>>18573652
Firstly, which god are you?
Second, you should take several courses in communication skills. I can give you some recommendations.

>>18573675
Islam
>I can give you some recommendations
Please go ahead, I want to debate like the english men!

>>18573652
>your creator
My dad?

>>18573652
"I cant respect a purportedly perfect being who yearns to be recognized by literally ants. I'm sorry but I just cant do it"

>>18573683
The creator of the heavens and the earth, the most merciful, the most compassionate, the One by whom all wills are sustained, the One to whom the mountains prostrate, the ordainer of destiny.
When the light of this universe fades, only His face will remain radiant. the remembrance of His enduring countenance.
The similitude of His light is as a niche,
within it a lamp; the lamp enclosed in glass, the glass gleaming like a resplendent star, kindled from a blessed tree, an olive, neither of the east nor the west. whose oil would almost glow forth, even if no fire touched it.
Light upon Light.

>>18573690
>Oh my servants,
>You sin by night and by day, yet I forgive all sins. So seek forgiveness of Me, and I shall forgive you.
>You will never reach the power to harm Me, nor the power to benefit Me.
>Were the first of you and the last of you, to be as pious as the most pious heart of any man, that would not increase My kingdom in the least.
>And were the first of you and the last of you, to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man, that would not diminish My kingdom in the least.
>Were you all to rise in one place, and each to ask of Me, and were I to grant every request, that would not reduce what I possess, any more than a needle dipped into the sea diminishes its waters.

>It is but your deeds that I reckon for you, and then I recompense you accordingly. So let him who finds good, praise God; and let him who finds otherwise, blame none but himself. (Hadith Qudsi 17 sahih Muslim)
God doesn't need our praise or acknowledgement, he is the all Sovereign, The self-sufficient, the very definition of abundance.
Your worship does not sustain him, his light sustains you.

>>18573710
I'm fine with seeking moral forgiveness and with recognizing my faults and trying to do better, just not with a God who thinks its very important to be recognized and worshipped given proper stature. Those are status-hungry human traits and not holy ones.

>>18573718
Put another way, I can accept a God that demands beautiful deeds and a beautiful soul, but not one that demands belief.

>>18573652
Books, human intelligence and morals existing is not evidence of a god existing. If a creator exists then surely it will know this and will not fault me for not believing.

>>18573697
I don't think my dad did that stuff.

>>18573652
Why are theists so obsessed with patriarchal authority figures

>>18573728
I hear you, but that presupposes a neutrality our paradigm inherently doesn't grant. In Islamic theology, men have a natural inclination towards recognizing the transcendent order through our fitrah. It's negation is a supression of senses and intellect. even John Calvin, in his articulation of sensus divinitatis says (or rather concedes) something similar (though worse); were you to fall back on your i assume a christian upbringing.
The search for knowledge, universals of morality, act of reasoning itself are not external "proofs of God" but they're self-evident-truths flowing from the recognition of that disposition.
How can you reason, with all your knowledge, that all what we appreciate and count on; sure as we are the sun rises in the morning, That all of it stands without a necessary non-contingent entity to sustain it?
This is not a "God of Gaps" argument, I'm trying a different angle

>>18573754
You've grown tall, strutting in your big boy pants, and now imagine yourself towering over your creator?
What's your max bench press?
That is arrogance, to be quite frank. You cannot split the earth open, nor rival the mountains in height. The very act of worship is about reminding man of his limits, his inherent dependency on others and especially towards God.

>>18573652
Why you no give me positive canthal tilt, ideal gonial angle, ideal chin to philtrum ratio, ideal facial symmetry, large frame, height of 6'10, luscious hair, high cheekbones, loving personality, excellent communication skills, neurotypicality, birth in a wealthy family in a first world country and high IQ >:(

>>18573766
You may hold those ideas to be self-evident truths but I obviously don't share your opinion, and that's what it is, just your opinion.
>How can you reason, with all your knowledge, that all what we appreciate and count on; sure as we are the sun rises in the morning, That all of it stands without a necessary non-contingent entity to sustain it?
Because I don't think that any of those things require theism, it is entirely plausible to me and much more likely that they are just naturally emerging properties of complex life.

>>18573719
belief is the necessary precondition for good-deeds and a beautiful soul to have meaning. The quran uses the imagery of light and darkness to elucidate this,
>God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. He is Light upon Light.
>And their deeds are like darknesses in a deep sea, covered by waves crashing upon waves, with clouds sealing the traces of His Light. If one stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it. And he to whom God has not granted light, for him there is no light (Quran 24:40).
Now, Ibn Taymiyyah presents a model of revelation, reason and fitrah as faculties of man that demand one's belief to harmonize. The deeds by themselves may have positive reverberations through the world, based on the system of morality we inherit from God, but they are unanchored and without clarity. They lack the transformative purification of belief which God demands. i.e it filters and refines his light within you, bringing forth your true lustrous form, according to our theology.
And without it, even the closest thing to you, your own hand, which is the most self-evident would remain unseen.

Theology is often mistaken, and I blame trinitarians for this, in a sense that it's meant to purifies one's character, instead of just being an intellectual masturbation session of pointless pontifications and metaphysical abstractions.
And this of course ignores the deeper reality that God IS truth. To recognize him is to recognize truth.

>>18573652
Historical and archeological evidence makes all religions look incredibly contingent.

>>18573834
No, nothing of that is true or makes sense as anything more than a sophist distraction from the apparent fact that the perfect God seems to be a narcissist who puts immense value into believing in him, acknowledging him, bowing down before him, and building stuff in his honor.

It is 100% unpersuasive to disingenuously argue that sucking Gods cock isnt flattery because there can be no truth without the illuminating light of Gods cock, because Gods cock IS truth

>>18573777
All of this is achievable through the sciences; the gift of intellect embued by God.
Have you looked into looksmaximization? maybe not height, you're gonna have to be our cute and adorable short-king. But it's probably your grim outlook on life that Sarah rejected you.
God actually addresses this, he says
>The sons of Adam inveigh against the vicissitudes of Time, and I am Time, the immutable river of destiny, through My hand flows the night and the day. (Hadith Qudsi 4 Sahih Muslim)

And to some life may be more challenging, to others in some-way it's easier. But, from their reference, you can never know what pain anyone's going through.
put your faith in Him because,
>With hardship comes ease, with hardship comes ease - (quran 94:5-6)
And never be envious of the treasures that others possess. It's a cardinal sin. Instead, be thankful for what you have, and work for your aspirations and dreams.
>the messenger of God said, "What makes you weep?" I said, "why should I not cry that this mat has left marks on your side, and I see little in this cupboard? Caesar and Khosrau live among fruits and springs, while you are His chosen, yet this is your cupboard." And he responded, "are you not pleased, theres is for this world and for us eternity?" (Sahih Muslim 1479)

I suck at pep talk, let's stick to the topic of the thread.

>>18573652
Following your prophets teachings turned the cradles of civilization into dysfunctional landfills. So I did not think it was likely that your prophet was reciting God’s words.

>>18573849
Well I wasn't being a sophist, the clear inference of my posts was that God doesn't WANT belief in a way the man's ego requires validation, because that presupposes a being of contingency or emotional dependence.
God by definition is the opposite; a necessary being whose kingdom is neither diminished nor enriched by our worship.
You can't associate qualities like narcissism to him because it's merely a projection of your own psychology of dependency, onto him. Its like saying the Sun needs our eyes to see it, is the Sun narcissistic for demanding we look at it? It gains nothing from our sight; it is light, radiant regardless of whether we see it or hide in a dark cave. WE needs it's light to navigate or grow crops, perceive reality (paraphrase of Plato). It's not a "demand" that the contingent should recognize the necessary.

Also, in many words, I was talking about the grounding for our values. "His light" is a poetic descriptor intimating that human faculties of reason, perception, and fitrah require an anchor or referent to harmonize. Otherwise you cant provide a grounding for your reason or your values, without appealing to your preference or social constructions.
"Good deeds" aren't self-evidently meaningful, if there is no standard beyond contingent human frameworks. Then even "good" is at best an agreement we had some time ago.

The quranic imagery of light and darkness is about THIS contrast. mere actions without belief have effects, that can be felt, but they unanchored, they lack intelligibility and direction. reality itself is unintelligible without a grounding principles, right? And if this truth is real, then recognizing it is a necessity.

>>18573899
Cool, babygirl. There are 50 christian threads on this board right now. You can proselytize them in any of them, on your own time.
I am giving them a respite. Now leave my thread before you catch these slippers.

>>18573981
Doesn’t work that way Muhammad. You asked a question, and now you got an answer.

>>18574005
Ok, what is your religious or non-religious background? I'm having this weird feeling

>>18573652
Well either the evidence he provided me with was insufficient or I was not smart enough to correctly analyze it and come to the right conclusion.

>So why didn't you recognize Him?
Because none of that intelligence and knowledge pointed to him existing. Wow that was easy.

>>18574024
False dilemma. Its not about being smart enough, its about choosing to love others.

>>18574034
Loving others =/= mentally affirming the proposition "God exists".

>>18574031
Its not about intelligence and knowledge. Those are just tools. You can choose to hurt others with your tools, or you can choose to ove others with your tools.

>>18573652
I looked at all the available evidence and came to the conclusion that all common religions are man-made and not divinely inspired.
I also came to the conclusion that if there is a creator god, then he would appreciate intellectual honesty over gambling arguments like Pascal's Wager or fearmongering like the threat of hell for non-compliance.

>>18574038
Nomenclature is also a choice. It's not about how smart you are. You can define things anyway you want. You can choose to say god does not exist, and thatbis your definion. Or you can listen tonwhat others are saying. Loving others is about using shared nomenclature. It is a choice, not a the logical structure, ora framework of knowledge. No one can force you to listen. You have to choose to listen.

File: bibble thumper.jpg (193 KB, 1024x1024)

193 KB JPG

>>18574039
>YOU VILL USE YOUR TRUTH SEEKING TOOLS TO PRETEND ZERE WAS A GLOBAL FLOOD

>>18573682
The tools of knowledge that I have been given show me that Islam is demonstrably untrue, so I am certain that the creator I would be speaking to in your scenario is not Allah.

According to Muhammad, Jinn are very much detectable and very much active. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3316 says "Cover your utensils and tie your water skins, and close your doors and keep your children close to you at night, as the Jinns spread out at such time and snatch things away."

If this were true, now that today we have ubiquitous camera coverage, crime statistics, and police investigation of disappearances of children, we should have recordings of Jinn stealing items and children at night. It should happen much more to non-Muslims than to Muslims because non-Muslims are not performing the rituals Muhammad says will protect you.
Yet we have never, ever, ever detected a Jinn taking utensils, water, or children like Muhammad says they do.

And this should be doubly easy since Muhammad explicitly says that you can see Jinn with your own eyes. Muhammad says "There are in Medina jinns who have accepted Islam, so when you see any one of them, pronounce a warning to it for three days, and if they appear before you after that, then kill it for that is a devil." in https://sunnah.com/muslim:2236. Medina is a large and modern city, we should today see plenty of these like Muhammad says. We do not.

There are many more examples that could be brought up but suffice to say Jinn disprove Islam. They were a core part of Muhammad's worldview and were credited with observable, concrete action in the world. But today we know that they do none of what Muhammad said they do. They're just the Arabian equivalent of poltergeists. Muhammad took them seriously, so we should not take Muhammad seriously.

>>18574043
If you define belief in God as loving others, then under your definition I'm already not an atheist so this entire discussion is utterly pointless. You did not change my view in any way, just shifted words on a screen around to satisfy your aesthetic sensibilities.

Like this: Lmao nigger xdxdxd le le le fuuu puddi puddi
And other intense 4chan debates

>>18574048
Thats a strawman.
If someone is using there tools to hurt you, and force you to believe in something that is not true, then they are not following my advice. You are ignoring what I am saying, and attacking an argument I didn't make.

I never said that you shouldn't question the narrative. I said that you shouldn't ignore it.

We are not even at the point of talking about a narrative if we can't even agree on the definition of a single term.

Naming a single term is not a deep logical framework of knowledge. It's a choice about what we are going to name something. This is stuff babies do, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

>>18574024
as the Christian dude said, you choose not to seek the truth because overtime you become self-satisfied, exhausted, unreceptive.
Whether you're smart enough to deduce the nature of God, that's upto him to decide, not you.
>Lo! We offered the Trust (agency) unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a fool - (quran 33:72)
You bear His Trust. The metaphor here is that the heavens and the earth, massive celestial bodies, prostrated in perfect obedience, because they feared carrying the crushing burden that God's humble servant assumed.
His soul was therein inspired with rebellion, so he could have a grounding for accountability before his creator. But what has man done so far? He has proven to be an ignorant fool.
Man has no choice in having agency, it's as philosopher Sartre puts it, "for Man is condemned to be free". And,
>He is indeed successful who causeth his soul to grow, And he is indeed a failure who stunteth it - (quran 91:7)

>>18574077
That's just your theological coping mechanism. In reality, I just don't find any of the arguments for the existence of God that I've researched convincing enough.

>>18573971
Well I agree on your first paragraph: God, to be consistent, cannot need or worship. But then you go off the rails. Me associating qualities of the abrahamic God persona with narcissism has nothing to do with "projection", and everything to do with that's the way he is being portrayed in scripture and by the Church.

The honest thing for you to do is to concede that if God is real and of the nature that you and me both agree he would have to be, then earthly Scripture and earthly Church are both deeply flawed. You have to chose one.

>>18574081
I'll think about your arguments. Increase in knowledge and understanding, and have a better more focused debate with you next time.

>>18574058
Am pretty sure it's mentioned somewhere they're invisible they're pretty much like demons in Christianity

>>18574163
How in the world could you read what I wrote and think something like that was a response?

>>18573652
Surely the answer to this question would be because of him giving you these things? If the knowledge, morals, and intelligence he gave you led you to the conclusion that he isn't real, isn't that on him? If those things are supposed to get you to recognize him and they don't, that seems like either a failure on his part, or an acceptable loss that he has factored in.

>>18574065
The only thing that we are commanded to do is to love ourselves and others. All the law hangs on these two commands. Thats why it doesn't take a genius to be good. All this philosophy is just a tool, and it all hangs on these two commands.

Loving others and yourself is the kingdom if heaven.

You're right. Im just shifting words around. Its all semantics and nomenclature. Stay good.

>>18574072
>I never said that you shouldn't question the narrative. I said that you shouldn't ignore it.
I don't "ignore" Christianity. It's just laughably fucking wrong and less-laughably dangerous to society.

*Mutters something about you having the superpower to know everything, why you asking me*

>>18574180
We're speaking theology right? How are they different from christian demons? Am just curious about that point you decided to focus on when it's pretty much the same thing in other religions especially Christianity

>>18574265
Not him, but Jinn are their own kind of people. They have free will like humans. Evil Jinn are considered demons (Shayatin).

Jinn are made from fire, humans are made from clay and angels are made from light. Unlike humans, Jinn can have varying shapes and powers. Good Jinn will follow the laws of Allah, while demons will not.

>>18574274
And they're invisible to the human eye no?

>>18574240
You're ignoring the less-laughable reality when you laugh at what is wrong. You think it's not important, but it is.

>>18574275
Normally yes, but they can shapeshift into animals and then they are visible.

>>18574265
>We're speaking theology right? How are they different from christian demons?
The amount that's really known about demons in Christianity could fit on an index card. What specifically they do and when and how often is all unsaid. They only maybe show up two or three times in the entire Old Testament. Then they get very active around Jesus, presumably because they know the significance of the events, but it says they're gone now. They're rare and little-understood life forms from the past.

Whereas, as we saw from those hadith and I could present many more, according to Muhammad Jinn are very active today. He tells you specific, observable actions they perform and gives you a nightly ritual to follow to protect yourself from them. You're even supposed to protect yourself from them whenever you enter a latrine: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/26816/how-can-a-person-conceal-himself-from-the-jinn-when-in-the-toilet

The perform specific actions and we're told a great deal about them. He discusses their actions, location, diet, appearance, differing spiritual beliefs, how to ward them off.

But we can prove today that this is false. There are no Jinn doing anything Muhammad says they do.

>>18574265
Why did you respond to the namefags in my thread? They're a prime example of dunning-kruger effect, and should be avoided on principle.
Coming here, doing a flamboyant little ballet number in front of everyone.

>>18574293
If I'm wrong, refute me: >>18574058

>>18574293
Sorry anon I didn't want to ruin your thread but their gymnastics are funny

>>18574283
Not true though concerning demons in christian lore, they're the same as Islamic lore responsible for some kidnappings and child death and are pretty much the same as the jinn in every way I don't see why you think they're different when all the evil jinn are specifically equated with demons in name and description both are invisible and capable of possession going through walls like ghosts and both are evil spirits why would they be observed

>>18574277
I literally said I don't ignore the less laughable reality that christrasites are destroying society.

>>18573652
If monotheism is the truth, and God intended for me to learn that truth through the application of intelligence to my observations of his creation, then I'd have to ask why he created a universe in which the apparent rules of that universe are inconsistent with his true nature.

Nowhere in all the universe are there any beings that exist in the singular, as a category unto themselves. There are many galaxies, and in each galaxy many stars, and around each star many planets. Likewise, life exists as many separate species, and each species contains many individuals, and each individual is made of many cells. From this, one can extrapolate that if there is a thing called a "god," there would be a multiplicity of gods, not a single monotheist God.

How do I summon a succubus?

>>18574306
>lore
In other words "nonsense made up by superstitious Medieval Europeans". It's the same as Muhammad's blathering about Jinn being nonsense made up by a superstitious early Medieval Arabian.

Are you going to respond to the actual hadith that I brought forward, or are you not? Muhammad credits Jinn with specific, verifiable actions that we can prove they do not perform. He says you can see and interact with them as well, and even tells you how to identify them.

>>18573652
The evidence of humanity's spiritual experiences throughout history definitely suggest that if they pertain to an objective exterior reality and are not just hallucinations or mental delusions, there is a huge multitude of divine beings. The idea that Allah or Yahweh or whatever is the only deity that exists (despite having previously been part of wider pantheons themselves) doesn't really seem to hold up unless you just selectively ignore most of the spiritual experiences people have ever had.

>>18574341
How can you prove either when they're also described as invisible intangibles possessive spiritus immundus just like biblical demons

>>18573652
I spit in his face.

>>18574358
You aren't engaging with anything I say, so going forward unless you make some sort of actual point I'm merely going to link the reply where I already addressed what you're saying.
In this case: >>18574283

>>18574383
So admit Christianity is wrong? No biblical demons are proven to be real

>>18574425
See >>18574383

I trapped a Jinn in my bottle, and now it has to grant me three wishes.

>>18574446
What's your first wish?

>>18574425
>No biblical demons are proven to be real
Have you heard Hillary Clinton cackle?

>>18574450
disappointing, it was a Muslim Jinn, I asked it what the Injeel was but it just got angry :/

Lets suppose for the sake of argument that god has a physical body and a tight pink asshole, would you fall to your lust?

It is best to be a non-believer, than to be a believer but ascribe the wrong things to your creator.

People are going to be so pissed when it turns out to be Marduk or Enlil or one of the other OG gods, rather than this upstart jewish god who is barely 2.5 thousand years old.
And then everyone goes to hell because nobody has been sacrificing any goats to Marduk since millennia ago.

>>18574316
And I said that you're ignoring the less-laughable reality when you laugh at what is wrong. You're partly to blame by not correcting what is wrong.

>>18574446
Are you shilling christina aguilera in my thread? Shameful.

>>18574097
Ok, best of luck with the efforts. You sound like a good man, so please know I am not in any way out to rob you of your faith. I am just telling honestly why I cannot personally buy into the Christian God, as he is portrayed in the Bible and Church teachings.

But I'd in fact be very happy if there is a God who is like the best facets of that God persona. So personally I'm holding out hope that there is such a God and that the God persona we meet through (parts of) Christianity is colored by the limits of the humans who tells his story.

>>18574463
I'll be your genie then. You can read scholar kloppenberg's Q source gospel for a reconstruction of what a sayings-source (logia) i.e a collection of teachings, parables, aphorisms and eschatological warnings might've looked like. This is essentially our idea of the injeel (gospel). It doesn't contain the Christ passion narrative, or the Johannine exaltation christology of John's gospel.

In biblical scholarship, this idea of a sayings sources was initially contested but now forms the overwhelming scholarly consensus. In the 19th century, scholar Schleiermacher suggested Matthew's "logia" referred to a written sayings collection, and the scholars were forced to reconcile with the synoptic (Mark, Matthew, Luke) gospel problem. It's then, Hermann Weisse and Heinrich Holtzmann argued for a second source alongside Mark which they called Q.

>>18574219
>Loving others and yourself is the kingdom if heaven.
You forgot god first.

Love god above all things

And love your neighbor as yourself.

>>18573652
>So why didn't you recognize Him?
Because he didn't give me any clear evidence of his existence. All Abrahamic religions claim that their God had no problem appearing to people in the past. He frequently showed them undeniable signs and miracles to prove his existence to doubters. He directly spoke to them, even.

God had no problem speaking to Abraham and giving him explicit directions and requests but he expects me to be able to accurately identify which religious text out of dozens of possible options is the correct one? If he really cared that much then he would give me a clear sign because any omnipotent being would know perfectly well that I have no real way of distinguishing between even Abrahamic religions, much less any of the other options.

Realistically, how would I know whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Mormonism are the correct religions? Obviously believers from each one will tell me that theirs is correct and they will have various reasons for it but even within their own religions, they can't agree on which is correct. If I decide to be Christian, should I be Catholic or Baptist? If I decide to be Muslim, should I be Sunni or Shiite?

An omnipotent, omniscient God who wanted people to "recognize him" could effortlessly appear to every person on Earth and tell them exactly which religion is correct. Why would he not do this if he cared about it? He had no problem appearing to people thousands of years ago.

The standards for belief are not the same as they once were. Moses believed because God gave him physical proof of his existence. Thousands of years later, I have no real way of knowing if these stories are true or not. God would know this, of course, and would recognize that there is no objective way for me to tell which story is correct. If he cared, he would make it obvious.

>>18575214
>Love god above all things
With all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength, and with all your might.

Who brought you out of the land of slavery?

I am has sent me to you. This is the name from generation to generation.

>>18575213
Wait, I'm confused. If Q is the Injeel, how was Waraqa bin Naufal reading it in https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3392?

Now I'm even more perplexed than the Jinn left me after I made my wish :/ "What's the Injeel?" is so simple a question but I can never get a sensible answer :/ :/

>>18575213
>>18575303
And it isn't just me, so many clamor for the answer: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZZbzdkAZoy4

But it never comes :/ I wish this knowledge were not so hidden :/ :/

>>18575303
Ok? that doesn't change my answer.
I know you're aware of the false presuppositions your argument hinges upon, but your holy spirit has put a veil over your sight. So it would be fruitless for me to engage.

>>18574330
But as I've been saying throughout this thread, you're assuming the empirical patterns observed within the contingent, can then be projected onto the necessary. Or should in anyway be used to infer a divine plurality or multiplicity. But they are by definition opposites in nature and ontology.

"Dependence" is a mere feature of the created order, because it is limited, and therefore has an inherent need for division of labor, heirarchies of being, complimentism, instantiation, or partialism. For example, a plurality like, species of mammals, or stars in the galaxies arises because no single instance fully embodies the essence of its kind, with each just being a partial actualization.
Their own essence does not necessarily entail their existence. They're not a-se (without aseity) as the Christians say, or non-self sufficient.
>God coineth a similitude: A man in relation to many partners who dispute with one another, and a man in relation to one man. Are the two equal in similitude?.. but most of them are unaware of this (quran 39:29)
This plurality or fragmentation of the empirical world, therefore is the sure sign of its incompleteness, and can be reasoned is a temporary non-ultimate refuge for the son of Adam.

>>18574330
>>18575403
Continued:
God, a necessary being, hypothetically would not embody any of these traits. It cannot be dependent or composite in the sense of requiring prior principles (not talking about Aquinas' ADS) or instances. It cannot be one amongst many because this classification presupposes a differentiation, which entails limitation.

What I think is, it would be metaphysically incoherent for there to be multiple necessary beings. They would have to differ on some positions.
>God has not taken any son, nor is there any deity with Him. Otherwise, each god would have taken what it created, and some would have sought to overcome one another other - (quran 23:91).
But any real difference of opinion would therefore entail some deficiency. Think, why do people differ on things? Our knowledge-sets are limited, partially coincident but different (in terms of rudimentary set-theory, A n B =/ 0; but A =/ B). Our prior experiences and inherent biases shape our understanding of the world and create prejudice and externally acquired bias. But those experiences are only different, because we have not experienced everything, we don't have all of knowledge of God.
>His is the dominion of the Day the Hour. Knower of the unseen and the seen; The Wise, the Aware - (Quran 6:73)

A plurality clearly necessitates a distinction, and distinction necessitates limitation and/or rivalry, which contradicts the notion of an absolute being (paraphrase of Al-Ghazali's musings). The grounding for this multiplicity (of the continent) is a single referent everything is ontologically dependent upon. And this unity forms the cornerstone of monotheism.
>Say: He is God, One and Only - (quran 112)

>>18575405
On the difference of opinion point, I want to add that to say that they must differ is one way of differentiation within them

>>18575336
>that doesn't change my answer
But your answer leaves me confused :/

You said Q was the Injil. But if Q existed it is completely lost to scholars and the historical record. But we read there that the Injil was being read in Muhammad's day in Arabia?

I don't understand :/ It sounds like it's just the regular Evangelion, the Gospels, but that can't be true since then Islam would be false since the Gospels contradict Muhammad.

I'm even more confused when I read https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2653 which says "The Tawrah and Injil are with the Jews and Christians, but what do they avail of them?". Was Q with the Christians of Muhammad's day? He talks about the Injil like it was as ubiquitous amongst the Christians as the Torah is with Jews...

I just don't understand. What's the Injil? If it's Q, I am even more confused, why don't the scholars know Q wasn't lost but the Christians had it? :/

I'd ask G-d why his existence needed to be puzzled out from all these fractured sources of dubious origin and veracity like some shitty escape room
Then I'd ask G-d why he even cares so much if some hairless monke like me believes in him or not
Then I'd ask G-d whats up with niggers, was it necessary to make these

>>18575237
Of course we'd say quran is the universal tangible proof carried over to our time. Miracles only reward the faith of believers, in contrast your faculty of fitrah, an innate disposition seeks to recognise the transcendent order (read >>18573766)

You rely on the false presupposition that God's aim is to compel belief through brunt undeniable empirical proof. But that would limit God by assuming his dependency on our belief, while eroding the preconditions for belief to be meaningful. Disrupting this delicate balance of agency and bondage is incongruent within Islamic soteriology and eschatology. The sufficient reason for human freedom and moral responsibility is only if it's not forced. Rather, in our model salvation comes through utilising your faculties of reason, knowledge and fitrah towards a sincere recognition and submission. Framing the material life as a trial of the enduring spirit.

For God to manifest Himself to every individual would be exactly forced compulsion, it would be a concession like 1+1=2, a mathematical axiom with 100s of pages of formal logic derived proof.
How can you then have room for reflection and transformative growth of your soul? (read >>18573834)
>They say: Why has an angel not been sent down? If We had sent down an angel, the matter would be decided. then no time would be afforded for reflection (quran 6:8).

The quranic discourse emphasizes maintaining the delicate Balance/Order; agency and compulsion, renunciation and indulgence.
The signs are littered throughout the heavens and the earth for those who God guides towards his light.
>We show them Our signs in the heavens and within themselves, until the truth becomes clear (quran 41:53).
It can be argued the world IS the evidence that one can reflect and reason upon..,
>were they created out of naught ? Or are they the creators ? did they create the heavens and the earth ? Nay, but they are sure of nothing.. (quran 52:36)

>>18575237
>>18575540
Continued:
The natural extension of this framework of belief is that disagreements between sects or different religions, all are the necessary preconditions for the sincerity of belief.
>Had God willed, He could have made you one community; but He tests you in what He has given you (5:48).

You said that earlier people had an easier time because of miracles. No. People denied them. It wasn't sufficient for the standards of proof for their society (which you acknowledged), they had different demands; steeped in witchcraft and superstition, lacking the knowledge or connectivity, etc ours has.
>The hour draws near and the moon has split. Yet when they see the signs, they turn away and say: same old illusions (54:1)
Pharaoh witnessed the miracles, and still rejected it to his detriment. Entire communities saw Noah, Lot, Ud, etc turned away.
>They swear by God with their most solemn oaths, if a miraculous sign came to them they would believe. but even if We sent the angels down, if the dead spoke to them, they still would not believe [if they didn't want] (6:111)

And it can be concluded,
"There is no compulsion in religion; for truth stands clear from falsehood" (2:256).
For he has made his signs clear for those willing to seek them.

>>18575554
>People denied miracles
No they didn't. Never have i seen any text of Exodus declare that people didn't believe that manna was falling from the sky, or that the Red Sea wasn't parted. The people during that time might have attributed those miracles to a different Gid, but they still claim they happened. Even Jesus resurrecting Lazarus was declared by his detractors to be magic, Egyptian mysticism, in other words something that requires God to exist in order for it to happen.

>>18575580
It's like you purposely only heard 1% of what i say'd..
The people didn't deny the miracles happened at all but they interpreted them through the lens of their society, which is a different epistemic framework. A place of superstition, sorcery, folk traditions, etc. with little knowledge or developed sciences; few books of philosophy, politics, science mathematics, romance, etc. Their understanding of the world was underdeveloped and in it's primacy. The conditions we no longer hold to.

Pharaoh doesn't deny the staff turned into a snake. He just said it is sorcery the like of which he's seen before. This is denying the sign, not in the way to claim it didn't happen but what it entails, what it's divine source.
These miracles would no longer be localised or have the same reaction, or demand the same things from us that they did previously. Leading to the friction (agency vs bondage) i mentioned in detail here (>>18575540)
you've read the pentatuach, so it's weird you mentioned Exodus. After Moses lead that small group of Israelites from Egypt by parting the Red Sea, they still turned away from God and worshipped the Golden Calf. They brought Idols of Asherah and Baal into the temple of Solomon, even though they supposedly heard God's voice.

>>18575651
Yes thats what I said, the people interpreted the various miracles as being performed by a different God, or by the use of magic. Magic necessarily requires the divine to exist, since often it's interpreted as the magician asking supernatural forces to manifest themselves. In no way is this denying the miracle, it's simply denying the source of it being your God. That's a different thing definitionally.

>>18575656
The onus is on you to provide proof that a miracle is the result of the works of your God and not a foreign one. And a bunch of scriptures making that claim isn't enough for me. I haven't event started with the presupposition that only your God is real and all the others are imposters, either demons or lifeless statues. The claim that a miracle proves the existence of the Abrahamic God has the same weight as the same claim from a follower of Marduk.

>>18575651
The implications of Exodus is that God manifests himself to the faithfull and performs daily miracles. Them rejecting him is a literally device added post hoc to gain a greater hold on any potential dissenters. After all, you wouldn't want to be damned like those people that saw God and still refused to believe? It gives the clergy a convenient way to answer questions like ours, when we ask for God's physical existence, we're rebuffed with this idea that "God can show himself to you, but you'll still deny him".

>>18575540
>The sufficient reason for human freedom and moral responsibility is only if it's not forced.
Then Islam can't be true since according to Islam your moral choices ARE forced. Look at https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1362 for instance: "The Prophet...said, 'There is none among you, and not a created soul, but has place either in Paradise or in Hell assigned for him and it is also determined for him whether he will be among the blessed or wretched...The good deeds are made easy for the blessed, and bad deeds are made easy for the wretched".

And https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6612 explicitly says "Allah has written for the son of Adam his inevitable share of adultery whether he is aware of it or not".

According to Islam the prophet Adam affirmed this explicitly in https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6614 "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. 'O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.' Then Adam said to him, 'O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses," the Prophet (ﷺ) added, repeating the Statement three times."

In https://sunnah.com/muslim:2650 the question of the justness of Allah punishing people for things Allah himself is decreed comes up, and Muhammad doubles down in it: "Thereupon, he said: Of course, it happens as it is decreed by Destiny and preordained for them, and this view is confirmed by this verse of the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious:'Consider the soul and Him Who made it perfect, then breathed into it its sin and its piety' (xci. 8)."

So when Koran 91:8 says Allah creates souls and gives them their sin, Muhammad himself said that yes it means exactly what it says.

In fact, it directly condemns people like you who would deny this. Look at https://sunnah.com/muslim:8a.

>>18575739
Lmao, nta but I can feel the seething coming from you a mile away.

>>18575756
Everyone with a cursory understanding of Islam knows we believe in a form of theological compatibalism as our primary model of free will. All of my posts in thread reflect that understanding.
But I don't give namefags attention or write anything for their benefit

>>18575699
you don't seem equipped enough in knowledge to handle philosophical conversations about the various models of free-will; fatalism, determinism, compatibalism, libertrarian etc. or their necessary implications.
Islam majorly believes in a form of theological compatibalism. Human will subservient to divine will. You can read about what that means from the internet, and how that grounds moral agency and accountability.

So, now that I've answered please spare us these infantile rants and bother other people on the board. There is no need to perform the rendition of the black swan in your vibrant tutu, asking for my recognition.
(re wrote, because my previous post seemed seethy?)

>>18575764
Then why do you call yourselves slaves to Allah if you believe in free will? An omnipotent and omniscient being necessities deterministic reality. God already knows what you will do before you do it, and you are destined for hell or heaven regardless of your choices.

>>18573652
First of all I'd call its bullshit and say it didn't give me any of those things, other humans around me did.

As for the topic of belief, my first thing would be to say the god in question is a very poor communicator. If it was indeed omnipotent and not only wanted to be loved in general, but wanted a direct personal relationship with all humans, then it should be very easy for it to convince the entire world of its existence. Considering this is not the case in reality, and instead all the different theistic and other supernatural beliefs are spread through mundane means such as missionary work, rumors and hearsay akin to any other claim, expecting people to pick this one specific belief above all others is rather unreasonable. This also means that said god either does not desire to be loved by all humans and instead wants a small exclusive club of worshipers, or that it's not omnipotent and instead is forced to jump through hoops and rely on fallible humans with different beliefs and interpretations in order to spread knowledge about its existence. Either way I'm fucked due to no fault of my own.

Secondly, I'd say that belief is not something a person can turn on and off, it's something that is compelled by external reality. If another human who comes up to me with supernatural claims has poor evidence and arguments that I don't find convincing, I will not be able to just "believe" what they say even if I hypothetically wanted to. Try the following: compel yourself to believe the moon is made of cheese, not for the sake of argument, but actually force yourself to believe it's a true statement that accurately reflects reality. Again, if said god is omnipotent, then humans needing to be convinced of propositions rather than being able to pick them freely is a "flaw" it intentionally built into us, or the god is not omnipotent and instead can only compel belief the same way, or actually worse, than any human can compel me to believe they exist.

>>18575778
>Human will subservient to divine will
It says, in no uncertain terms, that Allah makes you do evil. You said it worked only "if it's not forced". According to the hadith, Allah MAKES people do evil so that he can send them to Hell:

"Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing evil deeds characteristic of the people of the Hell Fire." - https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3208

"and then what has been written for him decides his behavior". Allah makes you do evil, we have seen hadith after hadith directly and explicitly affirming this, just like the Koran does. Again, the hadith says:

"When He creates a slave for the Fire, He makes him use the behaviour of the people of the Fire, so that he dies on one of the actions of the people of the Fire, and by it, He brings him into the Fire". (https://sunnah.com/malik/46)

>>18573652
He gave me everything to recognize that there's no evidence of your skydaddy's existence.

File: 7c66cd0596f2574a0d5bb91f6(...).jpg (543 KB, 1209x2048)

543 KB JPG

>>18574471
>I'm a god. How can you fuck a god? What a grand and intoxicating existence.

>>18575840
Yes, now you're getting it. This is something i wanted to debate with someone. This forms the bedrock for why we align towards theological compatibilism, to reconcile divine sovereignty of God with human moral agency. In philosophy, it's not just the Islamic position, both atheists and theists converge upon it as the only way to avoid collapsing into hard deterministic systems or incoherent libertrarianism.

In the Islamic framework, calling ourselves "slaves of Allah" isn't denying our "free will". It refers to our ontological status in reference to the creator. He made us from dust, and he said "Be" and we were.
>When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is (quran 2:117)
We are non-self-sufficient, dependent beings.

But in regards to our volitional capacity, we are endowed with the capacity to make choices. Divine foreknowledge doesn't equate with causation. God knowing your choices in advance is the necessary consequence of his omniscence, but he does not force those choices, so it doesn't entail determinism.
>Whoever wills, let him believe; and whoever wills, let him disbelieve (quran 18:29)
Even conceptually, it reflects what is freely chosen; without compulsion.

>>18575840
>>18576032
continued:
Islamic metaphysics avoids the logical end-point of "actus purus" (pure actuality) as described in classical Thomism (Aquinas) of roman catholicism, which suggests stripping away all potency, and portraying God as a kind of static metaphysical constant, with no meaningful relation to temporal unfolding. What Islam in contrast maintains is, that God is continuously and actively sustaining every moment of reality, while still having divine transcendence.
>God is the One who holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease (quran 35:41)
>Every day He is about some affair (quran 55:29)

So the doctrine of kasb (acquisition) is the popular model of compatibalism in Islamic theology. (But of course there are various others by theologens and philosophers). It posits that God creates all acts (preserving His absolute sovereignty), but humans acquire those acts through their intentions and choices, therefore grounding moral responsibility. And it is that choice, that is free will. This is to say your choices are ontologically created by God, but volitionally appropriated by you, and those intentions and choices are ontologically distinct from that creation.

To add, this functionally assumes a distinction between God's active will and permissive will. Since His will supercedes all, the active will of God directly brings about, but the permissive will is what it allows things to happen within the system. For example, "Evil" and disbelief would fall under permissive will, not because God desires it but because he allows it.
>If God had willed, they would not have done this (quran 6:107).
At the same time,
>God does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who wrong themselves (quran 10:44).

The paul autist now pretends to be a follower of the pedophile warlord, whewlad

>>18576040
>>18576032
>>18575840
continued:
It is similar to voluntas antecedens and voluntas consequens in christianity, if that's your background (though our model preserves the distinction better).
For a world where moral agency, accountability, and meaningful choice can exist, these distinctions exist to not you reduce to a puppet or dimish God's kingdom.

Of course, I couldn't not mention that Christian theologens struggled with the same friction in reconciling divine omniscience and predestination with free will. (This assumption is fundamental to the Torah). st. Augustine was a determinst by modern standards, but later ones like John Calvin aligned more towards compatibalist frameworks. For some reason, the old-school catholics were unable to move past incoherent libertrarian models that suggest God limits his power, thereby surrendering his Sovereignty, Therefore violating scripture.

This is why concepts like justice, reward and punishment in Islamic eschatology would make sense within a compatibilist framework, in my opinion. So as not to violate quranic scripture, but if God lacked sovereignty, he wouldn't be God.

>>18576045
>>18576040
>>18576032
continued:
But hey if this is all esoteric sophistry to you, theolgens have grappled with the balance of agency and bondage before (read >>18575540) and they're not gonna stop now.

>>18576042
Who is the paul autist? I don't post a lot on this board. The stench of unwashed incels spouting summa theolgica while masturbating to degenerate pornography activates my flight and fight response.
You guys needs to get laid.

>>18576015
hey you little butterfly don't post anime in my thread. You are flying too close to the widow's web

>>18576032
>>18576040
>>18576045
>>18576054
So many posts to try and deny what Muhammad himself very plainly said: >>18575961

>>18575540
>Miracles only reward the faith of believers
>You rely on the false presupposition that God's aim is to compel belief through brunt undeniable empirical proof. But that would limit God by assuming his dependency on our belief, while eroding the preconditions for belief to be meaningful.
>For God to manifest Himself to every individual would be exactly forced compulsion
Nearly every theist seems to have this idea that belief, love and fidelity can be meaningful only if you don't know if the object of your adoration actually exists. Mysteriously this doesn't apply to any of the characters in religious texts who had direct experiences interacting with a god regardless of whether they accepted its teaching or not, neither does it apply to any people living today who claim to have had divine experiences with your religion. People who are already in heaven are also exempt from this limitation. But for everyone else, having a direct experience of god's presence would be forced violate free will.

I'm guessing your position is that this most definitely is not a post-hoc rationalization of the fact that miracles don't actually occur in reality, or that people have to accept all your conclusions a priori and treat natural occurrences and happenstances as acts of god before they can meet god through natural occurrences and happenstances. It just so conveniently happens to be a central tenet of your religion, every other religion, breatharianism, psychic abilities, law of attraction and every other worldview where magic stops working the moment it's observed by the uninitiated. It's as if disbelief itself creates an anti-magic field.

>The sufficient reason for human freedom and moral responsibility is only if it's not forced.
And the previous stance is always combined with this belief. Having knowledge about a god's existence (selectively) violates free will while unquestioning love and total submission under the threat of torture doesn't.

>>18573652
All knowledge leads to polytheism. And to the realization that monotheists worship evil.

>>18575961
I'm just laughin brah, you came here with a grin and wet trousers, and still couldn't land anything. You thought I was an amateur? Look at his seething:>>18576136

What if I say you're presupposing determinism into an explicitly non-deterministic system?
You can't respond, because you were never taught how to think in school.

No go, like an annoying mosquito. I'm trying to a fruitful discussion with these intelligent and beautiful anons of /his/tory board.

>>18573652
You gave me books that have contradictory messages about who the real god is. Some books had convincing arguements that another religion was true, and some that there are no gods at all. The books that told the truth were impossible to tell apart from those that were wrong. Other books also showed that all religions' doctrines evolve in ways humans decided.

In all major religious communities, there were good people just as there were evil people, so clearly moral right and wrong was not exclusive to any religion.

All evidence experienced in one's lifetime point to the fact that it is impossible to tell which, if any, religion is true, and you should keep an open mind about these questions without claiming knowledge.

>>18576162
>What if I say you're presupposing determinism into an explicitly non-deterministic system?
Then I say "When He creates a slave for the Fire, He makes him use the behaviour of the people of the Fire, so that he dies on one of the actions of the people of the Fire, and by it, He brings him into the Fire". (https://sunnah.com/malik/46)

>>18575540
>Of course we'd say quran is the universal tangible proof carried over to our time
Lay me out your objective criteria for determining whether a text is miraculous or not. Say you had three books purporting to the the Book of the prophet Salih for instance, given to him by Allah. What criteria would decide which was miraculous and divine and which was not?

If you cannot give any, then it is clearly just confirmation bias, like when Muhammad Hijab tried to convert Jordan Peterson by singing the Koran to him. He really thought it was a magic book of surpassing beauty but to everyone else that video hilarious and ridiculous because there's nothing special about it.

>>18576188
Yeah, decree, compatibalism.
If i explain it slower, will you promise to embrace your mother, before an unfortunate glue sniffing accident somewhere?

File: Untitled_1920_x_500_px.png (1.64 MB, 1200x1200)

1.64 MB PNG

>>18573652
*Tips hat*

>>18576238
This feels like talking to a Thomist where you feel as though throwing out terms for ideas constitutes a defense of your position

Let me try asking it this way anon. Is there anyone that Allah wants to sin?

>>18576248
I'm not engaging until you explicitly promise >>18576238 and write it here.

>>18576252
Sure lol, I do indeed promise to hug me mum

.

>>18576213
Why does everyone mention their favorite e-superstars to me? You think this is wwe, I'd care which debate-bro RKO'd whom? This is a nerd hobby, bro humble yourself.

>Objective proof
Misguided.
but textual criticism is outside the scope of my reading, im not gonna try. It's a pretty book, I made a thread about it here recently.
There was one knowledgeable anon, popped his head in like a firecracker at midnight, but then poof, he disappeared. maybe he'd have a better answer.

>>18576288
In other words you have absolutely no means by which you can evaluate a book and say whether it is miraculous or not?

In that case, by your own admission, "quran is the universal tangible proof carried over to our time" since you have said there are no means by which the miraculousness of a book can be objectively determined.

>>18576288
>>18576290
*is an invalid claim since you have said there are no means

>>18576257
Can you assert your position in-brief, I don't fully understand it, and be more polite.
Also tell me your background, you mocked Thomasists, what scholastic tradition are you a part of?

>>18576316
>Can you assert your position in-brief
Allah wants people to sin and makes them do it

>>18573652
>He gave you a moral compass to tell right from wrong,
there is no objective morals

>>18574163
if they are invisible how can we know they are there

>>18576393
Make the argument, don't just assert it.

Bump

>>18576290
>since you have said there are no means by which the miraculousness of a book can be objectively determined
I didn't say there is no means, you can evaluate things through a convergence of publically accessible criterias.
I said your demand for a mechanical, lab-test is misguided. That's what texual criticism is, i don't take interest in it, and i don't accept that reduction because using those standard, you couldn't justify morality, or even most philosophical truths.

>>18577679
So what are you claiming in objective terms when you claim that the text of the Koran constitutes a miracle?

>>18576393
>no objective morals
Okay, you didn't make the argument. But you're saying something about subjectivity of morals. But to what extent?
If morals are purely subjective, then nothing is actually wrong. You'd be expressing your preferences of a system we decided, based on some agreements we had (probably the post-world war one)

Theological frameworks usually distinguish between ontology and epistomology of morals. Denying certainty in "how we know morals" doesn't imply they don't exist. Ontologically of course, God is the grounding, who is just.
But in Islam especially, the son of Adam is created with moral awareness through our faculties of reason and fitrah. Which gives us the inherent capacity to recognize basic goods, as in, justice and truth. In philosophy, these are called the primitive universals of morality; cross-cultural and intuitive moral anchors. As in why does everyone inherently know murder is wrong? (killing of an innocent), even in the jungle.

Now, most divine command theorists (DCT) would say, morality or good is whatever God commands, arbitrarily, because God is good to answer for the ontology.
But that's an assumption not true in the Islamic paradigm. God does command, but there is purpose (hikmah) to those commands, which can be justice or human flourishing, etc. and it aligns with our faculties embued by the creator.
It's a form of teleological divine purpose theory. That suggests revelation doesn't invent morality ex nihilio (as the christian man says), It clarifies it's subcategories, and sometimes even challenges us to rise above our acquired biases.
This btw answers the classic Platonic critique of theological frameworks, called the euthyphro dilemma; Is something Good because God commands it? Or does he command it because it's Good?

>>18577763
>there is purpose (hikmah) to those commands, which can be justice or human flourishing
What purpose does torturing everybody who ever died a non-Muslim in their graves serve? Not even in Hell, just in their graves, and even for the most minor of things conceivable like getting some pee on yourself: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1378

It doesn't sound like human flourishing is his goal to me

>>18577771
Can you argue you don't deserve it?

>>18577777
Whatever miniscule quantity of negativity was added to the world by me not being extremely strict about getting no urine on myself (if there even is any if neither I nor no one else ever notices) is unfathomably outweighed by me being tortured for thousands of years

>>18577780
It ruined my day seeing your pee stained pants. Can you account for that?

>>18577783
The diminishment of human flourishing from your day is outweighed by the diminishment of human flourishing from torturing me for the rest of time

>>18577785
No it's not

>>18577787
You're just proving the point you're trying to reply to. Morals are so utterly subjective that you cannot say "torturing somebody for centuries even before their eternal torture for the most minor conceivable infraction is not good".

>>18577817
Yup

>>18576326
>Allah wants people to sin and makes them
reading your hard-determinism into a system that explicitly rejects it. you didn't understand my earlier critique.
You kept quoting hadith about decree, and equating decree with coercion. A meta-level argument you're aware would collapse christianity.
While ignoring hadith about intention, effort, and accountability. The quran unambiguously rejects that reading,
>We offered the Trust unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it - (quran 33:72)
>God does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who wrong themselves (quran 10:44)
>He formed it and inspired it[to know] its own rebellion and piety! The one who purifies his soul succeeds and the one who corrupts it fails (quran 91:8)
>God does not approve disbelief for His servants (quran 39:7) [permissive will, still happens]
>And say: so whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve (quran 18:29)
These passages force a re-evaluation of your position. As they explicitly ground responsibility in human willing and action. Hadith are interpreted in light of clear quranic principles.
As your career depends on not getting it, and you wiIl ignore

>>18577869
Let's see some of your hadiths,
>hadih (2650),
people ask, "Are our deeds decreed, or determined by whether we obey prophets?" The Prophet says it happens as decreed. Then anchors it to quran 91:8: "He formed it and inspired it[to know] its own rebellion and piety! The one who purifies his soul succeeds and the one who corrupts it fails"
This is theological compatibilism, which means actions are created by God but chosen and intended by humans, so their responsibility remains.

(91:8) means He endowed the soul with the capacity and awareness. "Inspired it with its sin and piety" refers to moral awareness, not forcing outcomes,
proven by the next verse assigning success and failure to human action. "Successful is the one who purifies it, and failed is the one who corrupts it." If it was forced, that statement would be entirely meaningless. So your interpretation is wrong, as the same corpus repeatedly affirms moral responsibility.

>hadith (Bukhari 1362),
the companion asks, "Should we just rely on what's written?" [fatalism] (line you omitted)
the Prophet answers, don't sit idly [volition] as your destiny unfolds through the deeds you actually do [anti-fatalism].
Ease follows orientation, but doesn't precede it. People are facilitated in the direction they incline toward. The inference of this dialog therefore is regarding agency within the precepts of compatibalism.

>hadith (Bukhari 6612),
Another hadith about Decree. The hadith distinguishes between involuntary exposure (eyes, thoughts) temptation and voluntary action (actual zina). That distinction would be flattened under coercion.
>that turn it into reality or refrain from submitting to the temptation.
agency, which is what compatibilism preserves.

>>18577886
>(Bukhari 3208),
>What is written decides his behavior
Deciding the outcome includes knowledge + decree, not compulsion of the will. Those are distinct catagories. Decision at the level of outcome doesn't imply compulsion at the level of will. That's how all theologens describe these two different kinds of causation.
According to the doctrine of kasb, God creates the act and you choose and acquire it. This ontological dependence does not entail a moral compulsion, because creation only explains existence of the act. acquisition explains moral ownership of it.

>he makes him use the behaviour of the people of the Garden
'He makes him act' doesn't mean coercion. It describes the outcome.
(you can read the quranic verses about active and passive will). You're assuming 'makes' must mean compulsion, but the language allows for facilitating, enabling, and bringing something to completion, and that meaning fits the context.

The hadith is also describing a man's moral trajectory. A person freely chooses actions, those actions form habits, habits shape character, and by the end of life they act in line with what they've become.
In Islamic theology, through the doctrine of kasb, God creates and sustains the act, but the human chooses and is morally responsible for it, so 'He makes him act' means God brings to completion the path the person has already reinforced, not that it overrides their will. The coercive reading isn't required and actually conflicts with the broader framework of the corpus that ties judgment to intention and choice.
A psychological analogy would be, you lie a lot it becomes easier for you.

>>18577912
Now, let's see what you ignored,
>(bukhari 1 and muslim 1907)
>The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Actions are judged by intentions, and every person will have what they intended".
If actions are forced, their intention would be irrelevant. Yet intention is used as the basis by which judgment happens in the hadith. If intentions themselves are coerced, then it's moral evaluation is meaningless, but you can seethe entire system is built upon evaluating intentions. This is the reductio of your position.

>(Muslim 26664)
>Strive for what benefits you, seek help from God, and do not give up.
Command to strive is also meaningless under hard-deterministic models.The effort is presupposed here. Commands with accountability with praise together imply genuine agency. Otherwise they would become purely symbolic, which contradicts their function.

>(Muslim 131)
In this hadith, if you Intend good you're rewarded. But if you intend evil, but refrain from it, you're still rewarded. But if you do evil you're held accountable. This explicitly distinguishes intention vs. action; a distinction that loses grounding if will is co-erced.
Rewarding intention independently of action only makes sense if intention is genuinely attributable to the person.

>(Bukhari 6491)
>Every soul is held for what it earned(anchors to quran 74:38)
This is accountability that is explicitly tied to what you acquire not what you're forced into.

>(Muslim 2664)
>The strong believer is better and more beloved to God than the weak believer.
Clearly differentiates believers based on their effort, discipline and choice. Which again wouldn't have meaning, if all behavior is ultimately forced.

>>18577869
>>18577886
>>18577912
>>18577933
I'm not responding to four full posts. Present your reply within the website's character limit.

>>18577933
Philosophically, if you'd assert soft-determinism cancels agency, that's what compatibilism rejects.
Are you even a christian, that's why you didn't respond to my question?
Now, prove to me that foreknowledge is the same as complusion and by decreeing something, you're coercing it. If you reject this, you must reject this in your Bible.
Everyone's favorite passage, Exodus, where God repetedly hardens Pharaoh's heart.

Also, let's shotgun
Ephesians 1:4, implies predestination before all creation.
Romans 9, God creates vessels for destruction, he hardens whom He wills. That's clearly hard-determinism.
Proverbs 16:9 says, "A man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps."
By the consistency of logic, humans don't really choose, their steps are overridden.
Acts 4:27 says, People did what "God's power and will had decided beforehand should happen."Their actions are decreed beforehand? How are humans still responsible?
Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wills."
John 12:40 says, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." the consistency of logic, God is actively preventing belief in him. This is supposed to be holy scripture.
God directly controls over human will?
Isaiah 45:7 says, I create evil.
So God not only decrees, but creates outcome, including evil?
Acts 2:23 says, Jesus was delivered up "by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge" (devastating implications)

2 thessalonians 2:1 says, "God sends them a strong delusion so they may believe what is false." God is directly causing misguidance?

You see the ridiculousness? Bible is more 'deterministic' than any religion. Exodus, Romans, etc show God directly hardening hearts, blinding eyes, and sending delusion. The Christian text clearly leans into hard-determinism. In contrast, the quran says: 'Whoever wills, let him believe; whoever wills, let him disbelieve'. This is the balance of sovereignty and agency.

>>18577937
>>18577957
And now it's five. Boil this down to something that fits within the character limit. Character limits exist for a reason. It almost always takes considerably more text to reply than it does to write. No adhering to a character limit means discussions balloon to impractical lengths.

Take your five responses and give them in a 2000-character 4chan post form.

>>18577763
>This btw answers the classic Platonic critique of theological frameworks, called the euthyphro dilemma
lol

>>18578144
Was low hanging, can't blame me.

>>18577912
>God creates the act and you choose and acquire it.
Is it possible for me to not choose the act God creates?

>>18578196
mhmm,
that's the classical asha'ari aqeeda formulation. if you're specifically interested in kasb (acquisition) as articulated by them,
https://youtu.be/AoXssnJ-Ujw
https://youtu.be/X_jFcLCtmag
https://youtu.be/sADnsqnVK3o
https://youtu.be/Fw3-oNdP_9s
Very short videos (1-m to 5-m)

Or
Books,
A Commentary on the Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi
&
Islamic Theology: Traditionalism and Rationalism

>>18576140
I'll think about your argument, and I'll read some more, and then respond strongly when I make the next thread.
Some of it i think i addressed already, it can be inferred.

>>18576154
This is my response to that
>>18575403
>>18575405
>>18575414

File: 1783720785331575.jpg (138 KB, 960x930)

138 KB JPG

>I dont give a flying fuck about you, god.
Dont care about philosophy and other shit. I just want to coom and consoom. Dont want to go deeper because it bores the fuck out of me.
Its really that easy. You stupid fucking dumbasses cant comprehand the fact the some people just DONT GIVE A FUCK.

>>18575842
>I'd say that belief is not something a person can turn on and off, it's something that is compelled by external reality. If another human who comes up to me with supernatural claims has poor evidence and arguments that I don't find convincing, I will not be able to just "believe" what they say even if I hypothetically wanted to
hmmm. that's well written draft, I'll give a good answer next time.

But I'll address this point atleast
>Either way I'm fucked due to no fault of my own
God actually anticapates this, he says
>And when it is said unto them: Spend of that from which God has provided you, those who disbelieve say: "Shall we feed those whom God, if He willed, would feed?" Ye are in naught else than error manifest. (quran 36:47)
>And they of the idolaters will argue: Had it been God's will, we would not have ascribed unto him partners, neither had our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught. Thus did those who were before them, give this lie to God's messengers (quran 6:148)

File: 1783209296781114.jpg (10 KB, 640x495)

10 KB JPG

>So why didn't you recognize Him?
Because he presented himself in the form of books, intelligence which could be explained by natural means, and moral philosophy that is influenced by secularism, instead of just presenting himself as himself. If he's seriously wondering why I'm skeptical of him that makes him kind of an asshole at that point

File: no god worthy of worship,(...).jpg (34 KB, 495x619)

34 KB JPG

Thanks for the great thread guys.

>>18578740
you can do whatever pleases you babygirl.

>>18573652
>you are brought before your creator.
This scenario alone would demand thorough investigation. How do I know that what I stand before is my creator and not 10000000 more feasible explanations?
>its all staged
>its a dying brain hallucination
>its an alien
>its satan pretending to be god
>I'm having a stroke
>schizophrenia
Etc.
Now, the better question becomes, how can God convince me that he's a real deal? Miracles won't do, light shows and special effects can be achieved by anyone, some kind of "feeling" won't suffice, drugs exist. Ultimately, God and I would both stand at impasse, disappointed with each others mistakes

>>18578758
Lol brother, got a giggle out of me.
This board has some charismatic people.

>>18578754
>and moral philosophy that is influenced by secularism
I would say you're borrowing prestige and authority from western liberal philosophy without understanding its genealogy and intellectual foundation. It's architects like John Locke (Two Treatises of Government, A Letter Concerning Toleration), Immanuel Kant and later John Rawls, etc, conceived of their ideas in a mileau of centuries of religious discourse grappling with questions of moral law, human dignity, agency, and the limits of personal authority.
It merely tried to reframe and systematize inherited moral intuitions, particularly the idea that son of Adam possess an intrinsic worth.
>we have honored the children of Adam (quran 17:70)
articulated across various religious intellectual traditions; a higher moral law transcending tribal or political loyalties. These are not self-evident truths that arise purely from materialism or secular frameworks; they are assumptions with deeper metaphysical entanglements.

The modern rights-based framework, one formalized in the post-war era 1948, asserts universal human rights, but these rights do not sustain themselves in abstraction. They are grounded in our faculties of reason and fitrah, with God as the illuminating source.
A critique can be made that a "right" is only meaningful when it is paired with duties (something inseperable in the Islamic paradigm). You have a right to education, but that presupposes the teacher has a duty to teach. similarly, your right to justice, implies institutions and individuals committed to upholding them. In other words, it requires binding moral frameworks that obligate individuals beyond self-interest or pure individualism, otherwise rights are merely assertions without any grounding

>>18578846
>>18578754
Continued:
In Islamic theology, God imposes responsibility in recognition of His light illuminating your life; divine beneficence. He imposes that burden on (you), to be his instrument for those living in darkness, by projecting his blessing outward.
>Did He not find you an orphan and shelter you? Did He not find you lost and guide you? Did He not find you in need and make you sufficient? So do not be harsh with the orphan and do not chide the one who asks for help; instead share the blessings of your Lord (quran 93)

Now, social contract theory, especially in its primitive form, as is often invoked within the precepts of a secular foundation, was never meant to reduce society to a network of transactions. Locke and Hobbes for example, still presuppose some shared moral frameworks that make cooperation, obligation, and "trust" intelligible.
The "contract" by itself doesn't generate morality from nothing; it assumes a prior structure (fitrah) that it flows from.

I'm not saying secular philosophy cannot articulate ethical principles, that would be foolish and disingenous of me, but you must think that many of the values like human dignity, universal obligation and accountability are parasitic on deeper metaphysical assumptions that you may struggle to justify on their own.

>>18578881
>>18578883
>I would say you're borrowing prestige and authority from western liberal philosophy without understanding its genealogy and intellectual foundation.
I would say you do the same while trying to insert into it, your shitty desert god, made up by goat fuckers and child molestors such as mohamed.
>its because of god, pagan philosophers came up with their philosophy.
Stop being stupid, get your head up from your ass and look around.
God is not real.

>>18578900
>I would say you do the same
No, I reject an atheistic worldview. didn't you understand the implications of my argument?
>Stop being stupid, get your head up from your ass and look around
now you're being a primadonna girl. beauty queen on a silver screen, fill the void with celuoid.

>>18573690
Your dark and hard heart don't care for those inferior to you. But God's heart is pure and sacred and he loves even the tiniest of creatures, much more than you ever could because he made them. His imagination conceived them and the he designed them and formed them and gave them life.

>>18573719
You think the day you stand before the creator of all beauty and joy you will not immediately worship him and your heart won't immediately jump from your chest and yearn forever for him? But you spend your whole life hating him and insulting him and convincing everyone to reject him also, so how crushing and heartbreaking do you think it will be when that Beautiful and innocent God more beautiful than any created thing which you yearn for with all your absolute might, rejects you and scolds you in front of the entire universe for your evil and sentences you to punishment according to your deeds?

Will you ever be able to recover with a heart that has been shattered in a hundred billion pieces? Even before the punishment falls on you you would have already been utterly destroyed, and then you must entire the punishment on top of that.

>>18578918
You do it worse dumass. You take credit for everything atheist or pagan philosophers did.
>its because of MY desert god, atheists and pagans create beautiful things.
Do you even realise how stupid this shit is, or are you that gone?
You're borrowing prestige and authority from western liberal philosophy, in fact from all philosophy and call these ideas parasitic when in fact its the other way around. Religions poisons, infects and parasitise everything good, and claim their desert desert god who said that semen comes from the backbone or some shit, created love and fluffy things.
You seen smart and articulate in words, but this religion has poisoned your neurons.

>>18573804
So you think you can leave a bunch of scrap metal on a room for a few million years and come back and find a fully assembled car?

How much more complex is the universe and life itself and all the creatures in it that possess life than a car and you think it all just randomly self asembled and gained life just because enough time passed by?

>>18573849
>is 100% unpersuasive to disingenuously argue that sucking Gods cock
Suddenly lost all desire to help you.

>>18578945
>So you think you can leave a bunch of scrap metal on a room for a few million years and come back and find a fully assembled car?
No. I don't think this is a good comparison.
>How much more complex is the universe and life itself and all the creatures in it that possess life than a car and you think it all just randomly self asembled and gained life just because enough time passed by?
It's my understanding that the Milley-Urey experiment has already demonstrated how organic matter can arise from inorganic matter in circumstances similar to those where life is thought to have originated from. Complex life being a result of abiogenesis and billions of years of evolution sounds plausible to me. What's more important is that life being complex is still not proof of theism.

>>18579023
>Milley-Urey experiment has already demonstrated how organic matter can arise from inorganic matter in circumstances similar to those where life is thought to have originated from.
Doesn't count because Allah could have made it happen to deceive unbelievers, truly Allah is all-knowing, all-wise-

>>18575087
You are welcome to give me a plan to eradicate the christards.

>>18577869
>>18577886
>>18577912
>>18577933
>>18577957
As I said, I am not responding to five full posts. I asked for a revision that stayed within the character limit. It appears one will not be coming. So I will reply only to your first reply:

>>18577869
>reading your hard-determinism into a system that explicitly rejects it
It's a contradictory nonsensical mess because Islam is a contadictory nonsensical mess. Is it any surprise that a Medieval Arab warlord's ideas mixed with oral traditions not written down for centuries don't yield something consistent? Pointing out contradictory hadith or Koran passages and saying "well that can't be true, this says the opposite" only serves to demonstrate that Islam is inconsistent and false.

>These passages force a re-evaluation of your position
No they don't, they show that Muhammad wanted to hold contradictory propositions. "Allah makes everything happen" and "you deserve to be burned until your skin comes off then your skin regrown and burned again forever".

The result is his deity becomes a vicious psychopath that enjoys staging puppet shows that end in torture of his living puppets. John Calvin had this same problem, it's an unavoidable issue with any religion that teaches God decides everything that happens and also punishes others for it.

File: ronaldo.gif (2.16 MB, 220x239)

2.16 MB GIF

Lawd this dude really is slow. I designed the entire reply chain to avoid this response, he recognized that, still went with his christian preacher script.

And i conclude, this is what education is about; learning how to think, not learning what to think.

>>18579188
>entire reply chain
Anyone can make a wall of text. What takes skill is keeping your points focused, tight, and sharp. If you have a reply to me, put it in one single reply here. Two at absolute maximum. Five is merely going for a gish gallop rather than having an actual discussion.

>>18579035
Stop laughing at what is wrong, and provide constructive feedback.

>>18573652
>He asks you, that he gave you knowledge; he gave you books about politics, philosophy, science mathematics, romance, etc.
By that logic, he also gave me my vices. He created everything including evil.
>He gave you a moral compass to tell right from wrong,
Why did he intentionally occlude such morals from others however such as when he hardened Pharaoh's heart in Exodus? And people with antisocial personality disorder?
>He gave you intellegence, enough to debate anons on /his/,
Setting a low bar, God.
>So why didn't you recognize Him?
You tell me. You can see all, and you could see me standing here before you before you created the universe. Also, I've probably already told you what I think because you know all of my thoughts too. But just to say it with my own mouth, I believe in you now because I can see you.
I am capable of having faith and have demonstrated it throughout my life, but for concepts of this magnitude, I need to see things for myself. Why though is faith so important? You've given me the capacity to question and reason things through. You gave me curiosity. Am I to believe that blind faith is something to be celebrated? Or is faith only important when applied to you? Why is it important for a perfect being, free of any flaws that afflict mankind, to be recognized sight unseen or be recognized and be worshipped at all?