The certainty and justice of everlasting torment in the lake of fire.

So does the Quran.


Your proofs were refuted with remarkable ease.


Which turned out not to use mathematical induction at all. You have been unable to put your proof into MI format, or to explain how you think MI works. Several posters have repeatedly explained in detail how you have got it wrong.


And it was pointed out that following specific processes constrained by the laws of chemistry is not random chance, so your probability calculations are incorrect.


You posted sets of questions, many of which have been directly answered for you several times, and you have been unable to derive any contradiction from those answers, so you do not have a successful RAA proof.


None of your prophecies specified any exact details or exact timing. They were hopelessly vague, and to the extent they are satisfied at all this could easily have been by chance. One of your examples of "exact details and timing" was a prophecy that at some point in the future, people would be traveling about and learning things.


Several of your examples of "advanced scientific knowledge" were things that are expressly rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, while others were retroactive interpretations of passages which can only be vaguely connected to the scientific truth they supposedly describe.


I hope they fair better than your above attempts, but our expectations are not high.
Only one book stands alone as the proven word of God, the Bible.
 
That's what Muslims think and say about the Quran. You sound just like them, and they like you.
Have you corroborated that it actually is?
Or are you treating it the same as you treat the bible?
Make useless comments, based on what someone else says about it?
 
According to the word of God, the Bible, unless a person repents and believes the gospel of Christ, they will be punished with everlasting torment in the lake of fire. This has just been proven beyond all doubt.
So your 'new' proof relies entirely upon your previous 'proofs'.

So now the question is, is this just? It is certain but is it just. Since it is the judgment of God then it is just.
Are you familiar the Euthyphro Dilemma? I.e. Does God will things because they are good and just, or are they good and just because God wills them? By opting for the second horn of this dilemma you render God's justice arbitrary.

I will give you the reasons why this is just. First every thought, word, and deed that you do that is against God is a sin. If you live to about 70 years old, you will probably sin about 1 to 2 million times. That is a lot of evil.
A lot perhaps, but not infinite. So it can never justify a punishment of infinite torture. Besides, my worst sin is never going to even compare with God's worst actions, such as causing or allowing childhood cancer, or killing an innocent person in order to forgive the guilty.

And if you lived forever, you would sin an infinite number of times. So, to prevent evil, God not only gives the death sentence, which is just for what you did, but must put you into confinement forever. Else, evil would happen all the time. And of course, now, it prevents all that future evil too.
It's one thing to put someone into confinement to prevent future evil, but quite another thing to eternally punish and torture people for future sins they haven't even committed yet.

In a way, the unsaved probably will not want to be in heaven...
But where would God keep you? Got to be in eternal flame. The unsaved have not been regenerated so thy cannot keep their thoughts from hate and evil. They will have eternal hate of themselves and those that are in heaven. They would continually attack each other because of that eternal hate. In fact, if would consume their every though. So, as a blessing, God puts them in everlasting torment.
God couldn't isolate people without torturing them in eternal fire? He couldn't provide comfy hotel rooms instead? Also, I don't continually attack people now, so what makes you think I would do so in the afterlife? None of this makes any sense.

Here is a YouTube video. It is about how loving Jesus Christ is to be tortured on the cross for your sins. Here is the lyrics too.
I'm not into torture porn. I know you really liked the bits about blood.
 
Have you corroborated that it actually is?
That it actually is what?
Or are you treating it the same as you treat the bible?
Try to understand, as an atheist, I don't think any Gods exist.
Make useless comments, based on what someone else says about it?
It's a valid point. Adherents of different religions all think the same, that their holy book is the one true book.
 
That it actually is what?
???‍♂️
True?
Try to understand, as an atheist, I don't think any Gods exist.
I understood that 47 years ago.
What's hilarious is that you have spent the last nearly 14 years of your life arguing with strangers about matters you clearly know nothing about, doing flyby word bombing raids, as though you've found some obscure truth that nobody else could possibly know.

Yet, when asked about it, you only have these useless quips -
That it actually is what?

So I figured you'd actually know something beyond you not believing in gods.
Especially after 14 years of explicitly stated unbelief.
Do you have some corroborated proof that your unbelief is valid, or is this unbelief simply a matter of laziness, because you can't be bothered by objective truth?
It's a good point. Adherents of different religions all think the same, that their holy book is the one true book.
So, your unbelief is corroborated proof that everyone's utterly contradictory belief is true?
 
1. A Cell phone has a designer. (n=1)
2. K cell phones have a designer (n=k)
3. K+ 1 cell phones = K cell phones + 1 cell phone. - both have a designer., so K=1 cell phones have a designer
Universe is more than K+1 cell phones.
Universe has a designer.
This still isn't MI, but thank you for finally labeling your premises. Well, some of them. Here's one valid argument you could make:

1. One cell phone has a designer
2. Multiple cell phones each have designers
3. For any set of cell phones, adding one more will not add anything non-designed
4. Therefore all cell phones are designed

Or you could argue:

1. One cell phone has a designer
2. Multiple cell phones each have designers, who are not always the same designer
3. For any set of cell phones, adding one more will not add anything non-designed, but may introduce a new designer
4. Therefore the set of all cell phones requires multiple designers

We could perhaps continue this with:

5. The universe contains the set of all cell phones plus more stuff
6. Therefore the universe requires multiple designers

But if your own above argument is meant to be MI, then we need to modify it to:

1. A cell phone has a designer. (n=1)
2. K cell phones all have designers (n=k)
3. For any set of cell phones, adding one more cell phone still means everything in the set is designed
4. The universe consists of nothing but cell phones
5. Therefore the universe contains nothing that is not designed

This is valid, but some filthy heathens may question (4) in their ignorance. What you don't get to do in MI is to modify the predicate as you increase (n.). So you can't start adding additional non-cell-phone items to the set (such as living things) without first proving that they too require a designer. And if you fall back on other 'proofs' to show this, then those proofs are doing all the work and you're not going to be using MI anymore.
 
???‍♂️
True?

I understood that 47 years ago.
Right, so why ask if I've corroborated the Quran?
What's hilarious is that you have spent the last nearly 14 years of your life arguing with strangers about matters you clearly know nothing about, doing flyby word bombing raids, as though you've found some obscure truth that nobody else could possibly know.
What's hilarious is that you've spent the last 14 years of your life on a discussion board but not learning one jot about reasonable, rational discussion.
So, your unbelief is corroborated proof that everyone's utterly contradictory belief is true?
*Sigh*. No. Care to try again?
 
This still isn't MI, but thank you for finally labeling your premises. Well, some of them. Here's one valid argument you could make:

1. One cell phone has a designer
2. Multiple cell phones each have designers
3. For any set of cell phones, adding one more will not add anything non-designed
4. Therefore all cell phones are designed

Or you could argue:

1. One cell phone has a designer
2. Multiple cell phones each have designers, who are not always the same designer
3. For any set of cell phones, adding one more will not add anything non-designed, but may introduce a new designer
4. Therefore the set of all cell phones requires multiple designers

We could perhaps continue this with:

5. The universe contains the set of all cell phones plus more stuff
6. Therefore the universe requires multiple designers

But if your own above argument is meant to be MI, then we need to modify it to:

1. A cell phone has a designer. (n=1)
2. K cell phones all have designers (n=k)
3. For any set of cell phones, adding one more cell phone still means everything in the set is designed
4. The universe consists of nothing but cell phones
5. Therefore the universe contains nothing that is not designed

This is valid, but some filthy heathens may question (4) in their ignorance. What you don't get to do in MI is to modify the predicate as you increase (n). So you can't start adding additional non-cell-phone items to the set (such as living things) without first proving that they too require a designer. And if you fall back on other 'proofs' to show this, then those proofs are doing all the work and you're not really using MI anymore.
I believe mine still stands. Remember I just wrote the steps in words.

cell phone, TVs, cars, tablets, computers, boom boxes, airplanes, piano, etc all count as intelligently designed objects. Granted I did add more things to the proof so I really MI’d it.
 
I believe mine still stands. Remember I just wrote the steps in words.

cell phone, TVs, cars, tablets, computers, boom boxes, airplanes, piano, etc all count as intelligently designed objects. Granted I did add more things to the proof so I really MI’d it.
I just explained to you why this doesn't work. It's not MI anymore as soon as you modify the predicate by adding something that is not a cell phone. You could use MI individually on different kinds of items, showing that for any given designed item, the set of all such items includes nothing non-designed (though multiple designers may be involved). What you cannot do through MI is to add new kinds of items to the set and just assume that they must be designed too. That's not how MI works.

If what you were trying to do were valid, all sorts of nonsense could be proved in the same fallacious manner, such as:

1. A candy bar is edible (n=1)
2. K candy bars are edible (n=k)
3. K+1 candy bars = K candy bars + 1 candy bar - both are edible, so K+1 candy bars are edible
4. The universe is more than K+1 candy bars
5. Therefore the universe is edible
 
Right, so why ask if I've corroborated the Quran?
Because you keep using it as a justification for your unbelief.
I figured you'd have taken the time and input the effort to actually verify it's veracity, instead of throwing it out there as a smokescreen to sidestep the Bible.

What's hilarious is that you've spent the last 14 years of your life on a discussion board but not learning one jot about reasonable, rational discussion.
I haven't been on this forum for 14 years.
I've only been here since November 2012.
so, you're going to have to do better than that. Remember, you're the senior here WiF! So show us.
*Sigh*. No. Care to try again?
So, your unbelief is nothing more than laziness?
That's a deadly position to be in.

Don't you think that it'd be wiser to take the time to actually find out what the truth is?

You've spent all this time arguing about how much you love truth, but have never actually invested any effort into research.
 
No, and I'm not claiming that it is.
Then why use it?
No, I've read the Bible.
ah, but apparently you've never actually read the Quran?
Why then would you use it in discussion?

I don't make useless comments.
Actually, by mentioning the Quran, you did exactly that!

I have a novel idea. I can only hope you'll actually watch it, but a community of people I associate with invited a speaker to talk about Islam and the Quran.
It was quite educational.

Part 1




Part 2




Part 3



On the icmda site are more resources for further investigation.

After all, if you're going to use the Quran to throw around like it has any validity, you should at least know what you're doing.
 
After all, if you're going to use the Quran to throw around like it has any validity, you should at least know what you're doing.
I wasn't claiming the Quran has validity. Quite the opposite in fact. My point was that a text can claim to be the true word of God without this necessarily being the case.
 
Back
Top