Argument - proving Islam through magic (probabilistic argument)

[lewisnotmiller]

In case of Quran since it claims there is a casting from Iblis pertaining to it and that hard hearts follow what he casts, and that results in people taking words of God way out of their place (contextualization does not happen), it would prove it false.

So doesn't that suggest that your first point is assuming the answer, since the alternative answer is 'The Quran is false'?
You are only chasing down one of the two possible responses to your first point.
If you chase them both down, you are left with 'Either the Quran is true, or it is false.'

Which we can universally agree with.

 

[Link]

So doesn't that suggest that your first point is assuming the answer, since the alternative answer is 'The Quran is false'?
You are only chasing down one of the two possible responses to your first point.
If you chase them both down, you are left with 'Either the Quran is true, or it is false.'

Which we can universally agree with.

This is the primary reason I returned to Islam. It's because I realized there is sorcery preventing people from understanding key concepts in Quran. And it was only after that, I paid attention enough to what it is said about sorcery and decontextualization.

And I've experienced the sorcery and it blinding me to Quran as a personal experience.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is the primary reason I returned to Islam. It's because I realized there is sorcery preventing people from understanding key concepts in Quran. And it was only after that, I paid attention enough to what it is said about sorcery and decontextualization.

And I've experienced the sorcery and it blinding me to Quran as a personal experience.

I'm not speaking to your belief here, though. Just to how you've illustrated a logic flow.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It would be the magic against it (1) and the power/magic for it (2). That is Angels and Devils and the sent ones (Ahlulbayt) and their opponents all on the same side playing a game with human minds. But I don't believe this is realistic when you study the lives of Mohammad (s) and his family (a) nor the two forces would work in opposition yet together that way.

first existence of Magic, angels and devils must be proven for someone to consider this argument?

 

[blü 2]

1. If there is magic upon the Quran that prevents people from reciting the clear recitation which by language rules and intuition would otherwise be clear, it's best explained that the sources of this magic sees Quran as a threat.

The number of authenticated instances of magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ─ remains obstinately at zero.

2. Preventing people from understanding through magic as opposed to addressing it's arguments and content, is evil, hence this force is best explained to be evil.

Why is it bad not to read the Qur'an? When I tried, I found it unreadable, discontinuous, self-contradictory. So I felt I had every reason not to persist.

3. Evil forces trying to prevent people from understanding Quran is best explained that Quran is a force of good.

I've just shown you that's not necessarily the case.

4. There is content in Quran that people don't perceive due to magic as bias and other factors cannot account for it.

I'm sure the same is true of Gone with the Wind. Or The Cat in the Hat.

5. If people perceive the true recitation when they soften their hearts and do actions of light and misplace words out of context when their hearts are hardened, then it's best explained there is a force of light/good that wants us to understand Quran.

No, it's best explained by the Qur'an being unreadable &c as I mentioned above.

6. If there is a force of good that wants us to understand Quran and force of evil that does not want us to understand Quran, Quran mostly probably is correct in it's claims.

I don't think you've gone even close to showing that's the case.

7. It is the case people can perceive Quran properly when they soften their hearts and turn to God

You can soften your heart, act correctly, follow your conscience, and so on, without the Qur'an and the great majority of people are doing it right now.

 

[F1fan]

This is the primary reason I returned to Islam. It's because I realized there is sorcery preventing people from understanding key concepts in Quran.

So are you accusing those who are being critical of your arguments and claims as being under the influence of sorcery? If so, what evidence is there os this, and not just your bias?

And it was only after that, I paid attention enough to what it is said about sorcery and decontextualization.

What if there is no such thing as sorcery?

And I've experienced the sorcery and it blinding me to Quran as a personal experience.

Maybe you were just confused and you find the comfort and security of religious belief.

 

[Scoop]

1. If there is magic upon the Quran that prevents people from reciting the clear recitation which by language rules and intuition would otherwise be clear, it's best explained that the sources of this magic sees Quran as a threat.
2. Preventing people from understanding through magic as opposed to addressing it's arguments and content, is evil, hence this force is best explained to be evil.
3. Evil forces trying to prevent people from understanding Quran is best explained that Quran is a force of good.
4. There is content in Quran that people don't perceive due to magic as bias and other factors cannot account for it.
5. If people perceive the true recitation when they soften their hearts and do actions of light and misplace words out of context when their hearts are hardened, then it's best explained there is a force of light/good that wants us to understand Quran.
6. If there is a force of good that wants us to understand Quran and force of evil that does not want us to understand Quran, Quran mostly probably is correct in it's claims.
7. It is the case people can perceive Quran properly when they soften their hearts and turn to God and remember him often, and it is the case people cannot perceive Quran properly when they chase the life of this world or their hearts harden for other reasons.
Therefore Quran is most likely from God.

I'm honestly baffled by how completely dishonest and circular your reasoning is. The single biggest mistake you made in this post, is assuming that The Koran is true, and then working backwards from there to find "evidence" for your unsubstantiated belief. If I simply assumed that the Earth was flat, and then started rambling about magic and hardened hearts and evil magic preventing people from believing that The Earth was flat,without ever even addressing whether or not magic was real, would you believe me? No, you wouldn't. So do us a favor, and tell us why you actually believe that The Koran is true, because I refuse to believe that you, a thinking, literate human being would ever believe something for such a completely absurd plethora of nonsense as what you just posted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm honestly baffled by how completely dishonest and circular your reasoning is. The single biggest mistake you made in this post, is assuming that The Koran is true, and then working backwards from there to find "evidence" for your unsubstantiated belief. If I simply assumed that the Earth was flat, and then started rambling about magic and hardened hearts and evil magic preventing people from believing that The Earth was flat,without ever even addressing whether or not magic was real, would you believe me? No, you wouldn't. So do us a favor, and tell us why you actually believe that The Koran is true, because I refuse to believe that you, a thinking, literate human being would ever believe something for such a completely absurd plethora of nonsense as what you just posted.

I know. It is almost exactly the same sort of steps that Bible believers use. Shame on him. Christians used this bad reasoning first!

 

[firedragon]

I'm honestly baffled by how completely dishonest and circular your reasoning is. The single biggest mistake you made in this post, is assuming that The Koran is true, and then working backwards from there to find "evidence" for your unsubstantiated belief. If I simply assumed that the Earth was flat, and then started rambling about magic and hardened hearts and evil magic preventing people from believing that The Earth was flat,without ever even addressing whether or not magic was real, would you believe me? No, you wouldn't. So do us a favor, and tell us why you actually believe that The Koran is true, because I refuse to believe that you, a thinking, literate human being would ever believe something for such a completely absurd plethora of nonsense as what you just posted.

His argument for the Quran being true or what ever word you wish to use is that "because sorcery is stopping him from understanding the Quran, its true".

You know Scoop. Lets say his argument is false or fallacious, still why would that make him dishonest?

 

[KWED]

So if there be no signs of magic upon the Quran, then there is no casting of Iblis nor the locks nor the heard hearts misplacing it out of it's place, and all it talked about Iblis would be false as far his sorcery in confusing people about the wishes of the Prophets and Messengers.

And here is the key.
You are simply assuming all these things without any evidence or rational argument.
The available evidence suggests no magic in the Quran, no Iblis, no god guiding or misguiding people. It is all simply belief.
Therefore your "theory" falls apart at the first hurdle.

 

[Link]

first existence of Magic, angels and devils must be proven for someone to consider this argument?

Magic would be proven by 4 and 7.

 

[Link]

So do us a favor, and tell us why you actually believe that The Koran is true, because I refuse to believe that you, a thinking, literate human being would ever believe something for such a completely absurd plethora of nonsense as what you just posted.

Where is the circular reasoning? This is the main reason I came back to Islam personally, is witnessing dark magic preventing people from understanding the Quran.

 

[Link]

I'm not speaking to your belief here, though. Just to how you've illustrated a logic flow.

The first premise is an if statement. The proof of magic with regards to Quran is mainly in 4. That would be proof of the magic.

 

[Link]

And here is the key.
You are simply assuming all these things without any evidence or rational argument.
The available evidence suggests no magic in the Quran, no Iblis, no god guiding or misguiding people. It is all simply belief.
Therefore your "theory" falls apart at the first hurdle.

There is evidence (a lot) for 4 though, that magic is the only explanation to misunderstanding of many verses in Quran and decontextualization happens due to super natural reasons in many cases (not all, just many).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The first premise is an if statement. The proof of magic with regards to Quran is mainly in 4. That would be proof of the magic.

Admittedly I work more with business processes and programming logic flows than formal logic statements. But if you have a decision point...which you did in point (1)...you need to deal with each possible branch of that decision point.

In the context of your OP, that means that by suggesting 'if' in your first statement, you need to have branches from there for both 'true' and 'false'.

This isn't a criticism of the Quran or you. I'm just trying to give you a few tips from my experience around processes and logic flows. Some others here are good at formal logic, and could offer advice from that perspective.

 

[firedragon]

Admittedly I work more with business processes and programming logic flows than formal logic statements. But if you have a decision point...which you did in point (1)...you need to deal with each possible branch of that decision point.

In the context of your OP, that means that by suggesting 'if' in your first statement, you need to have branches from there for both 'true' and 'false'.

This isn't a criticism of the Quran or you. I'm just trying to give you a few tips from my experience around processes and logic flows. Some others here are good at formal logic, and could offer advice from that perspective.

If p1 or/and p2, then q. The negation and disjunction are not necessary.

I think you are referring to a flow chart. I dont know I am guessing since you mentioned some programming. That kind of if, then, and if not then is not necessary. It is not formal logic. It is assumed already, and assumes intelligence. Any kind of logic is built upon the premise.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Okay, so my chance to learn something...

If p1 or/and p2, then q. The negation and disjunction are not necessary.

Okay. But then p1 appears to be an assumption. Which is all well and good, but means the conclusion only holds whilst the assumption is true, correct?

I think you are referring to a flow chart. I dont know I am guessing since you mentioned some programming.

Business process mapping, for the most part, but I've done a fair amount of programming (although it's not my core competency). In either case an unhandled case is problematic.

However we'd regularly scope work by explicitly calling out assumptions so as to provide some level of coherency where there are lots of options or possible use cases.

That kind of if, then, and if not then is not necessary. It is not formal logic. It is assumed already, and assumes intelligence. Any kind of logic is built upon the premise.

I can accept that, but I think that means the conclusion is reliant on stated assumptions. It's all well and good, but it limits the value of the OP given that the opening statement effectively then begs the question.

 

[firedragon]

Okay. But then p1 appears to be an assumption. Which is all well and good, but means the conclusion only holds whilst the assumption is true, correct?

I was not justifying the OP.

Business process mapping, for the most part, but I've done a fair amount of programming (although it's not my core competency). In either case an unhandled case is problematic.

However we'd regularly scope work by explicitly calling out assumptions so as to provide some level of coherency where there are lots of options or possible use cases.

If I tell you what kind of programming I have studied you would probably call me a dinosaur. Let me try. I did GW basic, DBase 3 plus, Clipper, Assembler. Did I even get the name right? So you can see my knowledge on it is dead.

I can accept that, but I think that means the conclusion is reliant on stated assumptions. It's all well and good, but it limits the value of the OP given that the opening statement effectively then begs the question.

You didnt understand what I said. Logic as a subject takes for granted that you have a brain and you have intelligence. Not like a computer where you have to feed it intelligence. Am I making that distinction clear? Also, when a premise is given, and Q is assumed, there is no necessity to state a if false assumption like in computer programming because it is assumed humans dont need it. When the P1, p2 and Q is given it is assumed you obviously know that if P1 and P2 are not met Q cannot be assumed.

Also, I think you are using the word assumption in a conversational manner. An assumption is based on solid premises only. It is not like saying "I assume" over the fence to your neighbour. An assumption is when you know that since every day of your life the sun came up from the east you assume tomorrow also the sun will appear from the east. That is based on observation. I mean solid observation. When you drop a pebble in a body of water it creates ripples. IT happens every single time you do it. So you "assume" it will happen the next time. Lets say in research you take a 2200 people as a sample size and its random, so out of them 1100 are males, 1100 are females, you "assume" it will apply for the general population which will also be 50:50 male:female.

That assumption is not like saying "I'm just making assumptions" to your neighbour over a cup of coffee.

Hope you understand.

 

[KWED]

In case of Quran since it claims there is a casting from Iblis pertaining to it and that hard hearts follow what he casts, and that results in people taking words of God way out of their place (contextualization does not happen), it would prove it false.

If Quran made no claim about this, and I made a theory, it would be my own theory. But it talked about this since it wants people to wake up and recite the clear book and not the book that the sorcery of Iblis interprets and decontextualizes and tears into pieces.

So if there be no signs of magic upon the Quran, then there is no casting of Iblis nor the locks nor the heard hearts misplacing it out of it's place, and all it talked about Iblis would be false as far his sorcery in confusing people about the wishes of the Prophets and Messengers.

But you are still starting your argument with... "The Quran says X".
Your problem is that you have yet to show that anything the Quran says is actually true.

The other problem you have is that what you actually write makes literally no sense. It's just a jumble of words.

 

[KWED]

This is the primary reason I returned to Islam. It's because I realized there is sorcery preventing people from understanding key concepts in Quran. And it was only after that, I paid attention enough to what it is said about sorcery and decontextualization.
And I've experienced the sorcery and it blinding me to Quran as a personal experience.

Why does Allah allow Iblis to blind people to the Quran with his sorcery? Isn't Allah supposed to preserve and protect it?
The options are...
A) he wants people to be blinded by Iblis' sorcery
or
B) he doesn't care if they are blinded by Iblis' sorcery
or
B) he can't stop Iblis casting sorcery on the Quran.

Which do you think it is?