Stoning to Death

[ScimitarXEdge]

I know of the theories that say the Ghilzai are original Turks, but I have a hard time believing this, one is their own oral history, second is the fact that they speak Pashto linguistics is similar to the rest of us even the ones that have lived in isolated valleys.
If one examines the Nuristani, the Pashiye, Kalash and other people who have different linguistics than the people that surround them. Even Alexander was said have encountered these people as well as the Paktyans. Why are their linguists kept in tact for thousands of years but the Ghilzais have not kept any of their linguistics at all. Even the Hazaras have kept many of the Mongol linguistics of their ancestors. The Hazaras use more Turkic linguistics than the Ghilzai's do. That theory does not make sense to me. But nothing is 100% certain.

Well Ghilzi may speak Pashto now or perhaps for the last 1000 years, but they may not have in some other period. Furthermore I wasn't suggesting that Ghilzi were necessarily Turks, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility. I believe Midnight_Sun has some research regarding Ghilzi ethnogenesis, you may want to confer with him on that matter. Ghilzi themselves are probably of different origins, for example my clan, "Sakzai" is quite possibly Scythian, but again I'm going by namesake, which as I said is faulty. Likewise Paktyans is similarly faulty, I think we have to look at it etymologically. The "Kha" dialect of Pukhto is a later formation according to linguists, we should be "Pastyan" or "Pashtyans" . But I'm no expert, I'm just having hard time finding a smoking gun. For what its worth, it doesn't matter where Pashtuns came from, we're here now and that's what matters.

I never heard of Mu'tuzili before but from what I am reading, they do believe in Al-Tawhid, the oneness and unity of God. They believe that the first obligation on people in full possession of their mental abilities, is to use their intellectual ability to ascertain the existence of God. One must wonder about the whole existence, about why something exists rather than nothing. So how can you not be sure God exists. Are you also not sure that we exist. Because if we exist, a creator has to exist.

You're very correct, this is the standard, basic Mu'atzili view. And for me I agree with Al-Tawhid absolutely, even based on the perspectives of Theoretical PHysics the Forces of Existence are really aspects of "One Force", based on the reduction of an underlying unity. The nature of the universe necessitates an Absolute, even if we factor in the possibility that our universe is one of many universes, or "multiverse", some of which could be overlapping or intersecting our own, like bubbles on the surface of the water.
However, even this postulate establishes that there are disjoint elements to the other universes which makes them bound to certain standard laws which applies across universes, which denotes that we can mathematically establish that Absoluteness forms the Universe; the only extra step is Consciousmess, is this a Conscious, Deliberate and Sentient Power, or a blind, uncalculated aspect of Nature? The mathematical relationships of even nondeterministic or stochastic processes in the universe, for example the movement of quanta of light; have very distinct properties that do not appear arbitrary. So it would be reasonable to me that a such a Consciousness is in fact real.

This is where my uncertainty lies; I'm honestly not even sure in the fullest sense, meaning in a sense where I can totally confirm in every possible scenario, that we exist. I just go by what I can understand practically, in the scenario that I am more formally aware of, that I exist. I will say that I am intellectually convinced that A Single , Absolute, Deliberate Consciousness denotes Existence is real, but I hold the reservation to change my mind when further evidence is available, why this isn't a possibility.

[Niazi]

.......and I was told that Islam is the religion of compassion and mercy ?????????????

[ScimitarXEdge]

.......and I was told that Islam is the religion of compassion and mercy ?????????????

Islam is a religion of balance, mercy when just, wrath when just.

that's how any system should be.

[Alchemist]

You're very correct, this is the standard, basic Mu'atzili view. And for me I agree with Al-Tawhid absolutely, even based on the perspectives of Theoretical PHysics the Forces of Existence are really aspects of "One Force", based on the reduction of an underlying unity. The nature of the universe necessitates an Absolute, even if we factor in the possibility that our universe is one of many universes, or "multiverse", some of which could be overlapping or intersecting our own, like bubbles on the surface of the water.
However, even this postulate establishes that there are disjoint elements to the other universes which makes them bound to certain standard laws which applies across universes, which denotes that we can mathematically establish that Absoluteness forms the Universe; the only extra step is Consciousmess, is this a Conscious, Deliberate and Sentient Power, or a blind, uncalculated aspect of Nature? The mathematical relationships of even nondeterministic or stochastic processes in the universe, for example the movement of quanta of light; have very distinct properties that do not appear arbitrary. So it would be reasonable to me that a such a Consciousness is in fact real.

This is where my uncertainty lies; I'm honestly not even sure in the fullest sense, meaning in a sense where I can totally confirm in every possible scenario, that we exist. I just go by what I can understand practically, in the scenario that I am more formally aware of, that I exist. I will say that I am intellectually convinced that A Single , Absolute, Deliberate Consciousness denotes Existence is real, but I hold the reservation to change my mind when further evidence is available, why this isn't a possibility.

You are mistaken Allah's Unity with unity in the Universes. Thus far there hasn't been any proof (mathematical or observational) that proves that all forces are united but only presumed to be so ad hoc.

Also your statement regarding stochastic process not being mathematically arbitrary is oxymorons...the belief that they are not arbitrary is also ad hoc...it is like looking for a pattern in π or the stock markets...many have tried to find the formula for it...but all have failed.


Furthermore, if you can ...please elaborate by what you mean by the term "Consciousness".

[ScimitarXEdge]

You are mistaken Allah's Unity with unity in the Universes. Thus far there hasn't been any proof (mathematical or observational) that proves that all forces are united but only presumed to be so ad hoc.

Also your statement regarding stochastic process not being mathematically arbitrary is oxymorons...the belief that they are not arbitrary is also ad hoc...it is like looking for a pattern in π or the stock markets...many have tried to find the formula for it...but all have failed.


Furthermore, if you can ...please elaborate by what you mean by the term "Consciousness".

No you've mistaken my Unity of forces, with unity with the universe itself. and furthermore you have yet to distinguish once again the distinction between evidence and proof.

and ...your analysis of it being "ad-hoc" are examples of how you really don't know what you're talking about. Wave-Particle Equation is anything BUT ad-hoc. and reread my statement I never said anything about stochastic processes being mathematically arbitrary.

now go make sandwiches kid. you're not on my level intellectually.

Your hatred for science is pathetic ..and why our society remains backwards and constantly at others mercy

[emkhan]

.......and I was told that Islam is the religion of compassion and mercy ?????????????

Yes you were told correctly, Islam is the religion of compassion and mercy but it deals with people like you with iron hand.

[Alchemist]

No you've mistaken my Unity of forces, with unity with the universe itself. and furthermore you have yet to distinguish once again the distinction between evidence and proof.

and ...your analysis of it being "ad-hoc" are examples of how you really don't know what you're talking about. Wave-Particle Equation is anything BUT ad-hoc. and reread my statement I never said anything about stochastic processes being mathematically arbitrary.

now go make sandwiches kid. you're not on my level intellectually.

Your hatred for science is pathetic ..and why our society remains backwards and constantly at others mercy

Your intellect is non existent. It is just pomp and fluff, like the foam of the sea, it is less than what you make it seem.

I never said that you said stochastic processes are mathematically arbitrary - which they actually ARE. LOL

Wave-particle equations? You mean e=mc^2 - oh so that to you shows that the four forces of nature are united? LOL

I wish you were as smart as you'd like to make your self seem but you are just all theatrics and nothing real...

Your slavishly parrot scientificism and that makes you the one who is pathetic. A sandwhich boy can even see through your farcical attempts at sounding like a scientists but you lack the depth of understanding to take the conversation passed the book titles and paragraph headings - just quoting random passages here and there to impress people here. LOL yeah .. that's whats going to save "our society" from backwardness...way to go hero

[ScimitarXEdge]

if you could do anything or had any idea you claimed you wouldn't have equated Einstein's Mass-Energy Relation with the wave equation of Schroedinger, which is what I referred to..you're a complete uneducated idiot and I'm convinced now you don't even have a degree in whatever it is you claimed to have a degree in. You're merely a wikipedia reader....if that even. Hence you work at subway to support your family. Selling pork.

do you even know what arbitrary means in a mathematical sense? not the common conversational sense, but scientific sense.

you have no comprehension of what I wrote and never will, not because of inability but your refusal to learn.

[khushal]

[QUOTE=ScimitarXEdge;466737]
This is where my uncertainty lies; I'm honestly not even sure in the fullest sense, meaning in a sense where I can totally confirm in every possible scenario, that we exist. I just go by what I can understand practically, in the scenario that I am more formally aware of, that I exist. I will say that I am intellectually convinced that A Single , Absolute, Deliberate Consciousness denotes Existence is real, but I hold the reservation to change my mind when further evidence is available, why this isn't a possibility.[/QUOTE]

I don't really understand what you mean by consciousness. But I beleive Decarte tackled this question very reasonably. Because all things can be questioned as to whether they are from the realm of reality or from the realm of imagination. He believed the thought of doubting one's own existence serves as unquestionable proof of the reality of one's own existence. In this he was talking about the mind and not the physical body itself.
He went on to question if a Supreme power was deceiving him of his existence but he rationalized that one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for how could one be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.
So Scimitar, the fact that you doubt your existence proves the reality of your existence again we are talking about the mind only therefore a creator exists.

[Alchemist]

^there u go sword boy


learn from kushal how to keep it simple...

p.s - trust me Xedge ...NO one knows what you are talking about anyway. Sometimes forces, sometimes wave particle duality, then wave function probability which has little to do with your original statement - keep changing goal posts because you don't even know what you are talking about - just pomp. Stick to making ad hominem arguments - your real forte

[ScimitarXEdge]

^there u go sword boy


learn from kushal how to keep it simple...

p.s - trust me Xedge ...NO one knows what you are talking about anyway. Sometimes forces, sometimes wave particle duality, then wave function probability which has little to do with your original statement - keep changing goal posts because you don't even know what you are talking about - just pomp. Stick to making ad hominem arguments - your real forte

you're a dork and merely regurgitating what I say to you .......only difference is you're doing it blindly ...without actually qualifying it like I do when I say them to you. Which makes it more or less empty jargon.

There's no ad-hominem argument since we aren't in a debate; you're a complete dimwit who works at a Fast Food Chain driven by inferiority complex to interfere in a discourse...and completely get it wrong.

More over your blind endorsement of something without actually examining the argument demonstrates that you're not actually taking the legitimacy of the argument here but are motivated by personal issues.

[ScimitarXEdge]

[QUOTE=khushal;467054]

This is where my uncertainty lies; I'm honestly not even sure in the fullest sense, meaning in a sense where I can totally confirm in every possible scenario, that we exist. I just go by what I can understand practically, in the scenario that I am more formally aware of, that I exist. I will say that I am intellectually convinced that A Single , Absolute, Deliberate Consciousness denotes Existence is real, but I hold the reservation to change my mind when further evidence is available, why this isn't a possibility.[/QUOTE]

I don't really understand what you mean by consciousness. But I beleive Decarte tackled this question very reasonably. Because all things can be questioned as to whether they are from the realm of reality or from the realm of imagination. He believed the thought of doubting one's own existence serves as unquestionable proof of the reality of one's own existence. In this he was talking about the mind and not the physical body itself.
He went on to question if a Supreme power was deceiving him of his existence but he rationalized that one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for how could one be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.
So Scimitar, the fact that you doubt your existence proves the reality of your existence again we are talking about the mind only therefore a creator exists.

Consciousness is a condition of making things happen deliberately, with intent and awareness.

Descartes notion of self awareness is somewhat shaky on some level. While its true he had "I think therefore I am" and he used a Reductio Ad-Absurdum to demonstrate his own existence. His fault is the notion of being "deceived" of his own existence. I don't think I am being deceived of my own existence. What I'm saying is my own existence is an uncertainty. It may not actually be, there's a possibility I do not actually exist. In a similar way a computer program or hologram of something does not equate to the existence of that entity. A concept of it may exist, but the thing itself does not. We can argue ok well we're speaking of computers and holograms and they have some kind of existence, for they need to exist for an image to be produced. However, I'm using that as the analogy, it could be that this hologram of my being could just be a void, irregardless of whatever else exists or doesn't. This isn't the same as deception, because there is no pretending to exist, it really just what it is, an image.

But like you said it is more practical to affirm my own existence. Which is what I do...so irregardless of uncertainties I can at least in the stage apply stuff as if they were concrete in every sense of the word.

Also confirming ones own existence mentally does not equate to proof that a Creator existing, Here's why

Imagine there was an object with the following properties
a.) object could move
b.) store energy
c.) Use energy
d.) aware of itself

Now imagine this statement: If something can move, store energy, use energy, change direction and aware of itself, then it is a human.

but dogs, cats, birds possess all these traits, so this statement is falsified.

Having these properties doesn't denote the existence of something is proven. It just means there exists things with these properties.

Similarly because we are self aware, doesn't denote existence of God.

[Niazi]

Islam is a religion of balance, mercy.

yep ?putting a woman in a ditch to be stoned by people that is proper (balance and mercy).
Is that all Islam is all about.

[ScimitarXEdge]

yep ?putting a woman in a ditch to be stoned by people that is proper (balance and mercy).
Is that all Islam is all about.

IF that woman commits adultery and runs away/elopes; then yes that is balance

Balance is better than mercy.

[Alchemist]

Consciousness is a condition of making things happen deliberately, with intent and awareness.

Descartes notion of self awareness is somewhat shaky on some level. While its true he had "I think therefore I am" and he used a Reductio Ad-Absurdum to demonstrate his own existence. His fault is the notion of being "deceived" of his own existence. I don't think I am being deceived of my own existence. What I'm saying is my own existence is an uncertainty. It may not actually be, there's a possibility I do not actually exist. In a similar way a computer program or hologram of something does not equate to the existence of that entity. A concept of it may exist, but the thing itself does not. We can argue ok well we're speaking of computers and holograms and they have some kind of existence, for they need to exist for an image to be produced. However, I'm using that as the analogy, it could be that this hologram of my being could just be a void, irregardless of whatever else exists or doesn't. This isn't the same as deception, because there is no pretending to exist, it really just what it is, an image.

But like you said it is more practical to affirm my own existence. Which is what I do...so irregardless of uncertainties I can at least in the stage apply stuff as if they were concrete in every sense of the word.

Also confirming ones own existence mentally does not equate to proof that a Creator existing, Here's why

Imagine there was an object with the following properties
a.) object could move
b.) store energy
c.) Use energy
d.) aware of itself

Now imagine this statement: If something can move, store energy, use energy, change direction and aware of itself, then it is a human.

but dogs, cats, birds possess all these traits, so this statement is falsified.

Having these properties doesn't denote the existence of something is proven. It just means there exists things with these properties.

Similarly because we are self aware, doesn't denote existence of God.

The real question is: Are you self aware?

I mean ...are you aware of the fact that you are a douche bag?

Think about it swordy...it's the most important question of all.




By the way Kushal ...its actually "cogitor ergo cogito et sum" (Von Baader).

Autonomy