Then morality is arbitrary. It's not wrong to kill a man because you've robbed a mother of her son, a wife of her husband, or a son of his father. It's just wrong because God doesn't like it, and unless one is willing to buy into Christianity no reason a Christian offers is going to satisfy the non-believer for why this moral reasoning is acceptable.
You can replace the word "something" with literally any action and since there isn't an external standard to judge with, it's naturally justified with feeling good.
You haven't demonstrated in your post how miracles are ridiculous. You simply said that you haven't already witnessed an event that is similar to this miracle therefore it's ridiculous to believe in it. And now you're playing the burden game.
It is indeed a cogent moral objection, which is why this argument often leads to Muslim apologists posting socially unacceptable stuff in the comments to defend their religion.
Empiricists when they're told there are other fundamental routes of knowledge like testimony, i.e. the one they're using to believe in the scientific theories they haven't performed.
I’d be ready to bet that the VAST majority of traditionally trained scholars in the Muslim world absolutely accept the validity of child marriage. The reason is simple: there’s pretty much a consensus among classical scholars on the permissibility of contracting marriages with children and consummating the marriage with them while still being prebubescent. The 4 major Sunni madhabs are all in agreement on this.
You're defining "immature" as "child" (which is already a bit reductionist) and then using a different view of maturity than he is using. Come on man you can do better.
I don't believe in mature children, it's literally their defining characteristic. And I didn't pin down a specific view of maturity, I said that certain signs are taken into account on a case by case basis.
Comparing is not the same as being instruct, there is an infinite amount of solutions to solve this problem, why would this one be the one if the prophet made no indication to it ?
Doesn't theism endorse randomness too? The ultimate cause behind everything is God, and God's desires are brute contingencies. So whenever God does something, there is no preceding cause to that decision, hence his actions are as close to true randomness as possible.
This runs into a bit of a problem though. If the being is all powerful and all knowing then everything that happens is because they willed it to happen that way. At the moment of creation everything was created in a specific way as to result in every specific thing that happens happening, and it couldn’t happen any other way (just think of every butterfly flapping / guy stubbing his toe event that would have to happen exactly as it happened throughout all history to result in your parents meeting). So every outcome is preordained intentionally, and free will is illusion.
What's the problem if free-will is an illusion? Couldn't someone then claim that the consequences of the illusory free will are just as illusory as the free will itself.
$11,000 goes a lot farther when the cost of production drops to nearly zero. If wageless AIs are doing all the manufacturing and mining and agriculture and etc., I would expect the price of those things to drop significantly. Could be the $11,000 of a post AGI world is equivalent to $500,000 today, since practically anything you want to buy has just a nominal cost.
You can extend this to everything. Do you buy things online? How do you feel comfortable giving your credit card information without seeing the coding of the website? We do this because there are consumer protections in place. The makers of this website would open themselves up to legal trouble and for what nude photos of women they don’t know? I can think of less risky ways of doing it such as I don’t know, google. Like, yeah it’s possible they are lying but I personally am as protective of my financials as of my nude photos. At a certain point you have to trust things and it’s not like there are better options to use when you’re in that situation.
Then morality is arbitrary. It's not wrong to kill a man because you've robbed a mother of her son, a wife of her husband, or a son of his father. It's just wrong because God doesn't like it, and unless one is willing to buy into Christianity no reason a Christian offers is going to satisfy the non-believer for why this moral reasoning is acceptable.
I believe that morality is already subjective.
You can replace the word "something" with literally any action and since there isn't an external standard to judge with, it's naturally justified with feeling good.
Sure I don't deny that other people can impose themselves onto others, that's the other side of the coin.
If something is at internal discretion, then by definition it is subjective, not objective.
I didn't say anything about everyone's discretion.
You don't believe an omnipotent being can bring a rock into existence such that it objectively exists?
[удалено]
You haven't demonstrated in your post how miracles are ridiculous. You simply said that you haven't already witnessed an event that is similar to this miracle therefore it's ridiculous to believe in it. And now you're playing the burden game.
It is indeed a cogent moral objection, which is why this argument often leads to Muslim apologists posting socially unacceptable stuff in the comments to defend their religion.
It's funny how historical facts about human civilizations are socially unacceptable.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
Empiricists when they're told there are other fundamental routes of knowledge like testimony, i.e. the one they're using to believe in the scientific theories they haven't performed.
I didn’t say that anywhere?
Wtf??? He performed his duties and exceeded expectations for 2 years AND THEY WERE ENTITLED TO BACKPAY even though he was clearly qualified???
Yikes
I’d be ready to bet that the VAST majority of traditionally trained scholars in the Muslim world absolutely accept the validity of child marriage. The reason is simple: there’s pretty much a consensus among classical scholars on the permissibility of contracting marriages with children and consummating the marriage with them while still being prebubescent. The 4 major Sunni madhabs are all in agreement on this.
Citation needed for that claim. The prophet's example is literally used as evidence to wait for maturity. So you'd be making a bad bet.
You're defining "immature" as "child" (which is already a bit reductionist) and then using a different view of maturity than he is using. Come on man you can do better.
I don't believe in mature children, it's literally their defining characteristic. And I didn't pin down a specific view of maturity, I said that certain signs are taken into account on a case by case basis.
I am assuming things here. Just like Muslims assume that it it was Jibreel. I am assuming it was a malicious entity who pretended to be Jibreel.
Ok, get back to me when your position has evidence to back it up.
Yeah. We both are on the same boat. We have no evidence to back up our claims.
You're in your own boat with made up hypotheticals.
Comparing is not the same as being instruct, there is an infinite amount of solutions to solve this problem, why would this one be the one if the prophet made no indication to it ?
[удалено]
Exactly there's more potential customers, why wouldn't they raise to 8? People would have more "throwaway" money so theyll pay the 8 gladly
We don't really need it yet. There are still jobs at all levels and professions and AI hasn't taken enough jobs to cause widespread problems just yet.
These "what ifs" are not real arguments. We can sit here and throw "what ifs" at each other all day long and get absolutely nowhere.
I'm not married to the word flaw. You could replace flawed with harmful if you like.
Sure, could you please rephrase your original reply to this comment using the words that you'd like to be married to.
You can see that a plan is harmful while also accepting that you do not have absolute understanding of the plan.
Are you using the term harmful in an absolute sense?
Someone recently shared a post that is similar to this question.
Doesn't theism endorse randomness too? The ultimate cause behind everything is God, and God's desires are brute contingencies. So whenever God does something, there is no preceding cause to that decision, hence his actions are as close to true randomness as possible.
No we believe that it's free will. Similar to how our limited free will seems uncaused, God's true free will is genuinely uncaused.
This runs into a bit of a problem though. If the being is all powerful and all knowing then everything that happens is because they willed it to happen that way. At the moment of creation everything was created in a specific way as to result in every specific thing that happens happening, and it couldn’t happen any other way (just think of every butterfly flapping / guy stubbing his toe event that would have to happen exactly as it happened throughout all history to result in your parents meeting). So every outcome is preordained intentionally, and free will is illusion.
What's the problem if free-will is an illusion? Couldn't someone then claim that the consequences of the illusory free will are just as illusory as the free will itself.
Wasn't elon just saying we should stop ai development....
Elon's words ➡️
Sorry, but I would rather be responsible for my own wellbeing and future rather than hoping some government & UBI would ensure I have a decent living.
How would you do that in a world without need for your skills?
$11,000 goes a lot farther when the cost of production drops to nearly zero. If wageless AIs are doing all the manufacturing and mining and agriculture and etc., I would expect the price of those things to drop significantly. Could be the $11,000 of a post AGI world is equivalent to $500,000 today, since practically anything you want to buy has just a nominal cost.
The funny thing is shirts already cost 0.10 to make. Low production prices will not strip away greed.
To be able to immediately shut it off and tell your partner suggests that the person has experience with this type of scenario.
Not necessarily. I'm sure we've got examples of scenarios that we'd shut down immediately without second thought.
You can extend this to everything. Do you buy things online? How do you feel comfortable giving your credit card information without seeing the coding of the website? We do this because there are consumer protections in place. The makers of this website would open themselves up to legal trouble and for what nude photos of women they don’t know? I can think of less risky ways of doing it such as I don’t know, google. Like, yeah it’s possible they are lying but I personally am as protective of my financials as of my nude photos. At a certain point you have to trust things and it’s not like there are better options to use when you’re in that situation.
But I'm not comfortable giving debit online, and I don't buy from random websites, but when I do, I don't use my main credit card.
Just give them the hadith where Aisha (r.a) said she was already a woman when she married the prophet (p.b.u.h)
But but but, her opinion is only valid when it suits my arguments you animal!
[удалено]
How can you tell OP to start using his brain when he clearly mentioned Malcolm X's transformation after the pilgrimage to Mecca?
I don't get it
He didn't properly read your post.
What's funny here is how he's desperate to feel relevant.
That is how internal critiques are supposed to be. You consider the claims true...
That is an external critique.
Islam: Explicitly denies the superiority of Arabs.
I think the OP's point was that early Islam felt a need to explicitly deny Arab superiority because so many Islamic practices are Arab-centric.
I get it OP is trying to say Islam is saying "I'm not racist, proceeds to do something racist".