Excel to Analyze Q Verses in 1400 Themes - Useless??

[godelian]

I don't believe morality-proper is about obeying rules.

This explains exactly why you cannot document your rules. You do not believe that there should be any rules to begin with.

You are so ignorant.

Are there definitive documented rules for normal humans to eat, sleep, fuck, play, talk, and whatever is instinctual and natural of any human being.
It is same with doing good which is inherent and natural within all humans.

Why rules [to act good] are necessary is where because humans are not yet evolved sufficiently yet in time to be be fully natural and spontaneous in their moral acts.
This does not obviate the fact that all humans has an inherent moral nature inherent within them.

As humans evolved higher and higher in time they will naturally need less and less rules re doing good and other acts.
The problem with your fully documented rules in your holy text is that it will eternally keep believers in an animal and primitive state that they need to comply with rules eternally.

We believe that there is a list of forbidden behaviors, of things that we should not be doing. This is the basis for the halal (permissible) versus haram (impermissible) designations.

You do not have such a system because you believe that it is not necessary. We believe that it is necessary. According to you, there is no good and no evil. We believe that there is.

In the meanwhile, we have developed a large, distributed database of jurisprudential rulings on the matter. You didn't. Consequently, you are not equipped to deal with the matter, simply because you do have the infrastructure available for that. You have never made the investments needed to achieve that. That is why you are so much behind on us.

The reason why we keep pointing out the inferiority of your approach, is to encourage you to catch up and produce the digital infrastructure that you need in order to compete.

You need to start by committing to a digital copy of a fully documented moral theory. Seriously, where is it? You do not even have the beginning of the beginning.

If you don't work on your problem, you will remain behind forever. It takes effort to succeed but you don't seem to be willing to do what it takes. Why don't you put in a bit of effort in order to work on your problem and make some progress instead of inventing excuses?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This explains exactly why you cannot document your rules. You do not believe that there should be any rules to begin with.

You are so ignorant.

Are there definitive documented rules for normal humans to eat, sleep, fuck, play, talk, and whatever is instinctual and natural of any human being.
It is same with doing good which is inherent and natural within all humans.

Why rules [to act good] are necessary is where because humans are not yet evolved sufficiently yet in time to be be fully natural and spontaneous in their moral acts.
This does not obviate the fact that all humans has an inherent moral nature inherent within them.

As humans evolved higher and higher in time they will naturally need less and less rules re doing good and other acts.
The problem with your fully documented rules in your holy text is that it will eternally keep believers in an animal and primitive state that they need to comply with rules eternally.

We believe that there is a list of forbidden behaviors, of things that we should not be doing. This is the basis for the halal (permissible) versus haram (impermissible) designations.

You do not have such a system because you believe that it is not necessary. We believe that it is necessary. According to you, there is no good and no evil. We believe that there is.

In the meanwhile, we have developed a large, distributed database of jurisprudential rulings on the matter. You didn't. Consequently, you are not equipped to deal with the matter, simply because you do have the infrastructure available for that. You have never made the investments needed to achieve that. That is why you are so much behind on us.

The reason why we keep pointing out the inferiority of your approach, is to encourage you to catch up and produce the digital infrastructure that you need in order to compete.

You need to start by committing to a digital copy of a fully documented moral theory. Seriously, where is it? You do not even have the beginning of the beginning.

If you don't work on your problem, you will remain behind forever. It takes effort to succeed but you don't seem to be willing to do what it takes. Why don't you put in a bit of effort in order to work on your problem and make some progress instead of inventing excuses?

Do you have a comprehension problem?

I wrote earlier:
Morality is the management and elimination of evil acts to enable its related goods to manifest.
I have defined what is evil.
As such, humanity at present is striving to reduce evil acts via its unfoldment of the moral function.
The limitation is the unfoldment of the moral function is very slow in the present rate; it is because of its slowness in unfoldment that we need religion as a transitional measure.
At the same time humanity must strive to expedite the inherent moral functions within all humans.

What your religion is doing is to freeze morality in its primitive state till eternity with its immutable verses?
So in 10,000 or 50,000 year in the future, your religion with its immutable commands will sanction the killing of non-believers [Jews especially] for merely not believing in a negative religion.

There is already progress driven by human nature while religion is still promoting slavery and killing and hatred of non-believers.
Note the progress of slavery, which was condoned by your religion and other religions, but the progress of the banning of chattel slavery within all sovereign nations at present was done outside the verses of your holy texts that condoned slavery.
This moral progress re slavery is not done by atheists but merely by human beings driven by their inherent moral nature.

Are you aware your 1:7 in {mine}
"The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have earned [Your] anger {Jews} or of those who are astray {Christians}."
is subtly brainwashing your 1.8 billion members to hate Jews and Christians 17 times a day.
This is the sort of documented evil influence in your book.
Prove I am wrong on this?

[godelian]

You are so ignorant.

Are there definitive documented rules for normal humans to eat, sleep, fuck, play, talk, and whatever is instinctual and natural of any human being.
It is same with doing good which is inherent and natural within all humans.

Why rules [to act good] are necessary is where because humans are not yet evolved sufficiently yet in time to be be fully natural and spontaneous in their moral acts.
This does not obviate the fact that all humans has an inherent moral nature inherent within them.

As humans evolved higher and higher in time they will naturally need less and less rules re doing good and other acts.
The problem with your fully documented rules in your holy text is that it will eternally keep believers in an animal and primitive state that they need to comply with rules eternally.

We believe that there is a list of forbidden behaviors, of things that we should not be doing. This is the basis for the halal (permissible) versus haram (impermissible) designations.

You do not have such a system because you believe that it is not necessary. We believe that it is necessary. According to you, there is no good and no evil. We believe that there is.

In the meanwhile, we have developed a large, distributed database of jurisprudential rulings on the matter. You didn't. Consequently, you are not equipped to deal with the matter, simply because you do have the infrastructure available for that. You have never made the investments needed to achieve that. That is why you are so much behind on us.

The reason why we keep pointing out the inferiority of your approach, is to encourage you to catch up and produce the digital infrastructure that you need in order to compete.

You need to start by committing to a digital copy of a fully documented moral theory. Seriously, where is it? You do not even have the beginning of the beginning.

If you don't work on your problem, you will remain behind forever. It takes effort to succeed but you don't seem to be willing to do what it takes. Why don't you put in a bit of effort in order to work on your problem and make some progress instead of inventing excuses?

Do you have a comprehension problem?

I wrote earlier:
Morality is the management and elimination of evil acts to enable its related goods to manifest.
I have defined what is evil.
As such, humanity at present is striving to reduce evil acts via its unfoldment of the moral function.
The limitation is the unfoldment of the moral function is very slow in the present rate; it is because of its slowness in unfoldment that we need religion as a transitional measure.
At the same time humanity must strive to expedite the inherent moral functions within all humans.

What your religion is doing is to freeze morality in its primitive state till eternity with its immutable verses?
So in 10,000 or 50,000 year in the future, your religion with its immutable commands will sanction the killing of non-believers [Jews especially] for merely not believing in a negative religion.

Note the progress of slavery, which was condoned by your religion and other religions, but the progress of the banning of chattel slavery within all sovereign nations at present was done outside the verses of your holy texts that condoned slavery.
This moral progress re slavery is not done by atheists but merely by human beings driven by their inherent moral nature.

We have a large, growing, and continuously updated database with jurisprudential rulings, based on our core documentation. Where is your database?

Seriously, you keep inventing word salads of feeble excuses to justify why you've got nothing to show for!

[Veritas Aequitas]

We believe that there is a list of forbidden behaviors, of things that we should not be doing. This is the basis for the halal (permissible) versus haram (impermissible) designations.

You do not have such a system because you believe that it is not necessary. We believe that it is necessary. According to you, there is no good and no evil. We believe that there is.

In the meanwhile, we have developed a large, distributed database of jurisprudential rulings on the matter. You didn't. Consequently, you are not equipped to deal with the matter, simply because you do have the infrastructure available for that. You have never made the investments needed to achieve that. That is why you are so much behind on us.

The reason why we keep pointing out the inferiority of your approach, is to encourage you to catch up and produce the digital infrastructure that you need in order to compete.

You need to start by committing to a digital copy of a fully documented moral theory. Seriously, where is it? You do not even have the beginning of the beginning.

If you don't work on your problem, you will remain behind forever. It takes effort to succeed but you don't seem to be willing to do what it takes. Why don't you put in a bit of effort in order to work on your problem and make some progress instead of inventing excuses?

Do you have a comprehension problem?

I wrote earlier:
Morality is the management and elimination of evil acts to enable its related goods to manifest.
I have defined what is evil.
As such, humanity at present is striving to reduce evil acts via its unfoldment of the moral function.
The limitation is the unfoldment of the moral function is very slow in the present rate; it is because of its slowness in unfoldment that we need religion as a transitional measure.
At the same time humanity must strive to expedite the inherent moral functions within all humans.

What your religion is doing is to freeze morality in its primitive state till eternity with its immutable verses?
So in 10,000 or 50,000 year in the future, your religion with its immutable commands will sanction the killing of non-believers [Jews especially] for merely not believing in a negative religion.

Note the progress of slavery, which was condoned by your religion and other religions, but the progress of the banning of chattel slavery within all sovereign nations at present was done outside the verses of your holy texts that condoned slavery.
This moral progress re slavery is not done by atheists but merely by human beings driven by their inherent moral nature.

We have a large, growing, and continuously updated database with jurisprudential rulings, based on our core documentation. Where is your database?

Seriously, you keep inventing word salads of feeble excuses to justify why you've got nothing to show for!

You deny this moral progress had not happened?
Note the progress of slavery, which was condoned by your religion and other religions, but the progress of the banning of chattel slavery within all sovereign nations at present was done outside the verses of your holy texts that condoned slavery.
This moral progress re slavery is not done by atheists but merely by human beings driven by their inherent moral nature.

Despite the apparent increase in evil in modern times, note this:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1]
The book uses data simply documenting declining violence across time and geography.
This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.
He highlights the role of nation-state monopolies on force, of commerce (making other people become more valuable alive than dead), of increased literacy and communication (promoting empathy), as well as a rise in a rational problem-solving orientation as possible causes of this decline in violence.

He notes that paradoxically, our impression of violence has not tracked this decline, perhaps because of increased communication,[2] and that further decline is not inevitable, but is contingent on forces harnessing our better motivations such as empathy and increases in reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

I have added the following to the above;

Are you aware your 1:7 in {mine}
"The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have earned [Your] anger {Jews} or of those who are astray {Christians}."
is subtly brainwashing your 1.8 billion members to hate Jews and Christians 17 times a day.
This is the sort of documented evil influence in your book.
Prove I am wrong on this?

[Age]

I never said this.

So, once again, when you actually did say and claim:
Something that is documented does not need to defend itself,

you 'now' say and claim that you never said that, right?

By completely documenting, we commit to our position.

So, you do not have the courage to commit to, and stand behind, what you actually did say and claim.

Do you at least have the courage to commit to listing here what you claim does not need defending?

We cannot just change it on the fly. Where is your commitment? If you do not commit, then your position is a moving target. Why do we need to defend our commitment from an opponent who refuses or is incapable of committing to his position?

Why did you start assuming these Truly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect things, then they will lead you completely astray.

What exactly is your position anyway?

In regards to 'what', exactly?

And, what is 'your position' anyway?

Where can we find a complete copy of your moral theory?

Considering that you, obviously, have not produced absolutely anything regarding any actual so-called 'moral theory/guess', the same question can be asked to you. Where can 'we' find a complete copy of 'your moral theory' "godelian".

And, even starting to think of writing the 'quran' word here now shows and proves how Truly CLOSED and lacking in Intelligence you are here, now.

Can you produce an actual list of what 'your moral theory' words are, exactly?

If yes, then will you do it?

If no, then why not? Why are you so afraid and scared of here, exactly?

[godelian]

You deny this moral progress had not happened?
Note the progress of slavery, which was condoned by your religion and other religions

The British banned slavery after the French lost their colony of Saintes-Domingues (Haiti) to a slave revolt and after even Napoleon failed to reestablish colonial control.

At that point the British understood that having a small colonial elite of plantation owners outnumbered by a large number of slaves would eventually, inevitably lead to a takeover by the slaves.

The British policy on slavery had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with morality.

Concerning people who would typically end up in slavery, such as prisoners of war and orphans, the situation did not particularly improve.

The German Reich happily employed Russian POW slave labor, didn't they?

Concerning orphans, if nobody of the extended family wanted to take on an orphan, they would simply sell it to an outsider. It still works like that in SE Asia and Africa. Herding orphans in orphanages is actually not considered progress, especially not in countries where these facilities are perennially underfunded. If you want to witness horrible neglect and mistreatment of orphans, go to a poor Christian country and visit the holding pens of orphans.

Seriously, these children are better off with a surrogate family. By the way, you can still commercially buy a child from a surrogate mother. What's the difference with an orphan?

I have added the following to the above;

What you really want, is a jurisprudential ruling on a particular type of behavior. Morality is not about verses outside of any context. The question that it answers, is: Is the following halal or haram?

Furthermore, if you want to know how a particular verse is used in jurisprudential rulings, then query the jurisprudential database for this verse instead of staring at its letters out of context.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You deny this moral progress had not happened?
Note the progress of slavery, which was condoned by your religion and other religions

The British banned slavery after the French lost their colony of Saintes-Domingues (Haiti) to a slave revolt and after even Napoleon failed to reestablish colonial control.

At that point the British understood that having a small colonial elite of plantation owners outnumbered by a large number of slaves would eventually, inevitably lead to a takeover by the slaves.

The British policy on slavery had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with morality.

Concerning people who would typically end up in slavery, such as prisoners of war and orphans, the situation did not particularly improve.

The German Reich happily employed Russian POW slave labor, didn't they?

Concerning orphans, if nobody of the extended family wanted to take on an orphan, they would simply sell it to an outsider. It still works like that in SE Asia and Africa. Herding orphans in orphanages is actually not considered progress, especially not in countries where these facilities are perennially underfunded. If you want to witness horrible neglect and mistreatment of orphans, go to a poor Christian country and visit the holding pens of orphans.

Seriously, these children are better off with a surrogate family. By the way, you can still commercially buy a child from a surrogate mother. What's the difference with an orphan?

Why do you bring in the British and various specific circumstances??

Since 100 years ago, there is a trend within humanity all over the world on the elimination of chattel slavery. Note my emphasis on Chattel slavery.
There are different circumstances where chattel slavery were reduced within a continent and countries , but what drive the trend in reduction of slavery is the moral impulse inherent within all humans.

At present there are still various forms of slavery, but that all nations have now banned chattel slavery is a sign of the moral impulse unfolding within humanity.

I have added the following to the above;

What you really want, is a jurisprudential ruling on a particular type of behavior. Morality is not about verses outside of any context. The question that it answers, is: Is the following halal or haram?

Furthermore, if you want to know how a particular verse is used in jurisprudential rulings, then query the jurisprudential database for this verse instead of staring at its letters out of context.

What counts is only the words of the holy texts supposedly from God.
As I had written somewhere
a Christian and Muslim has to enter into a "contract" [mithaq] with his God where the terms of contract are only in the holy text and nowhere else.
Whatever are the jurisprudence matters, they are not the contractual terms with God but are invented by humans.

I refer to this;
Are you aware your 1:7 in {mine}
"The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have earned [Your] anger {Jews} or of those who are astray {Christians}."
is subtly brainwashing your 1.8 billion members to hate Jews and Christians 17 times a day.
What sort of God would influence his believers to hate non-believers 17 times a day?
This is the sort of documented evil influence in your book.
Is this moral from a rational humane point of view?

Note there are hundreds of verses that are worst than the above in your holy text.
How can you be humanely proud of such documented evil laden verses?

[godelian]

What counts is only the words of the holy texts supposedly from God.

Whatever are the jurisprudence matters, they are not the contractual terms with God but are invented by humans.

Jurisprudence is not "invented" but "discovered". It is valid or invalid. Jurisprudence is valid if it necessarily follows from the core documentation, i.e. from the scriptures. Hence, jurisprudence is discovered and not invented by humans.

How can you be humanely proud of such documented evil laden verses?

The scriptures are the definition for good and evil. When you call such definition "evil", you are doing that by using another definition.

Where is your alternative definition documented? Where can we find the database of jurisprudential rulings that are based on your alternative definition?

Hence, we always end up back at the same problem.

You refuse or are incapable to commit to a documented position. Without firm commitment, your position is a moving target. You effectively stand for nothing. How do you expect anybody else to be able to comment on your undefined and undocumented statements?

You see, if you do not like a particular moral theory or do not like to use its database of jurisprudential rulings, I would normally advise that you should simply use another one.

In your case, this is not even possible. Your alternative jurisprudential database only exists in your fantasy. If you insist that it really exists, can you finally show us where we can find that imaginary thing?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What counts is only the words of the holy texts supposedly from God.

Whatever are the jurisprudence matters, they are not the contractual terms with God but are invented by humans.

Jurisprudence is not "invented" but "discovered". It is valid or invalid. Jurisprudence is valid if it necessarily follows from the core documentation, i.e. from the scriptures. Hence, jurisprudence is discovered and not invented by humans.

Jurisprudence follows [by humans] as interpreted and enacted based on the core documentation from the scriptures.
Since humans are involved, it is man-made, in other words 'invented'.
Since it is man-made, it is fallible.
Even it is exactly in accordance to the scriptures, the problem is the scripture itself is evil-laden, thus the jurisprudence are also evil-laden.

How can you be humanely proud of such documented evil laden verses?

The scriptures are the definition for good and evil. When you call such definition "evil", you are doing that by using another definition.

There is no absolute definition of what is evil in the universal sense.
I have already defined what is 'evil' which is generally accepted by any rational person.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

What is your definition of evil?

A scripture will define its own what is evil and good, but what is good to one scripture could be universally evil. This is where your scripture is loaded [as analyzed] with universal evil.

Where is your alternative definition documented? Where can we find the database of jurisprudential rulings that are based on your alternative definition?

Hence, we always end up back at the same problem.

You refuse or are incapable to commit to a documented position. Without firm commitment, your position is a moving target. You effectively stand for nothing. How do you expect anybody else to be able to comment on your undefined and undocumented statements?

You see, if you do not like a particular moral theory or do not like to use its database of jurisprudential rulings, I would normally advise that you should simply use another one.

In your case, this is not even possible. Your alternative jurisprudential database only exists in your fantasy. If you insist that it really exists, can you finally show us where we can find that imaginary thing?

What I have discussed here are the universal principles of what is natural morality of managing good over evil.
At this point, a definitive or specific documented moral framework and system is not critical. What is critical is the universals moral principles must be incorporated within any moral framework and system.

If you insist, the alternative moral framework and system I would recommend would be that of Christianity's [with some modification], Buddhism, Stoicism, and the like.

The moral framework and system that should be condemned and weaned off is the "I" one with loaded evil elements like;

Are you aware your 1:7 in {mine}
"The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have earned [Your] anger {Jews} or of those who are astray {Christians}."
is subtly brainwashing your 1.8 billion members to hate Jews and Christians 17 times a day.
What sort of God would influence his believers to hate non-believers 17 times a day?
This is the sort of documented evil influence in your book.

Do you have a counter for the above evil laden verse?
Is this moral from a rational humane point of view?

Note there are hundreds of verses that are worst than the above in your holy text.
How can you be humanely proud of such documented evil laden verses?

[godelian]

Jurisprudence follows [by humans] as interpreted and enacted based on the core documentation from the scriptures.
Since humans are involved, it is man-made, in other words 'invented'.

If jurisprudence rolls off a Hewlett-Packard printer, then Hewlett-Packard is involved. Therefore, the true origin of jurisprudence are the printer equipment manufacturers! It is them who invent it!

It is all Hewlett-Packard-made!!

/sarcasm

Even it is exactly in accordance to the scriptures, the problem is the scripture itself is evil-laden, thus the jurisprudence are also evil-laden.

There we go again. You keep producing the same circular reasoning all over again.

So, a particular definition for good and evil, would be evil ... according to what definition? Your views on the matter are not right, but also not even wrong.

It is like a particular software program that could be wrong because it does not match the needs of the customer. In your case, the program does not even compile correctly. The compiler rejects it for syntax errors. So, your program does not even run. In that sense, your program is not right, but it is also not even wrong!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Jurisprudence follows [by humans] as interpreted and enacted based on the core documentation from the scriptures.
Since humans are involved, it is man-made, in other words 'invented'.

If jurisprudence rolls off a Hewlett-Packard printer, then Hewlett-Packard is involved. Therefore, the true origin of jurisprudence are the printer equipment manufacturers! It is them who invent it!

It is all Hewlett-Packard-made!!

/sarcasm

Even it is exactly in accordance to the scriptures, the problem is the scripture itself is evil-laden, thus the jurisprudence are also evil-laden.

There we go again. You keep producing the same circular reasoning all over again.

So, a particular definition for good and evil, would be evil ... according to what definition? Your views on the matter are not right, but also not even wrong.

It is like a particular software program that could be wrong because it does not match the needs of the customer. In your case, the program does not even compile correctly. The compiler rejects it for syntax errors. So, your program does not even run. In that sense, your program is not right, but it is also not even wrong!

Your above is a strawman, I did not argue for the above.

1. I have defined what is 'morality' and what is 'evil'.
What is your definition of 'morality' and evil?
How can you talk of morality and evil if you have not defined the terms.

2. I have also given you my versions of an alternative documented moral framework and systems.

3. If you think your authoritative scripture is all moral and not evil,
do you think the following is not evil?

The moral framework and system that should be condemned and weaned off is the "I" one with loaded evil elements like;

Are you aware your 1:7 in {mine}
"The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have earned [Your] anger {Jews} or of those who are astray {Christians}."
is subtly brainwashing your 1.8 billion members to hate Jews and Christians 17 times a day.
What sort of God would influence his believers to hate non-believers 17 times a day?
This is the sort of documented evil influence in your book.

Do you have a counter for the above evil laden verse?
Is this moral from a rational humane point of view?

If my definitive documented moral system dictate that 'you' as a non-believer
-must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of hatred],
-must be killed upon the slightest threat
-cannot be a friend,
-dehumanized as apes, pigs and the lowest of lowest creatures
-insulted, oppressed, and subject to all sort of vile acts,
would you agree that it is not evil?

Also address my points 1 & 3 and do not stray.

[godelian]

What is your definition of 'morality' and evil?
How can you talk of morality and evil if you have not defined the terms.

Definition: Morality is an implementation of the isMoral(behavior) predicate function that accepts the description of a particular human behavior as its argument and returns "halal" (true/good) or "haraam" (false/evil) as its result.

I accept the Quran and the prophetic Sunnah as the specification documents for this predicate function.

You can find examples of how this predicate function works in the large existing database of Islamic jurisprudential rulings.

2. I have also given you my versions of an alternative documented moral framework and systems.

Where can we find the elaborate database of jurisprudential rulings that is based on your own definition?

3. If you think your authoritative scripture is all moral and not evil, do you think the following is not evil?
...

We have ample salaried, full-time staff who work on the various segments of our jurisprudential database, as well as numerous contractors and external consultants on call who are extensively trained as religious scholars with years of experience in the field and who get paid according to market rate to answer exactly that kind of questions from the public.

These are large multinational nonprofit organizations and I really do not intend to compete with them as a sole individual.

Therefore, I recommend that you submit your detailed jurisprudential question to the helpdesk at islamqa.info by using their online form. You will receive a helpdesk ticket number that you can use to follow up on the progress in your ticket.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is your definition of 'morality' and evil?
How can you talk of morality and evil if you have not defined the terms.

Definition: Morality is an implementation of the is Moral(behavior) predicate function that accepts the description of a particular human behavior as its argument and returns "halal" (true/good) or "haraam" (false/evil) as its result.

I accept the Quran and the prophetic Sunnah as the specification documents for this predicate function.

You will note different schools [madhhab مَذْهَب] offer different interpretations, so which are the true interpretations.
It is the same with individual[s] interpreting the sole holy text.

So, you think whatever God stipulated in a holy texts is true/good or false/evil.
But that would be delusional because it is impossible for God to exist as real.

It is impossible for God to exists as Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You accept what is illusory?

2. I have also given you my versions of an alternative documented moral framework and systems.

Where can we find the elaborate database of jurisprudential rulings that is based on your own definition?

3. If you think your authoritative scripture is all moral and not evil, do you think the following is not evil?
...

We have ample salaried, full-time staff who work on the various segments of our jurisprudential database, as well as numerous contractors and external consultants on call who are extensively trained as religious scholars with years of experience in the field and who get paid according to market rate to answer exactly that kind of questions from the public.

These are large multinational nonprofit organizations and I really do not intend to compete with them as a sole individual.

Therefore, I recommend that you submit your detailed jurisprudential question to the helpdesk at islamqa.info by using their online form. You will receive a helpdesk ticket number that you can use to follow up on the progress in your ticket.

If I ask your scholars, they will definitely be biased.

I am asking you to use your common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any verses;

• If my definitive documented moral system dictates that 'you' as a non-believer
  -must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of anger & hatred],
  -must be killed upon the slightest threat
  -cannot be a friend,
  -dehumanized as apes, pigs and the lowest of lowest creatures
  -insulted, oppressed, and subject to all sort of vile acts,
  would you agree that the above is not evil?

[godelian]

You will note different schools [madhhab مَذْهَب] offer different interpretations, so which are the true interpretations.

In Sunni Islam, there used to be four jurisprudential databases which were, however, largely compatible. But then again, nowadays most scholars implement the quoting rules proposed in the Salafi concern. Only rulings from the first 3 generates can be referenced. All other rulings must be inlined. This has led to a much more unified jurisprudential database.

By the way, consensus in a decentralized environment always requires the dust to first settle. This has nothing to do with religion but with decentralization. For example, in the last 3 to 6 blocks in a blockchain, there can be competing forks. This is addressed by encouraging miners to follow the longest fork. This automatically leads to establishing a consensus after just 3-6 blocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(blockchain)

n blockchain, a fork is defined variously as:

"What happens when a blockchain diverges into two potential paths forward"
"A change in protocol", or
A situation that "occurs when two or more blocks have the same block height"[1]: glossary [a]

Forks are related to the fact that different parties need to use common rules to maintain the history of the blockchain. When parties are not in agreement, alternative chains may emerge. While most forks are short-lived some are permanent. Short-lived forks are due to the difficulty of reaching fast consensus in a distributed system.

You clearly need to read up on how decentralized, distributed databases operate and how consensus is reached without central authority. Islamic jurisprudence is completely decentralized. Therefore, reaching consensus is a non-trivial subject. Your remarks merely show your ignorance on the subject of decentralization.

So, you think whatever God stipulated in a holy texts is true/good or false/evil.

This is axiomatized in religion. Again, you need to read up on how axiomatic systems work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system

In mathematics and logic, an axiomatic system is any set of primitive notions and axioms to logically derive theorems. A theory is a consistent, relatively-self-contained body of knowledge which usually contains an axiomatic system and all its derived theorems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts.

To a non-mathematician it often comes as a surprise that it is impossible to define explicitly all the terms which are used. This is not a superficial problem but lies at the root of all knowledge; it is necessary to begin somewhere, and to make progress one must clearly state those elements and relations which are undefined and those properties which are taken for granted.

If you balk at accepting primitive notions as the basis for a database of theorems or rulings, it just means that you also do not understand how axiomatic subjects such as mathematics work. Seriously, it is a you-problem.

But that would be delusional because it is impossible for God to exist as real.

In every abstract domain which produces databases of theorems or rulings, the same question exists: Are these abstractions real? There is always a movement towards both realism and anti-realism. Example:

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same.

Major forms of mathematical realism include Platonism and Aristotelianism.

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities. Major forms of mathematical anti-realism include formalism and fictionalism.

The question of realism versus anti-realism is irrelevant in the context of analyzing databases of theorems or rulings. You believe that realism is delusional while other people believe that anti-realism is wrong. Does it even matter? The only thing that we can see for sure is that you have very poor knowledge of the ontology of abstract domains. You think that you know but you clearly know nothing.

I am asking you to use your common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any verses;

That amounts to saying, hey, Why don't you try to solve Fermat's last theorem by using common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any other theorem such as the modularity theorem? That is ridiculous. It took 350 years to discover the proof. It wasn't just by using so-called "common sense". What the hell do you know about that kind of things anyway?

You are only saying that because you know nothing about the subject. You haven't done any in-depth reading in the relevant database of theorems or rulings. You are simply incompetent. Seriously, what exactly do you know about religion? Nothing at all. You are an amateur. You are a novice newbie asking stupid questions. You keep going off on some kind of arrogant ego trip in which the only thing that you achieve, is to display your ridiculous brand of ignorance. Seriously, do your homework first!

[Veritas Aequitas]

You will note different schools [madhhab مَذْهَب] offer different interpretations, so which are the true interpretations.

In Sunni Islam, there used to be four jurisprudential databases which were, however, largely compatible. But then again, nowadays most scholars implement the quoting rules proposed in the Salafi concern. Only rulings from the first 3 generates can be referenced. All other rulings must be inlined. This has led to a much more unified jurisprudential database.

By the way, consensus in a decentralized environment always requires the dust to first settle. This has nothing to do with religion but with decentralization. For example, in the last 3 to 6 blocks in a blockchain, there can be competing forks. This is addressed by encouraging miners to follow the longest fork. This automatically leads to establishing a consensus after just 3-6 blocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(blockchain)

n blockchain, a fork is defined variously as:

"What happens when a blockchain diverges into two potential paths forward"
"A change in protocol", or
A situation that "occurs when two or more blocks have the same block height"[1]: glossary [a]

Forks are related to the fact that different parties need to use common rules to maintain the history of the blockchain. When parties are not in agreement, alternative chains may emerge. While most forks are short-lived some are permanent. Short-lived forks are due to the difficulty of reaching fast consensus in a distributed system.

You clearly need to read up on how decentralized, distributed databases operate and how consensus is reached without central authority. Islamic jurisprudence is completely decentralized. Therefore, reaching consensus is a non-trivial subject. Your remarks merely show your ignorance on the subject of decentralization.

Your philosophical database is too shallow and narrow.

However you present it, the final resultant is based on the consensus of a group of humans, not by a God.
In any case, the consensus cannot differ from the holy scripture supposedly sent by an all powerful God.
If God stipulated kill non-believers if they are threat to the religion, it will be the consensus [if any] to comply with what is stipulated.

So, you think whatever God stipulated in a holy texts is true/good or false/evil.

This is axiomatized in religion. Again, you need to read up on how axiomatic systems work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system

In mathematics and logic, an axiomatic system is any set of primitive notions and axioms to logically derive theorems. A theory is a consistent, relatively-self-contained body of knowledge which usually contains an axiomatic system and all its derived theorems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts.

To a non-mathematician it often comes as a surprise that it is impossible to define explicitly all the terms which are used. This is not a superficial problem but lies at the root of all knowledge; it is necessary to begin somewhere, and to make progress one must clearly state those elements and relations which are undefined and those properties which are taken for granted.

If you balk at accepting primitive notions as the basis for a database of theorems or rulings, it just means that you also do not understand how axiomatic subjects such as mathematics work. Seriously, it is a you-problem.

But that would be delusional because it is impossible for God to exist as real.

In every abstract domain which produces databases of theorems or rulings, the same question exists: Are these abstractions real? There is always a movement towards both realism and anti-realism. Example:

Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind. Thus, humans do not invent mathematics, but rather discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would presumably do the same.

Major forms of mathematical realism include Platonism and Aristotelianism.

Mathematical anti-realism generally holds that mathematical statements have truth-values, but that they do not do so by corresponding to a special realm of immaterial or non-empirical entities. Major forms of mathematical anti-realism include formalism and fictionalism.

The question of realism versus anti-realism is irrelevant in the context of analyzing databases of theorems or rulings. You believe that realism is delusional while other people believe that anti-realism is wrong. Does it even matter? The only thing that we can see for sure is that you have very poor knowledge of the ontology of abstract domains. You think that you know but you clearly know nothing.

Whatever are mathematical axioms, they are not absolutely independent of the collective of humans.
As Kant has argued there is no such things as axiom-in-itself.

That amounts to saying, hey, Why don't you try to solve Fermat's last theorem by using common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any other theorem such as the modularity theorem? That is ridiculous. It took 350 years to discover the proof. It wasn't just by using so-called "common sense". What the hell do you know about that kind of things anyway?

You are only saying that because you know nothing about the subject. You haven't done any in-depth reading in the relevant database of theorems or rulings. You are simply incompetent. Seriously, what exactly do you know about religion? Nothing at all. You are an amateur. You are a novice newbie asking stupid questions. You keep going off on some kind of arrogant ego trip in which the only thing that you achieve, is to display your ridiculous brand of ignorance. Seriously, do your homework first!

I am sure you are familiar with the limits of mathematics re Godel.

I am asking you to exercise common sense like if you have two apples and you then eat, what is left is one apple. This is common sense and rational.

Here again:

I am asking you to use your common sense, rational and critical thinking without reference to any verses;
If my definitive documented moral system dictates that 'you' as a non-believer
-must be condemned 17 times a day [with a sense of anger & hatred],
-must be killed upon the slightest threat
-cannot be a friend,
-dehumanized as apes, pigs and the lowest of lowest creatures
-insulted, oppressed, and subject to all sort of vile acts,
would you agree that the above is not evil?

Don't be a coward, give a common sense and rational answer to the above.