Eh Mr. Period?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No sir I did not. You brought it up by making yet another claim. This one about authority. You have offered no evidence of that either.
- Ahem: "The way you personally interpret the quran does not prevent others from interpreting it in a way that does seem to suggest that violence is more or less compulsory".
Ok what I want to know is how have you determined the truth of the quran without using the quran or the claims/authority of men as your evidence.
- That is, to establish the proposition: The Quran (as a recitation) = revelation from God. This proposition can be illustrated as: [[ God =Inspiration=> Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) =Revelation=> Companions =Recitation=> Us ]]. Thus, we must show that the Recitation (the Quran) we currently possess is indeed the Revelation which the Prophet (pbuh) spoke to his companions ; we also must show that this Revelation is indeed an Inspiration from God. To establish the latter, we need to prove that Prophet (pbuh) is indeed a true prophet inspired by God.
The claim is not and can never be adequate evidence for itself and the definition has provided a description not a being we can observe.
- If you can observe it, then it's not a necessary being or a transcendent being anymore.
In fact your definition would seem to describe a being whose existence we can never confirm in any way.
- Whose existence I just proved.
From my perspective it's hard to tell the difference between something that we can never confirm and something which does not exist.
- Wut???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why can't God be sufficient on us and still be the creator? You know take our souls as part of his sufficiency and then create another soul only to be used to fuel the creator. Why is my argument here wrong?
- You mean 'contingent'? No it can't, for a contingent being can not be a creator. 'Contingent' means that change from one state to another requires an exterior agent, which means a contingent being is not truly in control of his own fate, let alone the fate of others. It's nice & fanciful to think about all the mythical ways God is or can be, but these notions rarely hold against logical rigor.
Why do they have to be identical?
- As demonstrated, for otherwise you encounter a contradiction, as shown.
A God can be in-charge of lifeB God can be in-charge of non-lifeBoth have done their job at creating and now are sitting back.Why can't this be the case?
- This simply makes them non-god beings, for they are contingent beings, for they are restricted by an exterior limitation or agent.
You didn't really address what I said. Why can't the creator still be the creator if it is like humans?
- If it's like humans, then it's contingent. It can not be contingent & creator at the same time.
Still does not help me understand with what you mean. From what we know everything has a cause and effect. What do you have that can state Creatio Ex Nihilio is possible or the cause and effect principle is wrong?
- Cause & effect principle? You mean 'sufficient reason'? The aforementioned argument assumes the 'sufficient reason' principle indeed.
Where did you get this from. Wikipedia states Samad means Everlasting does not mean it is self sufficient. How did you get self-sufficient from everlasting and where are you getting the meaning of these words from?
- From their proper sources, aka Tafsir. Narrated Ibn Abbas, "They said, 'what is Samad?' he (pbuh) said, it is He on whom all is dependent" [Maftih al-Ghayb]. The word essentially means the eternal on whom all depends.
- You can find the same meaning in many translations of the verse:
MUHSIN KHAN
Allah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).
PICKTHALL
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
YUSUF ALI
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
MUFTI TAQI USMANI
Allah is Besought of all, needing none.
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
MUFTI TAQI USMANI
Allah is Besought of all, needing none.
ABUL ALA MAUDUDI
Allah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need
Allah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB
Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
Why can't God be alive but in a different universe of something outside ours?
- That would make Him contingent, thus not divine anymore.
Why is this the case and why can't there be any other way?
- Any other way = contingent being =/= God.
Okay. I would like to know how you defined your words. A link to them would help instead of you telling me this word means this.
- I'm not defining anything, this is how the theologians & exegetists define the words. [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=6&tSoraNo=112&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
That disproves your type of god, not the god i am claiming. Your type of god is suppose to be for everyone, however, everyone is different. Everyone goes their own ways, everyone has their own god they pray to, everyone experiences their god how they are suppose to, etc. We are all subjective beings on our own journey. Only a god that is "everything" can explain this subjectivity. In such a case, no one is left out. Everyone is an imagine or a piece of the puzzle which is this god (i don't even call god anymore bc it's so much more than that term, but one can say it's appropriate).On the flip side, your god is only for you. You think you are interpreting everything correctly, and same with whoever else agrees with you... but, the religion is still flawed. If it was perfect, the middle east wouldn't look the way it looks today. Satanic music has saved more people than any major religion. But that's just one side of it that really isn't the issue here... the issue here is your god is your god. I don't hate it or think it shouldn't be your god... but your god doesn't make any sense to me. You can't explain this. Like i said in the beginning of this thread, the 'god' i believe in has given me everything. Understanding, direction, spiritual experience, and most importantly... if i live how i am suppose to, i will also get my paradise. On the flip side, the humans that wrote the Koran didn't think of people like me... this is proof your god makes no sense, to me. You are not promising me direction, etc etc... and most importantly paradise. You say i will be eternal in paradise... that is literally one of my worst nightmares... i would correlate that to hell.
- What are talking about man? If God exists, He is certainly not contingent on your feelings of Him! What utter nonsense is this??? Indeed, we are talking about different things here. You are speaking from whims & fantasy, I'm not.
How does the Koran answer that? Did the humans think that some people might think paradise is living and dying like myself, did it think of some people think it's reincarnation, did it think some people just want to be in a fairy tale? Your god is only made for you. And again, my platform answers why this is... and since my god is everything... it explains why i'm like this, why you're like how you are, and why others are how they are... That answers my question... your god doesn't. Like i said, that disproves your god to me and i haven't heard of a convincing enough argument otherwise, at least from Christians... that's why i'm genuinely interested in your take on this bc i don't know what the Koran promises... but if it's 72 virgins for eternity, or even eternity alone... i'm not kidding... i consider that to be hell. Even if the air is made out of heroin.This question is one of my key points, there's others... but, if you can't get passed this than the others are moot. My paradise is eternally living and dying... Living and dying means i will live infinite realities as a corporeal being experiencing that reality dying and experiencing another reality (since my true self is part of an infinite consciousness 'god' that manifests as corporeal being to experience). That is literally my paradise. My platform gives me this, but your god doesn't even know people like me exist.... i wonder why.
- Just because you believe it is???
Created: