al_mandi

17 ms·

31.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> In OOP world it's nearly impossible because of how complicated object protocols are, so if you have objects from different libraries, you'll most likely need to write lots and lots of facades. That's not a direct result
32.
by al_mandi 4y ago
Functions are design patterns to simulate jumps after all.
33.
by al_mandi 4y ago
I do. My first post here was about scientism, which is the religion that science can explain everything.
34.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> You are dehumanizing atheists and, as I suspect, anyone who doesn’t follow your “ethical” god. I'm not. We see the evidence of the direction of where the world is heading right before our eyes. The wise people already see it comin
35.
by al_mandi 4y ago
We apply logic where it applies, and we use other sources of evidence for where it doesn't apply. This is the same as we were talking about regarding science. Science and logic have their limitations, they are good at what they do with
36.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> same time claim that god does not follow logic and that we should not try to apply our logic to understand him and his rules. This makes no sense. It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for
37.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> That any theory that cannot be proven should not be paid much attention to So we continue to live our life as animals? As I mentioned elsewhere, in Islam, we have logic, observational evidence, and the honest news to get to truth. Disr
38.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> Please bring a single proof of god here in your own words. I have already wasted one hour on that video which didn't lead anywhere. That video was a good start, the fine tuning argument, the fact that something cannot come out of
39.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> Inside our observable universe? Yea most likely. We can't deduce that the same hold true outside the universe. Which is why we rely on the honest news. Prophets like Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses Prayers of God be upon them all prove
40.
by al_mandi 4y ago
I think we keep talking past each other. > Once more: that science cannot explain something is NOT evidence for any other random unprovable explanation like the existance of a god. Which is why in Islam we have three sources of truth: ob
41.
by al_mandi 4y ago
As I mentioned elsewhere, you cannot prove everything only by science. In Islam, we have logic and the honest news as two other sources we rely on to study and deduce facts about our reality.
42.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> So your argument stems from illogic? No. I as mentioned in another post, God exists outside the realms of this reality, and is not bound by our laws. He created our laws, and he created logic, and they do not apply to him. We don'
43.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> If such proof existed then that would be the biggest scientific breakthrough i You still continue to conflate science with God who exists outside the realms and is not bound by the laws of our world. He created logic, it does not appl
44.
by al_mandi 4y ago
And so is any other argument to attempt to explain what was before the universe. Those are outside the realms of science. And furthermore, just because something is not falsifiable does not make it untrue. We exist in this world after all,
45.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> Can you please point to the exact time in the video where he mentions multiple tries? I was referring to what you wrote. You said that there's no reason that there weren't multiple tries to get the universe just right to supp
46.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> If the foundation though is based upon an arbitrary claim of a god and unprovable claims that such god spoke to someone and gave us some rules then I cannot subscribe to that concept because any other concept with arbitrary rules is eq
47.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> To this day many denominations of Islam are still killing each other over the "correct" interpretation. Yet, those denominations you speak of are minorities, and some are even supported by factions like the CIA to continue ci
48.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> He said of 4 prominent authors promoting atheism that he described as the four horsemen of atheism that their primary argument is that god isn't good ergo god isn't real. This...just isn't true. How is it a lie? It'
49.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> There is no reason to believe that there was only one try. Exactly what he mentions in his talk, on what are you basing this belief? It's a metaphysical claim that is outside the realm of science. You just proved his point.
50.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> What makes a proper religion? And can you tell me how it agrees with science? One that is backed by proofs and evidence. Islam does not disagree with science. Your argument is not very different from can God create a rock so heavy that
51.
by al_mandi 4y ago
Just because the sets are of different size does not mean one is incorrect. You're also straw manning by talking about pre ancestors and bad smells.
52.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> he then turns around and just claims religion can give you the correct answer which clearly it can't because there are different religions His point is that experimental science is not in the domain of answering "why" in
53.
by al_mandi 4y ago
Not all texts are vague and open to interpretation. A proper religion with strong scholarly underpinnings like Islam has this issue figured out. The Quran itself calls out the issue, and Muslim scholars from the very beginning have a founda
54.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> Faith by definition isn't something which can be backed by evidence There is evidence backed belief in the unseen, and there is blind faith. So your claim that by definition faith is without evidence is not correct. Secondly, even
55.
by al_mandi 4y ago
> They are believes that relate to supernatural beings and sprituality. They cannot be proven or disproven. That's not 100% true. There can (and is) proof and evidence for validating religious claims. You're conflating belief i
56.
by al_mandi 4y ago
I think you're responding to the wrong poster, I accept that God exists :-)
57.
by 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.
58.
by al_mandi 4y ago
What does having texts with some degree of interpretation have to do with whether those texts are true or not? Sounds like a genetic fallacy. > The existance of these monsters does not prove religions don't create issues. Or what&#x
59.
by 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?
60.
by al_mandi 4y ago
Sounds like another straw man (answer here by the way https://youtu.be/rvrqwD4I9Nc ). Did you watch the video I posted earlier?

More ›