7 ms·

> "Honest news" is hearsay. I can't go and verify any of it. I cannot logically explain any of it even. You are asking me to just believe it is true what someon

• eis 4y ago
  > Look up the Islamic Isnad system. I did but I didn't see anything that convinced me. It really is hearsay. > Furthermore, if that's how you're going to view the world, then you can't accept any news about history. Obviously that is not wise or rational. No, you keep on making wrong conclusions. I accept there are historical texts and I can with rational thought come up with rough estimates how likely those events happened as written. Historians are usually honest that they can't be 100% sure that those events happened exactly as written because there is a long history of our understanding of events being incomplete, inaccurate or completely wrong. We can't take historical texts as gospel to build all our system of society and be so brazen to claim it's 100% true. And if some historical text talks about miracles, something which cannot be explained with rational thought and to the best of our current knowledge should be impossible then I have to be extra sceptical. > By assuming there were many "tries" before the current universe came into existence. Who was behind those tries? When was the first try? Those are all metaphysical claims. I showed that when I use his base of reasoning then his conclusion is wrong. Applying statistics leads to the opposite conclusion than what he presented. His hole argument rests on an assumption he picked out of thin air. So if he can do it then I can with equal right assume there were many tries, no? Him and me would both have no justification to pick either. Now if I give you my own opinion then I would say there is zero reason to make such assumptions and therefor we cannot deduce anything about how many tries there have been, when the first try was, if there even exists time outside our universe or what other rules apply or don't apply. It's all thought experiments. Thinking that the idea of god was there and just willed the universe into existance is a thought experiment just as valid as me claiming a pink machine prints universes. I cannot prove that and you can't disprove it. It's a stalemate. I admit that fact while you are 100% sure of your point of view. And since you are so keen on relying on history: history tells us people that had your point of view eventually were proven wrong. Like you said, all those things including your claims are metaphysical theories. They are not facts.
  • al_mandi 4y ago
    > It really is hearsay. No it's not. Even non Muslims admitted that we Muslims have the right to be proud of it. There's nothing else anywhere like it, secular or non secular texts. > Historians are usually honest Our Muslim historians even more so. > And if some historical text talks about miracles, something which cannot be explained with rational thought and to the best of our current knowledge Or that God bent the laws of our reality to make a point. Not everything is explainable by logic, especially when we see such events take place thousands of years later in our lifetimes today. > So if he can do it then I can with equal right assume there were many tries, no? No, because his claim is that there is a creator, whereas you're just making a claim that has no basis in your secular materialistic world view. > Now if I give you my own opinion then I would say there is zero reason to make such assumptions We exist, so there had to be a starting point. We have evidence that people came and claimed to be sent from God, and we proved their claims based on many things (their character, miracles, etc). The Quran to this day stands as a living miracle, and its challenge is up for anyone to take (many centuries after everyone tried and failed). These things remind me of how new atheists are flimsy with their arguments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn7n-gff-0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn7n-gff-0c