My decoversion and back to Islam.

[Angrboda]

Irreducible complexity.  And your claim that the videos about the Quran that I posted were wrong when you hadn't even watched them.

We had a whole thread about binary nature of consciousness.  I showed the paradox. I provided many arguments why it's binary.

You then said it's not binary ,there is a transition between non-consciousness to consciousness, but didn't really show it other then your plant example.

I'm sorry, it was nice thread, but you fooled everyone out the paradox problem and just spit fired things with no relevance.

You'll have to link me to the discussion you are talking about because I am not finding any discussion where you and I discussed the matter. The only thing I can find is this discussion where you are arguing the point with Mathilda, not me. I'm not saying we didn't have such a discussion, but I don't remember it or have access to its contents such that I can comment on it.

Regarding the conversation I did find, what I found was that you asserted that it would require more than a few mutations to move from a non-conscious state to a conscious one in evolution. Now ignoring the specific factual question, this is nothing more than an ipse dixit argument. Ipse dixit arguments carry no weight. If that is an example of what you mean by supporting your argument, then I have a theory about why you and others differ as to whether you've supported your arguments or not, and it is that you believe you have provided good supports for your argument when in fact you have not, such as in that thread.

And your claim that the videos about the Quran that I posted were wrong when you hadn't even watched them.  

Do you many commentaries I read about Quran, do you know how many hadiths I am aware of about Quran, do you know how many times I've recited Quran?

I don't need to watch the videos to know the non-sense. 

I am also aware of how people can come up with problems with Quran, I cam with 40 of them and wrote them. The 25 version is still there on shiachat.com.

I know how a person can come with critical approach and find problems.

If you have one example from there, you provide it. Otherwise, spitfire, is annoying to deal with, but is not proof of anything.

I really could give a shit about your knowledge of the Quran, that's not what is at issue here. You made a claim about the contents of the videos when it was blindingly obvious that you hadn't even watched the videos. Implying that you had watched the videos is what is in plain terms called lying. If you're basing your arguments and your conclusions on lies, it's rather elementary that you haven't adequately supported your conclusions. Additionally, those videos may or may not have presented matters that you were unfamiliar with. Regardless, two things hold true, a) to make a successful argument you have to actually address the arguments that were presented, and b) if you don't even read or watch the counter-arguments, then your conclusions are based on ignorance. If you think lying and ignoring arguments is a well supported way to form a conclusion, then you're an idiot. If you had simply said that you don't care to watch the videos, we wouldn't have had a problem. But you didn't. Like another Muslim here, instead you chose to lie about it.

As well as responding to my criticism of your values argument, which you never did. 

That's for people to asses, I've discussed value, objectivity, etc, in many threads. 

The one for power was from a different angle, it was arguing given there is objective value, we have to asses the question of will power, if it's unreliable generation of power with no accounting from God, what would it mean? I showed the many problems with that, to the extent, it becomes completely irrelevant to morality while we know morality lies heavy on it.

Your post was off-tangent and your topic has been discussed through out the years.

Yes, it's for other people to assess, and the general consensus has been that despite your belief that you have supported your arguments that you have not indeed done so. Regarding your will to power thread, your first post asserted a syllogism that had as one of its premises that there was such a thing as accurate value. The word accurate implies that there is a true, objective value to the variable in question, namely value. I disputed that assumption. It was very much on topic, and you even said yourself that you wouldn't mind a tangent. You're just making excuses in hindsight. Your final response was to dispute conventional wisdom and that of one of history's pre-eminent philosophers with the absurd notion that we "will what we will" and your usual nonsense about love being something magical. So, no, you didn't show many problems with it, and indeed I spent the bulk of that thread chasing you from one equivocation to the next because you didn't have an answer to my objection. You're just being dishonest once again.

Beyond that was the other value thread in which I provided detailed critique of your argument, and in the main, you simply ignored my criticisms and buggered off. I know you believe that you have provided support in prior threads and "throughout the years" but those threads have been examined and what we find is essentially a tremendous amount of stream of consciousness word salad which nobody can make head nor tail of. I've read those threads, and where I could make sense of them, they were largely more proof by assertion, which, as noted, is not support for your arguments. Where your arguments have been clear, you've been unable to provide any substantive support and usually just lapse into more meaningless rambling and word salads. Your claim that you have provided support to your arguments "throughout the years" is just your own delusional belief, you haven't done any such thing. Your "support" for your arguments exists only in the hazy and confused contents of your head, when you have taken the trouble to put them into sensible order, they have been shown to be nonsense.