This is the discussion thread for the Interrogating Islam debate.
Participants in the debate should refrain from posting in this thread until the debate is complete.
Vote here for who had the better showing in the debate:
Hi there thank you. I look forward to what @ghatzige says and l shall try to make this productive instead of combative, l can be an excitable chap. I am interested in epicurianism btw.
First thing @LampAndNightingale does is post here haha
āI refined the wording of this text and those that follow in subsequent rounds with the assistance of ChatGPT; however, the arguments presented are entirely my own.ā
Tuned out immediately.
@ghatzige will this question be posed?
I think not, since for both @ghatzige and @LampAndNightingale it is true
I am not planning to ask it. I am a subjectivist, I do not make moral jugements for ancient people using modern moral standards.
The age of marriage in 7th century Arabia, according to fast web research, seemed to be 9 year old for girls.
The only meaningful way to pose this question would have been if I was challenging the objective morality claims of Islam. I think I have exausted this topic in the forum.
I hope for the sake of that age you are a liar.
ā¦but here we are in the age of āEpstein didnāt kill himselfā.
@Ichthus77 Keep it on topic. You had every chance to discuss this formally alongside ghatzige (and l had publicly asked him to include this topic), but you deigned to do so. You would rather make sneaking innuendoes.
The topic is the formal debate unfolding.
Just for your last answer, I grand you the victory in this Q&A.
For all of those who believe that I should have proceeded by insulting Muhammad and by calling him a pedophile, I have to say one thing: do that in your own debates with Muslims and see if you can get anything close to the last statement of my opponent.
Proceed with respect and you will receive respect.
Just some clarification:
I said things are created by the Mind of God from Infinite Actual energy + the world of Platonic forms (Infinite Potential) woven together ā¦
ā¦ or the forms already exist within Infinite Actual, without the Mind of God assembling them.
Either way the Mind of God commands them to be, while functioning at a frequency of infinite hertz, and thus the spacing between decisions is infinitely small. And so, the will is not Infinite, but infinitesimal, and the difference between 0 time spacing between decisions, and 1/infinity time spacing between decisions, becomes academic, virtually zero.
So, we can still say the Godhead lacks nothing if the spacing between decisions is infinitesimally small - that was key to the old argument about āthe creation of the world in time implies God lacked the world to begin with.ā
Infinitesimal instead of Infinite Willā¦ While it can be a potential answer, I am not sure that it represents the way seen by theists (Muslims or Christians). You may want to check Al Ghazaliās text. He had certain arguments that may not be convincing to me, but could give you another perspective on the matter.
Can you clarify Ghazaliās proposed mechanism? All lām getting is that he said the world was created a finite time ago.
How does he answer the accusation that before the world, God lacked the world?
My mechanism is (for example) :
God creates Orange, then Apple
The time scale goes: Pre-creation ā> delta t=1/infinity ā> Orangeā> delta t=1/infinity ā> Apple
Accusation: God lacked orange and apple?
Rebuttal: They always existed, if you calculate it:
delta t to go from Pre-creation to Orange = a/infinity
delta t to go from Orange to Apple = b/infinity
delta t to go from Pre-creation to Apple = c/infinity
a/infinity = b/infinity = c/infinity = (a+b+c)/infinity = 1/infinity = 2/infinity etc.
And so we effectively have the sequence becoming an ontological map despite it appearing as a temporal sequence
I suppose whoever used less AI would be the āwinnerā. I didnāt see a lot of ādebatingā though. They didnāt seem to disagree on much 
His text is quite confusing to me because he goes many times back and forth (If it is saidā¦ we will sayā¦)
He started by saying that the Eternal Will could have demanded the existence of the world at the specific moment and also the non-existence to last as much as it lasted. And on this he went back and forth many times to demonstrate that his opponents could not refute it.
He also saw the eternity of the world as absurd, since it would have meant that infinite number of past events must have already occurred. He used a lot the notion of odd and even numbers.
You can find online for free his book āThe incoherence of the Philosophersā. Just google the title and you can get it from Internet Archive.
Thanks. I think Ghazali (l almost put @Ghazali) is effectively in agreement with me (or rather, vice-versa if weāre going to be chronological about this).
I am effectively arguing for pre-creation gap ā¦ then orange ā¦then gap ā¦ then apple all at once, which is actually what Ghazali is saying.
I have the tahafut al falasifa and commentaries handy. Will look into it. Let me know if you have any objections about the debate.
As I stated in the first post, I disagree with afterlife and with divine intervention. But of course I was expecting different opinion on that, so I do not have particular objections for the first 2 questions. I was mostly curious to see how you approach these.
Many atheists like to ask theists how you prove that God exists. I do not particularly enjoy this question, because there are philosophical arguments for Godās existence even without being religious. Plus, given that God is usually viewed as inconceivable being, the whole question becomes weird.
The third question of universality can be counter-argued in terms of cultural differences. But I get Islamās point, it is similar to the claim of Christianityās universality.
For the fourth question on apologistsā tactics I was ok with your answer. And for the fifth on potential reformation, I liked the open criticism you made to the current state of Islam. For your comment on Napoleon, I should have expected it because I have already read similar criticism from Muslims in history books.
As for the elephant in the room, i.e. what the crowd wants (criticize the Prophet Muhammad), I have already said enough in the other threads. My personal opinion on him is irrelevant, it is Muslimsā issue if they want to criticize him or not.
No problem 
Peace!
āI hope for the sake of that age you are a liarā
Know why folks are all freaked out about the Proph and his sexy little beast whatshername? Because they have been so thoroughly mindfucked by religion and their own sexual degeneracy that they canāt imagine an adult-child relationship as anything but a ploy to indulge in intrinsically sinful and victimizing human behavior.
Additionally, because the female is the sex that gets āviolatedā in the sex act (sex is like assault kinda) by the male, sheās unable to comprehend pedophilia as anything more than that kind of assault but on younger more vulnerable victims.
Males that hate on pedophilia do so for other reasons. The ones that arenāt lying are the ones playing the āreal men donāt fuck with the childrensā cardā¦ and they do this because theyāve been mindfucked and turned into cucks by capitalism/consumerism. They spend their whole lives buying shit and climbing some career ladder just to get laid and make the guy next door jealous. This is a different kind of āreal manā and they didnāt useāta be like that. Once upon a time, a āreal manā just snatched-a-ho when he wanted to have sexy time. Back then, men were preoccupied with manly things like war, trade, construction, agriculture, politicsā¦ not spending their entire lives trying to impress some female.
Lol holy shit imagine that. Look at the obscene level of cuckoldry going on in the modern world. Itās like rape was made illegal, and women were given rights, so the capitalist could devise a way to sell the means to get laid to the cuck heās now enslaved and prohibited from having sex. Wtf dude. Ted, are you hearing this?
