Time-bounded Arguments

What is time-bounded argument? Its the kind of argument that are closely linked to a certain period of time. Many use time-bounded arguments to demonstrate their point are justified by the history. But if you can prove a negative and a positive both in history, doesn't that discredit history as a reliable justification.? Think about it. If you can prove that Islam create and provoke violence using history of the past decade egregious terrorism that has been sprouting out of the Middle East  under the name of Islam, but, meanwhile your opponent respond with quoting the heyday of Islamic civilization during Ottoman empire, doesn't that make history not a good justification ? That's the problem, certain arguments cannot be supported by history because history prove both contrasting notion valid, ergo its either it is a truthful paradox or it proves history itself incapable to be used as justification. Hence how do you prove Islam is a religion of peace or  a religion that invoke violence, if not with history? Im not saying that history cannot be cite as justification, but first the notion must be constant throughout history to provide a convincing prove, if not, in this case, history will only be a weak argument. So to prove a notion that are inconsistent through the layout of history, we must resort to the doctrine of the religion itself and its honest interpretation and judged by our moral standard. If I'm wrong and had deluded my own rationale, please help me clear it up.

Read More

Head I Win, Tail You Lose.

         I watch Ahmed Deedat talk on ''Arab and Israel: Conflict or Conciliation'' yesterday. He is a very good speaker, we are lucky to have his talk and debate documented on video because during his time much discussion were not recorded as camera was still in its early years and broadcasting is at its dawn. I am sure everybody who watch his lecture or debate, though kept the opposing view, must admit his erudition in religion studies specifically Islam, Christianity and Judaism and his unbeatable logic in presenting his argument while maintaining a dramatic and funny composure. His ability to pinpoint his opponent hypocrisy made his argument even more convincing and hard to revile. While enjoying his talk, I take note of few things he mentioned of the many important things he presented, one of which is 'head I win, tail you lose'. He was telling a story about the Jews that planned to trick Jesus by asking a 'head I win, tail you lose' question. Because Jesus was also a Jew, he manage to come up with a witty rejoinder that pays back the trick on them.

      What is a 'head I win,tail you lose' question? Its a trick question which always in favor of the questioner. Let me give example of one of these question. The first time I encounter this type of question was when I watch a Tamil movie past few years ago, until now only I actually decide to term it 'head you win, tail you lose' question in tribute to Mr. Deedat flamboyant speech. In the movie, the hero was caught by the police and had to undergo court trial. The lawyer ask him a simple yes or no question which he refuse to give an answer. Instead he showed that mere simplistic answer can only be in favor of the lawyer whether the answer is yes or even no. In making his point clear, he ask the lawyer a yes or no question back," Have you stop taking bribe?", if yes means the lawyer had taken bribe before while no means he still practising bribery. You get it?

      Prima facie, the argument that deny God as goes, can God create a stone which is so heavy that he Himself be unable to move it, if can then it means God's strength is limited, if He cannot create it means His power is not limtless, seems legit and sound but however the premise of the question regard God as only the Creator and the All-Mighty, but God is also the Law Giver and All-Wise. He have His own will. Why would He willed to create a stone so heavy that He can't move it.? An All-Wise God, whether He can or cannot create such stone, would never even built such stone. He is still All-Mighty and the Creator because there's still no one on the same level as Him. In Arabic we say God behave as mukhalafatuhu taala binafsih ( God is like no other ). 

   In chess, we can also see the game version of 'head I win, tail you lose' situation. It's when you trap your opponent with just a set of movement that which ever way he take you would still get to pin down one of his pawn, in other words, there's no other way but to sacrifice one soldier to protect the eminent one, in this case the king. 

    

Read More