74ss4n

Hindus and telling the truth are two parallel lines that will never cross.

@athari7445 Yeah true, thats the implication i thought you meant sth they directly affirm, but yeah there are some other agrs that can Prove compostion in an ads model of God, working on them

@MaxPlan20544374 divine simplicity allows for no real distinctions within God. but since the persons are God yet distinct from each other, then God isn't truly simple. I say thomism because they emphasize the notion that the persons are just the same reality in reality. if so no real disticntio

Divine Simplicity is incompatible with Christianity, especially Thomism.

@Hanbali2024 @OneWayApologetc Does He really think we belive God is omnipresent?💀💀

@OneWayApologetc You think you’re better than them? Tell me you didn’t say that the Old Testament God isn’t a different God of the New Testament? Go ahead say you didn’t say that 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Whats funny is two low level Muslim apologists have a debate against two barely known college preachers and they think they conquered the world lol. This coming from the same person that said Allah is not omnipresent lol

Hey @lilyjayofficial, if you are going to pretend to feed the children, at least pick ones that have mouths.

This guy spends every day making up lies about Muslims. Before you engage, remember he said this.👇🏾 He does it for engagement and monetization.

@diarzsaleh @sb_eev @AlboranNomad What?!😭😭

@sb_eev @AlboranNomad I got skinned alive for saying that most arabs aren't black

@caveheraa All God's actions are perfectly Just And everyone is gonna be compensated on the day of judgmemt If He was wronged, so there is No Problem of evil, Its Just an epistemic Problem of Not knowing the exhustive wisdoms behind pain existing, but they are under Care of the All Wise

@caveheraa Now we know in this Life we will be tested in pain, And sufferering via Natural causes or via human's free will which also Part of the testy so we can Sometimes know the wisdom behind the Test being Like this And Sometimes Not, as this is an internal critique it has to assume...

Got a call from friend whose brother is struggling with the problem of evil. Straightforward resources for this, preferably articles or videos?

@LilLaaHilHamd @druski_g27198 @Hanbali2024 I mean If you don't mind it Being spread, then why Not do it on a big Plattform?

Notice how @LilLaaHilHamd will discuss with others but will not discuss with me. It’s pretty interesting isn’t it. His excuse is that it MUST be on discord. I preferred for it to be on a platform that was much bigger so he can never recover from his humiliation. Here we go, which further proves he’s a coward 👇 Let’s discuss on discord this weekend. I don’t care if it’s a group call or what, you can have a moderator too irdc. Same topic. Although this is ambiguous but this can be clarified what is being requested of here. Let’s also touch on the coherence of my view vs your view. I hope none of the Ash’aris take me as the final prophet because they believe prophethood is something that ceases when the prophet dies and Ash’aris historically said that Muhammad isn’t a prophet right now. I predict he’s going to dodge from this. Now remember, his last excuse (although that was clearly disproven) was that it’s because it wasn’t on discord. Now it’s on his own platform he selected (even though it was demonstrated that wasn’t needed). Watch him RUN LOL

@Hanbali2024 @LilLaaHilHamd They Always be saying Shi Like " you are a waste of time, Jahil" and duck, Its so predictable that you could be a millionar If you Bet about them doing the Same Shii, everytime

@LilLaaHilHamd Here’s an Ash’ari coward who scheduled a debate with me twice. By the way, he has no way to show how he’s not a coward. He will claim that I denied a discord debate, and claims he needs it to be on discord so he can assure he gets the recording. However, this is easily dismantled why? 1. If he doesn’t get the recording this looks really bad on my part 2. He has guarantee he will get the recording as it is going to be streamed live on YouTube on a big platform. 3. He was offered to have an Ash’ari moderator and presumably there would be people who he can have record for him. Now the funny thing is, he didn’t dodge a debate once, but twice. The first time it was already scheduled on @muslimorthodoxy’s channel and I was going to request for Libyano to host it, but after talking with his friends they advised him that he would get destroyed so he backed out. As you can see in the first SS clearly. Now if you take a look at the second one, how can I possibly be a runner as he claims? I want a bigger platform so his humiliation can be in such a way he will NEVER recover from it. He will never debate me. I will show you guys how he made a generational blunder saying that he doesn’t need to give proof for huduth al Ajsam as well.

انتقلت جدتي إلى رحمه الله، إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون. اللهم اغفر لها و ارحمها و اجعل قبرها روضة من رياض الجنه، اللهم ثبتها عند السؤال يا ارحم الراحمين.

I EXPOSED This Christian Apologist For Being Secretly GAY! Popular Christian Apologist COMES OUT ? youtu.be/dctjWoGllJ0

Mike’s "big" argument here goes like this: 1) The Qur’an says it’s clear. 2)Muslims disagree over verses. So it’s not clear. So "Izlam" is false. 3) If it is clear, then since it tells Christians to follow their scriptures and their scriptures contradict the Qur’an, then still, "Izlam" is false. So either way, Islam loses. Masha’Allah, very convenient setup habibi. Mike arrives at his conclusion by reading the Quran like he's an AI bot or a barcode reader. He processes the words perfectly, but nothing "lights up" in his head. Then he acts shocked when that results in nonsense. Basically, in Mike’s world, God is only allowed to say His verses are clear if every Muslim scholar in history agrees on the meaning of every verse and every detailed answer to every objection. The moment any serious disagreement shows up anywhere? “Not clear. Done.” Apparently the poor guy can't fathom how something could be clear if people don’t all agree on every detail of it. "Clarity + disagreement" seems to short-circuit his whole system. So maybe someone should gently pitch him this revolutionary concept: something can be clear in its core message even if people still discuss, explain, or disagree on parts of it. What's wrong with that? Too complicated for his “either everyone understand everything instantly or not clear” reasoning? Muslims have always understood “clear” in a way that actually fits how revelation functions in reality and how people naturally engage with it: The general guidance is clear: Who God is, that you worship Him alone, that you don’t associate partners with Him and worship humans, snakes or rats, that there’s a Day of Judgment, that some things are obviously permissible and others obviously forbidden, and that there’s a very simple moral and spiritual direction. Ordinary people can read it and know what God wants from them at that level. Above that, there are deeper layers: Details of law, complex questions, verses about the unseen, places where you see more if you actually know the language, context, the rest of revelation and related disciplines. What exactly is wrong or incoherent about that picture? What’s incoherent about understanding “clear verses” as: “The foundations are obvious and decisive, and the rest has room for depth, effort and disagreement” What’s far-fetched about God saying His verses are clear in that sense, rather than in Mike’s fantasy sense where the very existence of scholars is already a problem? Apparently the only acceptable scenario for him is: no scholars, no discussion, no complexity, no disagreement. If any of that shows up, the word “clear” is banned. Quite the level of sophistication you expect from someone who calls himself “Inspiring Philosophy”. Cuz nothing says “philosophy” like demanding a children’s picture-book level of simplicity. Then he tries to recycle this into the “Islamic Dilemma” side of his argument: Qur’an: “Go to your scripture.” Mike opens Bible: “Trinity, Son of God, etc.” Qur’an: “No Trinity, no divine son.” Mike: “Aha, Qur’an false.” And here he has two new “problems” with Muslims: 1) Muslims don’t all give the exact same response to his dilemma. 2) The answers they give are not themselves word-for-word sitting inside the verses. So again, on the first point, it is just the same "robotic reading" problem. Mike looks around, sees Muslims giving completely different answers to his little puzzle, and decides this proves the Qur’an was definitely wrong to call itself clear. Because again, in his head, “clear” means that no one anywhere (whether scholars or random kids on TikTok) is ever allowed to have a different take on how to explain any verse no matter the level of detail. If you can collect three Muslim responses that clash, then boom: "the Qur’an is clear" is absolutely and objectively false. The second point is even worse. He basically complains that the Muslim interpretations given in response are “not in the Qur’an”. As if that's some kind of scandal. Yes, Mike, an interpretation is not "the verse itself". That's...kinda what an interpretation is. I'm taking what the text says, using the rest of the Qur’an, the Prophet’s explanations, the language, and ordinary reasoning about what follows from all that, and then spelling out the meaning for you. You really want people to explain “what this verse means” by repeating the verse back to you in the exact same words then calling it a day? If we take this nonsense seriously, his standard would mean the moment he asks “what does this mean?” the Qur’an has already failed. Because any real answer will use different wording, extra explanation, connections to other passages, other texts, and so on. So in Mike’s world, the instant you need someone to actually unpack the text for you, that means the Qur’an was 100% wrong to ever call itself clear in the first place. It’s hard not to laugh at how shallow this is.

This is the guy @CapturingChrist is “challenging” Muslims to debate lol. The Throne and the Tablet were “there” before the creation of the heavens and earth, and therefore they cannot be part of creation. That “therefore” only follows if you redefine “creation” to mean “the heavens and the earth.” All you’ve actually shown is that they’re not part of the heavens and the earth. Congrats. Scary levels of genius here. No wonder Muslims are “running away” from debating him 😬