My proofs for Islam

[GrandizerII]

Illusion with respect to what?

If God doesn't exist, then in what way are we an illusion?

Our psychological/spiritual/moral traits don't have an accurate existence without an absolute perfect judge to see us.  They are not only fuzzy without God, but they don't have any basis to work with, no backing up by which we are estimating and looking far away to what we truly are, because there is no true us. There is nothing to say "well close enough", close enough to exactly what? It doesn't exist, there is no reality we are estimating, hence, it would be illusionary.

Seems to me like you're begging the question there.

[Mystic]

LadyForCamus, illusions are not what we love, we love what is real and true. I will stick by that, and we will go through more arguments for God.

---

Our psychological/spiritual/moral traits don't have an accurate existence without an absolute perfect judge to see us.  They are not only fuzzy without God, but they don't have any basis to work with, no backing up by which we are estimating and looking far away to what we truly are, because there is no true us. There is nothing to say "well close enough", close enough to exactly what? It doesn't exist, there is no reality we are estimating, hence, it would be illusionary.

Seems to me like you're begging the question there.

It's not begging the question at all. I showed the syllogism of the argument which on those two premises you can conclude God exists and sees us exactly as we are.

[LadyForCamus]

LadyForCamus, illusions are not what we love, we love what is real and true. I will stick by that, and we will go through more arguments for God.

---

Seems to me like you're begging the question there.

It's not begging the question at all. I showed the syllogism of the argument which on those two premises you can conclude God exists and sees us exactly as we are.

And it was picked apart.  You have yet to adequately defend a single criticism of your argument.  

I invite you to read a bit of Albert Camus’s work.  You may be an absurdist in denial. 😉

[The Grand Nudger]

Valuing illusions is not valuing anything really, and if we truly believe that people are illusions and created in corrupt false state with no accurate backing, we would end up not valuing and cherishing people nor honoring them.

This stuff is pretty much foundational to who we are as humans.

Valuing illusions is valuing illusions.  Not only was that an incogent thought, and not a demonstration of any of your assertions..it didn't even make linguistic sense.  It also has the added handicap of being untrue.

You value the notion that you are a rational person who's proven god.  This is an illusion.  You value it (and assert it to be so) nevertheless.  Next.

[Angrboda]

We know very well we have accurate selves or we would not love/value people or their actions. 

No, we don't, actually. You are convinced this is true, but unless your conviction is well justified, this becomes nothing more than an assertion which we can dissmiss even if it were to happen to be true by accident.

You believe many things, that we believe that love requires this, that dark forces are influencing us, that magic book is magic. Your believing these things means nothing until and unless you justify such beliefs in a rational and neutral way. It's been my experience that you are both loathe to do this as well as thoroughly incapable of doing so.

You have intuitions. Good! I have intuitions, too. They don't mean much until we can elucidate those intuitions through reason. Intuition is opaque and its logic and reason hidden from us. Thus we frequently end up being wrong in trusting it. Reason is transparent and open to inspection. It can be validated by inter-subjective experience, intuitions cannot. Reason is a reliable guide. Intuitions are not. As long as these beliefs of yours are based upon intuitions and sheer assertion, they aren't reliable and can be dismissed.

Many theists have the intuition that atheists really believe in God, that they are just in denial. Basing any kind of argument on such a premise would be folly even if it were to accidentally turn out to be true because an argument is only as good as the reasons behind it, and vague, fuzzy intuitions are some of the worst reasons you can think of. Your arguments fail to persuade, even if their premises and conclusions are true, because your arguments suck. And that's a you problem, not an us problem.

[Mystic]

LadyForCamus, let's agree to disagree for now, and will come back later, as other verses in Quran can help clarify to the extent of who we are and how our actions live and form part of who we are.  And we will look at the issue of "direction" with respect to "God" and how the path doesn't make sense without him next, and we will look at very elaborate version of the moral argument I have yet to discuss.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Mystic, other verses in magic book can do nothing to rescue this argument. Are you, in addition to being incapable of fielding an argument, so intellectually lazy and incurious as to lack any follow through on your own assertions?

[LadyForCamus]

So what if that’s true?

 We know very well we have accurate selves or we would not love/value people or their actions.

LOL. God, MK.  This line of reasoning is every bit a question begging fallacy as your argument for the Quran.

“Obvs.we have accurate selfs, therefore it’s true that we do!”

I don’t think you could have fucked this up more if you tried.

[Angrboda]

The word "obvious" or any analogous construction should be stricken from logical discourse. It should be considered a fallacy simply to suggest that something is obvious, needing no further elaboration or justification.

[LadyForCamus]

LadyForCamus, let's agree to disagree for now, and will come back later, as other verses in Quran can help clarify to the extent of who we are and how our actions live and form part of who we are.  And we will look at the issue of "direction" with respect to "God" and how the path doesn't make sense without him next, and we will look at very elaborate version of the moral argument I have yet to discuss.

No.  Don’t feed me your bullshit book.  Defend your premises.  I’m going to ask you this one more time.  How have you logically ruled out the possibility that we do not have true, objective, accurate selves? “It’s obvious” is a bare assertion, so don’t fucking say that again, or I’m going to say it’s obvious that pink unicorns are flying out of my ass and call you obstinate for not believing me.