Arguments for God in Quran.

[Edwardo Piet]

MK, do I need to make the following any more obvious?

This was your argument:

1. There is such a thing as real guidance
2. The real guidance would be guidance from God or otherwise impossible.
3.  Therefore God exists.

Both your premises lack any support. It's a valid argument but not sound. So, I can replace the bolded part and keep the same structure like this:

1. There is such a thing as real magic
2. The real magic would be magic from wizards or otherwise impossible.
3.  Therefore wizards exist.

And yet you still think your argument is proof?

In the same way that it's rational to ask "What proof is there of this real magic?" And "Why must the magic be from real wizards or otherwise impossible?" it's rational to ask "What proof is there of this real guidance?" And "Why must the guidance be from God or otherwise impossible?"

You need to at least try to support your premises with further arguments, otherwise how is it proof?

[Mystic]

I've explained why many times, I was asking for your detail, I know what it means, but I was asking for details.  But I don't think you will realize empathy is what makes us all hypocrites who don't act according to their most fundemental knowledge and principles.

And every Christian and Muslim who acts against the instructions of their god is a hypocrite in the exact same way. And, the good Lord forgives and gives an open-ended number of chances to get it right.  It seems humans are destined to make mistakes regardless of whether they think their morals are coming from themselves or from a higher power.

That's observation, we neglect the oppressed and poor. What I'm trying to say, is we don't look for guidance past what confirms our self-deceiving egos.

So, on a global scale we still have a lot of work to do. Sure.  That doesn’t mean the notion of having goals to work toward is a useless or ineffective one.

It is ineffective and counter productive if it's not total guidance.

---

MK, do I need to make the following any more obvious?

In your case, if everyone agreed that magic exists, I would say premise 2 and 3 are obvious.

Everyone agrees on guidance except real obtuse.

[LadyForCamus]

And every Christian and Muslim who acts against the instructions of their god is a hypocrite in the exact same way. And, the good Lord forgives and gives an open-ended number of chances to get it right.  It seems humans are destined to make mistakes regardless of whether they think their morals are coming from themselves or from a higher power.


So, on a global scale we still have a lot of work to do. Sure.  That doesn’t mean the notion of having goals to work toward is a useless or ineffective one.

It is ineffective and counter productive if it's not total guidance.

It’s been at least more effective than your god-rules that have resulted in the murdering of millions.  👍

[GrandizerII]

And every Christian and Muslim who acts against the instructions of their god is a hypocrite in the exact same way. And, the good Lord forgives and gives an open-ended number of chances to get it right.  It seems humans are destined to make mistakes regardless of whether they think their morals are coming from themselves or from a higher power.


So, on a global scale we still have a lot of work to do. Sure.  That doesn’t mean the notion of having goals to work toward is a useless or ineffective one.

It is ineffective and counter productive if it's not total guidance.

---

MK, do I need to make the following any more obvious?

In your case, if everyone agreed that magic exists, I would say premise 2 and 3 are obvious.

Everyone agrees on guidance except real obtuse.

Do you understand that, logically speaking, real guidance as you define it need not exist. The world can operate as usual without real divine guidance.

[Edwardo Piet]

In your case, if everyone agreed that magic exists, I would say premise 2 and 3 are obvious.

Everyone agrees on guidance except real obtuse.

What people agree on is irrelevant to your argument.

I can equally say that everyone disagrees on the existence of this 'guidance' thing, except for the obtuse people.

See, if all you're gonna do is attempt to reinforce your own argument with bare assertions about "anyone who disagrees is obtuse", then I can do the same.

---

Everyone agrees on guidance except real obtuse.

It's statements like this that really get in the way of your arguments. If every time your argument gets questioned you just say that people who disagree with your premises are being obtuse, it's not going to work.

Premises are SUPPOSED to be questioned, that's what being rational is all about. Premises should be conclusions that have been reasoned to from other premises. Otherwise you could start from any old absurd premise and argue to absurd conclusions.

Your argument is only as good as your premises, so they ought to be conclusions from further premises and eventually the premise behind it all should be very sound. If you can do that, you've succeeded, provided you still keep a valid structure.

You've got the hang of the valid structure thing, or at least sometimes you have, you're demonstrated your ability to make a valid argument. All you need to do now is stop giving up when people question your premises. Soundness is a necessity.

[LadyForCamus]

I’ve come to the conclusion that MK is batshit crazy.

[Silver]

I’ve come to the conclusion that MK is batshit crazy.

He certainly has issues.  I think he suffers from the need to believe in the Quran that conflicts with the logic of reality where the Quran is not needed. In the end, he will always choose the comfort of the lie over the harsh truth of reality.

[Mystic]

Hammy, the disputable premise in your thing would be 1. In my argument, it would be 2. And that is where the dialogue is taking place.

If people don't believe in any guidance is there, then yes, moral argument doesn't work. That is something a human has to see for himself that they  had guidance in their life.

All guidance must step from absolute source, is the disputable premise.  And that is where the dialogue ought to take place, while in your argument it would take place in 1.

I hope you see that analogies don't always work.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your argument doesn't work even if people -do- believe in guidance.

[Mystic]

Your argument doesn't work even if people -do- believe in guidance.

As I said, the dialogue ought to place in premise 2 in my argument, not 1.