D
Deleted member 68446
LEAVE this forum
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2024
- Posts
- 284
- Reputation
- 255
before I start I'd like to make this clear, all my life I've been a muslim, and for now I consider myself a muslim aswell, I have no problems with islam and it makes perfect sense to me, my morality and values are entirely dependent on islamic worldview. yet I think too deeply into shit and this whole thing suddenly popped in my mind, I am still unsure and I am here to listen to other people's opinions and counter arguments to this so I can hopefully save my faith.
its important for you to know that this is directed at a specific set of the religions that operate in a similar manner which is: god sends message, lets people knew he exists and tells them about whats right and wrong, he also claims everyone can understand the message and people who refuse to believe in it and act as it commands gets punished in some form, which is how islam and christianity works. my arguments apply to all religions who have similar characteristics I described but not those who dont.
Religion and Perfection: A Circular Mindfuck
Alright, let’s break this down. Everyone knows you can't prove God's existence with science; no lab experiment is gonna find God hanging out in a petri dish, anyone who says God can be proven with science is a low IQ dumb fuck, the god we're talking about isn't physical and hence isn't governed by a set of laws that we can measure and test for. So, some folks try to "prove" religion, philosophically; by saying their chosen holy text allegedly sent by God is too perfect for humans to have created, and that must mean divine inspiration, right? But here's where it all gets twisted.
Circular Reasoning and Self-Referential Standards
If a religious text claims it's perfect based on standards that the text itself defines, we’re stuck in a bullshit loop. It's like saying, "I'm awesome because I said so, and my definition of awesome is exactly what I am." Trying to use the message's own criteria of perfection to prove itself is straight-up nonsensical.
And using one religion’s standards to judge another makes zero sense too because you can't prove the divine origin of either. Plus, if you already knew your message was perfect, why even bother comparing it to others? It's like knowing your favorite pizza joint is the best and then holding a pizza taste test for no reason.
Subjective Standards and Setting Up for Failure
But wait, there's more. Some religions don't set a clear standard for perfection, so people judge them based on their own ideas of what's "perfect," which are shaped by upbringing, culture, and whatever other external crap life throws at them. This means that inevitably, the religious message falls short of what some people expect because everyone's idea of perfection is all over the place.
Universal Claims and the Fairness Fiasco
This leads to the next big problem: when a religion says it's for all able-bodied humans and that it'll punish those who don't believe, it's setting itself up for failure. If the religion claims to be fair and defines fairness in a way that aligns with common sense (like treating people equitably) which the religions we talk about do. then punishing those who don't believe is unfair because of how subjective this whole perfection thing is.
So basically, the idea that a religious message is perfect and will punish non-believers doesn’t hold up because everyone's got different expectations. And if a religion claims it's fair but then doles out punishment without considering this subjectivity, it's directly contradicting its own principles.
Final Thoughts: The Universal Religious Paradox
So yeah, if you're trying to prove that a religious message is divine because it's "too perfect" for humans to have made, you're gonna be going in circles all day. The combination of circular reasoning and subjective standards just doesn't work, especially if you're trying to say that the message applies to everyone equally. If your religion’s gonna claim it’s perfect, it’s gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than that. A religion that cannot prove its perfection, cannot prove the existence of its God.
its important for you to know that this is directed at a specific set of the religions that operate in a similar manner which is: god sends message, lets people knew he exists and tells them about whats right and wrong, he also claims everyone can understand the message and people who refuse to believe in it and act as it commands gets punished in some form, which is how islam and christianity works. my arguments apply to all religions who have similar characteristics I described but not those who dont.
Religion and Perfection: A Circular Mindfuck
Alright, let’s break this down. Everyone knows you can't prove God's existence with science; no lab experiment is gonna find God hanging out in a petri dish, anyone who says God can be proven with science is a low IQ dumb fuck, the god we're talking about isn't physical and hence isn't governed by a set of laws that we can measure and test for. So, some folks try to "prove" religion, philosophically; by saying their chosen holy text allegedly sent by God is too perfect for humans to have created, and that must mean divine inspiration, right? But here's where it all gets twisted.
Circular Reasoning and Self-Referential Standards
If a religious text claims it's perfect based on standards that the text itself defines, we’re stuck in a bullshit loop. It's like saying, "I'm awesome because I said so, and my definition of awesome is exactly what I am." Trying to use the message's own criteria of perfection to prove itself is straight-up nonsensical.
And using one religion’s standards to judge another makes zero sense too because you can't prove the divine origin of either. Plus, if you already knew your message was perfect, why even bother comparing it to others? It's like knowing your favorite pizza joint is the best and then holding a pizza taste test for no reason.
Subjective Standards and Setting Up for Failure
But wait, there's more. Some religions don't set a clear standard for perfection, so people judge them based on their own ideas of what's "perfect," which are shaped by upbringing, culture, and whatever other external crap life throws at them. This means that inevitably, the religious message falls short of what some people expect because everyone's idea of perfection is all over the place.
Universal Claims and the Fairness Fiasco
This leads to the next big problem: when a religion says it's for all able-bodied humans and that it'll punish those who don't believe, it's setting itself up for failure. If the religion claims to be fair and defines fairness in a way that aligns with common sense (like treating people equitably) which the religions we talk about do. then punishing those who don't believe is unfair because of how subjective this whole perfection thing is.
So basically, the idea that a religious message is perfect and will punish non-believers doesn’t hold up because everyone's got different expectations. And if a religion claims it's fair but then doles out punishment without considering this subjectivity, it's directly contradicting its own principles.
Final Thoughts: The Universal Religious Paradox
So yeah, if you're trying to prove that a religious message is divine because it's "too perfect" for humans to have made, you're gonna be going in circles all day. The combination of circular reasoning and subjective standards just doesn't work, especially if you're trying to say that the message applies to everyone equally. If your religion’s gonna claim it’s perfect, it’s gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than that. A religion that cannot prove its perfection, cannot prove the existence of its God.
.
16-0
hold this L my niggaz
don’t ever disrespect Jesus, muslimcel. 
