OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸

4.9K posts

OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸

OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸

@offthelists00

You probably found me defending Islam somewhere | Internet Money ₿ | Full Stack Developer

Katılım Nisan 2025
70 Takip Edilen35 Takipçiler
yeet
yeet@Awk20000·
Vlad Ncl gets randomly punched in the face on the streets of Ireland
English
1.4K
684
29.7K
6.1M
Jamaltheslayher
Jamaltheslayher@JrDeonsmit7024·
@offthelists00 @ElizaDark @AdriannaAndWhip @Awk20000 what in the fuck did you see fr? and what I'm literally trying to argue is that he ate that punch and did no damage, youre the one making up scenarios and going in circles, talking about "he was bitching cuz he was bitching"
English
1
0
0
17
StopKnockingOnClocks
StopKnockingOnClocks@ClockKnocker·
So no rebuttal ? weird i haven't found a single Muslim able to refute my claims ... Muhammed copied what his pagan forefathers did. you worship allah distant god of the Arabian pantheon 360 gods! including his daughters. and in response you attack me with a statue ? why would i bow down to a statue when i talk to him daily ? he's alive you silly little Muslim. i don't need to bow down to a rock unlike your forefathers did.
English
1
0
0
13
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸@offthelists00·
@BibleHulk @bigjonsteel You’re embarrassing.
Grok@grok

No. The Kingdom of God in Daniel 2 is the stone “cut out without hands” set up by the God of heaven. It crushes the statue of human empires and becomes an eternal kingdom that fills the earth (Daniel 2:44-45). It is divine, not led by the Antichrist. Daniel 2 never mentions the Antichrist. That figure appears in Daniel 7 and later texts as an end-times opposer of God, often linked to a final phase of the fourth empire before God’s kingdom triumphs. Interpretations of timing and exact fulfillment vary among Christians (spiritual growth of the Church, Christ’s first or second coming). Claims tying it directly to Islamic conquests are one perspective but not the standard reading of the text.

English
0
0
0
15
BibleHulk
BibleHulk@BibleHulk·
@offthelists00 @bigjonsteel Good grief lol 😂 I think your first comment to me was that I was doing mental gymnastics and look at you now lol 🤣
English
3
0
0
15
Jon Steel
Jon Steel@bigjonsteel·
Stuck in between a rock and a hard place. On one hand I know Islamic content gets views, on the other hand I’d rather go to the dentist than deal with Dawah apologetics culture
English
8
5
114
10.1K
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸@offthelists00·
@BibleHulk @bigjonsteel The only person doing mental gymnastics is the retard who thinks the Kingdom OF GOD is lead by the antichrist to avoid the fact that Islam is foretold as the religion for the Gentiles. Cope harder.
English
0
0
0
8
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸@offthelists00·
@BibleHulk @bigjonsteel The Kingdom of God is lead by the anti-Christ according to you🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. You’re done buddy. Thanks for indirectly admitting that the coming of Islam is prophesied in the Old Testament. Cry.
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸 tweet media
English
1
0
0
12
BibleHulk
BibleHulk@BibleHulk·
@offthelists00 @bigjonsteel Actually some Christians believe that the last Kingdom is going to belong to the Antichrist and some people believe that the antichrist is going to be a Muslim so you may have something there. 👍🏻
English
1
0
0
15
Khalil Andani, PhD
Khalil Andani, PhD@KhalilAndani·
I cannot blame you @muslimorthodoxy for no longer responding; you dig yourself deeper into incoherence with every response thus far. Now then, as a courtesy to everyone following this exchange, I will respond to your rather disorganized diatribe of a word salad: 1. You asked: "Why is it metaphysically incoherent for that “arbitrary limit” to be brute? How does that entail being “modally contingent”? Answer: It is logically possible for God's essence to have more or less than 3 dimensions since denying His 3-dimensionality is not a contradiction. It is logically possible for the top-down size or length of your God's essence to be any finite number N. This means that both of these limits on God's essence are contingent - they could be another way. That is modal contingency. As Dr. Rassmussen @worldviewdesign writes: "We can use this general reasoning to form an argument against positing arbitrary limits, such as in size, shape, powers, or in any other attribute that comes in various degrees" ("The Argument from Contingency", joshualrasmussen.com/articles/the-a…) These two contingent features [dimension and size] of your God 's essence require something outside of God's essence to set their values because they are arbitrary limits that could have been otherwise with different values. You cannot merely assert that these contingent limits of your deity are uncaused. That makes it a brute contingency. The atheist can easily take any feature of the Cosmos and assert them as uncaused and call it a day. 2. You Must Demonstrate the Necessity of God's Size and Limits: Later in your reply, you assert God's 3D-ness and His finite height as "brute necessities" not contingencies. Okay, then prove it to us! Notwithstanding that necessities are never brute - they are either necessitated by other necessities or they are necessary in themselves - you now allege that God's finite dimensions and size are modally necessary, not contingent. The burden of proof is upon you to logically demonstrate that God is necessarily 3D and necessarily has a limited height - what is your logical argument for these features of God being necessary? 3. Absolute Divine Simplicity lacks any limits requiring an external specifier: God in the belief of all other Muslims (Sunnis, Twelvers, Zaydis, Ismailis, Sufis) does not require any external simplifier because God is absolutely simple in Himself - meaning God has no external or internal boundaries - unlike your spatially limited deity who is internally and externally bounded. Since our God has no boundaries or hudud like your deity, there is no requirement to posit an external entity to cause God to be simple or non-complex. 4. Aseity is incompatible with proper parts Your inane comment about aseity really exposes how much of an amateur you are at this. Aseity means that God is not dependent upon anything distinct from Himself. You are smuggling in the adjective "external", but even this will not help you here. First, even the modern day shaykh al-Islam of you and your gang of Analytic Taymis, Ryan Mullins (who abhors ADS), says that aseity means that God is not dependent on anything else including non-casual grounding relations. Even if we start from your definition that God is not caused by anything "external" to Himself, Mullins concludes that an a se God must be ungrounded and independent of all else: "Any being that has its existence grounded in another will not be a se. Hence, aseity implies not having a ground for one’s existence" (Mullins 2023; see attached). William Hasker, who replied to Mullins 2023 article says the same thing about aseity: "A being which is a se should be one which does not at all depend for its existence on anything other than itself" (Hasker 2023, 64) Now, your conception of God is one in which God is constituted by proper parts that are spatially and ontologically distinct from God Himself and from each other. This plainly means that your God's existence and essence are grounded by these proper parts, each of which has its own existence and essence. Since you already deny ADS, you admit that each proper part is numerically distinct from God and "lesser" than the whole (God). In your theology, God's attributes are concrete spatial particulars not abstracta or immaterial attributes. For you, God's Feet, Hands, Face, Fingers, Eyes, Shin, etc. all occupy different spatial positions and extensions in relation to one another and they each have a spatial extent that is lesser than God's overall spatial extent. And this further leads to the fact that each proper part of your God has an arbitrarily contingent spatial extension as well. That is yet another brute contingency you need to explain. Since your God is a "whole" comprised of spatially distinct proper parts, the total top-down size of your God is literally the sum of the top-down sizes of each of His Proper Parts (His Hands/Face/Feet/Fingers). Mathematically, this means the total magnitude of your God is directly dependent upon the aggregation of the magnitudes of each of His Proper Parts and each Part contributes its own specific size to the total size of your God's top-down magnitude. This is no different than the total weight of my iPhone being the total weight if its internal parts. This may not be "casual" dependence but this is certainly a grounding dependence, which is ontological dependence. This is equivalent to saying a 6 meter length wall is dependent upon the aggregation the 6 one meter length bricks that comprise that wall. Nobody would dispute that the wall is dependent upon the aggregation of those bricks. To put this differently, the existence and aggregation of God's parts are the necessary and sufficient condition for God's Existence; but God is not the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of each proper part. Your God exists only because His proper parts exist. The existence of your God presupposes and requires the existence and aggregation of God's Proper Parts. Therefore, the parts of your God have ontic and explanatory priority over God himself. This formulation does not apply in the reverse -- the existence of each proper part does not presuppose or require the existence of a whole or aggregate. This proves there is a one-way dependency of God upon His proper parts and thus, your God is not a se. Again, if you deny this and opt to change the dependence relation to say that God's parts depend upon God, then these are not really parts, they are creations and God Himself remains simple and independent. Alternatively, you can copy the even worse solution of Islamic Apex (Anas) and say that God and His proper parts exist in a two-way ontological dependence relations - which is viciously circular and denies aseity to both. As Hasker says, "A being which is a se should be one which does not at all depend for its existence on anything other than itself; if the being on which it depends is itself dependent on the original being, that fact does not cancel out the dependence of the first on the second" (Hasker 2024, 63-64). 5. Creation necessarily proceeding from God does not negate God's aseity You have tried to assert that, in my theology, God must be dependent on His creation because God creates necessarily. This claim simply does not logically follow and is quite unserious. I already refuted this idiotic claim in my 2022 publication on modal collapse (a). Not only that, even your shaykh Ryan Mullins admitted in his 2023 article that creation being necessitated by God does NOT negate God's aseity: "On panentheism, God always and necessarily exists with a created and causally dependent cosmos. Yet I find it doubtful that this somehow entails that God is not a se because God’s existence is not dependent upon nor derived from the created universe" (Mullins 2023, 54)
Khalil Andani, PhD tweet mediaKhalil Andani, PhD tweet media
The Orthodox Muslim@muslimorthodoxy

This is THE LAST reply I send to you, you are not responding to anything you are welcome to join my panel. Mr. “Physical separability is a biological defense to a metaphysical problem, and this isn’t AI but rather my sophisticated rhetoric”, has (kinda?) responded. First off, I DO NOT HOLD to God being a 3D object, however, I do believe that it’s metaphysically coherent to commit to that yet simultaneously attribute it with aseity. Your argument in (1) hasn’t provided a defeater, why? Because as you said here; “This already is a problem because a 3D deity is arbitrarily limited in having 3 dimensions as to any other number. Therefore, your deity is modally contingent in His dimensionality. Furthermore, there must be an external cause or specifier that makes your deity 3 dimension as opposed to another number.”, you made two assumptions, and for the third time, PLEASE justify them! Why is it metaphysically incoherent for that “arbitrary limit” to be brute? How does that entail being “modally contingent”? It’s metaphysically coherent to assume that there exists x such that x is 3D, exists without a cause, and it’s a brute necessity, that “why” it’s the case is therefore brute. What’s the METAPHYSICAL problem here? Those aren’t even related. Also, another point, why “must there be an external specifier”? Why? What motivates that? Why can’t I say that for every object x, if x is simple, x needs an external simplifier? Are you arguing for epistemic inconsistency or metaphysical incoherency? Do you even know the difference, or did “biological defense” reading not suffice? If it’s epistemic inconsistency, then ontological dependency nor modal contingency are logically entailed. Do better. What’s funnier is that in (2), you basically make the same argument in a different way; “it is logically possible for that number to be different - thereby making His extent and boundaries an arbitrarily limit and rendering your God modally contingent. Again, there must be an external specifier for your God's finite spatial extent on the up-down axis.” First, logical possibility doesn’t entail metaphysical possibility. This is basic stuff dude. It’s demonstrably formally consistent that your “exists and not exists” outdated conception of God to not exist. Is that a serious defeater? No. Metaphysical possibility is motivated by commitments far beyond just mere formal consistency. Also again, “external specifier” and “arbitrary limits” are non-sequiturs as you haven’t demonstrated that they logically entail that, when I told you that such “issues” can be resolved by simply saying that such object is a brute necessity, and brute necessity isn’t ad-hoc because that’s what aseity is. Read up man. Third, speaking of aseity, you don’t even know what it means, it’s actually you who’s as clueless as a social Trinitarian. Aseity means there is x such that x obtains in all metaphysically possible worlds AND x lacks any external metaphysical explanation. In your ancient wizard of oz theology terms, aseity means something exists without a cause and always exists. That’s the mainstream definition within contemporary philosophy of religion. I told you, on the issue of composition, you low-tier, within my last tweet, which I told to not run away from and you did exactly that, to do three things, in order for the argument to follow; 1. Flesh out what ontic-priority is, 2. demonstrate why we ought to commit to that hermeneutic, and 3. prove how an object bearing properties necessarily entails ontological priority relations. Don’t run again and again from this. How is causal dependency even entailed? Is God under your view thereby causally dependent because of necessitarianism, really? Do you see how pathetic and self-defeating your argument is? I will reply to (4) of your tweet later under this post.

English
18
11
95
16.2K
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸@offthelists00·
@BibleHulk @bigjonsteel Yeah no need to worry. You just proved Islam. The Kingdom Of God in Daniel’s prophecy destroys the divided Roman Empire and conquers the lands of the previous empires. The only historical fulfillment of this was done by the Muslims. Cry.
OffTheLists🔻🇵🇸 tweet media
English
1
0
0
15

Keşfet

@JrDeonsmit7024 @ElizaDark @AdriannaAndWhip @Awk20000 @ClockKnocker @Saintathanasian @Ahraz__ @InspiringPhilos