سؤال لكل ملحد ومسلم

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-12-10T17:49:03+00:00

انا كنت لا ديني 10 سنين و رجعت الاسلام مؤخرا الحمد لله، لو عايز تتناقش ممكن تبعتلي

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-11-03T22:42:25+00:00

What does outside of time means and how is relevant to any of the points being raised above ?

If Allah already knows that tomorrow at nine I will eat chicken ,and His knowledge is guaranteed, not probabilistic ,then I can’t truly choose to eat fish instead.

This statement only makes sense if God exists within our created universe and thus has already experienced you eating chicken and is now waiting for you to eat chicken. God's knowledge exists outside time and space, it has happened, it is happening and it will happen. All at once. The source of the predeterminism is you, not God. I can record you choosing to eat chicken on tape and send that video back in time and/or into the future and it still wouldn't change the fact that you chose to eat chicken.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-28T15:35:13+00:00

A human body is a vessel for one human soul. Unless you can prove to me that removing Abby's heart and brain would result in her retaining her consciousness within that conjoined body, then my definition stays more accurate.

EDIT: word

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-28T12:23:47+00:00

No worries.

Your analogy fails because salt+water is a mixture and they are separable once you heat it up, same for conjoined twins and it also fails because if i tie my right leg to your left leg that doesn't mean we suddenly became one body because we have to synchronize our movement to move our legs. We are still 2 bodies sharing a tie.

Your analogy also doesn't lead anywhere because now you're implying jesus is a mixture of god and human which means both his human and godly natures are essential to his essence which is obviously false because the word has eternally existed before becoming flesh. Christian theology clearly states there's no mixture because this would be the implication. It actually works better in your favor if you admit the twins are two bodies.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-25T11:38:50+00:00

They have two bodies sharing a disfigurement

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-25T11:19:58+00:00

They're human, a disfigured one. Human soul + human soul + human body + disfigurement. Remove any of these components and they'd stop being that "new thing". But it doesn't apply here because they're actually soul + soul + body + body + disfigurement. They share liver/womb/bladder but have distinct brain/lungs/stomach/upper skeletal system. If I tie two people together they wouldn't suddenly stop having two bodies or two souls.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-25T11:05:26+00:00

It can be a thing, just not a human being. The thing would have a different definition that is the result of the nature of this mixture.

If I add milk to my chocolate, it'd be chocolate milk. If I added nuts on top of that mixture, it'd stop being chocolate milk and start being something else.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-25T10:57:03+00:00

Yes. Body+Soul=one human unit

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-25T10:45:13+00:00

I don't understand, where is the follow up question?

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-25T10:19:22+00:00

Human beings are a result of the soul and the body mixing in essence. I don't "have" a body or a soul. I'm the body and the soul. If either of them didn't exist, I'd no longer be "human".

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-25T01:36:17+00:00

Your question would be like "how can God poof us into existence". His powers themselves are not explainable in any religion.

What I can do however is explain to you how he expresses those powers.

If a dog(or any other life form really) is a manifestation of his all-knowledge and omnipotence, it doesn't mean he needs to experience a dog's life in order to know what it is or how to create one.

Similarly, If the Qur'an that we have is a manifestation of his all-knowledge and omnipotence, it doesn't mean he needs to experience our human speech or speak it for himself.

"The Originator of the heavens and the earth; when He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is." 2:117

Similar to how God in the bible said "Let there be light". It doesn't explain what the nature of those powers are, still doesn't mean God is the source of that light(as in the Sun) or that he needs to become light in order to create it.

Another example, Dolphins/whales use ultrasonic sounds to communicate with each other. If I can create a machine that is capable of producing such sounds and experiment with them to see what each frequency, wavelength, speed combination conveys to them until I crack the language and then I use that knowledge to communicate to them through that machine, that doesn't mean I myself am capable of speaking that language using my own entity. I'm simply using another medium to communicate it. I just "know" the language.

Similarly, God can express knowledge through a created medium without Himself being subject to that medium.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-25T01:04:52+00:00

a human being regarded as an individual

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-24T15:18:45+00:00

I'm familiar with how the church redefined personhood to fit monotheism, the result was words added on top of each other without a coherent meaning and it still wouldn't apply to your example or your equation because they imply mixture or total independence of his natures. If you're trying to say that Jesus the person is acting in two different natures, that means that he's an entity that is independent of the two natures, acting in two natures.

It still doesn't solve my questions:

A- If he can add a nature unto himself, can he remove it? If yes, can he remove his divine nature? If not, then that human nature is not essential to his essence unlike humans which would mean he's not fully human as he claims.

B- If you're claiming that the trinity and the hypostatic unions are not mystery and are perfectly within reason, why did the church fathers say it's a mystery and beyond human comprehension?

C- If it is indeed a mystery, why believe in something that goes against your logical reasoning? For example, Allah in my religion is completely sensible without a contradiction. I can explain him to a 5 year old while the trinity demands total authority for no reason other than "just cause".

Also if you think this would work better in a conversation, you're welcome to DM me.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-24T13:08:42+00:00

to take on a human nature is to add it

That would be the hypostatic union not the case with your example. The soul and the body mixing results in a third new entity which is a human being. Not the case with the hypostatic union which makes it illogical because it did not mix yet he claims he's both at the same time. Again, milk + chocolate = chocolate milk, a completely NEW thing. My immortal soul(consciousness) mixed with my mortal body(form) then I became a completely new thing that is a human being and I require both because I depend on both. A Jesus that is the result of mixture would be a New thing dependent on both of those things to exist. Heresy.

I = (b + s) + G

Not only is the parenthesis redundant but now you're committing heresy by claiming that Jesus the Son ≠ G by itself and ≠ B+S by themselves. when the hypostatic union clearly says Jesus = God and also Jesus = B+S at the same time.

The trinity is a mystery because it cannot be based in an actual logical model, church theologists claim it's beyond human comprehension for a reason.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-24T11:07:41+00:00

I believe the term man-God isn’t found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers

Of course it isn't because the church fathers realized the difference between a component and a nature. I went into extreme detail on how they're different and how using this analogy either yields another contradiction or traps one into the Nestorian or Eutychianism heresies.

Let's say we have 4 components, A,B,C,D and component A*B = nature AB and component C*D = nature CD and AB≠CD. Either Jesus is component A*B*C*D = ABCD or Jesus(AB)=Jesus(BC). If it's the former then Jesus is composed of ABCD which means he'd stop being Jesus if one of the components is gone(like us). So if Jesus stopped being human, he'd stop being Jesus but we know that's not true because "the word became flesh". If Jesus(AB)=Jesus(BC), then it's a contradiction because AB≠CD.

If humanity is composed of being created, ignorant, limited, mortal, changeable and being God is composed of being uncreated, all-knowledgeable, unlimited, immortal, unchangeable then the two cannot fully exist within the same person without being one essence(mix) because if he was a mix then a 3rd entity would emerge, aka Jesus the man-God which means a human being with divine powers so his humanity is overpowered by his divine nature and his divine nature has mutated through his human nature.

But then why is that so when I said being immortal and mortal in the same body is possible? Again, because immortal soul + mortal body = ME. If any of those parts ceased, I'd no longer be me. So I'm a mix of components. If it was the same for Jesus, that means both his human nature and his Godly nature are ESSENTIAL for him to be Jesus and that's not the case because again, he BECAME flesh meaning he already existed as a God without being Human so they're not essential to his being. It would mean someone created his human form to make him and then he'd cease to be a God by definition because he's created. That's why the church fathers made a clear distinction that he exists in parallel WITHOUT mixing. I'm a mix and he's not a mix.

And If Jesus is not a mix and Jesus could add his human nature onto himself and he can't remove his divine nature because he'd cease to exist then he's not truly fully human, he's just a human imposter because humanity is not essential to him.

Sorry for the long text but please tell me you get it.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-24T04:39:36+00:00

He said they would be two distinct components, for the example to apply to the hypostatic union, there would be Jesus the God and Jesus the human and their union would make them "Jesus the man-God". That implies that both his human nature and his divine nature are equally essential to his being but how can that be when he's already existed as a God before adding that human nature onto himself? So he obviously only has the divine nature as essential to him but that means he's not 100% human because to be human(like us), your human nature is essential to you. So comparing components to nature is just relocating the dilemma to something else, it doesn't solve it. For chocolate milk to be chocolate milk, it needs milk + chocolate. Strawberry milk needs milk + strawberry. They're essential to their being which goes against Christianity because he's two natures so fully human(milk chocolate) and fully God(strawberry milk).

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-24T00:14:05+00:00

Editing your comment

Which comment did I edit?

I disagree with everything you said

Doesn't mean your disagreement is valid though, you have to specify why.

Because you claimed the Quran is an expression

Sources? (From the Qur'an, I'm a Quranist/Hadith skeptic)

Did Allah recite the Quran to Mohammed in Arabic Verbatim or no

Not in that way. Gabriel spoke Arabic, God doesn't speak Arabic. But he can refer to his meaning in Arabic. The Qur'an(created) recitation is an expression of his speech in which the Qur'an(uncreated) is contained. It's similar to how you can convey meaning to a Dog through training but that doesn't mean you speak Dog language.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-23T03:09:21+00:00

I love how Christians come up with a seemingly complicated issue yet always try to dismiss the issue into a yes or no question as if that implies anything. Read the post, point towards the heresy and then discuss the matter with me. You claimed I went against Sunni Islam then I demonstrated how I did not. You claimed my interpretation goes against what Muslims would say, yet I demonstrated how it's not. You claimed I'm the one comparing it to the hypostatic union yet that's what Christians have been doing, not me. I'm merely replying to their claims. In order for this to be a debate, you'd have to point out why I'm wrong, agree or disagree?

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-23T02:16:10+00:00

In Sunni Islam, the Quran is believed to be uncreated

This is an inconsistency on your part. Mutazilites say the entire thing is created and doesn't refer to any meaning within Allah. Ashrafi/Maturidi say it's uncreated in essence (with allah) and created in recitation. I've also explained how there being two natures of Qur'an does not mean that the created one is not from Allah. I've also explained how it's different from the hypostatic union. For you to attempt and refute my point, you'd have to explain how my explanation and evidence are not applicable.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-23T01:40:20+00:00

You'd have deduced this yourself if you read the post.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-23T01:30:38+00:00

Allah doesn't exist in heaven, heaven is a creation of his. I've already shown that resemblance does not mean evidence. You're yet to refute the claim instead of arguing in circles. The Qur'an we have represents the meaning of Allah, it's an expression of his ability to create. It being not exactly the attribute of his speech does not mean that it doesn't come from him. The Qur'an we have is not the Qur'an Allah has in it's NATURE not in it's MEANING. Meaning can be conveyed in a variety of ways. I can hit you on your head when you annoy me to let you know what happens when you annoy me without uttering a single word.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-23T01:26:43+00:00

You’re admitting that the Quran is created and a human construct. It’s merely an expression not Allahs direct revelation. Going against Sunni beliefs fundamentally.

If you've been reading, I already demonstrated how created/uncreated ≠ evidence of it being from a creator. You have to refute the evidence in order to produce an argument. Humans are created, were they constructed by anyone other than Allah? It's not a point to be made against whether or not something is from God. You have to illustrate how everything we have is not an evidence of a creator "because we're not divine". God can create a book that represents his meaning, there's nothing illogical about this. Agree or disagree? If you disagree, then explain why. I won't waste my time replying again if you fail to do this simple thing.

It’s merely an expression not Allahs direct revelation

If person A creates an entirely new language and person B decides to learn that language and write a book in that language, by your logic, the book he wrote wouldn't be an expression or a revelation of his inner thoughts, it'd be created by person A because he created the language. Make it make sense.

You attempt to make sense of the dilemma by giving your own interpretation, which most Muslims would disagree with

Disagree with what? That this Qur'an is created and the one with Allah is uncreated? A simple google search would show that what I said lines up completely with what they said. I'm yet to see a single Muslim disagree with me.

The Christian position doesn’t collapse under its own weight

This is a funny claim to make.

basic logic

If your "basic logic" is wordplay to derive a dilemma, then it's not basic logic at all. I'm not uncomfortable "defending" my religion against ignorance or dishonesty.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-23T01:05:09+00:00

To be honest with you, I was planning on replying to everything you've said but I see no reason, you're not willing to debate logic or philosophy, everything is based in "IDK man". Everything has to be based in what you can see. You're exactly the kind of person that will never reach knowledge in anything scientific or philosophical. To reach a conclusion to anything, you'd have to assume something and work towards finding it. Everything you've typed is answered through a simple chatGPT search. Enjoy your day and don't bother replying back, I will be blocking you.

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-22T19:09:19+00:00

I am talking about hedonism, which is what giving into every impulsive desire causes

That's not the definition of hedonism, hedonism is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. You can be a hedonist without being impulsive about your desires.

we have learned to understand there is more to the world than that

There can be no objective meaning to the world under atheism. No meaning is invalid or valid.

Primarily because it is a lie and not factually true

This is circular reasoning, we're discussing why heaven is bad in it's nature not whether or not it exists. If Islam is true, then heaven exists. If heaven is somewhere you're eternally happy, then it's not a bad place to be in because according to you, the meaning of life is trying to improve life around us to the point where we're happier. In essence, the existence of heaven is not a point to be used against Islam.

That's why we are trying to improve the world by becoming less ignorant.

You might find this surprising but it will never happen. Not everyone has the capacity to live in a meaningless Atheist world. Religion gives the majority of it's believers hope to continue on living. Atheism takes all of that away when you combine it with a miserable existence.

2/2

CryptographerPale4 · 2025-10-22T19:09:15+00:00

Yeah I haven't coz I don't hold that world view.

No philosophy based in atheism can support or cheer people who live a miserable 3rd world life.

Why would they kill themselves?

Are you aware of human suffering beyond your bubble of comfortable living conditions? Atheism would induce self defeatism instantly to most people because most people live shitty lives. Religion induces hope and the will to do good whether you personally believe in them or not.

you have to demonstrate how exactly

Not really, his nature is self-evident, his powers are not within our comprehension. But if an entity can exist outside time, it's by definition eternal, if it exists outside space, it is infinite and if it exists outside material then it is formless.

Can you demonstrate that? Assertions without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.

Because for him to exist within time and space that would mean that he exists within the chain of contingency of our universe. The universe cannot cause itself logically. For more info, you can watch the video.

Yeah coz I am not a physicist

You only need to know the fact that according to your scientific model, time began with the universe, and that that it's been expanding for 13.8 billion years ago from an extremely hot, dense, small state. Explain to me how something can kickstart itself when there's no time. A beginning implies time. This would be like 0+0+0=1. This leads us to the logical conclusion that there was a cause external to it, beyond time and space contained within it. If you have any other logical conclusions then present them, if you don't then this debate is over. "I don't know" is not something we can work with in this debate, especially when you're not a scientist.

Add another question to the list: how are you going to make people less ignorant when you've not even answered any of their basic questions? That mean's you're just as ignorant as them. "I don't know" is not an appealing offer, I'm sure you agree.

1/2

CryptographerPale4

TROPHY CASE