Why I Left Islam and Became a Christian

[Nassbean]

Correction, no miracles existed between the invention of the Camera and Photoshop.
And yes, the fear of Eternal oblivion and the fact that Humans are just another Species of animals scare some people

What's your opinion about NDE ?

[Altaison]

You live a virtuous life according to who ?

Are you a good person if you take care of your neighbours but neglect and ignore your parents ?

According to Abrahamic religions.
I look after my family including parents and siblings financially, it's in Turkish culture, if it's needed. I go to market my old neighbors grocery etc. Lol, no one needs Abrahamic religions and 72 virgins in heaven to be good. It's tribal human nature to do favors and get them sometimes.

[Avicenna]

According to Abrahamic religions.
I look after my family including parents and siblings financially, it's in Turkish culture, if it's needed. I go to market my old neighbors grocery etc. Lol, no one needs Abrahamic religions and 72 virgins in heaven to be good. It's tribal human nature to do favors and get them sometimes.

Why are you bringing up the 72 virgins lol?

Yes but God requires you to do all that AND acknowledge the creator . You can't be a good believer if you acknowledge the creator and cause corruption , be evil, chest , lie , steal to the people . You have to do both . That's where you have misunderstood

I'll ask again , whose criteria are you using to define you are a good person ? Turkish culture?

[Avicenna]

How can someone with a sound mind worship a crazy, murderous pirate who heard voices in a cave (Mohammad's supposed revelations from the angel Gabriel)?

Who do you think Muhammed pbuh encountered in the cave ?

[Altaison]

Why are you bringing up the 72 virgins lol?

Yes but God requires you to do all that AND acknowledge the creator . You can't be a good believer if you acknowledge the creator and cause corruption , be evil, chest , lie , steal to the people . You have to do both . That's where you have misunderstood

I'll ask again , whose criteria are you using to define you are a good person ? Turkish culture?

To show how average religious person is pragmatist by expecting endless heaven with virgins and rivers of wines. This doesn't sound virtuous to me.

Conventional Abrahamic standards for a good person definition.

[Synapsid]

Pascal's wager is between Christians . I've not mentioned that at all. I just asked him , what if your wrong ?

Now here's my question to you . Is it reasonable to believe the universe requires a cause ?

Let me guess, you gonna use Kalam's cosmological arguemnt? The concept of a first cause is based outdated Aristotelian logic.
Lets put the Arguement into its syllogistic form:

Premise 1: Everything that exists/begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Premise 2: The universe exists/began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Well, what wrong with arguement? Well firstly first Self-causation is impossible, Related to the infinite regress of causes is the idea that something may cause itself to come into being. Theists (such as yourself) argues that this is impossible based on the account of it never having been empirically observed, but also because of the impossibility and absurdity of an object causing itself. Specifically, for an object to cause itself to come into being, it must be prior to itself. This expressly forbids the universe from causing itself, which would otherwise scupper the conclusion. This line of reason does not interestingly enough, apply the laws of physics. Why? Because the concept of 'being Prior' i.e. before preceding something in time, requires time to already have existed. Think about

Also, one will also have to ask the question, if 'God' was this ultimate cause, then surely using this line of reasoning, God should have a first cause? Ah, but you would say 'God Omnipotence he was always there'. This is a special pleading fallacy. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement. However, while some phrasings of the argument may state that "everything has a cause" as one of the premises (thus contradicting the conclusion of the existence of an uncaused cause), there are also many versions that explicitly or implicitly allow for non-beginning or necessary entities not to have a cause. In the end, the point of the premises is to suggest that reality is a causally-connected whole and that all causal chains originate from a single point, posited to be God. That many people using this argument would consider God exempt from various requirements is a foregone conclusion, but citing "special pleading" because finite causal chains are said to have an uncaused beginning is hardly a convincing objection.

Also, there could be multiple causes, ever seen Acyclic Graphs, very interest field of Area (quite complex).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_acyclic_graph

Also in modern science,natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate Currently.

Also, there is no current Prohibition no first causes in modern science (as I said before, it based on outdated Aristotelian and Platonic logic). In the standard cosmological model, inflation makes it debatable whether the multiverse had a beginning or not. Theoretical physicists continue to propose models of eternal Universes, such as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confor...clic_cosmology

Even in an environment of True nothingness, there is something. Both Stephan Hawkings and Lewrence Kruass dispute the concept of true nothingness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Assuming your argument successes (it does not), at best, the conclusion we end up with is that their is an first cause, or 'God' if you like that term. Its does say much about the nature of the first cause, at best, the position should be agnostic and at worst, the position is Deistic. Its make no inference about Holy books, holy sites, chosen people. chosen men, holy men, what meats you can eat, what sex position you allowed to have, which rock to bow down to or revere or what language the first cause prefers man to recite (basically pulses of waves in the air, which has no measured effect on physical reality). Which why Muslim apologestics make ludicrous empirical arguments such as 'Scientific Miracles in the Quran'

[Avicenna]

To show how average religious person is pragmatist by expecting endless heaven with virgins and rivers of wines. This doesn't sound virtuous to me.

Conventional Abrahamic standards for a good person definition.

Okay the 72 virgins I'll put to bed :

The Sunni hadith scholar Tirmidhi quotes the prophet Muhammad as having said:

"The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy-two houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.[33][34]

However, others object that the narration granting all men seventy-two wives has a weak chain of narrators."[35]

I don't even know why that is such a atrocious thing lol? Mens weakness are women . What better than the greatest reward most men would dream of ? Anyways that's a weak hadith. If you know the science behind hadiths then you wouldn't bring it up in the first place .

What sounds virtuous to you or not , in all honesty , with the greatest respect, doesn't matter at all. Your opinion is purely subjective at the end of the day . iF a creator exists ,( IF) then what you think is irrelevant .

[Synapsid]

What's your opinion about NDE ?

Probably caused by leftover Oxygen still left in Neural tissues.

[Avicenna]

Let me guess, you gonna use Kalam's cosmological arguemnt? The concept of a first cause is based outdated Aristotelian logic.
Lets put the Arguement into its syllogistic form:

Premise 1: Everything that exists/begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Premise 2: The universe exists/began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Well, what wrong with arguement? Well firstly first Self-causation is impossible, Related to the infinite regress of causes is the idea that something may cause itself to come into being. Theists (such as yourself) argues that this is impossible based on the account of it never having been empirically observed, but also because of the impossibility and absurdity of an object causing itself. Specifically, for an object to cause itself to come into being, it must be prior to itself. This expressly forbids the universe from causing itself, which would otherwise scupper the conclusion. This line of reason does not interestingly enough, apply the laws of physics. Why? Because the concept of 'being Prior' i.e. before preceding something in time, requires time to already have existed. Think about

Also, one will also have to ask the question, if 'God' was this ultimate cause, then surely using this line of reasoning, God should have a first cause? Ah, but you would say 'God Omnipotence he was always there'. This is a special pleading fallacy. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement. However, while some phrasings of the argument may state that "everything has a cause" as one of the premises (thus contradicting the conclusion of the existence of an uncaused cause), there are also many versions that explicitly or implicitly allow for non-beginning or necessary entities not to have a cause. In the end, the point of the premises is to suggest that reality is a causally-connected whole and that all causal chains originate from a single point, posited to be God. That many people using this argument would consider God exempt from various requirements is a foregone conclusion, but citing "special pleading" because finite causal chains are said to have an uncaused beginning is hardly a convincing objection.

Also, there could be multiple causes, ever seen Acyclic Graphs, very interest field of Area (quite complex).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_acyclic_graph

Also in modern science,natural phenomena have been discovered whose causes have not yet been discerned or are non-existent. The best known example is radioactive decay. Although decay follows statistical laws and it's possible to predict the amount of a radioactive substance that will decay over a period of time, it is impossible to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate Currently.

Also, there is no current Prohibition no first causes in modern science (as I said before, it based on outdated Aristotelian and Platonic logic). In the standard cosmological model, inflation makes it debatable whether the multiverse had a beginning or not. Theoretical physicists continue to propose models of eternal Universes, such as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confor...clic_cosmology

Even in an environment of True nothingness, there is something. Both Stephan Hawkings and Lewrence Kruass dispute the concept of true nothingness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Assuming your argument successes (it does not), at best, the conclusion we end up with is that their is an first cause, or 'God' if you like that term. Its does say much about the nature of the first cause, at best, the position should be agnostic and at worst, the position is Deistic. Its make no inference about Holy books, holy sites, chosen people. chosen men, holy men, what meats you can eat, what sex position you allowed to have, which rock to bow down to or revere or what language the first cause prefers man to recite (basically pulses of waves in the air, which has no measured effect on physical reality). Which why Muslim apologestics make ludicrous empirical arguments such as 'Scientific Miracles in the Quran'

Honestly you've just rambled on stating theories without giving reasonable reasons . Kalams cosmological arguement is a very reasonable argument based on observation . In the known universe , everything requires a cause . The universe itself is contingent therefore the universe could not have caused itself nor always existed . According to Consensus science , the universe had a starting point . Even Stephen hawking concluded the universe would need an uncaused cause , but didn't know what it could be . Your theories are at best other alternatives for reasons to believe how the universe came to existence without the need for a cause , but that's just theory models without any reasonable evidence.

Whatever caused the universe by necessity has to be uncaused , as the issue of infinite regression will arise .

I'll just leave this debate taken place at Oxford university .

https://youtu.be/1n-zYRZy5NQ

[Synapsid]

To show how average religious person is pragmatist by expecting endless heaven with virgins and rivers of wines. This doesn't sound virtuous to me.

Conventional Abrahamic standards for a good person definition.

And its physically impossible, a Mind outside of a brain. Read the interesting correspondence between rene descartes and the queen christina about the soul