Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LOL Go ahead and claim victory if you want.
The question was for Monotheist 101 whose religion is Islam. He does believe in God. He believes it is the same God that Jews and Christians believe in. And, he believes he is obeying and following the true God in the way that God wants to be followed. But, it is contrary to what most Christians believe. For you, as a Christian what do you say? "Oh well, we tried to tell him the truth." If Christians are right, the problem is for Monotheist 101. Why didn't God make it clear what the real truth was? Why did God allow him to be deceived? So it is not a question of does God exist. It is a question of God allowing a sincere believer to follow the wrong religion that had the wrong definition of God.
There was no victory only concession. You argument was the equivalent of France's military history.
Technically: Your claim can't even theoretically be true. Startling is a relative statement made about a value I assigned to something. Even if false and even if unimpressive it may or may not be startling to me and you have no access to that either way.
This is absurd there is no qualitative comparison between Nostradamus and the Bible. It is not even worth the effort to contrast.
Now this is the one decent argument possible. If you had made this one instead of revising or denying history, complicating the obvious, and trivializing the momentous you might have developed a contention with some teeth.
History is not something I feel compelled to deny for convenience. The fact that this prophecy and history are identical is as sound a fact as countless other well established accepted historical claims. I do not think a single claim in that prophecy even has a historical countercliam possible. Nu-uh is not a rebuttal. Not that the core of your claims were historical, they were mostly the assigning of meaning and intent to a narrative in opposition to thousands of years of exegesis and hermeneutics based on arbitrary preference.
Come on, is this the kind of reasoning you use to reject evidence of a concept where our souls are potentially at stake. With everything we have or ever will have potentially on the line I certainly would think the issue deserving of more relevant and effective scholarship that this. In what way is this comparable to Ezekiel?
Since that relatively modern settlement was never prophesied to be destroyed I do not see the applicability. I gave what was predicted to be destroyed, why it and it alone was the focus of the prophecy, and why assumptions that it applies to any city in the area or named Tyre are ridiculous. What power do facts, logic, and Biblical scholarship have against preference? Apparently nothing.
Very well, this explanation of context does change things a bit. I would also add that in Islam's 400 plus year later revision of contemporary crucifixion accounts, the Quran has Allah creating the false Christian religion and then condemning people for believing the lie Allah led us to believe. Allah in the Quran led mankind at the time to think Jesus was crucified, killed, and resurrected and then condemns belief in this concept "he made it appear" to them to have occurred. I love Shabir Ali but even he couldn't get out of this one and no other Muslim apologist is in his league.
You know I hate to admit it, but you do know a lot of stuff. Could you say a bit more about what Shabir Ali said?
That may be your understanding but it isn't mine nor most of NT scholars. It is not even theologically reconcilable. Jesus said he was the way the truth and the life and NO ONE proceeds to the father except through him. He also said if anyone does not believe that he is the Christ then that person "or religion" is the anti-Christ, and that if anyone preaches a different message than him and his disciples that that person should be ignored and God will punish them severely. When two mutually exclusive claims to absolute truth are made then it is impossible both are true. One may be true or both may be false. Islam and Christianitys messages are mutually exclusive and can't possibly both be true. However none of this was the point behind my 400 years claim. The point was that several contemporary disciples and apostles all recorded Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and was "resurrected". There exists no contemporary claims that contend this and it is recorded as witnessed by many people. 500 years later a very questionable man in another nation invents a new religion and claims that the contemporary reports of the Apostles were wrong. Unless I am born into Islam and brainwashed at a young age why would I ever believe this 6th century Arabian knows what happened 400-500 years earlier in Israel better than several people existed at the time and were witnesses to events. You must adopt that by pure faith (given virtually no evidence nor sufficient reason) or not at all.
If you wish we can get into what Islam claims about corruption in the Bible and how they would know that even if true but unless you can prove it, merely asserting these things has no explanatory power and scope. Many Jews have accepted Christ as savior; however Jewish people have a vested interest in Jesus not being the messiah. It was at their instigation that he was killed, that is a very powerful reason to try and maintain the idea that he was not the messiah and they are not an unbiased source by any means nor the sole arbiters of NT truth even if unbiased. History and the textual integrity of the NT speaks for itself. Critics have been trying to undo the NT for 2000 years and have failed miserably. The most powerful empires in human history have tried to wipe out the entire Christian culture and became converted instead. I see little threat to the NT from Islam.
You most certainly have the right to believe that on faith, and it is refreshing to hear a Muslim admit it is by pure faith and not history of the Bible that is the only validation for that. Of course I do not believe that for about a thousand reasons but even if a Muslim I would regard the "trick" Allah played, by setting up circumstances in such a way that the false (according to Islam) view that Christ died on the cross was unavoidable looking at the facts. I have noticed that every time the Bible is countered it always leads into these self-destructive arguments, self-contradiction, and denials of history. Why not just adopt the view that removes the countless areas where you are forced to explain away self-evident facts by extreme measures. Believing Christ was the messiah and died and was resurrected makes all the pieces fit and nothing must be explained away. If you hold that Christ did not die on the cross for our sins then:
I been fascinated by spiritual warfare and interaction for many years and have researched demonic possession in some detail. What experiences are you referring to? I have had a few, but they have been of profound peace and contentment except for one. I started to explain that one exception but I would rather not discuss it.
If I could remember a tenth of what I read I would be tough to handle. I have to read more than anyone else because I seem to retain so little of it. I have watched every debate I can find and have transcripts of many. I am a little obsessed with the subject. I always thought that since we only have time to study so much, what subject is more worthy of it than theology? That being said, I can't remember Shabir's specific words. He had two questions where he just fell apart on, from William Craig. One was his explanation of why most NT scholars on either side agree that Christ died by crucifixion. He said something like; that since this is two thousand years later and Christ couldn't still be alive then by default they assume he died on the cross. If you think this an incoherent response, I agree, and it is not typical of Shabir. I will attempt to review his response to the claim that Allah allowed or fostered the Christian belief by his own actions and then condemned it and try and provide it soon but can't for the life remember what he specifically said. I only remember it was ridiculous. I always thought this point and particularly potent one but it rarely comes up in debate. Since Shabir did not have an answer and Deedat passed away I do not think a Muslim apologist exists that could even theoretically counter it effectively but hope to hear it attempted in the future. Anyway thanks for the sentiments, I wish in this case I could live up to them but intend to do so soon.
It seems to me that the double standards consist in confusing metaphysical beliefs with science. But see my paragraph below prefixed with an asterisk.
Hold the phone a second. Please post a single statement I have ever made that says "Because Dr X says Y is true then Y must be true" That being said there is much merit in giving the quality of scholarship behind a concept or claim. In thousands of courtrooms for thousands of years expert testimony is vital and valid. Why only with God are obvious and perfectly logical methods suddenly no longer allowed? If I said there is a planet behind Pluto because a drunk in an alley told me so would you consider it valid or reliable, if instead I said the Voyager probe sent data and Max Plank said it was accurate, would that not make any difference? I know it would in every single other aspect of your life, why not here. Of course authority does not equal truth but it certainly does affect credibility of a claim.
What agreement are you referring to anyway? I am always the one who gets frustrated from the misunderstanding and the misuse of the fallacy card usually in the wrong pace for the wrong reason. I almost never "call" fallacy, but instead explain why something is fallacious instead, so I am not sure what it is you are referring to.
It is quite useless to point out that something that exists is in the natural world. We, or I should say, science does not have access to anything else. What is the alternative to a cause for the universe? Whatever is made up is less evidenced than cause and effect. You may have a qualitative point but not a validity point. There is no known reason why cause and effect would not have applied to the creation. That might leave what we know less than proof (and I never asserted it was proof) but certainly not without merit. This also is a double standard. Science has posited all kinds of ridiculous theory about "Before" the universe claims and even though they are based on far less than cause and effect they are considered valid for consideration. Why is science so consistently hypocritical? Believing something does not pop into existence without a cause is an infinitely worse idea than that something caused the universe to begin to exist and the arguments used by the non-theist side all get worse from there. We may debate the strength of cause and effect, but what is certain is it is the best theory by far today. Even the great scholars on your side know this. I will not list any names since you dismiss doing so but they have insisted "they never claimed anything so ridiculous as that something came from nothing uncaused".
No you are going too far. You may rightly assert I can't know for sure that cause and effect operated in the creation of the universe but you may not honestly then assert you know it did not. That is hypocritical. The claim that cause and effect was valid in the creation process is consistent with all known reality and there is reason at all to think it is a product of nature (in fact it seems to impose its self on nature). There is no reason whatever to insist it did not apply to the creation. You may only assert that it is not certain it did apply. That's it, and I am being generous. I think in fact good arguments exist to think it exists independent of nature. Nature does not create natural laws but have avoided contending so just yet.
Why is my opinion better than the scholarly wisdom of one of Earth's greatest administrative empires? I agree that it does not make it right but the sum total of knowledge of the Roman empire carries more weight than my word alone would to a secular person I would think. In no debate I have ever seen (and that is hundreds) have scholars and sources not been an integral part. If you debate me you are in effect debating many other scholars as that in large part is where I developed much of me understanding from. When they need a bridge built do they call you or an engineer? When they need a text examined is it me or a textual scholar they call? When medical testimony is needed in court do they call a doctor or a plumber? I will of course give mostly my own words but I do not agree to exclude scholarship. I lack the arrogance and faith to declare or find sufficient, only my own knowledge and ability.
Science assumes natural law operates the same everywhere in most cases. They build fabulous theories and petition for grant money by the millions on that rational assumption. Why can they do this and yet the philosopher and the theologian not be allowed to? Inference is part of every discipline on earth. If any single subject should not be allowed to infer it would be science yet science does it more than any other and then faults theology for doing exactly what that field entails. I roundly reject these invalidity claims based on nothing beyond there is no proof. I said it was the best we have currently, there is no reason to think it wrong, but as proof is unavailable it is the next best method. Science does it constantly and I demand a single standard. Do we or do we not believe that reality was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age based on inference not proof?
Then what in nature dictates it's existence. There is no reason to think nature (which can't generate rationality much less law) created any law within it. How did a photon decide how fast it's maximum speed was? How did matter turn on its gravitational properties. If nature can't do x then whatever is doing X is by definition beyond nature or supernatural. A law is not dependent on its application. Murder would still be wrong given God if no one believed it or ever committed it. If God does not exist then even the rape of a child is at best a social taboo or inconvenient for survival not actually wrong. So you must either declare God exists and moral law is not natural or concede that any immoral action is only against a societal preference.
You must first prove or at least attempt to show that is true. Nothing that begins to exist has ever been observed to do so without a cause and here you simply assert that it has. Not to mention it defies logical principles. If the "world" and I must assume you mean universe (no one believes the Earth is eternal) were infinite then it's past events are infinite. It is logically and physically impossible to traverse an infinite expanse of anything. How could an infinite amount of past events have occured in order to arrive at this one? How could a past number of seconds have ticked off to arrive at this one. Another would be, and this one and the others would all be true even if the oscillating universes or multiverse fantasies were true. Entropy means that give time matter and energy disperse evenly. We should have experienced heat death an infinite time ago. However very localized pockets of matter and energy all indicate a very young universe. So what you propose flys in the face of all kinds of science including current cosmology, mine is perfectly consistent with them all. Yours assumes an unintentional universe invented cause and effect. Mine assumes a mind created it. Yours also assumes a process which has no known exception cease to exist at some point. Mine assumes it did not. You also assert some kind of infinite causal regression which is of all these things the least likely to be true. In fact it is impossible.
I think you are arbitrarily dismissing or ignoring the dominant modern cosmology and the impossibility of its opposite. The over whelming amount of data all adds up to a finite universe that began to exist. You either have it coming from nothing, it always existing which is way worse, or it creating its self. None of which have the slightest reason to believe are true. I on the other hand have a 4000 year old concept that matches exactly the conclusions of philosophy and what facts we have from science. That is convergent independent confirmation. You keep ignoring the principle in question ONLY THINGS THAT BEGIN TO EXIST NEED A CAUSE. God as a concept was eternal before anyone knew of a need of such an idea. I did not invent something new I applied something very old and it fit perfectly. If you argument hinges on the eternality of the universe or God needing a cause then there is no argument.
If I push my coffee of the table I have created an effect and there is nothing abstract about it. There is nothing abstract about God creating the universe either. We just do not know the methods he used. So what we do not know why Galaxies hang together. Is dark matter abstract? BTW if you are a materialist and you are close then before the universe there were not even abstract concepts. In your view everything is derivative of something that can't derive. Nothing has no creative potential, not even an abstract concept.
I am not sure I get the question. 1. Independent of time. 2. Personal. I will add others as soon as the context is clear.
It did not say it was true because it was old. Fallacy dependence is the very worst aspect of a week argument. They are crutches (though I will give you credit for explaining the false claim). My point was that it being old and independent of the questions it answers gives it a high reliability factor. What are the chances that bronze age men would guess or lie the exact unique characteristics needed for what 4000 years later would be learned are needed for the cause of the universe? The most reasonable conclusion is that it is a valid argument in favor of God. The science based non theist has only two settings (though he violates them at every chance on his own claims): 1. Proof 2. Worthless. That is invalid scholarship. Historical and theological claims are evaluated by a analog probability method, not a digital proof or false method. It would not be so bad if the standard was consistently used but it isn't. God is a cumulative case and cosmology is a single argument from thousands.
You are turning into a fallacy machine gun. I do not think I have ever said since so and so said X then X is true, and it certainly did not happen in what you are responding to. The red above is a perfect example of what I mentioned in the last paragraph. If God did Z and I find speculative arguments for Z then they are indeed evidence for God. What you did was redifine evidence as equal to proof and then evidence proof's test and declare that it failed. In fact evidence is a subjective thing in many cases so your argument could not be made even if true. Regardless before nature existed God is the only reasonable concept available. Not proof but evidence of ambiguous weight for the supernatural or transcendent. At best you have a quality disagreement.
The concept of God is not contingent so this is not a problem. I do notice that you are applying terms and concepts that have only a natural application (for you that is all there is) to God when you think it helps but deny my doing so even though my view allows it.
First what was this in response to? This is the equivalent of me saying "Oh yeah the Quran is stupid, take that" However lets see what else is wrong here.
What in the world about that book can be considered even a candidate as a miracle? I have heard literary critics say it is a literary train wreck, textual scholars say it is arranged for memorization not retention and resulted in a disjointed haphazard context, I have even seen that strange claim about producing something like it be done over and over and over again. I even did it once in response to a request and the person never could show mine was any worse than the Qurans verse in any way. There is nothing beautiful about Arabic though I do personally like the script but not the spoken language. The NT for example uses one of if not the most sophisticated and descriptive languages in history. Koine Greek. I make no claim it is a language of "beauty" but it is what God needs an extremely capable written language and along with the Latin dominated the civilized world and rabidly spread the teachings way beyond it's local area of revelation. It is exactly what I would expect of a practicle God.
I think I might be in a different category than you think. I lean towards the trinity but "officially" have no need to know if it is true or not. If Jesus was only human given divine authority for a time of God in essence I must do the exact same thing (be born again on the basis of what he did). Falling short of claiming the trinity is fact it is very clear Jesus existed before the Earth and that through him all things were created. You may deny him being God but a mere rasul is a title history will not abide an honest researcher. Continued below:
If you merely claim that the Bible is corrupt that is not an argument. It matters little what we think Christ would or should do or teach. It only matters what he did. I think outside of about 5% at worst total error for the whole Bible we have a reliable record of what he taught. I think it is only here that our contention can be decided. Everything springs for your claims of corruption and my defense of the Biblical integrity. What facts do claim to know concerning Bible corruption?
You and I both believe the modern Bible and modern Quran are mutually exclusive. I do not need to prove a thing beyond that to explain what I claim. You must additionally show the modern Bible is NO reflection of Christ's message and then that the Quran is such. It is here that the issue must be decided and assertions without evidence will not do. Please present such evidence and let's concentrate on that as without it there is no reason to contend further.
Boy you really misunderstood what I said. I said 20 years ago I looked into astral projection, it did not work but I always felt guilty for messing with it even though I was no Christian. Now I think it evil and have never got near it since I was born again. The good things I said I have experienced are unmistakably linked to God. The dozen or so times I have been directly in God's presence is indescribable but exactly what the Bible indicates and I got to that point by following Biblical principles exclusively and strictly. Several times I have had others be effected by the events. I am normally more intellectual based than spiritual but I went through a period over a few years where people said they felt God when near me. I am probably wrong but have drifted into a far more intellectual relationship now a days with faith. I have never healed anyone nor exercised anything but I am honest in what I have experienced. I am less so but still very interested in spiritual events on both sides. If you claim al these extreme events happened you know you have a burden of proof here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. BTW why did Muhammad do little of these miracle type actions even when directly asked, as they said the former (biblical prophets di them in abundance) yet he did virtually none.
that doesnt apply..so Ill save my time ...it was in reply to a few of your posts.. here or a new thread either is cool with me..after I get my sleep tho..