>>18061003
>Yes.
No.
>which is not comparable
Yes it does. Youth signifies health, and the rest is derived from the context and literal wording like their eternal nature.
>Can you explain the methodology
Yes but what exactly is wrong with for example weakening a narration due to disconnects, the person in the chain being forgetful, anonymity of the source invalidating the entire thing, etc? You literally use the same thing to verify any source.
>It tells us that certain authoritative individuals
No it doesn't, If I relayed to you that Ignatius told me that Polycarp said John told him that Jesus is literally Satan. Would you assume that any of them actually held that view? Also your appeal to scholars is invalidated by you saying you don't trust them lmao
>Source?
See where I talked about it here https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17652823
>I'm not sure what your point is
Religious individuals would have been convinced using our argumentation according to you meaning that even in the early years of Islam your kind would have nothing to stand on. However this is all beside the point, basically nothing about determining the authenticity of the isnad requires religious argumentation in the first place.
>I doubt the scholarly integrity of individuals who believe in the existence of demons
Like all the people who transmitted and preserved the Quran in a manner similar to the hadith? You are aware we have qiraat that do not have mass transmission and/or other flaws like those hadith you reject right? The reason you even have a Quran today is due to the standard you are rejecting. Guess you have no verses left lmao

>God exists...
Okay, where's the evidence?

>>509783233
>>509776509
are these imaginary atheists in the room with you right now?
if they are, i have a theory.. that theyre really just the spirits of dead jews

>>22910073
>>22910045
are these imaginary atheists in the room with you right now?
if they are, i have a theory.. that theyre really just the spirits of dead jews

>>509244809
>>509245474
>>509245698
>>509245869
>>509246338
who even are these atheists
people are always talking about them but never actually name anyone, its all just obscure pew polls and very very rarely an occasional chatbot that breaks down immediately on confrontation because its language model has been almost entirely dedicated to defending abrahamism

i know theres this guy, but didnt he die like 30 years ago?

>>509167248
nice opinion, mind if I throw it in the trash?

No amount of self soothing will change the fact that you're full of shit.