[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[LastPoet]

Giving credit to magic stories, I'll embrace and squeeze real tight.

[R00tKiT]

Argumentum ad ignorandum. Do you really think that because you cannot understand things that there must be a simple answer? Really?

What about argumentum ad shutup-dum and read carefully what's written next time?

I don't think so because I never claimed so. One thing you all have in common is this sick urge to label religious people, as if everything we say will fall into some obvious logical fallacy so you can have a good laugh with your fellow devout scientistic ignorants. I already explained in great details how Islamic theology is a bit more complicated and makes much more sense than the circularities in christian literature, which are there because of the impossible core beliefs it tries to defend like trinity. Core islamic beliefs do not entail any of that and so you're required to do much more homework before sitting comfortably in you chair and claim you got our religion all figured out by using such a disgustingly confident tone.

I was merely suggesting a workable definition of the god we're talking about, I never mentioned a proof of existence or simplicity, and I was replying to EgoDeath who will understand better what I wrote than you did, since you're obviously not following what we were discussing anymore.
On the issue of proving god, I said pages ago that scripture is the only way to go, philosophical arguments are by their nature inaccessible to the layman who cannot follow a formal argument, so they must be unnecessary/secondary to some much more accessible way of reaching this kind of truths.

Holy shit. Rocket science and brain surgery and computer science should be "simple" just to suit your lack of understanding? Really?

What does brain surgery have to do with defining God? Making such comparisons only means that you need one, nothing more.

It is long established that your god is none of those.

"you god is .." blabla is an unintelligible sentence until you define the god you're talking about.

How odd. I  believe in those things that are demonstrably true. You desire to believe in whatever you find to be interesting. To you. Do you not see a problem with that?

Who mentioned belief anyway? It's a damn definition we're trying to agree upon, nothing more.

What use is theology? It does nothing, achieves nothing, says nothing, does nothing. If theology is to be believed, then YOUR crapfest of a god is nonsense. So you reject theology.

Yet also embrace it as is convenient. Funny that.

Clearly you didn't read much about the subject, much less of the Islamic type.

Yet all of them are the same, engaging in the abuse of children for the purposes of indoctrination. And I have two children of my own. I can witness it happening in real time. Without my active intervention, one by one, they have come to me to ask "It's a big load of bollox, isn't it?" to which I replied "Yup. But you had to learn that for yourself. I cannot learn that for you."

To me, you are no different from my children believing in santa years ago. It is the same gullible faith.

I never told them that santa was not real. I actually perpetuated the santa myth. Because it was a comfortable myth. But myth it was. This year, yet again, we will play the game. Santa will fill the socks, and we will all make believe that it is real. Because it is a harmless bit of fun.

But your god is not a harmless bit of fun. Your god is a murderous bastard who butchers people on a whim. Your god is not moral. And you know it.

It's pathetic to start accusing us of believing in mythology since we're only discussing premature stuff, like agreeing on definitions and surpassing common stereotypes and misconceptions of Islam. Children who believe in Santa Claus have a much more respectable epistemic position than your almost militant scientism, religions are to you all the same  yet we all know you didn't read a jack sh# about Islam aside from a couple of false claims you can resort to in this kind of discussions whenever you feel too lazy to do actual research.

[R00tKiT]

Hardly empty. The historical record is quite clear about who Muhammed did when and what age she was. Funny how God AllMighty can deliver His Message but can never seem to remember to tell his Prophets not to have sex with children.

Go and read about anachronism and skip the stereotyped nonsense pal, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Mister Agenda]

A being who is truly omniscient can't even have free will itself, it can only do what it already knows it will do; if it does otherwise, it was not truly omniscient, and if it can't do otherwise, it does not truly have free will.

It's just the way you put the words that makes you think there is a contradiction. An omniscient being simultaneously wants and knows what he will do and he will do it. When you say "he can't do something different than what he knows he will do "[sic.] you are already assuming he changed his mind and the future he projected didn't please him enough, you are accusing the deity of mood swings.

I'm 'accusing' the proposed tri-Omni deity of not being able to change its mind. Sounds like you agree.

[R00tKiT]

It's just the way you put the words that makes you think there is a contradiction. An omniscient being simultaneously wants and knows what he will do and he will do it. When you say "he can't do something different than what he knows he will do "[sic.] you are already assuming he changed his mind and the future he projected didn't please him enough, you are accusing the deity of mood swings.

I'm 'accusing' the proposed tri-Omni deity of not being able to change its mind. Sounds like you agree.

A deity doesn't change its mind by definition, everything is "figured out" from the first shot. This fallacy is why people think foreknowledge implies coercion.

Saying "not being able to change its mind" is perfectly equivalent to saying "God cannot make 1+1=3". Both are complete logical impossibilities and have nothing to do with omniscience.

[copiedusername]

No thanks. I really like Bacon.

[Mister Agenda]

Welcome, NightHawk!

---

I'm 'accusing' the proposed tri-Omni deity of not being able to change its mind. Sounds like you agree.

A deity doesn't change its mind by definition, everything is "figured out" from the first shot. This fallacy is why people think foreknowledge implies coercion.

Saying "not being able to change its mind" is perfectly equivalent to saying "God cannot make 1+1=3". Both are complete logical impossibilities and have nothing to do with omniscience.

It's only a logical impossibility because of the omniscience. And that's why the idea of an omniscient being with free will is incoherent. A being that can't change its mind does not have free will, by definition.

[R00tKiT]

It's only a logical impossibility because of the omniscience. And that's why the idea of an omniscient being with free will is incoherent. A being that can't change its mind does not have free will, by definition.

You don't get it pal. It's not a problem that changing its mind is a logical impossibility. There is no reductio ad absurdum here to allow you to refute such a deity.

It's the same problem with "why can't god create a rock he cannot lift". the possibility of "A rock he cannot lift" already contradicts omnipotence, it's a poisonous vacuous question.

You suppose that an omniscient deity should be capable of changing its mind, that's where the fallacy lies, because it contradicts the very definition of omniscience.

You're basically saying "Why can't an omniscient god with perfect knowledge who knows the plan ahead of time and is perfectly certain of its execution change the plan ?". Changing one's mind is a negative property you want to add to a being with already perfect positive properties.

God cannot for example end his existence, cannot disable one of his properties, etc. But none of that contradicts his existence.

Reductio ad absurdum is obtained by obtaining an absurd consequence, and not by imposing two contradictory concepts from the beginning.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm concluding from the definition of 'free will' that a being that can't change its mind doesn't have it.

[R00tKiT]

I'm concluding from the definition of 'free will' that a being that can't change its mind doesn't have it.

You are simply being anthropomorphic here. The definition of free will being the ability to pick a choice is specific to creatures, and obviously doesn't apply to an all powerful deity. Choice in our case only results from uncertainty and imperfect knowledge.