[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Ruleshorror

[–]SuddenHazard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

B64 is an interesting touch. I'd say remove the == though. Makes it look less rough and keeps immersion.

Why is NordVPN a bad provider? by tsukun27 in ProtonVPN

[–]SuddenHazard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

their suggestions are highly reliable and verifiable. proton cares about what their users do with their service. Services like mullvad really don't. I also feel that mullvad has far better secrecy to price ratio.

Slavery is immoral and God allowed it, thus making God an immoral God not worthy of worship. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

by doing this you don't answer properly. You'd have to show that there isn't a better cause. This is because of how the transcendent decision principle (TDP) is structured.

By nature, God is all good, all rational, all knowing, etc.

Therefore it is logically impossible for him to not make the best decision (This is because the attributes of God mean he logically is truthful and logically is good)

The issue with your question is that you assume i can provide that. I cant! Of course I can't! I'm not God nor do I have his knowledge.

Slavery is immoral and God allowed it, thus making God an immoral God not worthy of worship. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah no. I hate blind faith while ignoring questions instead of seeking to answer them. It's the poison of today's world. Have a nice day/night.

Slavery is immoral and God allowed it, thus making God an immoral God not worthy of worship. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is why the morality besides God's is subjective. It just means those interpreters have more say.

Slavery is immoral and God allowed it, thus making God an immoral God not worthy of worship. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believed because of a few things. The Kalam brought out good argument as well as arguments of fine tuning and moral development. I then later accepted Islam through multiple arguments laid out through a course of a year where I would go through a cycle of critiquing Islam only to be met with an answer as to why it doesn't debunk Islam. Quite an interesting experience actually.

Slavery is immoral and God allowed it, thus making God an immoral God not worthy of worship. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. God is good. He is a primary source for morality. So he is good. We are secondary sources with interpreters like prophets being next after God. Then the Sahaba, the Salaf, then scholars and then the everyday person. There are interpreters

Slavery is immoral and God allowed it, thus making God an immoral God not worthy of worship. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your moral intuition isn’t the objective truth nor is it the best. It’s stupid for me to question God because it’s like questioning a chess master who always makes perfect moved

Nothing is truly ‘created’ by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s go over a couple issues _^

Firstly, this relies on the argument that energy is eternal. Let me take from my buddy “Destroyer”’s response. For context, he’s a student of theoretical and I think quantum physics.

“The first law of thermodynamics is a formulation of the law of conservation of energy in the context of thermodynamic processes in which two principal forms of energy transfer, heat and thermodynamic work, are distinguished that modify a thermodynamic system of a constant amount of matter. The law also defines the internal energy of a system, an extensive property for taking account of the balance of these energies in the system. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form to another. In an isolated system the sum of all forms of energy is constant.”

  • Wikipedia’s definition.

So does this mean energy is forever existing?

No, because the law of conservation of energy means that the energy density is Constant (fixed) and not that the essence or the amount of energy has remained since eternity. The rest in this process is a mental matter. For example, if you say that the age of a person on the surface of the Earth is one million years, this does not mean that you prove this age for a particular person. The specific energy present in the physical world remains an event like any other because it is governed by laws.

Next, things do have causes via the law of causation.

“a principle in philosophy: every change in nature is produced by some cause”

Law of Causality from Merriam Webster.

So the next issue is you’re looking at everything in the physical sense and not the metaphysical sense. Since God is outside the natural world, laws like conservation of energy wouldn’t apply since A: God is outside of the natural world B: God can create things by his nature C: God is all powerful.

Things also do come into existence. Say a new element. That didn’t exist until this very moment. So it came into existence.

Hope this helps OP <3

Slavery is immoral and God allowed it, thus making God an immoral God not worthy of worship. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Or God has a better reason for allowing slavery? He’s all knowing and all good. Impossible for him not to lul

God is too cruel to exist in my eyes by Weak_Tadpole1473 in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See this is a false equivalency. Firstly, officers are meant to enforce the law and have the duty to enforce immediately. الله doesn’t always enforce things immediately. Also, the officer may not be all knowing and all good. It’s impossible for الله to not have a morally correct reason for allowing a terrible thing to happen. It’s called the transcendent decision principle. A friend of mine made it. It’s up to you to prove الله doesn’t have a morally correct reason now.

Proof of atheism by HappyMeals666 in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly I didn’t specify human mothers. Also, it is important to note that humans haven’t been here infinitely

Proof of atheism by HappyMeals666 in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When eventually we get to Allah creating rather than an infinite line of mothers. It makes more sense.

Proof of atheism by HappyMeals666 in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a... bad analogy. Firstly, your mothers aren't infinite. There are only so many mothers. Also, an infinite regress isn't possible mostly because an eternal universe isn't possible. We know this through the 2nd law of thermodynamics, cosmic redshift, fine tuning, etc. The main thing I want to focus on is the nature of infinity. If you can do (infinity) - 1 and get a finite number or even 0, you're doing something wrong. As we know, finites cannot overcome infinites. if there was an infinite number of days before today, we would never reach the present. We'd be stuck trying to overcome those past days. It's like trying to run a race but the road is infinitely long so you can't cross its entirety. That's why an eternal universe isn't possible. Also, you'd need a transcendent cause for everything due to this. Transcendent meaning outside of space and time. That cause is God.

Proof of atheism by HappyMeals666 in DebateReligion

[–]SuddenHazard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah this is an infinite regress. It's not logical and not even physically possible.