6 ms·

And what's the religious viewpoint? Some omnipotent being did it and he cares about the sexual life of humans?! That's bizarre as well, better to just say tha

And what's the religious viewpoint? Some omnipotent being did it and he cares about the sexual life of humans?! That's bizarre as well, better to just say that at this point we don't know.

al_mandi 4y ago
You're straw manning when you say things like "cares about the sexual life of humans". I highly recommend you watch this to broaden your horizons: https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM
- nnoitra 4y ago
  There is simply put no evidence for the existence of God. Neither philosophically nor rationally. And it's not a straw man argument. God in Islam cares about foreskins and sex and if you disbelieve in him he sends you to hell for eternity. Don't send videos tell me your arguments, you can speak for yourself.
  - al_mandi 4y ago
    Did you watch the video? You keep straw manning. You expect a detailed and nuanced response in 1 paragraph on HN?
    - nnoitra 4y ago
      No problem, here's my email: lumbdak@gmail.com. If you are so sure then let's discuss it.
      - al_mandi 4y ago
        You're simply trying to diverge from the discussion when evidence is presented to you, by outright ignoring it. The video I posted presents rational and philosophical evidence (among others) for the existence of God.
        nnoitra 4y ago
        I want to hear you own arguments, don't let someone else do the thinking for you! I think you're just scared, if not email me. : )
        al_mandi 4y ago
        I'm not. And it's not someone else thinking for me. I went through a phase of agnosticism myself before coming back to my senses. I did my own research, standing on the mountains of knowledge of scholars that came before and dedicated their lives to the religion. There are good summaries like provingislam.com (which did not exist when I did my research) for people who want it. And also elaborate explanations like https://youtu.be/nTsEZXx8kRg https://youtu.be/nTsEZXx8kRg
        eis 4y ago
        Another video with wrong conclusions. It boils down to claiming "there is something written in the book which could not have been known at that time and place" which is just a claim with zero proof. We have no way of telling that. The rest of the video he goes on a tangent about how the bible and egyptian beliefs were wrong. That does not prove that what is written in Qran is correct nor does it show it came from god. The fact that he chose to spend so much time on that (he was challenged to make a very concise video to prove prophethood) makes me wonder why he did that. I'd expect any talk that does not help the argument to be not in there.
        al_mandi 4y ago
        > which is just a claim with zero proof We have proof. We know about the state of the world back then. We have history, archeology, the knowledge of that era, and much much more. Even English author and historian Tom Holland had to admit that the Quran had too much nuanced knowledge about Jewish and Christian texts that, instead of submitting, he had to come up with a completely illogical and provably wrong story that Makkah was not in present day Saudi Arabia, but on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Even the non Muslims admit and are in awe of what happened. https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/hxn276/here_are_some_historic_evidences_that_mohammad/ https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/hxn276/here_are_some... > That does not prove that what is written in Qran is correct He proved that what's written in the Quran correct, discoveries made just a couple of hundred years ago.
- judah 4y ago
  There is a great deal of evidence, philosophically and rationally, for the existence of God. The Big Bang, first theorized by theoretical physicist and Catholic priest Georges Lamaitre, states the universe sprang into existence 13.7b years ago; it was not eternal as previously thought. And we know from observation that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. This suggests that the universe was caused. Since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be outside of the universe. It must be immaterial; not made up of the stuff of the universe. It must be timeless and not governed by the laws of the universe. And it must be exceedingly powerful to create all the energy that kicked off the expanding universe with its billions of spinning galaxies, stars, and planets. A powerful, immaterial, timeless force outside of the universet that caused the universe to exist. This points to God.
  - al_mandi 4y ago
    I think you're responding to the wrong poster, I accept that God exists :-)
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    This is just a big bag of bad logic. It's going from their may be other factors beyond our present understanding of physics to their must be a being with volition. It's like seeing the massive complexity of a hurricane and from that deducing that Zeus must exist and demands a goat on a certain Thursday every year to avoid him blowing your crops away. There is every reason to believe our present theories are presently insufficient because this is a very hard topic and no reason to believe that the universe is caused by something immaterial or timeless much less something with volition and purpose. There are multiple theories that you could read about if you wish that require neither cause nor volition.
  - Zizizizz 4y ago
    The kalam is not a good argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDr3EnciHjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDr3EnciHjw
  - eis 4y ago
    This reasoning does not hold up. Science does not claim the universe needs a cause to come into existance. Your premise is already wrong. Science tries to come up with explanations for the observed reality in our universe. It does not claim to know what is outside the observable universe or what laws of physics exist or don't exist there. You follow the extremely common logical fallacy that because you want there to be a reason for the universe and you wanting there to be something before the universe then that means there has to be a god? A big leap based on unproven assumptions. Who says time does not extend outside the universe? Where's the proof that a universe can't cause itself? Why can't it be governed by the same laws? Science does not claim to have all the answers but just then jumping to the conclusion that there has to be a god? Nah. What if there indeed was a God but is now gone? What makes you assume that he cares about us and our morals? What would he think of people that claim he has spoken to them? Why would he create all the sickness and pain in the world? Would it mean there's some extremely sick and perverted being out there that just likes to watch innocent women being raped? Clearly he could prevent that. But then again why do religions assume that their god is good willing? Clearly he can't be that with all the shit going on because if he willed it into existance then all that is on him.
- 0134340 4y ago
  You love to use the strawman argument yet you use other logical fallacies like argument from authority in presenting the guy in your video, claiming he has this degree or this certification. I almost never bother to point this out but if you're going to call others out for logical fallacies, be aware of your own.

And what's the religious viewpoint? Some omnipotent being did it and he cares about the sexual life of humans?! That's bizarre as well, better to just say that at this point we don't know.

al_mandi 4y ago

You're straw manning when you say things like "cares about the sexual life of humans". I highly recommend you watch this to broaden your horizons: https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM

nnoitra 4y ago
There is simply put no evidence for the existence of God. Neither philosophically nor rationally. And it's not a straw man argument. God in Islam cares about foreskins and sex and if you disbelieve in him he sends you to hell for eternity. Don't send videos tell me your arguments, you can speak for yourself.
- al_mandi 4y ago
  Did you watch the video? You keep straw manning. You expect a detailed and nuanced response in 1 paragraph on HN?
  - nnoitra 4y ago
    No problem, here's my email: lumbdak@gmail.com. If you are so sure then let's discuss it.
    - al_mandi 4y ago
      You're simply trying to diverge from the discussion when evidence is presented to you, by outright ignoring it. The video I posted presents rational and philosophical evidence (among others) for the existence of God.
      - nnoitra 4y ago
        I want to hear you own arguments, don't let someone else do the thinking for you! I think you're just scared, if not email me. : )
        al_mandi 4y ago
        I'm not. And it's not someone else thinking for me. I went through a phase of agnosticism myself before coming back to my senses. I did my own research, standing on the mountains of knowledge of scholars that came before and dedicated their lives to the religion. There are good summaries like provingislam.com (which did not exist when I did my research) for people who want it. And also elaborate explanations like https://youtu.be/nTsEZXx8kRg https://youtu.be/nTsEZXx8kRg
        eis 4y ago
        Another video with wrong conclusions. It boils down to claiming "there is something written in the book which could not have been known at that time and place" which is just a claim with zero proof. We have no way of telling that. The rest of the video he goes on a tangent about how the bible and egyptian beliefs were wrong. That does not prove that what is written in Qran is correct nor does it show it came from god. The fact that he chose to spend so much time on that (he was challenged to make a very concise video to prove prophethood) makes me wonder why he did that. I'd expect any talk that does not help the argument to be not in there.
        al_mandi 4y ago
        > which is just a claim with zero proof We have proof. We know about the state of the world back then. We have history, archeology, the knowledge of that era, and much much more. Even English author and historian Tom Holland had to admit that the Quran had too much nuanced knowledge about Jewish and Christian texts that, instead of submitting, he had to come up with a completely illogical and provably wrong story that Makkah was not in present day Saudi Arabia, but on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Even the non Muslims admit and are in awe of what happened. https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/hxn276/here_are_some_historic_evidences_that_mohammad/ https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/hxn276/here_are_some... > That does not prove that what is written in Qran is correct He proved that what's written in the Quran correct, discoveries made just a couple of hundred years ago.
judah 4y ago
There is a great deal of evidence, philosophically and rationally, for the existence of God. The Big Bang, first theorized by theoretical physicist and Catholic priest Georges Lamaitre, states the universe sprang into existence 13.7b years ago; it was not eternal as previously thought. And we know from observation that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. This suggests that the universe was caused. Since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be outside of the universe. It must be immaterial; not made up of the stuff of the universe. It must be timeless and not governed by the laws of the universe. And it must be exceedingly powerful to create all the energy that kicked off the expanding universe with its billions of spinning galaxies, stars, and planets. A powerful, immaterial, timeless force outside of the universet that caused the universe to exist. This points to God.
- al_mandi 4y ago
  I think you're responding to the wrong poster, I accept that God exists :-)
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  This is just a big bag of bad logic. It's going from their may be other factors beyond our present understanding of physics to their must be a being with volition. It's like seeing the massive complexity of a hurricane and from that deducing that Zeus must exist and demands a goat on a certain Thursday every year to avoid him blowing your crops away. There is every reason to believe our present theories are presently insufficient because this is a very hard topic and no reason to believe that the universe is caused by something immaterial or timeless much less something with volition and purpose. There are multiple theories that you could read about if you wish that require neither cause nor volition.
- Zizizizz 4y ago
  The kalam is not a good argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDr3EnciHjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDr3EnciHjw
- eis 4y ago
  This reasoning does not hold up. Science does not claim the universe needs a cause to come into existance. Your premise is already wrong. Science tries to come up with explanations for the observed reality in our universe. It does not claim to know what is outside the observable universe or what laws of physics exist or don't exist there. You follow the extremely common logical fallacy that because you want there to be a reason for the universe and you wanting there to be something before the universe then that means there has to be a god? A big leap based on unproven assumptions. Who says time does not extend outside the universe? Where's the proof that a universe can't cause itself? Why can't it be governed by the same laws? Science does not claim to have all the answers but just then jumping to the conclusion that there has to be a god? Nah. What if there indeed was a God but is now gone? What makes you assume that he cares about us and our morals? What would he think of people that claim he has spoken to them? Why would he create all the sickness and pain in the world? Would it mean there's some extremely sick and perverted being out there that just likes to watch innocent women being raped? Clearly he could prevent that. But then again why do religions assume that their god is good willing? Clearly he can't be that with all the shit going on because if he willed it into existance then all that is on him.
0134340 4y ago
You love to use the strawman argument yet you use other logical fallacies like argument from authority in presenting the guy in your video, claiming he has this degree or this certification. I almost never bother to point this out but if you're going to call others out for logical fallacies, be aware of your own.