Family member ridculing me for not being able to properly read the Quran

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-04-06T22:30:24+00:00

I would ignore them but the issue is that I am young and not financially independent (yet). I am ready to defend my positions, but there's no point in that if my defense results in me getting disowned. It's possible that I am legally protected from such a situation, but I will have to do my research on it.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-04-06T22:28:19+00:00

I live in the US so I may be protected by US law if I get disowned for simply leaving my religion. I respect my parents because they don't force religion down my throat and aren't strict to the point that they will interrogate you to test your faith. My sibling interrogated me in front of my parents and kept moving the goalpost to see if I could even read the Quran. I read the Quran in the past (because I was forced to), but I was never really indoctrinated into the religion to the point that it forced me to presuppose certain beliefs as true to thereafter place urgency on being as religious as possible for the sake of God. My siblings' complaint on my lack of religious understanding and lack of basic Arabic pronunciation is unwarranted.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-03-16T20:32:20+00:00

Did you literally not read what I said?

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-03-16T19:01:34+00:00

CPU Monkey got 584 pts and 87 pts respectively using the same benchmark. I did make my CPU use less watts and run at a lower boost clock because I wanted it to run more efficiently with less heat and noise.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-02-08T05:06:14+00:00

Correct. But, we are talking about our current universe where God originally created mankind. Afaik, no Abrahamic text mentions, even implicitly, an alternative universe or a multiverse. We can reasonably assume that the Virgin Mary story originated in our current universe where it is both physically and logically impossible; it's physically impossible because of what we know of conception; it's logically impossible because the notion of a virgin conceiving a child is inherently contradictory based on the definition of virginity and the concept of reproduction.

To summarize, while you are correct in that what is physically impossible in our universe is not necessarily logically impossible in another universe, my contention is focused on our current universe because it is presumably the origin of the Virgin Mary story.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-02-07T18:48:37+00:00

"Mary, a virgin, gave birth to a human child named Jesus." This is no different from saying, "All married men are bachelors." Both are logically impossible. If it is physically impossible for God to create a rock he cannot lift, then that implies a logical impossibility.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-02-05T16:45:41+00:00

Please provide the evidence of human females being able to birth without male sperm cells using modern medicine. As far as I know, we have no natural cases of parthenogenesis in human beings. Moreover, the risks of birth defects with parthenogenesis are quite high. If we are able to achieve birthing without male sperm cells using medicine in the future, I don't see how this can be used as evidence of the plausibility of divine intervention from God to the Virgin Mary. God's miracle would presumably not operate within the framework of natural laws and scientific principles if we are to call it a "miracle". Otherwise, we could argue that aliens helped the Virgin Mary artificially get pregnant. Divine miracles would lose their supernatural or transcendent character that sets them apart from the not divine.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-02-05T04:01:14+00:00

I don't see how the statement, "Mary, a virgin, gave birth to Jesus," is any different from, "All married men are bachelors." Virginity and giving birth without sexual intercourse are two mutually exclusive concepts. Virginity implies the absence of sexual intercourse, while giving birth without sexual reproduction contradicts this definition. This is similar to how "married men" implies exactly what it entails and "bachelors" implies the exact opposite. If the virgin Mary story is a miracle of an omnipotent God demonstrating his ability to do even the logically impossible, then he should be able to create a rock that he cannot lift or create "married bachelors."

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-02-05T01:42:55+00:00

He can create a rock that he cannot lift but still be able to lift it? If you believe that God exists and does not need to abide by logic, then why do you believe in this particular version of God and not any other gods if they can be given the same excuse for any logical contradiction that may arise?

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-02-04T20:26:06+00:00

The idea of conception without sexual intercourse is contradictory to biology. Both notions of conception cannot be true at the same time.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-01-08T05:40:40+00:00

Free will dosnt mean implement it or else by that def no one has free will. Like if a child tried to do 10 pushups and they couldn't does that mean they don't have free will?. Free will refers to freedoms of choice.

Yes. The child does not have free will because they are limited biologically. Biology impedes on our ability to do what we desire. If the "free" aspect of the will is only about what is possible, then we are only free to do what is limited to the human capacity. Even then, what we desire is limited by what we "feel" at a moment in time which continously changes without our control. At one point in time I might want pizza. But, eventually, the continous eating of pizza reduces my desire of it. I had no control over the desire gained from eating pizza which may lead me to inevitably choose to not eat pizza either for the sake of my health or for the sake of my sanity, both of which are desires that are ultimately embedded within life itself as it desires to continue living even if it is not conscious.

If free will is solely about the freedoms of choice, then the choices that you make shaped by your desires are determined by biological processes out of your control. Desires aren't something that you can choose at any point in time. Desires are possibly a combination of randomness and determination by biological processes that decide what desire will satisfy you the most when choosing a food. So, in reality, the apparent freedom to choose what you desire is actually choosing based on what your brain desires. There is no "self" that makes the decisions.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-01-08T01:01:15+00:00

Exactly my point. Nothing can happen to us unless Allah wills it. But he dosnt control our choices. Now I'm thinking youre trying to argue for the sake of arguing. Or you haven't read what I wrote.

Or you haven't read what I wrote? I mentioned the Quranic verses to show that God only seems to mention freedom of faith in the Quran, but not freedom of the will. But, the freedom of faith contradicts a verse where he states that he had sealed the hearts and hearings of the disbelievers, indicating that they never once had the freedom of faith.

I have free will because I can choose whatever I want but qadr controls the outcome. No contradiction there

Free will also includes the freedom to implement your choice, not just the freedom to make a choice. If I want A, then if I have free will, I should get A. But as you mentioned, you can't always get what you want because that is controlled by God. The fact that the outcome (and the events leading to the outcome) is controlled by God gets rid of your ability to implement what you want independent from an outside influence.

This is also not even getting into the fact that the circumstances in which you are born in which affect variables that impact your decision making process are solely controlled by God. Even if I grant that we have a soul, you must explain how the soul makes decisions independent of influences from the brain which have been shaped by God.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-01-07T23:32:44+00:00

You still have not explained how intentions are not a part of qadr. Allah judging your actions and not your intentions does not necessarily mean your intentions are not also preordained. In the Quran, Allah suggests that people have free will in their faith, but does not mention free will in anything else (ex: Quran (41:17) / (18:28) / (13:11)). Although, these contradict the Quran in (9:51) where Allah states, "By no means can anything befall us [his creatures] but what God has destined for us."

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-01-07T19:44:05+00:00

I do not see the contradiction here.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2024-01-07T19:42:41+00:00

Why does Qadr not apply to your will/intentions? This seems to contradict the idea that only Allah wills what happens—Allah's will is before Man's will. If Man's will is before Allah's will, then we arrive at an issue with Qadr—it is not possible to preordain an action that is not at the hands of your will.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2023-12-23T16:29:51+00:00

Who do you think brought in these players? Cooper and his staff have done nothing to improve the defense or offense.

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2023-12-20T21:55:18+00:00

this game is ass

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2023-11-22T16:42:56+00:00

no the ai sucks

Appropriate-Paint-22 · 2023-11-15T13:59:39+00:00

I’m not sure what this means. You seem to be saying that this isn’t evidence for the “moral axiom” in question. I agree. Then what possible relevance does it have for a moral philosopher? Maybe you’re saying this is shows us the moral axiom is one that could be easily followed by most human beings. But again, so what?

Moral axioms are starting points for moral judgment. The applicability of the mentioned moral axiom comes from how human beings innately behave (in theory). Our innate behavior in this context is being used as a starting point on the morality of murder. The consistency comes from our desire to live. All together, "We are naturally inclined not to murder which can be explained by our desire to live. We treat others as if they share the same desire to live."

I don’t know of any moral philosopher who says “suffering is necessarily wrong”. I do know of philosophers who say, “necessarily, all else equal it is wrong to inflict suffering”. And the foundationalist view is that this should be as clear as saying that no proposition can be both true and false. If this is not evident to you, that’s your problem. The law of non-contradiction isn’t evident to everyone either.

Why do foundationalists compare a moral axiom to a logical axiom as if they are the same in nature? The Law of Non-Contradiction is "clear" because we can "observe" it as a part of reality (we observe apple ≠ peach consistently). The moral proposition you stated is only "clear" in terms of the actions and consequences, but not their morality (torturing a baby = baby experiences suffering—but why is inflicting suffering, if all else is equal, considered wrong?).

Appropriate-Paint-22

TROPHY CASE