Paradoxica
-insert title here-
This is a good ending to leave on.
This is the final score of every metaphysical debate, as a lack of empirical observation means that nothing can be confirmed or denied.
Does God exist? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
This is the final score of every metaphysical debate, as a lack of empirical observation means that nothing can be confirmed or denied.
dan964
what
I think this should be worded as:
I was referring mainly to the argument "God doesn't exist because of evil" but in a limited way, can possibly apply to this topic in general.
There isn't a lack of empirical observation as such, more so that the scientific evidence is hotly disputed, which is a bit different.
Well I do think there is a serious case with external evidence for the Christian faith for instance of course, with empirical evidence (mainly history, literature or maybe the cosmological/teleological arguments)
But it is still a stalemate in some measure, because what people are looking for is not found in that.
It comes down to one word:
CONVINCING.
What deems suitable evidence? maybe a better question to ask.
The evidence for God and the arguments for God are there. As of course, every counter argument will always be raised, don't believe me? Just scroll through the pages with discourse, and that is even with some common ground between me and DrSoccerball, and you will see that there is always a reason to object.
Regardless, some will not be convinced, or skeptical. And in this sense, while I don't necessarily think of it highly, it is still their conclusion.
Truth is unfortunately black/white. So that is I guess the real matter. What is reality? What is really true? Is it just science and what it can determine? Or it is other fields? Or some religious text?
Or a combination?
Let the reader understand... (rhetorical questions)
(rhetorical)
So yes a stalemate but certainly not from a lack of empirical evidence.
Last edited:
dan964
what
DrSoccerball...
Concerning me assuming, well the reason is firstly, the Old Testament and New Testament are not a single text, but a collection of (inspired and authoritative) texts collated later.
When studying for instance a book like John, you have to look it more than just theological and religious intentions/bias, you have to approach it historically and equally importantly as literature. When you do that you see a lot of themes, allusions and that to the very work and character of Yahweh for instance in the Exodus, being noted in the exact same work and character of Jesus.
Yes, Christians do believe that the Bible is true, but Christians believe it, especially the first Christians believed it because it matched up with the previous revelation, which the Quran doesn’t unfortunately.
*** There is also some called typology, which is a very specific way, in which the New Testament for instance fulfils something, but in an unexpected or counterintuitive way typically to reveal something about God. For example, the Incarnation, in very crude terms, showed that God is not full of pride, as he humbled himself a man, and is able to sympathesise with our weaknesses directly (Jesus’ human nature).
Concering the clarity of the character of God, as I have been focusing on (I did a week’s intensive just then on the New Testament), understanding that the clearest way God makes his attributes known is through Jesus, by publically in action demonstrating it.
(this addresses some of the quotes preceeding as well)
I had a quick listen, it doesn’t present your case sorry.
Also Hebrew poetry doesn’t rhyme, fun fact, so rhyme isn't necessarily a strong reason to be compelled unfortunately. (Yes it may sound nice, doesn't make it right (and yes that statement is loaded))
Part 2….
Since it wasn’t clear the first time, let me constructively address the commentary
While I find some agreement within certain contexts of understanding, I don’t see where the basis for such statements lie, so no further comment.
It also shows that if you can justify this way, why is God becoming a man any different, his birth was not of natural cause and effect; and yet it is exactly how the Quran describes the Christian view – hence a strawman to some degree.
I know the Quran says it. I am also well aware of speculative, sceptical theories, which would do no service, except maybe to the anti-religious. The Quran denies the Christian Trinity, Muslim apologists use the Quran to refute it.
That’s the concept people had of the time of seeing, that you need eyes, doesn’t rule it out as impossible. I can just make a simple substitution in the paragraph.
Concerning me assuming, well the reason is firstly, the Old Testament and New Testament are not a single text, but a collection of (inspired and authoritative) texts collated later.
When studying for instance a book like John, you have to look it more than just theological and religious intentions/bias, you have to approach it historically and equally importantly as literature. When you do that you see a lot of themes, allusions and that to the very work and character of Yahweh for instance in the Exodus, being noted in the exact same work and character of Jesus.
Yes, Christians do believe that the Bible is true, but Christians believe it, especially the first Christians believed it because it matched up with the previous revelation, which the Quran doesn’t unfortunately.
Irrelevant, whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew (which he probably did) or Danish. I was addressing your charge to produce it in Aramaic. You could look up the Aramaic translation if you really want, but like I said, it was written in Greek, because it was the predominant language of the day, because it was something that was made for all peoples.
The actual meaning of the Greek is known, I am not a scholar.
While I agree that God acts consistently with his nature, how is he inconsistent to be a man for instance? Christians find no such inconsistency, especially (as in my last reply), look at instances where God has come (albeit it only for short periods of time) in forms of flesh. I would have to look up the specifics, if you want.
Answering your “lel” remark, not sure to be taken seriously, but I will. Most churches, within orthodox Christianity do not disagree on the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, unless one is a Unitarian.
I am well aware of that thanks. The comment was addressing something specific.
Looked it up, doesn’t seem credible, you need to understand what Jesus was meaning was allusion.Originally by dan964: The only single source that disputes it; are people ignorant of history or Muslims because of the Quran. Tacitus, affirms that Jesus died on the cross. Find me as many qualified non-Muslim historian who does not believe that Jesus died on the cross; and not I don't think the swoon theory is valid.
===
Originally by DrSoccerball: Have you heard of the Jonah theory
*** There is also some called typology, which is a very specific way, in which the New Testament for instance fulfils something, but in an unexpected or counterintuitive way typically to reveal something about God. For example, the Incarnation, in very crude terms, showed that God is not full of pride, as he humbled himself a man, and is able to sympathesise with our weaknesses directly (Jesus’ human nature).
Concering the clarity of the character of God, as I have been focusing on (I did a week’s intensive just then on the New Testament), understanding that the clearest way God makes his attributes known is through Jesus, by publically in action demonstrating it.
(this addresses some of the quotes preceeding as well)
There is a difference between recital in a public place, and a public sign such as a miracle. The main miracle of Mohammed was supposedly the Quran, to presume him as a Prophet (which I find for me ends up eventually being a circular argument).
I had a quick listen, it doesn’t present your case sorry.
Also Hebrew poetry doesn’t rhyme, fun fact, so rhyme isn't necessarily a strong reason to be compelled unfortunately. (Yes it may sound nice, doesn't make it right (and yes that statement is loaded))
Part 2….
Unnecessary correction. There is a difference between plural and single, a difference between “a” and “the”, which the main focus of my reply, I was mainly addressing the tactic used by Muslim apologetists to explain away this verse.
Since it wasn’t clear the first time, let me constructively address the commentary
I can neither agree or disagree, since I don’t know the basis for his assertions form the Quran.
I addressed that the title was “the Word” a very specific, not “a Word” as he is doing here, the same presumption which Yusuf Ali does.
I don’t get the point of this, it is awfully unclear at first what he is trying to say, maybe: God in his superior Majesty acts so that the people should rightly attribute good things to God and misfortunate to nature. Some fail to do this, and hence perish.
While I find some agreement within certain contexts of understanding, I don’t see where the basis for such statements lie, so no further comment.
Here is the disagreement, Christians do not think Jesus was created. Why is his law of Power manifested? What even is this law of power? Does he mean that God made his power known rather than his wisdom, in creating Jesus? That sounds like how Muslims should describe the Christian view of Jesus in some measure.
Well spotted.
Yes, continue…
Summary of what he means (or at least how I see it): Since Jesus is a word (again that sly change of articles), of God’s power by demonstrate that God created without cause and effect (again very weird). The question I want to ask is the why question, which is not answered, apart from the obvious that Christians never hold Jesus to be created.
It also shows that if you can justify this way, why is God becoming a man any different, his birth was not of natural cause and effect; and yet it is exactly how the Quran describes the Christian view – hence a strawman to some degree.
An Old Testament quote or other would be nice to back up this content.
A little bit of agreement, what exactly what Jesus’ mission? There is major disagreement of the two religions on that. Why couldn’t the same be said of for instance Mohammed?
Firstly, where is the evidence that the original teachings were corrupted and in what timeframe more importantly, and in this way. Especially since this particular verse was supposedly revealed only 600 years after the first followers.
I know the Quran says it. I am also well aware of speculative, sceptical theories, which would do no service, except maybe to the anti-religious. The Quran denies the Christian Trinity, Muslim apologists use the Quran to refute it.
Except that the commentary I was referring to was the one you used, as well as the other one used.
Last edited:
dan964
what
Don't know why the square is there
dan964
what
To conclude our discussions DrSoccerball, so you don't have to worry about time:
My conclusion on matter, I am not convinced, historically or literally (as literature) of the Quran’s truthfulness, especially not when it doesn’t seem to:
1. Engage with the previous revelations to correct, rectify any errors. Lets take the argument that Muslims use, to say that Jesus nowhere claims to be God and worship me. If that claim is right, which it isn’t for Christians (unless you are hunting for very specific phraseology, which I suspect Muslims are) or even that the argument is used, then takes refutes a Christian teaching but not the actual text then. And even then, the Christian teachings are not even present (unless you are a Catholic maybe), and sometimes when they are, they aren't
The Quran has very little, no or corrupted knowledge of what the previous revelation actually is. Well of course, it makes the claims that this is what the previous revelation was supposed to be, but again no external verifiable basis for that claim.
2. There is virtually no historical and external evidence, apart from the Quran to support its claims of the death of Jesus. (There are other side arguments that stem from this, but for simplicity I will leave as this)
This can be summed up as follows.
1.
And there are many other reasons. But I think I will end it on that note. So unless you can provide evidence to the contrary (which if you do, please PM for the sake of the other), I won't be changing.
Apart from that, I wish you well.
My conclusion on matter, I am not convinced, historically or literally (as literature) of the Quran’s truthfulness, especially not when it doesn’t seem to:
1. Engage with the previous revelations to correct, rectify any errors. Lets take the argument that Muslims use, to say that Jesus nowhere claims to be God and worship me. If that claim is right, which it isn’t for Christians (unless you are hunting for very specific phraseology, which I suspect Muslims are) or even that the argument is used, then takes refutes a Christian teaching but not the actual text then. And even then, the Christian teachings are not even present (unless you are a Catholic maybe), and sometimes when they are, they aren't
The Quran has very little, no or corrupted knowledge of what the previous revelation actually is. Well of course, it makes the claims that this is what the previous revelation was supposed to be, but again no external verifiable basis for that claim.
2. There is virtually no historical and external evidence, apart from the Quran to support its claims of the death of Jesus. (There are other side arguments that stem from this, but for simplicity I will leave as this)
This can be summed up as follows.
1.
And there are many other reasons. But I think I will end it on that note. So unless you can provide evidence to the contrary (which if you do, please PM for the sake of the other), I won't be changing.
Apart from that, I wish you well.
dan964
what
To repeat myself a little bit:
An aptly conclusion of this thread:
Truth is unfortunately black/white. So that is I guess the real matter. What is reality? What is really true?
Is it just science and what it can determine? Or it is other fields, like history or literature studies?
Or some idealogical text?
Or a combination?
How can we know what we know?
This is a major question that comes into play in this debate.
It is a stalemate, that for me can be resolved either way, the evidence is there on both sides, the arguments and counter-arguments are there, the confirmation bias is also there. While for me, I can say with confidence, the evidence concludes in the affirmative, others can say with equal confidence the opposite.
Let the reader understand... (rhetorical questions)
In this measure this issue will be unresolved...
But don't let that stop you from checking the evidence, see what the accounts say for instance, see what the religion teaches, for example what did Mohammed say about God, what did Jesus say about God, or if he is God, what does that mean, and look at the counter-arguments, and decide for yourself.
There are only 2 options: to believe or not to believe. The evidence is there, there is no need for apathy.
The forum only has 2 options for that reason.
and
So yes a stalemate on the metaphysical but certainly not from a lack of empirical evidence. So it is not over, for healthy discussions involving what does this text say, why is this statement true, did this historical event occur etc. and probing in certain areas (differ from religion to religion, for Christianity, Jesus & the resurrection, for Islam, Mohammed & his "prophethood", for atheism, the natural limits of reality etc.), some of which can be affirmed or denied, depending on how the evidence is taken in.
An aptly conclusion of this thread:
Truth is unfortunately black/white. So that is I guess the real matter. What is reality? What is really true?
Is it just science and what it can determine? Or it is other fields, like history or literature studies?
Or some idealogical text?
Or a combination?
How can we know what we know?
This is a major question that comes into play in this debate.
It is a stalemate, that for me can be resolved either way, the evidence is there on both sides, the arguments and counter-arguments are there, the confirmation bias is also there. While for me, I can say with confidence, the evidence concludes in the affirmative, others can say with equal confidence the opposite.
Let the reader understand... (rhetorical questions)
In this measure this issue will be unresolved...
But don't let that stop you from checking the evidence, see what the accounts say for instance, see what the religion teaches, for example what did Mohammed say about God, what did Jesus say about God, or if he is God, what does that mean, and look at the counter-arguments, and decide for yourself.
There are only 2 options: to believe or not to believe. The evidence is there, there is no need for apathy.
The forum only has 2 options for that reason.
and
So yes a stalemate on the metaphysical but certainly not from a lack of empirical evidence. So it is not over, for healthy discussions involving what does this text say, why is this statement true, did this historical event occur etc. and probing in certain areas (differ from religion to religion, for Christianity, Jesus & the resurrection, for Islam, Mohammed & his "prophethood", for atheism, the natural limits of reality etc.), some of which can be affirmed or denied, depending on how the evidence is taken in.
Last edited:
Silky_Smooth
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2016
- Messages
- 123
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2017
I think that this is more a battle of who can write the longest post, if anything
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,650
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
I try keeping mine as short as possible. Anyway's Ill probs head off to sleep and answer to Dan's post tomorrow.I think that this is more a battle of who can write the longest post, if anything
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,650
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
I don't go searching for verses of the Bible to criticize it came up in a lecture and I researched it.
Your argument:
God isn't a man.
Jesus is God but also man.
Can you really not see a clear cut contradiction here? If the verse says he isn't a man that means no matter what he isn't a man. It doesn't mean that God is God and also a man. I can never superimpose Jesus' nature of being God and a man. According to the verse it doesn't make sense and according to logic it doesn't make sense.
Firstly its pretty hard knowing that when arguing over a translation of the Bible... And also I don't see the difference ? Why would God say He isn't a man and then become a man? I don't mean to sound harsh but doesn't this sound like an indecisive God and one who doesn't know the future? If He was All-Knowledgeable He wouldn't of said that statement.
It isn't possible to be divine and not divine at the same time. It isn't possible to be immortal and mortal at the same time. Its illogical :/
Firstly if you claim Jesus is God that must mean he knows everything as that is an Attribute of God.
"12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it."
Is it fitting for a God not to know whether it is the season of figs? Also some try to say that this was to show that the children of Israil had no fruits but it clearly says "Jesus was hungry." So what was it ? Was jesus unable to know that there were no figs on the tree even though God is all knowing? Or was he lying and cursing it for no reason ?
In regards to surah Al imran verse 54 I think you may have hand picked that translation because I've read the first 2 translations of that verse I can find and none of them say it the way you wrote it.
"And they (the unbelievers) schemed(against Jesus), but God put His will into effect(and brought their scheme to nothing.) God wills what is the best (for His believing servants) and makes His will prevail." Ali Unal
"And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners." Shakir
Lucky I know how to read arabic and understand parts of it.
Also the word "makir" has different connotations when referred to God as shown in the translations above like the word "ahad" is also different when referring to God and if a translator just translates everything without considering the Quran as a whole he will not translate the verse how it is meant to be understood. I think the problem you have is you're reading translation by translators who are not the best at translating. We can also use the fig example here as well.
"(Though they would exploit the abrogation of some rules of secondary degree to challenge your authority, the truth is that) We do not abrogate any verse or omit it (leaving it to be forgotten) but We bring one better than it or the like of it ( more suited to the time and conditions in the course of perfecting the Religion and completing Our favour upon you). Do you not know ( and surely you do know) that God has full power over everything?" 2:106
This isn't God changing his mind... It's God with his Ultimate Knowledge sending an appropriate verse at the perfect time. Also it doesn't even say that it is changed ?
God isn't bound by time. If he says He isn't something He is not that thing in the present, past or ever. (In terms of our concept of time). That would be a God that changes His mind and that would be contradictory with the verse we discussed.
This can surely be observed as an instance where a messenger(angel) comes in the form of a human talking to a prophet. Anyone could say that. Let's give a current example. Im on the phone with person A and person B starts talking to person A giving the information I want to be given to person A. And if someone asked person A about me they would say they spoke to me.
Come on man you've been abusing the same verses(of the Quran) since day one we've started talking.
If the verses in the Bible and the Quran match I have no problem in accepting that it could be from God. But that's only with those that match. The one's that don't like the divine view of Jesus I don't believe.
Sorry for replying
I got pumped up by this post I most likely wouldn't respond to the next few before tomorrow give me some time
dan964
what
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html
The 5 assumptions addressed (I think there are actually 7 but ok):
1. God has never healed an amputee.
2. God is required to make healing, of a specific nature; because of his goodness.
3. God still performs miracles today.
4. God always answers yes to prayer
5. God's future healing does not compensate for earthly suffering
None of these assumptions, I hold to be true, although you can dispute.
The main point is miracles serve a function and a purpose, yet even when people come back from the dead, people do not believe, so I would hardly think any different for amputees. I myself, do not hold that cancer being healed as a miracle nowaday.
I am well aware there is probably a lot of counter-arguments, questions, things that need to be challenged etc.
Don't worry I am taking it fairly light hearted myself.
"gg no re" - isn't really a light-hearted comment though.
>> The same goes both ways, ironically. If you are looking for particular things or particular phraseology for instance, then you might not find them. It depends how you look at the coin, heads or tails. The point of saying that, is this questions stems from a larger debate, argument from evil, which is actually more of a stalemate than a checkmate. The fact that evidence is being dismissed from the contrary, which happens most often by those who are deliberately ignorant of science, and also for atheists, who are bound to naturalism (this world is all that there is).
And yes, I myself am skeptical of "healing ministries" myself.
Last edited:
dan964
what
Maybe, I look up verses in the Quran, because I want to explain them, especially Surah 9:30, which is the first one I quote.
The verse actually says, that God is not a liar like men, nor one to change his mind like men.
From as early as Genesis 3:15, God makes it clear that he is going a send a king (messiah).
I posted these a while back so here goes:
(if you want me to address how the New Testament interacts with this, let me know)
[1] Isaiah 9:6 ‘For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;’
This child which is born is called El-Gibbor, which is 'Mighty God' and is never used of a man. Avi-Ad is literally ‘Father of Eternity’ and could never describe a mere man. Some quotes for you…
[2] Jeremiah 23:5-6 'The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.
[3]Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.
[4] While you don’t like it, the prophecy shows that a virgin would give birth to a child who is literally, ‘God with us’.
The Hebrew 'Almah' used speaks of a virgin. Arnold Fruchtenbaum: ‘Since everyone agrees that 'almah' means an unmarried woman, if the woman in Isaiah 7:14 were a non-virgin, then God would be promising a sign involving fornication and illegitimacy. It is unthinkable that God would sanction sin, and in any case, what would be so unusual about an illegitimate baby that could possibly constitute a sign? As far as ancient Jewish writers were concerned, there are no arguments about Isaiah 7:14 predicting a virgin birth… The Jews who made this translation (Septuagint), living much closer to the times of Isaiah than we do today, translated Isaiah 7:14 using the Greek word parthenos which very clearly and exclusively means a virgin.
From 1 Kings 2:19 that anyone who sits at the king’s right hand must be equal with the King. Psalm 110 speaks of someone other than Yahweh who is David’s lord. This Lord is both a priest and a king and sits at Jehovah’s right hand. It is a joke to say that this is David himself as David was from not a priest, but was from the tribe of Judah. Nor does he sit at the right hand of God. It is the Messiah who is spoken about in this passage and He is equal to God. And I could go on...
When reading the text starting from verse 1, we see that its meaning is actually very clear. Balak brought Balaam for the purpose of putting a curse on the children of Israel. He made seven altars to invoke God’s favour. Balak thought that he could win God’s favour to curse Israel, since he was intimidated by Israel. But God blessed them through Balaam instead, so Balak tried again at another place, again building altars to try to win God’s favour through sacrifices. Therefore God makes it clear through Balaam, declaring that God did not lie the first time, so Balak should not try again and that Balak cannot bribe God with any amount of sacrifices to make God change His mind and retract the blessings upon Israel and curse them instead. That is what Numbers 23:19 is all about.
It does not say God is not (like) a man in any respect whatsoever. After all, man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1) and we expect God and man to be similar in many aspects. This verse does not deny that God and man are similar in many ways, it only states that God is not like men in the sense that he does not lie or change his mind.
Mr original argument was on the lines of "They basically postulate that God is saying that at that time(specifically) He is not a man. That does not mean that He can never be a man in the future."
Fact is that God was not saying that he could never come in the flesh in human form. Genesis 18, Genesis 32, Judges 13 and even the burning bush to some degree, show that it was not impossible.
You already mentioned that I already responded. The answer lies in the 2 hypostatic natures of Jesus. Secondly, the Christian understanding of death is also different to yours.
"12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it."
Well clearly not the last one, since even you hold the prophets are without sin. The one in bold is the closest, and your quip doesn't refute it.
From Mark 11:11-25, in my own words...
For the sacrifices, Jewish pilgrims would come to Jerusalem, and pay for a sacrifice. The problem was that these sacrifices were being conducted in the court of the nations.
In Isaiah 56:1-8, eunuchs and Gentiles would be given a place in God’s house, and an everlasting name. God’s house will be called a prayer of nations.
But in these sacrifices in the temple, has made it a den of robbers (c.f. Jeremiah 7:11). This is because of a such hostility to the Gentiles as a result of the institutional abuses by foreigners.
The withered fig tree is the temple that has become unfruitful, or more so Israel itself has been unfruitful.
Jesus is redefining evil so it is not about ethnicity, but it deeper, and therefore the unfruitfulness of the heart, especially expressing in the hostile sentiment of the Jews towards the nations, especially in their exclusion of the nations from serving God. Rather, instead God through the promises given to Abraham, which coalesce in Isaiah further, that all nations will have access to God. In the throwing of the sea into the mountain (the Mount of Olives which is the mountain that will be dividing to make way for God’s people), c.f. Zechariah 14:1-8; Jesus reminds his disciple that that what they have been praying for (your kingdom come, a prayer for the kingdom to come), is imminent and about to be fulfilled into the death and resurrection of Jesus which God will personally intervene and deal with evil.
Well it is more so, seeing if there was any issue, hence the uncertainty. I didn't actually use it, but raised as a potential issue, which it doesn't seem to be.
And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers. - Pickthall
And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners. - Sahih Int.
And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners. - Shakir
You might need to link Ali unal's translation. Although I think he reads a lot into the text
And yes some of the sites I use, may use different translations. I would agree with you that there is no issue, the site I used may be using a particular translation.
The word translated as "planned" or "schemed" might be an issue.Lucky I know how to read arabic and understand parts of it.
I have addressed the fig-tree it is like the bread of a sandwich if you like, one event wrapped around another.
The Quran saying its from God sending
Has the Quran been changed, I would say it has, I would have to find the specifics.
already addressed, I will say the original rebbuttal is not that great.
You mean Surah 9:30, the one that clearly doesn't portray Jews as believing Ezra as the Son of God in the same way as Christians hold for Jesus.
Where is the basis to do that, you'll have to establish the Quran is true externally first, and that it actually is the final revelation, not just because it says it is. So how did you do, you went to the Bible, and picked the verses you liked so you could show the Quran, like Deuteronomy 18, John 14, to show the Mohammed is prophesised when he isn't, and where the only verses you agree with are for apologetic purposes? You can see why I think I think it is abused. Mind you, Numbers 23:19, is a valid argument raised by unitarians, unfortunately Christians already have a response to such in many different degrees, so it isn't some new found argument.
(Your underline statement is that a typo? Are you trying to say "The one's I don't like are those that give the divine view of Jesus, and I don't believe")
That is why I disagree with Christians who try using the Quran to prove that Jesus is God. I was curious about the Word of God title which is why I raised it.
And yes take your time.
And like I said in the last post, you have to address the 2 objections, if you want any ground moving, otherwise it will just be a case of myself repeating what I already said, as you have already done.
And these two objections are listed in my previous reply.
Last edited:
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,650
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
Sorry Ill try to explain it soon.
Okay a miracle is anything that may seem completely out of the ordinary and cannot be imitated exactly by anyone. It is what people ask from prophets to indeed show them that they are messengers from God. Since God controls all the laws of the universe, It is very logical to say He is able to break these rules whenever He pleases. So when people ask for a miracle from someone it is to prove that the person and what he claims about God is true. Also if God is Powerful, which He is then he wouldn't be bound by the laws He made in the first place...
There is no contradiction.
O really ?
A question was posed to Ustadh Said Nursi about why Islam was being dominated if it was the real religion. He gave a good response but the point I want you to see is the third one which it seemed as if I made up.
"Third: God has two kinds of laws. The first is the Shari‘a, which comprises the laws issuing from His Attribute of Speech, governs humanity’s religious life, and serves as the basis for Divine reward or punishment (usually in the afterlife). The second is comprised of the Divine laws governing creation and life as a whole. Issuing from His Attribute of Will and generally (but incorrectly) called “laws of nature,” their reward or punishment mostly pertains to this world.
The Qur’an insistently draws our attention to natural phenome-na, the subject matter of science, and urges their study. In the first 5 centuries of Islam, Muslims united science with religion, intellect with heart, and material with spiritual. After that period, however, the West took the initiative in science through its scientists’ (unconscious) obedience to the Divine laws of nature. This obedi-ence engendered the West’s domination of the Muslim world, for the latter no longer pursued Islam’s religious and scientific aspects. Power and force have some right in life, and have been created for some wise purpose. Equipped with force through science and tech-nology, the West triumphed over the Muslim world."
Here's just the beginning of 1 of his books. There's much much more amazing things he explains which I will further quote if necessary. Im pretty sure in this book there's much more better explanations on the Laws of Universe but I remembered this since it was at the beginning and also there's countless scholars in Islam that also talk about the Laws of the Universe and it's relation to God.
________________
You could say the same about diseases. "How can God cure diseases when it is the countless doctors doing trial and error to find the perfect cure."
We can refer to maxwell's thought experiment where he had two boxes filled with air separated by a window that can be opened and closed through a button and a demon is controlling that button.
So the demon carefully balances the faster moving atoms in one box and the slower moving ones into the other. This creates two boxes with one hotter than the other. As we know the Universe and things in it have a natural tendency for disorder. It would be impossible for this example to be in order like it is if there wasn't an agent and some intelligence behind it.
What doctors' do is simply install the window and thus make the claim that "we cured him" God didn't cure him which is obviously illogical. Now in regards to amputees if doctors figure out how to "install" this "window" God will cure amputees. And through stem cell research and bionic legs I'm sure one day in the future it would be possible.
Firstly, I would like to present you with a situation. Let's suppose that it was a "scam" as you say. If I believe in God and you don't and there happens to be no God, I die happy and knowing I lived my life as a good person and have a sense of security while you die in the state of fear not knowing what will happen to you and live your life in constant fear(usually the case). So I don't lose anything in this world. But if God does exist, which I believe he does, then the atheist not only loses this world but also the next. It's a simple argument. Even with this argument people who believe blindly should believe by proof.
I'd like to strongly emphasise I don't lose anything If I was believing in God in fact the advantages are greater.
Look two quotes above
Dan let's keep park our discussion and continue later on I think we keep getting away from the topic. I would reply but It would take a whole page of this thread and neither of us would change our opinions... Just as long as you don't mention something that you see wrong with Islam I won't reply. If you do mention something I'll try my best to answer it but again this is not the thread for that.
Also should I mention the arguments for Divine Existance by Ustadh Said Nursi I don't think I had a chance to do so? And also its pretty lengthy so don't complain.(If you say yes. )
Last edited:
Paradoxica
-insert title here-
tl;dr
Don't argue with people who believe in divine forces that can violate the laws of physics.
Don't argue with people who believe in divine forces that can violate the laws of physics.
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,650
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
If there is a divine force that can't violate the laws of physics he isn't divine... Because as I said you are not bound by what you create if you were divine.
dan964
what
Concerning the underlying, not necessarily, but yes miracles have a purpose. And yes miracles aren't designed to fit the laws of the universe in a normal sense. (Although I find that some miracles can be more of a timing/knowledge related or speeding/slowing up the timeframe of natural processes for instance). The "signs" in John's Gospel, was designed to show God's character but were specific ones not vague healings such as that of cancer for instance.
Muslims are hardly being dominated or persecuted. In the countries, where they are minorities, which is mainly the West, they aren't being oppressed, and in the Islamic world, well that is fairly straight forward.
Pascal's wager was already mentioned on page 2. As our discussions should tell:
the threat of eternal punishment is not sufficient evidence to believe in the correct God (Christians & Muslims don't worship the same God, despite some from both camps wanting to claim such). I think it is a weak argument for God, sorry, as are sociological arguments (believe in God, because believers in religion X have better, more fulfilling marriages etc.) are weak as well.
Because the wager doesn't determine which God to follow.
hmm... some scientists were and are actually Christians or people of other faith. The main reason the West triumphs over the Muslim world is more than just science and technology. It also has to do with values, yes there can be a large debate about the source of these values, but they aren't from Islam; but we'll leave that for the other Islam thread. Yes, religion has put unwisely in the past itself at odds with science and at times worked alongside science, I prefer the latter of course, as someone who into mathematics and Christianity. Nowadays, it tends to be naturalism that puts itself at odds with religion, not science.
secondly, as some have argued (several pages back), the Quran is not a scientific document (neither is the Bible, Vedas either), yes they can be studied as literature or in light of history.
dan964
what
Not necessarily, a divine force could operate within the bounds of laws of physics, it doesn't have to. So it goes both ways. The whole idea of a "divine force", is very similar with the idea of the logos (the Word), as such, present in classical Judaism (and of course Christianity), in the sense it describes the divine interaction with the laws of physics (so while it isn't bound to the law of physics, unless there is a specific reason, it can and does)
The whole question of divinity is a question not just of metaphysics but also of essence (subtly much). Some worldviews, which I disagree, hold that the creator is inseparably bound to his creation, which I reject (yes you may not be convinced that I do reject that, but that is not the topic at hand).
In fact it is very easy to say, well there are these laws that aren't explainable, hence God. Same applies for miracles. While this is naive, to presume the God-of-the-gaps, to fill God in the gaps of science unnecessarily, it is equally naive to presume that science is the limits or bounds of explanation, rationality or fields of study, i.e. to presume naturalism, because miracles don't fit in with the nice explanation of the world, the naturalism supposedly gives..
Last edited:
Paradoxica
-insert title here-
Every once in a while something improbable happens and humans with their naive understanding of probability declare miracles. It's called the law of large numbers. Look it up.
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,650
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
Many of the nations ask for miracles to prove that you're from God and also other reasons like to save themselves from certain things.
That's one problem you have. I said something trying to get point A across but it covered point B a bit and you're criticizing point B disregarding point A all together. And now since you criticized point B I also have to address that. Stop doing that. By dominating I don't mean being oppressed. But that is one aspect of being dominated. Dominated I also mean as we are looked down upon etc... I'll give you his answer... :
Why did unbelievers triumph over believers? Consider the fol-lowing four points:
First: Although every means of truth must be right, it cannot always be so in actual life. In contrast, not every means of falsehood must be false. Since falsehood sometimes follows a true, right way, it can triumph over a truth that does not follow that way.
Second: Although Muslims must be Muslims in all attributes and actions, they cannot always be so in real life. Likewise, not every attribute and action of the transgressors or unbelievers necessarily originate in unbelief or transgression. Therefore, by virtue of having Islamic attributes and conforming to Islamic principles more than non-practicing Muslims, unbelievers may triumph over Muslims.
Third: God has two kinds of laws. The first is the Shari‘a, which comprises the laws issuing from His Attribute of Speech, governs humanity’s religious life, and serves as the basis for Divine reward or punishment (usually in the afterlife). The second is comprised of the Divine laws governing creation and life as a whole. Issuing from His Attribute of Will and generally (but incorrectly) called “laws of nature,” their reward or punishment mostly pertains to this world.
The Qur’an insistently draws our attention to natural phenome-na, the subject matter of science, and urges their study. In the first 5 centuries of Islam, Muslims united science with religion, intellect with heart, and material with spiritual. After that period, however, the West took the initiative in science through its scientists’ (unconscious) obedience to the Divine laws of nature. This obedi-ence engendered the West’s domination of the Muslim world, for the latter no longer pursued Islam’s religious and scientific aspects. Power and force have some right in life, and have been created for some wise purpose. Equipped with force through science and tech-nology, the West triumphed over the Muslim world.
Fourth: Muslims gradually deprived Islam of its force, allowed it to become diluted, and caused it to lose its purity and authenticity. Just as a hawk’s attacks causes a sparrow to develop its power of defense, God allows unbelief to attack Islam successfully so that Muslims will restore Islam to its original purity and force.
Again... I said that although the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, if any, we still have to confirm with our hearts and minds God's existence proving him logically. I never said that it's a proof of God did I?
There were also Muslim scientists what's your point? Science seemed as contradicting religion through Galileo's proof of celestial bodies not being perfect appearing wrong in regards to the church and many other observations ? Look at ustadh's answer. Also what Islam thread?
Yes, I agree because the Quran isn't a book of science its a book of signs. It's not sent down to teach science rather to encourage it and we Muslims' can see even if a slight scientific fact no matter how vague it is, is a sign for us.
Last edited:
Drsoccerball
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,650
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2015
But it's different when people ask for a miracle and that moment something improbable happens. But that's based on history and I can't use that argument with you guys because you don't believe things that you havn't seen
And also if something is impossible no matter how many tries you take the probability would still be 0.
Last edited:
Paradoxica
-insert title here-
Yes, unfortunately, but those are mostly a combination of delusional insanity, mentally...neuro atypical and also the law of large numbers. It's mainly the law of large numbers. In case you haven't figured it out by now, the law of large numbers is the statistical equivalent of divine intervention.But it's different when people ask for a miracle and that moment something improbable happens. But that's based on history and I can't use that argument with you guys because you don't believe things that you havn't seen