RE: The most stupid misconceptions about Islam
October 22, 2020 at 10:40 am
(This post was last modified: October 22, 2020 at 10:40 am by R00tKiT.)
(October 22, 2020 at 10:13 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not the size of the group that's at issue, remember? They include eskimos and you don't - but it is your shared reference to a set of common beliefs that informs their categorization in the first place.
And I already explained how these categorizations are not up to us, remember? If a god out there truly makes rejecting compelling evidence gravely immoral, then rejecting compelling evidence is gravely immoral. Case closed. End of the story.
Muslims don't have some feud with kafirs. They just follow handed down rules.
(October 22, 2020 at 10:13 am)The Grand Nudge Wrote: Well, yes, ofc. If someone asks me to explain the existence of some delusion that a person holds..I'm going to point to a person capable of holding a delusion. Is there something strange in this that you'd like to object to?
Explaining the existence of a belief in a man in the sky hammering out stars is as simple as pointing to people who hold this belief. There needs be no other reason for this belief to exist. It does not have to refer in any way to a world exterior to a human mind.
All this is irrelevant, I'm afraid. If you accept the causality principle, you're forced to account for your own existence. Unless you think the latter principle is some delusion one has in his head.....
(October 22, 2020 at 10:13 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Well, there we go. Infinite regress is impossible. Positing your super abled god necessitates another even more super abled thing to create it, and a hyper abled thing to create that, so on and so forth ad infinitum.
I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. I am not asking you to agree with the premise -that infinite regress is impossible, I know you don't. I am telling you that the entire argument is sound.
(1) Infinite regress is impossible
(2) Something that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore there has to be a first cause.
The conclusion does follow from the premises. So your ad infinitum part bets an infinite regress of actual causes.