Yeah human politics and greed probably corrupted them.
As I said it is all a test from Allah. It is a mercy for the victims, because Allah will reward them in heaven for eternity. and the evil people who caused the war will be punished in Hell. Allah is Merciful and Just.
How did we know all this? How did we know that an electrical spark can start a fire? didnt we setup a test and saw the results? But that test is Fallacious according to Post hoc ergo propter hoc… Actually the entire scientific method seems fallacious.
So, when the US sends a drone to take out a terrorist and kills the family members attending a wedding (scenario)…no Muslim is upset, right? Allah allowed it. Everyone is rewarded.
Explain in your words what you believe the “scientific method” to be.
Yeah but all types of evidence require chronological events:
Event A: Fire touched the wood
Event B: Wood started burning
Event B followed Event A chronologically
it would be a fallacy to say that Event A caused Event B according to Post hoc ergo propter hoc
So what type of evidence can we provide to prove this statement?
From wikipedia : The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. … Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies.
It involves " carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions" but no experiment can be fallacy free if we apply Post hoc ergo propter hoc strictly. therefore any conclusion we get is bound to be fallacious.
In this format, it is not an Post hoc ergo propter hoc
In this context you have laid out and demonstrated one to another.
Fire 
Demonstrable and mundane
Wood
Demonstrable and mundane
Burning
Demonstrable and mundane
In their example of a true Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Bottled water
Demonstrable and mundane
Drink
Demonstrable and mundane
Sick
Demonstrable and mundane
the water caused the illness require more “steps” to demonstrate with evidence the link. Other plausible/possible explanations exist so the statement “the water caused the illness” needs further evidence to specifically support that statement.
The experiment needs to be replicated under the exact conditions by others (usually in competition and wanting to falsify the information). This scrutiny is what may render an initial experiment “unrepeatable” and thereby useless to science.
In your above example (to compare)
I can take my lighter and have “fire”
I can take wood (say condition of wood is dry) and light it
I can observe it burning
I can take bottled water
I can drink it
Will I become sick?
First I want to make it clear, if a muslim was killed (not terrorist) then yes we shouldnt be upset. But people are upset because of human emotions.
Allah says in the quran:
Never think of those martyred in the cause of Allah as dead. In fact, they are alive with their Lord, well provided for—
rejoicing in Allah’s bounties and being delighted for those yet to join them. There will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.
They are joyful for receiving Allah’s grace and bounty, and that Allah does not deny the reward of the believers.
…and the corruption. Because it’s not just reserved to “human emotion” is it? Action is taken in turn. All the same actions by the different religions under politics claiming “god is on our side”… oh, and all going to heaven while the “others” are bound for hell.
I am following the definition precisely.
It clearly states : Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused 'A.
Wood burning have other plausible explantations as well. And I see no mention of the number of steps needed in the definition, are you making things up?
The definition is clear, A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B.
Lol
The form of the post hoc fallacy is expressed as follows:
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often combined with the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, assuming the logical inverseholds: Avoiding A will prevent B.
The key word assumes. If evidenced, it is valid. Assumption is not evidence.
Look into this more if its a real issue (I can understand that lack of evidence may be an issue)
Assume: suppose to be the case, without proof. (simple definition)
Assume also boils down to make an “ASS of U and ME”
People can claim all they want, truth will prevail. In islam we are a religion of peace,
quote from the Quran:
Invite ˹all˺ to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord ˹alone˺ knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is ˹rightly˺ guided.
Allah through the Quran wants to guide us:
It is Allah’s Will to make things clear to you, guide you to the ˹noble˺ ways of those before you, and turn to you in mercy. For Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
And it is Allah’s Will to turn to you in grace, but those who follow their desires wish to see you deviate entirely ˹from Allah’s Way˺.
And it is Allah’s Will to lighten your burdens, for humankind was created weak.
Experimentation. How do you know the Koran is the word of Allah?
The scientific method is self-correcting. If it finds a mistake, or there is new information coming in, the body of knowledge and conclusions are revised. Compare with religion, where dogma is static despite any new facts and knowledge coming in.
Science:
Scientist A: So far, evidence seems to point to X.
Scientist B: Hey, but what about these brand new observations O contradicting X?
Scientist A: Oh, that is new knowledge. We can revise theory X to account for O. Behold, we now have a new and better theory X’.
Religion:
Cleric: Our holy book claims X. Therefore X is true.
Non-cleric: But observation O contradicts X, so X cannot be true.
Cleric: Our holy book claims X. Therefore X is true.
Which one is the fallacious one?
And they do.
This is a claim.
Christian claim backed by bible:
Colossians 1:20, “[Jesus] brought peace through the blood of his cross.”
SO
Can I say “Christianity is a religion of peace?”
Hahahaha … so much for benevolent. Appears god has stayed the same through the books written about “him”. It’s all for his ego. Make a “perfect” creation weak so his ego can be satisfied via forced worship and dependency.
And my point is that nothing can be evidenced since any form of empirical evidence will fall into the post hoc fallacy . I demonstrated this with the fire and wood example.
Set down your phone. This is not evidence of a scientific method (one thing being demonstrated to another thing, etc etc) that resulted in a technology that has usefulness in the real, physical world. Same with pumps, vehicles, tv, medicines…
Walk away. Slowly carefully…
Oh and with the more specific caveat of:
which is fallacious according to the post hoc fallacy
Self correcting but Fallacious at the same time?
Seems like a straw man. The argument is that God the creator of everything including you and all wise all knowledgeable claims X therefore X is true and contradicting observation O isn’t a reliable source of knowledge.
This is a false and untrue statement. Unless you fall into solipsism. In which case I would argue that as far as the reality we perceive and have to interact with we have reliable, predicative evidences that have been repeatable and humankind depends upon.
NO
There is a BOOK or TEXT written by MAN that claims that God the creator of everything including you and all wise all knowledgeable claims X therefore X is true