My proofs for Islam

[LadyForCamus]

And another point to add (that I think Jorm mentioned elsewhere) is that even if your argument was an actual argument with sound premises, it doesn’t prove Islam, specifically. You’re still 0 for 2.

[CarveTheFive]

This thread sucks

[Mystic]

If it was not a perfect judge judging us, it would be an imperfect judge.

Sure, so possibilities include: perfect judge, imperfect judge, or no judge at all.  How did you rule out the latter two?

Now imperfect judge doesn't define our psychological traits or spiritual traits, and hence we are undefined through that.

This sentence seems to be a non-sequitur. What does someone judging us have to do with the nature of human psychological traits?

It leaves our reality to be illusionary or falsely measured.

What does?

 If we are undefined through that, there is no really estimating who we are, because we are undefined. It's just chasing something not there.

Sure. See my first sentence in this reply. “No judge” is one of three possibilities being discussed here.  I ask again, how have you ruled it out?

On the other hand, if a perfect judge defines us, we can estimate who we are, because we know we exist somewhere and we can get closer to that absolute vision by guidance, and hence we can better know and appreciate ourselves if we follow god's guidance

Yes, possibility number two.  Do you have evidence that would lead you to the conclusion that such a judge exists?

Again, no perfect judge would leave our psychological reality of who we are undefined and unknown and non-existent.

I agree, it probably wouldn’t.  Why do you think such a hypothetical advances your argument?

It would not be fair to say if we didn't have an exact reality, that we can actually estimate ourselves.  Rather, we can't and would be chasing an illusion by that.

And for a third time, how have you ruled this possible scenario out?  That you don’t like the idea of is neither a reason, nor evidence.

MK, the heart of your argument seems to be, “the thought of no objective meaning horrifies me.”  Bluntly, that’s not an argument.

It's because psychological traits even in naturalism perspective aren't physical, at most, they are related to physical (brain) but it's a perception that is not physical, an idea that has to be psychologically perceived to exist. Either our brain or use is that judge in which it has been shown to be imperfect or it's God.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's because psychological traits even in naturalism perspective aren't physical, at most, they are related to physical (brain) but it's a perception that is not physical, an idea that has to be psychologically perceived to exist.

Who told you that, lol?  Lemme guess...some random witchdoctor.

[Mystic]

For example, your amount of love is not a physical amount. Your compassion, etc, all these are not physical amounts. They are qualitative.

[The Grand Nudger]

More bare assertions.

[Mystic]

And another point to add (that I think Jorm mentioned elsewhere) is that even if your argument was an actual argument with sound premises, it doesn’t prove Islam, specifically.  You’re still 0 for 2.

building blocks, we will asses the Quran after we assembled enough building blocks and learn how to see a flow in the bigger Surahs as well.

[LadyForCamus]

Sure, so possibilities include: perfect judge, imperfect judge, or no judge at all.  How did you rule out the latter two?


This sentence seems to be a non-sequitur. What does someone judging us have to do with the nature of human psychological traits?


What does?


Sure. See my first sentence in this reply. “No judge” is one of three possibilities being discussed here.  I ask again, how have you ruled it out?


Yes, possibility number two.  Do you have evidence that would lead you to the conclusion that such a judge exists?


I agree, it probably wouldn’t.  Why do you think such a hypothetical advances your argument?


And for a third time, how have you ruled this possible scenario out?  That you don’t like the idea of is neither a reason, nor evidence.

MK, the heart of your argument seems to be, “the thought of no objective meaning horrifies me.”  Bluntly, that’s not an argument.

It's because psychological traits even in naturalism perspective aren't physical, at most, they are related to physical (brain) but it's a perception that is not physical, an idea that has to be psychologically perceived to exist. Either our brain or use is that judge in which it has been shown to be imperfect or it's God.

......what...?

[Mystic]

It's because psychological traits even in naturalism perspective aren't physical, at most, they are related to physical (brain) but it's a perception that is not physical, an idea that has to be psychologically perceived to exist. Either our brain or use is that judge in which it has been shown to be imperfect or it's God.

......what...?

You traits, your psychological traits and mental states in actions, they are not physical. They may have backing physically like in the brain, it might generate, but the program generated even purely naturalism wise is different then the material world. 

Ideas are not physical, and you are not a physical thing, at most, you can argue, your brain which is physical generates you. But you are not a physical thing purely - you may rely on physical body to be generated, but even purely naturalism (atheistic wise) - you aren't physical.

[Angrboda]

---

Says who, and why?

If it was not a perfect judge judging us, it would be an imperfect judge. Now imperfect judge doesn't define our psychological traits or spiritual traits, and hence we are undefined through that. It leaves our reality to be illusionary or falsely measured. If we are undefined through that, there is no really estimating who we are, because we are undefined. It's just chasing something not there.

On the other hand, if a perfect judge defines us, we can estimate who we are, because we know we exist somewhere and we can get closer to that absolute vision by guidance, and hence we can better know and appreciate ourselves if we follow god's guidance.

Again, no perfect judge would leave our psychological reality of who we are undefined and unknown and non-existent. It would not be fair to say if we didn't have an exact reality, that we can actually estimate ourselves.  Rather, we can't and would be chasing an illusion by that.

And if wishes were horses we'd all have a pony. You're still justifying what you believe to be true based on what you wish to be true. It doesn't work that way.