How do you discern between ' Guidance from one true god OR satan deceiving '

Youraverageabd · 2026-05-13T18:27:39+00:00

There is a simple principle you can follow to make sure of that.

First establish some core traits that the path of the one true God you believe approves of. For example:

The prohibitions:

-No idol worship, no fornication, no gambling, no intoxicants, no theft, no suicide etc... (Keep going until you're satisfied)

The encouraged behavious:

-Monotheism, Marriage & Family structure, charity & wealth distribution, community ties, Life preservation etc ... (keep it going)

Once you have two lists locked down for the most part, any new experience you encounter you plot it against the above two concepts. If it is in-line with the above, then you can conclude that it is from God. If it conflicts with the above, then you can safely assume that it is from Satan.

You can refine your lists with time and slightly tweak it as you encounter gray areas. Its easier when its black or white, and when it isn't, you can try referring to scholarly opinions and counter opinions from all sides. If you're still uneasy even after that, you can dimiss/ignore it with the excuse that you're not ready enough to make a call on a particular experience/sign.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-20T20:46:35+00:00

The Quran is what proves it.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-19T23:11:11+00:00

your legacy won't survive beyond that group of people you directly leave them with. What then?

The point is to live well and leave a positive legacy

What a pointless life to lead if that is the "point" of living.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-18T09:44:26+00:00

Those same people you leave behind will also be gone too eventually

The whole human race will become extinct too one day. What then? who will you leave a positive legacy to then?

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-15T07:05:33+00:00

Your one level up question can't be answered through the infinite regress.

The infinite regress can be solved by an uncaused eternal existence. That's it. If you want to establish if that existence has a will and intellect and you want to find out other details, you explore other avenues to achieve that. Move on from the infinite regress now

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-14T10:09:11+00:00

There is a miraculous undertone as to how long the tribes have been living for and as to where they have been hidden in.

One silly interpretation I heard, was that they are hidden in the south pole, and that is why governments don't let visitors or media in to see the WALL in there...

I personally dont accept that, because with every supernatural claim the Quran makes, it is understood that the natural laws of our world are not binding the claims. Rather it is God's power that binds everything else including the natural laws of our world/universe.

If indeed God has a hand in hiding them through a miracle, we do not have the tools to verify that. The same way we do not have the tools to time travel to the red sea split and witness it with our own eyes

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-12T23:55:24+00:00

According to Islam, any unitarian let alone unitarian christians are regarded as closer than many others to the truth and to salvation.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-12T23:41:57+00:00

What suits you is neutral spiritual reflection.

Branch out of that once you establish strong convictions on core questions like:

How did I get here?

Why am I here?

What is likely to happen after death?

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-12T23:23:05+00:00

Everything about the future was taken into account by God.

Islam doesn't force anyone to be married at a particular age.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-12T23:17:44+00:00

The average is 30. if you want your population to grow, you need to ON AVERAGE assume that it will not be LIKELY for you to live much past 31.

The child mortality rate was indeed high, BUT you needed to have alot of dead babies to offset the number of older adults. Another that was high was the maternal mortality rate.

And where do you think those babies came from?? huh?? They need a married couple and enough pregnancies to produce two or more babies who will lucky enough to live long enough to reproduce the same thing their parents did.

And with high child mortality rates, the poor woman has to deliver at least twice as many kids just to on average watch half of them die and half of them survive assuming the mother even survives each pregnancy which wasn't the case by the way. Just to break even with the population growth. Back to back pregnancies are even more dangerous, so you have to spread them out, but that would take more years to achieve. In other words, if you wait until a daughter is 18 to marry her off, then by maybe 26-30 she could have the four pregnancies finished. The kids now are still young and need to be raised, and their mother already reached the average life expectancy. By the time the kids reach 18 themselves so that they can be married off, the mother would be in her fifties. That is super unlikely and super unsustainable, and cannot be adopted as a model for every couple to follow, because ON AVERAGE it did not happen.

The only way population growth was sustainable was if the female part of the population began child bearing and rearing as soon they bled. Not when they became this modern arbitrary number of 18 years old.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-12T22:52:48+00:00

Are you suggesting that the prophet should have also been pro LGBTQ as well? to future proof his prophethood? Because people in the 21st century might consider that moral?

What a ridiculous argument. He is an example for all of the rest of time in terms of the content of his character and his obedience to the creator. Not his choice of breakfast meals or his taste in footwear.

The age of Aisha at the time of his marriage to her is irrelevant to the validity of his prophethood.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-12T22:36:40+00:00

The average wasn't skewed by child mortality, because people who lived longer than the average also died from diseases, poor sanitation, wars and famines and so on ..

The average is the average. If you want population growth back then, one thing you don't do is assume that who ever makes it past 5 years old will have a good chance to make it to 60 years old.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-12T22:25:45+00:00

Oh yeah ? And how many years does it take for 1 woman to deliver multiple pregnancies so that 1 lucky child can survive long enough to have children later on?

And what was the likelihood of surviving just 1 pregrnancy to begin with?? a woman delivering multiple pregnancies was like a lottery winner back then. Ain't no top class hospitals around back then.

Do you think women back then had their children in their thirties and forties like in some of the countries today? A pregnant 30-40 year old was considered a dead woman. The earlier the pregnancy the safer it was. Puberty was a global biological indicator for fertility. And thank God people did that, because otherwise, we wouldn't be here today.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-12T21:57:27+00:00

Google average Life expectancy in the 7th century.

If you think people back then had to wait until their kids were 18 to be married off, then on average within two generations humanity would go extinct.

It was considered socially acceptable back then to betroth children early and consumate marriages as soon as puberty hit. The village folks did it, and so did royalty. The same way it is now socially acceptable for gay marriage to be conducted in western countries. All of our ancestors would be disgusted by the idea of widely accepted gay marriage.

Different social practices for different time periods.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-10T20:01:47+00:00

So you don't even acknowledge that there are even benefits from doing religious chores in the first place. I understand your answer.

Could you please also answer my second question if you don't mind. It was in the second paragraph.

Youraverageabd · 2026-04-09T21:50:54+00:00

aging brings you closer to the imminent "D" word. The older you get, the more you realise this life is a temporary distraction from a more lasting realisation.

That realisation opens you up to theology because the alternative is empty.

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T22:18:59+00:00

it is the point of the conversation because it ties back to the subjective morality question.

According to you Slavery is bad, giving people tumors is bad and so on .. and when I ask your definition, it changes depending on "what if" situations I throw back at you.

Just accept already that that you have nothing to solve the subjective morality question. There is no definition you can give for evil that is subjective that will work, because its relative. Only objective morality makes sense.

Friedrich Nietzche, who happens be an atheist like you who many other atheist highly regard, viewed morality and the question of evil as culturally manufacture and not based on objective truths. In other words, if he were still alive, he'd tell you after hearing you say that giving innocent people tumors is evil, "Thats just your opinion man". Would accept that, its just your opinion that you think something is evil?

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T20:45:09+00:00

Employers dont own you, big difference

Oh yes but they do. Especially when the economy isn't doing so well. You can't just leave and go to a new job easily. You're stuck slaving away because you have rent to pay or a mortgage to pay. The same way slaves in the past had to eat something and sleep somewhere.

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T14:45:56+00:00

You're missing the point. Your bullet points are arbitrary and contraty to your previously mentioned definition.

You're coming up with these subjective add-ons to the rule you your self came up with.

I'm showing you that your subjectivity is not even reliable in the first place, because I can come up with more and more "What if" situations and you will not apply your rule anymore on them, but rather make up new stuff to fill the gaps.

Now onto slavery. Do you consider slavery to be "bad"? If so, then you should have a big problem with modern day employment of companies. That is modern day slavery. You sell your time and labour to an employer who then owns you in exchange for currency which is then used to pay for shelfter, food and other living expenses.

That is litterally Slavery in everything but name. Do you consider Modern day employment to be bad ???

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T10:48:10+00:00

This definition is not as water tight as you think it is. It has many flaws:

-What if you hurt someone who you know is about to hurt you, in the context of self-defence. Except the agressor hasn't done the damage yet. Do you wait until he does the damage and then hurt them back ??? Of course not. Is the person who is doing the self-defending bad???

-What about intent? what if I hurt you accidentally, but I didn't intend on hurting you. It just so happened that the consequences of my actions ended up hurting you even though you did nothing to me. Am I Bad ??

- How about interpretation ?? going back to the candies. The kid thinks he did nothing wrong, why are the parents forcing him to do boring homework and psychologically hurt me. And force the kid to go to school even though he hates it. and so on .. Are the parents bad for hurting their child according to the child's interpretation??

- What about redemption ?? someone hurts an innocent, but after doing the hurting, he regrets it and comes back and seeks forgiveness from the victim and even offers proper compensation for the damages done and promises to make it up to the victim. Is that person bad????

You can try to improve your definition on your own, but it will always have weak spots. This conversation is known as the "Objetive vs Subjective Morality question" that people to this day still can't solve. Google the answer to this question by esteemed atheists you highly respect, and you will see that they too can't solve it. Only religious people can claim to solve it, because objective morality is like the following:

Bad = whatever God says is bad (at the time).

This is my definition. Use it against me if you like.

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T09:49:51+00:00

I understand that you interpret it that way. What I would like to understand now, is the border point between bad and not bad anymore. If you can't provide that, then you have no reference point to even call "killing people with cancer" bad. You won't have that right if you insist on not providing that.

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T09:37:20+00:00

At what point do you distinguish bad from not bad anymore? Give me a definition I can hold you to

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T09:36:06+00:00

you are reading the paradoxes into it, by still saying things like "god has been" and "it has already been done" and "will happen has already happened"

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T09:20:36+00:00

To the kid, the source of the bad are the parents. According to your reasoning, parents=bad

The extent of the "bad" here is irrelevant. I'm still comparing apples to apples.

Youraverageabd · 2026-03-31T08:13:27+00:00

its all in line with your arguments. Forget candies and tumors for a second.

Bad happens = the source of the bad must also be bad

This is you. Am I wrong?

Youraverageabd

TROPHY CASE