vra

@RussellC38848 @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs You’re moving from ‘possible’ to ‘therefore likely’ without evidence, and from ‘I don’t see evidence’ to ‘there is none.’ Both are weak inferences.

@Vraxout @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs We know for a fact that religions have been created by man. Therefore, there is plausibility in man-made religions. There is nothing to suggest that something non-physical can exist outside of space & time and create something physical. Therefore, there is no plausibility.

The first Muslim was a woman. The first martyr was a woman. But go ahead and tell me Islam is a man's religion.

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs No certainty = no history, by your logic.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs My initial objection was: "Prove it. I guarantee that you can't." What's changed ?

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs It says it’s ‘widely accepted’ and ‘very strong’ in the tradition, it just notes that history doesn’t deal in absolute certainty. That applies to almost every historical claim, not just this one. Lack of absolute certainty is not equal to equal plausibility of alternatives.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs I don't need counter evidence at all.

@RussellC38848 @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs ‘That sounds strange’ isn’t a measure of plausibility. And ‘humans can create religions’ doesn’t show this one was, that needs evidence.

@Vraxout @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs "proposing alternatives doesn’t make them equally plausible." - Have you calculated how plausible it is for some god to exist ? An entity that is outside of space & time, yet has consciousness, is able to create physical matter from nothing ? We know humans can create religions.

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs God’s existence is philosophical, not historical. Khadijah being the first Muslim is a historical claim supported by early sources, if you reject it, show counter-evidence.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs "You’re asking for empirical proof of a philosophical critique" - I'm not. I'm asking for proof, empirical or otherwise, that god exists and that "The first Muslim was a woman".

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs You reject sources and reject consensus. Nothing counts as evidence for you, so nothing can ever be proven. Convenient isn’t it?

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs "In history, proof is based on sources and scholarly consensus." - That's not proof. "If you reject an established claim, you need counter-evidence, not just denial." - I don't. I just need to highlight the unproven assumptions made, which I have already.

@RussellC38848 @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs Simply proposing alternatives doesn’t make them equally plausible. If you want to treat ‘B, C, D’ as real possibilities, you need evidence for them, otherwise it’s just speculation.

@Vraxout @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs "You’re the one claiming Prophet Muhammad created Islam" - I never asserted any such thing; I merely posited an alternative. If there are 2 possible scenarios, A & B and you assert A without any proof, how can anyone be certain that it is A and not B (or C, D etc) ?

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs You’re asking for empirical proof of a philosophical critique, that’s exactly the category mistake I’m pointing out.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs " ‘Only what can be proven is valid’ isn’t provable " - Can you prove that ?

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs In history, proof is based on sources and scholarly consensus. If you reject an established claim, you need counter-evidence, not just denial. ‘Burden of proof’ is doing more work than your argument at this point.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs "established historical claim"s are not the same as proof. Ergo, you lot DO have the burden of proof.

@RussellC38848 @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs You’re reversing the burden of proof. You’re the one claiming Prophet Muhammad created Islam, so you need to provide evidence for that. I don’t have to disprove an unsupported assertion.

@Vraxout @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs "Prophet Muhammad didn’t ‘create’ Islam, he conveyed it" - This is only a subjective opinion. Can you prove that Muhammad & his cohorts didn't create Islam ?

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs ‘Only what can be proven is valid’ isn’t provable, so your whole argument collapses.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs I'm not the one implicitly asserting that some god exists. It's a baseless claim until it can be proven.

@BenjaminYumi8 @Jvnior @CaminanteU3 You’re showing a timeline, not a cause. Violence increasing doesn’t tell you why it increased. That source isn’t neutral, and more importantly, the graph is incomplete. It only shows one side of the conflict, that’s not enough to support the conclusion you’re implying.

"Resistance groups are forming which is bound to happen when a genocide occurs." 🎯💯

This is not Gaza. This is Tel Aviv. You can smile. You can laugh. They deserve it.

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs You’re arguing from absence of proof, which isn’t the same as proof of absence. That’s a basic logical distinction.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs "Pick a topic." - Only one topic. Islam. Without the existence of god, Islam is nothing. I'm highlighting the many flaws inherent in the assertions that you make. All you have is subjective nonsense. No proof.

@RussellC38848 @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs The analogy is simple. Isaac Newton didn’t create gravity, he explained it. Likewise, in Islamic belief, Prophet Muhammad didn’t ‘create’ Islam, he conveyed it. That’s the point, origin vs explanation.

@Vraxout @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs You haven't explained the validity or your analogy or what the point of it was.

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs You keep saying ‘burden of proof’ but ignoring the fact that this is an established historical claim, not a new assertion. If you dispute it, you need counter-evidence, that’s how burden of proof actually works. Back your first claim, then we’ll get to your second.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs You have the burden of proof, which you've failed to deliver ergo ‘you can’t prove it’. Ergo, I presume you're dropping the narrative that Jesus was a muslim. Just highlighting the consequences of your failures.

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs You’ve gone from burden of proof to ‘you can’t prove it’ to Jesus. That’s not an argument, that’s topic hopping.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs You can't prove it then. So Jesus wasn't a muslim then.

@RussellC38848 @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs You don’t need to agree with it, but you still haven’t explained why it fails. Saying ‘it fails’ without engaging the actual point isn’t a refutation.

@Vraxout @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs Your analogy fails then, even if it didn't, I'm not sure what the point of it was.

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs First it was history, now it’s philosophy. Pick a topic.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs You can't even prove god exists. Your entire world view is based on some very dubious, unproven assumptions.

@RussellC38848 @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs You argued against a point no one made. The analogy is about origin vs explanation, not public acceptance.

@Vraxout @Tu94436 @CanyonMimbs "Gravity wasn’t created by Newton, he just explained it" - False analogy. It's not as though only physicists acknowledge gravity and no one else does, is it ?

@RussellC38848 @CanyonMimbs Established consensus (like Khadija being the first believer) doesn’t require re-proving unless you have counter evidence.

@Vraxout @CanyonMimbs "The first person to accept Islam was literally a woman; Khadija. Prove me wrong." - Tell me you don't understand burden of proof without telling me you don't understand burden of proof.