Dev 🦉

I am a Developer and I post random shit.
I like talking about Linux & BSD, Philosophy & Art, Literatur & Sketching.

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

Hey @X 👋

I’m looking to #connect with people who are into:

✅ DSA
💻 Leetcode
🎨 Frontend
💼 Backend
✨ Full Stack
🧠 AI/ML
🧱 Web3
📊 Data Science
🐍 Python
🫂 Networking
🔨 Startups

Let’s build, learn & grow together🚀
#letsconnect

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@CrimsonP_ Heavenly delusional

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@AnimexTwts

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@anime_shots

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@thesimoncom @opinionatedpk @IamCataruto @RaysTweetsss Calling others irrational while accepting miracles, angels, jinn, and revelation as basic facts is an interesting definition of rational.
Different standards, I guess

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

Twitter-format closing argument (firm, clean, non-derailing):

1/ You keep asserting that relations require intention. That’s the assumption. Logical relations arise from structure, not agency—entailment isn’t something that “acts.”

2/ Propositions don’t “speak.” They have truth-conditions. Aboutness here is structural correspondence, not conscious aiming.

3/ Asking how a relation “arises” from something inert confuses causal processes with logical facts. Relations don’t need to be produced; they hold by form.

4/ If truth required a mind to exist, then truths would blink in and out of existence with thinkers—an incoherent result.

5/ Positing a “necessary mind” doesn’t explain relations; it assumes what you’re trying to prove and adds an unverified entity.

Bottom line:
Structure grounds relations; minds discover them. Until you show that all relations require agency, the claim that truth ceases without a mind doesn’t follow.

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@DuttShekhar No new arguments have been presented. Why so much fuss ?

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

1/ You’re still assuming what you must prove: that all relations require intentionality. They don’t. Logical relations are structural, not psychological.

2/ Aboutness ≠ intention. “A entails B” holds due to form, not because something is about something in a mental sense.

3/ Relations can exist without minds—numbers stand in relations, sets have members, axioms entail theorems. None intend anything.

4/ You keep redefining “relation” to mean “intentional relation.” That’s not neutral analysis, that’s semantic smuggling.

5/ If relations required minds, then logic, math, and modality would vanish without thinkers—truth would blink in and out of existence. That’s incoherent.

6/ Your last move concedes the real issue: positing a metaphysical mind to ground reality is fine as belief—but inserting that mind as an explanatory necessity without proof is the mistake.

Bottom line:
Structure doesn’t need a mind to exist; minds need structure to think. You’re reversing the dependency.

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@NxtGenStation @OathofAbdul Agr aisi eng bolega to tu AI use Kr k hi baat krle

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

Calm down. “23 years” doesn’t rescue the claim — it confirms it.

Whether you say “came from heaven” or “revealed over 23 years via an angel”, the core assertion is still supernatural revelation. Stretching the timeline doesn’t convert faith into rational evidence.

Now about philosophy vs science nice deflection, but it backfires.
You used philosophy to mock “something from nothing”,
then demanded immunity for revelation, angels, divine speech, and preservation — all of which are far bigger metaphysical commitments.

If “absolute nothingness” is a philosophical concept, then so is:
God
Revelation
Angels
Divine speech
Intentional preservation

😂😂😂

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

Bilkul. Aur irony ye hai ki “something comes from nothing” pe hasne wale khud “book came from heaven” ko rational bol rahe hote hain.
Science ne kabhi nothing ko “absolute nothing” define hi nahi kiya.
Religion ne bina mechanism, bina evidence ke creator + message + preservation sab assume kar liya.

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@domain_is_taken @OathofAbdul Already done check your threads

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@opinionatedpk @IamCataruto @RaysTweetsss Still better than arguing who doesn't have a rational understanding.

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

Interesting that rationality is being invoked while defending supernatural claims.

If the standard is reason, then claims of divine preservation, miracles, and revelation must be open to the same scrutiny as any other extraordinary claim. Simply asserting “God said so” is not rational evidence—it’s faith.

Appealing to memorization, tradition, or mass acceptance doesn’t change that. Humans can preserve, standardize, and enforce texts very efficiently. That explains preservation without invoking the supernatural.

Rational inquiry doesn’t start by assuming the conclusion. It asks: What independent evidence would convince someone who doesn’t already believe?
If the answer is “nothing, because disbelief is the problem,” then the position has already left rational ground.

So yes, let’s keep it cordial—but let’s also be honest about what is being defended here: belief, not rational proof.

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

1. Claim ≠ Evidence
Saying “God promised to preserve it” inside the Qur'an is not evidence. Every religion can (and does) make self-referential claims. Self-assertion proves nothing.

2. Memorization is not uniqueness
Mass memorization ≠ divine origin.

Vedas, Buddhist sutras, and Homeric epics were transmitted orally with high accuracy long before Islam.

Memorization shows human discipline, not supernatural preservation.

3. Standardization ≠ miracle
The Quran’s uniformity exists because of human enforcement:

Canonization under Caliph Uthman

Burning of variant manuscripts

Suppression of alternate recitations
This is political standardization, not divine intervention.

4. “Instant correction” proves social control, not truth
If millions correct errors, that shows collective policing, not metaphysical truth. Wikipedia works the same way—by consensus and enforcement.

5. Variants do exist (inconvenient fact)
Qira’at (different canonical readings) exist with different words and meanings.
Calling them “same” is theological spin, not textual honesty.

6. Miracles rejected → therefore words are proof? Non sequitur
People rejecting miracles does not logically imply that a book becomes evidence. That leap has no epistemic grounding.

7. “If they don’t want to accept, they won’t” kills the argument
This sentence admits the claim is unfalsifiable.
An unfalsifiable claim is not evidence—it’s belief by insulation.

If you want to give arguments at least give something good 😴

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@domain_is_taken @OathofAbdul 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 cute arguments

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

@IlmThawrat @Ibn___Battuta @grok 😂😂😂

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

Remember folks, modern technology is a scientific achievement.

You don’t need to accept a scientist’s worldview to use a smartphone.
You don’t need to believe in Newton to trust gravity.
You don’t need to follow Einstein to use GPS.

Using the product doesn’t mean endorsing the belief system behind it.

[Dev 🦉 @ooyee_ankit]

1/ You’re not exposing an assumption—you’re building mentality into the definition of intentionality. That’s question-begging.

2/ You treat relations as actions. Logical relations don’t require activity or agency—only structure. Entailment ≠ intention.

3/ Propositions ≠ stones. Stones lack structure; propositions are structured. “Inert” doesn’t mean relation-less.

4/ You equivocate between subjective intentionality (beliefs) and objective aboutness (truth-conditions). Only the former requires a mind.

5/ Meaninglessness ≠ falsity. Arithmetic could be uninterpreted before minds and still be true—otherwise truth blinks in and out of existence.

6/ “Intentionality requires an intender” isn’t self-evident—it’s the disputed thesis. Asserting it makes the argument circular.

Bottom line: Minds are needed to think about propositions, not to ground them.