And if you're a more logical driven person, you should know that Islamic moral philosophy is the only philosophy that can explain which actions are right and wrong, nailing it down to only two assumptions (a syllogism): There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger. Any action can be judged moral or immoral by assuming these two premises.

There is no other philosophy in the world that uses a non-paradoxical syllogism to explain everything, from morality, to the purpose of life, the existence of the universe, and all other major philosophical questions.

aban57 wrote:The OT is filled with examples of Jews getting everything wrong. In fact, from the moment God decides they're the "chosen" people, everything they could do wrong, they did. During the time in the desert, and even after, God has to punish them, mostly for doubting him, at least a dozen times. Remember that out of the 10 commandments, 4 of them explain how to worship him. So, for his chosen people to even doubt his existence is a big mistake.
Makes you wonder how the all-knowing, all-powerful God chooses his people.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:More thinly veiled threats:

It’s no laughing matter. My heart and prayers go out to you. Some day when you stand before God. You won’t think it’s funny or irrational..Some day ever eye will see him and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is lord.
M

DavidMcC wrote:Thomas, you a have been posting a lot of unattributed quotes recently in this thread, but I can't find the originals. Can you identify the poster, please.

Thomas, I'm afraid you don't understand logic. In logic, two assumptions are made. The assumptions may not necessarily be true in a give syllogism. I am saying that the conclusion from these two premises must be coherent with the first two assumptions. So the question now is WHAT is moral (that's moral philosophy for you). These two assumptions allow a person to explain whether any action sone by anybody is moral or not moral. This is called INTERNAL CONSISTENCY, and refers to when a theory is able to discern conclusions based on assumptions. My assertion is that Islam is the only moral philosophy that has internal consistency.

Regarding EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY, which refers to whether or not something is actually moral (if morality exists, that it), Islam is the only moral philosophy whose premises are not illogical. For instance, while one premise of Christianity may perhaps be profession in belief of the trinity, by deconstructing the trinity's assertions, one can disprove the external consistency right off the bat and discard it. Likewise, if a philosophy holds as a premise that the universe is eternal, one can deconstruct the external consistency of an argument by proving it is not.

While ignoring the issue of external consistency is in the interest of sparing our time, I will assert this: Islam is the only logical moral philosophy because it is the only one that can deduce whether something is moral based on two assumptions. You can counter that by providing a philosophy that does.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The lack of logic and the presence of delusion is strong in this one:

And if you're a more logical driven person, you should know that Islamic moral philosophy is the only philosophy that can explain which actions are right and wrong, nailing it down to only two assumptions (a syllogism): There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger. Any action can be judged moral or immoral by assuming these two premises.

There is no other philosophy in the world that uses a non-paradoxical syllogism to explain everything, from morality, to the purpose of life, the existence of the universe, and all other major philosophical questions.

Nicko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The lack of logic and the presence of delusion is strong in this one:

And if you're a more logical driven person, you should know that Islamic moral philosophy is the only philosophy that can explain which actions are right and wrong, nailing it down to only two assumptions (a syllogism): There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger. Any action can be judged moral or immoral by assuming these two premises.

There is no other philosophy in the world that uses a non-paradoxical syllogism to explain everything, from morality, to the purpose of life, the existence of the universe, and all other major philosophical questions.

Islam is actually pretty logical if one accepts those two premises.

The problem is that there is no good reason one should accept them.

So why aren’t more of our best and brightest minds believers?

It’s a complex question, but I have two theories. First, there is an incredible bias against theism within higher education. In 2009, Dr. Brent Slife published a study of this “pervasive, implicit bias,” and demonstrated ways that the anti-God mentality is a systemic part of academia.

The result of this bias is that the most intelligent people (since they are likely to attend college and grad school) are exposed to tremendous negative pressure from both mentors and peers regarding their beliefs.

Secondly, I believe the present Church culture in America is unfriendly to intellectual scrutiny.

I have experienced firsthand the judgmental glares of church ladies who didn’t take kindly to me polluting their potluck fellowships with tough theological questions. Once the conversation gets messier than the Sloppy Joes, it’s time to wrap it up with the catch-all “His ways are higher than our ways,” or “If we knew everything we wouldn’t need God now, would we?”

This has to stop.

1. No, any logical deducation is made from two first assumptions (disprove it if you can, like with three premises as you say it is possible)
2. For you is a figure of speech in the English language
3. You didnt disprove my argument. In order to do so, bring any action and tell me how Islam cannot explain if it is moral.
4. I can’t demonstrate something with a potentially infinite infinite number of cases. You can easily disprove it by providing a case where the first two assumptions I have made cannot account for a specific action.
5. You can disprove my statement in external consistency by providing a counter example

After this, the only claim you make is that what I am saying is non-demonstrable. I am saying that I cannot and will not in a few FB comments show you how every other moral philosophy collapses on its own logic. You can disprove my bold regurgitations by providing a single counter example, which would utterly destroy my argument. If I say that there are an infinite amount of numbers, you can’t tell me to demonstrate it by writing them down to you, I can simply show how saying otherwise it wrong, and ask you to provide a single counter example that would destroy my argument.

Let me help you, you can give an example of another moral philosophy that can classify all actions as moral or immoral, you can show me how Islam does not account for al actions, and so on. Sorry for typos, writing on a phone.

His apostles were eye witnesses to the resurrection. They spent the rest of their lives proclaiming the Risen Christ, for no money, no glory, just hardship. Most went to their deaths proclaiming the Risen Christ.
People will die for what is a lie but what they believe is true, but they won't die for what they know is a lie. It makes no sense, then, that those apostles would have fabricated a story, then went their separate ways, and died for that story.
They did what they did because they obviously saw the Risen Christ.
James the Brother of Jesus was a skeptic in Jesus' lifetime. Yet he went on to become the bishop of the church in Jerusalem, and died a martyr's death proclaiming the Risen Christ, which he saw.
Saul of Tarusus (a.k.a Paul) was a devout Jew who was determined to persecute Christians. Yet, he did a 180 on the road to Damascus and became perhaps the greatest Christian missionary of all.
Why? Because he said he saw the Risen Christ. History tells us Jesus lived, and died from Roman crucifixion in about the year 30 AD.
Christianity sprang up in Jerusalem right after the crucifixion. This was no mere legend that came later. This was a news story, not a bedtime story.
If the Sanhedrin could have produced his body, they would have to quell the idea of his resurrection. They didn't produce it, because there was no body of the man who had just been crucified three days before.
Further, Jesus fit perfectly the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. He's the only one who's ever fit all of them.
Do some research. If what I'm telling you is true, it holds great promise for you. Do your own research. Best wishes.

I know the Bible is the Word of God becaue of the internal witness of the Bible itself and the external witness of the evidence. Internally, the compilation of 66 writings we call the Bible were accrued over a period of 1500 years, by 40 different authors in three different languages on thousands of subjects. Many of the authors were neither aware of each other nor had any idea that there would be a final book. Yet, each of the individual writings fit together like a jigsaw puzzle to present a larger picture or theme. The writings flow seemlessly and corroborate each other. Clearly, the 40 different authors were directed in some manner as to what to write and this is exactly what Scipture says about itself. Additionally, all prophecies in Scripture have been fulfilled exactly as stated, sometimes hundreds or even thouands of years after the prophecy, with the only exception being those that deal with the end of times. No single author under his or her own inspiration could have done that let alone multiple authors. Again, there was an overarching theme that the authors were being directed to write about, I believe sometimes unwittingly. The evidence external to Scripture corrborates the internal witness of Scripture. In fact, the writings of many foes of Jesus testify to the Biblical accounts. It is actually possible to piece together the life of Christ apart from Scripture using the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Plinius the Younger. Additionally, there are the archeological aspects that have been unearthed which confirm Biblical accounts. Put it all together and the evidence is overwhelming. People can deny or ignore the evidence but it is there just the same.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:When I asked someone how they know Moses spoke to god and that the bible is divinely inspired:

I know the Bible is the Word of God becaue of the internal witness of the Bible itself and the external witness of the evidence. Internally, the compilation of 66 writings we call the Bible were accrued over a period of 1500 years, by 40 different authors in three different languages on thousands of subjects. Many of the authors were neither aware of each other nor had any idea that there would be a final book. Yet, each of the individual writings fit together like a jigsaw puzzle to present a larger picture or theme. The writings flow seemlessly and corroborate each other. Clearly, the 40 different authors were directed in some manner as to what to write and this is exactly what Scipture says about itself. Additionally, all prophecies in Scripture have been fulfilled exactly as stated, sometimes hundreds or even thouands of years after the prophecy, with the only exception being those that deal with the end of times. No single author under his or her own inspiration could have done that let alone multiple authors. Again, there was an overarching theme that the authors were being directed to write about, I believe sometimes unwittingly. The evidence external to Scripture corrborates the internal witness of Scripture. In fact, the writings of many foes of Jesus testify to the Biblical accounts. It is actually possible to piece together the life of Christ apart from Scripture using the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Plinius the Younger. Additionally, there are the archeological aspects that have been unearthed which confirm Biblical accounts. Put it all together and the evidence is overwhelming. People can deny or ignore the evidence but it is there just the same.

No, if you control a person then they are not free to do as they please. Owning someone is not controlling them.
Owning someone does not mean they can't do as they please. If I had certificate that declared I owned someone, yet that person was still free to do as they please and had the same rights as me, that wouldn't be slavery. Conversely, I could argue that I'm a slave at my job, yet nobody owns me. Thus you and your best friend's premise that owning someone is slavery is false.

“How can you know something is true without being able to demonstrate that it is?”

This is completely irrelevant to the point of what a sound argument is. A sound argument is a valid deductive argument with true premises. Be it that you know it is sound or not.

“False. If an argument is to be sound, its premises need to be true. Not just for the person making the argument, but also for the people he's arguing with. Meaning the arguer has to be able to demonstrate his premises are true.”

You are misinformed. What is true is true wheather we know it or not. And I already quoted a philosophical source on the matter. Please, provide a veritable philosophical source that states that a sound argument is one with demonstrably true premises

<<"A sound argument is a deuctive valid argument with true premises, be it that it is demonstrated, demonstrable or not."
Again, if you cannot demonstrate your premises to be true, there's no reason for your interlocutor to accept them as true.>>
Again, so what? That doesn´t change what a sound argument is.

<<"You haven´t understood the comment I made… what Dr. Law pointed out is compatible with the MOA being sound. Please, notice, that my statement does not say wheather the MOA is sound or not, just that it being sound is compatible with what Dr. Law pointed out."

Since MOA isn't sound, what does pointing that out achieve exactly?>>

What reason do you have to offer that justifies your assertion that the MOA isn´t sound?

zulumoose wrote:Looks like you are both confusing each other.

An argument is sound if it follows from the premises, whether the premises are true or not. He is correct there.

The argument ITSELF is sound, the conclusion may not be valid.

Either way, the discusssion is about his argument that the premises don't have to be demonstrably true, just true.