Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[dan964]

Does anyone find it amazing how the poll's ratio has nearly been 1:1 for all these years?

that is very interesting.
even if it wasn't, doesn't mean the majority is right.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Thanks for that. We actually have the original manuscripts, and scholars have compared, which is why Mark 16 is disputed because it doesn't appear in a majority of the earliest manuscripts. Most Christians agree that Mark did not write that section, the question of inspiration is still a heated debate, of whether it should be in the Bible. As a result of it being disputed, Christians do not build teachings off that. (To answer your poison question, it was most likely borrowed somewhat from the book of Acts or is sometimes described as a metaphor for defeating demons - particularly as snakes and scorpions refer in other parts of the Bible to the devil and demons)

The argument that the Bible was somehow not preserved, is not correct, the amount of original manuscripts is about 24,000 in total if you include Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic.
https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Jesus clearly viewed the Septuagint as authoritative as he quotes from it, calling it Scripture.
The Apostles held Scripture (the Old Testament) to have a high authority. The Apostles for instance were all but one, killed off for their belief in Jesus (everything that Islam rejects).

I also find it incredibly interesting also that the Quran (as far as I know) does not quote at all from the Bible, or quote from anywhere, while the NT does (it quotes the OT)
Also this: https://carm.org/quran-says-bible-not-corrupt

----
The Muslims repeatedly claim that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Qu'ran is the only trustworthy scripture in existence. This is why Muslims often attack the Bible. But this cannot be according to the Quran. The Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God.

Torah--"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).1
Psalms--"We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163).
Gospel--"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).
Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).
We see that the Qu'ran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the Qu'ran since the Qu'ran says that the Word of God cannot be altered:

"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).
"For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).
When Muhammed (570-632) was alive, he claimed to receive the revelation of the Qu'ran from Allah. This means that at that time the Bible, which was in existence, could not have been corrupted because the Qu'ran states that God's word cannot be corrupted. The question I have for the Muslims is: "When and where was the Bible corrupted since the Qu'ran says that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are from Allah and Allah's words cannot be changed?"
---
There are also several points where the Quran actually gets what Christian or Jews actually teach wrong. I already posted one example on another thread.

That could either mean two things
1) he copied the quran off other sources (Which is impossible)
2) They're both from the same source
As a Muslim it is compulsory to believe that Jesus(pbuh) was one of the mightiest messengers of god. So we believe that jesus was revealed the gospel as you probably already know. However, this book was only meant for those people and that period of time so God did not see it fit to preserve it. Many people changed it. For example we even spoke about the verse about drinking poison it was thrown out of the bible as a fabrication etc... And in regards to your previous point what do you mean by presenting our case?

.

 

[dan964]

.

Your statement in bold: "However, this book was only meant for those people and that period of time so God did not see it fit to preserve it."
is incorrect, as the text has indeed been preserved.

Some interesting differences:
- The first adherants to Christianity were Jews, and saw NT as fulfillment of OT prophecy, this is different to how the Quran views the Gospel for instance, as I have already mentioned.

"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. "
God has revealed the Gospel, and thus I judge by it; not the Quran. Other non-inspired sources confirms that Jesus must have been crucified.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/nonchristianaccounts.html

I find there seems to be inconsistency (then again I tend to be inconsistent myself sometimes)
do you or do you not consider the Gospel to consider inspired? The weight of the evidence means that there is absolute certainty the original texts have been preserved. The very Scriptures command us to test the Spirits, and that any Spirit that denies Jesus has come in the flesh (the incarnation) is not from God, and thus Islam is false in my mind. It is also false because I don't see any evidence to suggest the Bible has been corrupted as in the original message has been lost. (Note: Christians don't view the OT as corrupt in order to fit the NT). Studying the death of Jesus from a historical perspective verifies that the death of Jesus

In response to
1) He copied the Quran off other sources (Which is impossible) ==> Not necessarily, a critique of the "Quran scientific miracle" by Myer states how the description of the formation of the humans in the womb, is based off Aristotelian and the current science of that time. Again one witness to the event is not sufficient.
The Gospel has more than one witnesses to the event (of which we have 4 accounts). Just because the Quran says it is inspired doesn't make it (like the Bible saying it is inspired doesn't make it). Mohammed was he, dumb? I highly doubt it.
2) The Bible actually differs significantly from the Quran, which is why Muslims are forced logically to say that the Bible is corrupt, and the original message is corrupted. Well, what if I told you, that the message we have today is the same as the one proclaimed by Jesus and recorded by the disciples of Jesus (the faithful)? In Christian though, there was no need for an extra prophet (e.g. Mohammed, or Joseph Smith or whoever), because Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God. (As Christians view Jesus > angels, thus the word of Jesus > the word of Gabriel). The Bible has no support for Islam, it just happens to touch on the same topics, and disagree.

(Honestly I would prefer contemporary Muslims to say they reject the Bible, rather then pretend they don't, which I see them as doing such)

 

[Drsoccerball]

Sorry dan im limited on available time till exams so ill just give a quick response to a few:
If you have no extra need for another prophet/ figure then why does Jesus himself say :
"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you."

If he said that theyre not prepared to receive the message and that someone else would guide you to all truth, why do you deny that someone else has to come ?

Muhammad (pbuh) was illiterate

And was he that smart that he picked and threw out specific scientific verses such that it matched with modern science...

The people of the Gospel is referring to when they initially got it when it was in its pure form

I believe the Gospel according to Jesus was from God.

Sorry for the dodge answer im really busy atm

 

[dan964]

Ah but you see the Gospel according to Jesus, is what is recorded in the Gospel (of which there are 4 accounts by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)
These people received in its pure form and recorded it down.

2. Why does Jesus say "Spirit of Truth" (in that same passage he says "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no-one comes to the Father except through me. it is clearly referring to the Holy Spirit.
3. I also note that Mohammed did not come in the name of Jesus which is what is testified by Jesus about the "Advocate": but there is more...

---

Sorry dan im limited on available time till exams so ill just give a quick response to a few:
If you have no extra need for another prophet/ figure then why does Jesus himself say :
"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you."

In reference to John 14-16, the context of such this response to an Islamic interpretation:

1. First, there is absolutely no ancient textual evidence among all of the over 5,600 Greek manuscripts to place the word periclytos (“praised one”) in place of paraclete (“helper”).

(2. For a Muslim to argue that the correct reading should be periclytos instead of paraclete shows his lack of understanding of the actual Greek text and the reliability of the copying of the New Testament.)

3. In the same passage, Jesus explicitly identified the “Helper” as the Holy Spirit: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send, will teach you,” (John 14:26). Therefore, with all due respect, the Muslim argument is already defeated.
4. Fourthly, this “Helper” was given to Jesus’ apostles (the “you” in John 14:16) not to Arabs living over 550 years later! It was given to those who “have been with . . . [him] from the beginning” (John 15:27, cf. Acts 1:22, Luke 1:1-2). However, Muhammad was not one of Jesus’ apostles.

5. Fifth, this “Helper” was to abide with them “forever” (John 16), but Muhammad has been dead for over thirteen centuries!

6. Sixth, Jesus told the disciples, “You know Him [the Helper]” (v. 17), but the apostles did not know Muhammad. He was not born until over 500 years later!
7. Seventh, Jesus also told the disciples that the Helper would be “in you” (v. 17). How Muhammad could be “in” the disciples stretches all credibility. This reference of being "in" the disciples clearly is a reference to the Holy Spirit’s role of dwelling inside believers as the context of John (John 14:16-26) and the rest of the New Testament (Ephesians 1:13, 4:30) indicates.
8. Jesus also said that the Helper would be sent “in My [Jesus’] name” (John 14:26). However, no Muslim believes that Muhammad was sent in Jesus’ name.

9. Ninth, the Helper whom Jesus would send would not “speak on His own authority” (John 16:13). However, Muhammad constantly testifies of himself. For example, in Surah 33:40, Muhammad says of himself, “Muhammad is . . . The Apostle of God, And the Seal of the Prophets.”
10. Also the Helper would “glorify” Jesus (John 16:14). How would Muhammad actually be glorifying Jesus if Muhammad is the last (and the sealer) of the prophets? He really would not be “glorifying” an earlier, inferior prophet like Jesus.

11. Eleventh, and finally, Jesus said that the Helper would come in “not many days” (Acts 1:5), but Muhammad did not come for almost 600 years! Since the Helper is the Holy Spirit, He did come merely 40 days later (Acts 1:5, 2:1ff).

Therefore, given the above evidence, the Holy Spirit clearly is the Helper in John 14:16, not Muhammad.

---
In my opinion the only ones who have twisted the Scriptures are Muslims who hold to a tenuous reading of the Scripture.

Like you, I also don't have much time either. Good luck with your exams.

 

[dan964]

n.b. obviously muslims will dispute this because of the Quran.

 

[braintic]

A Jew, a Christian and a Muslim Walk Into a Bar

After a few friendly beers they begin a discussion about who was the most religious.

"I was riding my camel in the middle of the Sahara", exclaimed the Muslim. "Suddenly a fierce sandstorm appeared from nowhere. I truly thought my end had come - as I lay next to my camel we were being buried deeper and deeper under the sand. But I did not lose my faith in the Almighty Allah, I prayed and prayed and then suddenly for a hundred yards all around me, the storm stopped. Since that day I am a devout Muslim and am now learning to recite the Qur'an from memory."

"One day while fishing", began the Christian, "I was in my little dinghy in the middle of the ocean. Suddenly a fierce storm appeared from nowhere. I truly thought my end had come as my little dinghy was tossed up and down in the rough ocean. But I did not lose my faith in Jesus Christ, I prayed and prayed and suddenly for a hundred yards all around me, the storm stopped. Since that day I am a devout Christian and am now teaching young children about Him."

"One day I was walking down the road", explained the Jew. "I was in my most expensive designer outfit in the middle of New York City. Suddenly I saw a black bag on the ground in front of me appear from nowhere. I put my hand inside and found a million dollars in cash. I truly thought my end had come as it was a Saturday and we are not allowed to handle money on the Sabbath. But I did not lose my faith in Yahweh, I prayed and prayed and suddenly for 100 yards all around me, it was Tuesday."

 

[Shuuya]

Since that day I am a devout Muslim and am now learning to recite the Qur'an from memory."

A devout muslim should not be drinking in a bar

 

[bangali]

Forgive me barging in, but I saw the title, and LOL, I love how somehow the vote of a whole bunch of utterly uninformed but all-knowing teenagers (...like me) decides whether there's a God or not

(Nah, I know that's not the purpose, joking)

 

[Paradoxica]

Forgive me barging in, but I saw the title, and LOL, I love how somehow the vote of a whole bunch of utterly uninformed but all-knowing teenagers (...like me) decides whether there's a God or not

(Nah, I know that's not the purpose, joking)

Live and let live man.... I was a devout anti-theist for about 8 months when I was in year 8... I've since moved on.

 

[durrrrr]

The same goes for the "scientific errors", these are simply misreadings, or reading too much, specifically to find errors.

how convenient

 

[braintic]

Live and let live man.... I was a devout anti-theist for about 8 months when I was in year 8... I've since moved on.

Moved on? I hope that doesn't mean you've taken the BS on board.

 

[Paradoxica]

Moved on? I hope that doesn't mean you've taken the BS on board.

Oh, no, of course not, I'm pastafarian.

 

[braintic]

Oh, no, of course not, I'm pastafarian.

I hope you remove your colander in class.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Moved on? I hope that doesn't mean you've taken the BS on board.

You've always claimed it to be BS but never gave your opinion on why? If you did don't roast me I didn't see.

 

[braintic]

You've always claimed it to be BS but never gave your opinion on why? If you did don't roast me I didn't see.

What is your opinion on the existence of the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda?
Assuming you believe it doesn't exist, explain why. (Without referring to your own religion)

 

[dan964]

Oh, no, of course not, I'm pastafarian.

You mean that religion that is designed to be some-what a mockery or at the very least a satire of religion in general. Its a favourite religion of those who are opposed to more conventional/traditional understandings of God, spirituality and religion. it is simply a more interesting form of Russell's teapot and the Invisible pink unicorn/elephant)

The line of reasoning for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism seems to be that
1. There is no evidence for the existence of the God of Judaism/Christianity (which is demonstrated-false, whether the evidence is enough to convince certain people is a different matter, but evidence is there; if you consider the cosmological and teleological arguments as well as examining the historical case for instance for Jesus).
2. There is no evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - I have not seen any serious argument for this "being" for existing, except for an argument from ignorance, which isn't a very convincing argument. This claim is therefore true
3. Therefore, belief in the God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are on equal epistemic grounds. This claim is false, because claim 1 can be false, even if the evidence doesn't necessarily prove God, there is no comparison between the two
(*by God I mean from a perspective of Judaism/Christianity).

Moved on? I hope that doesn't mean you've taken the BS on board.

What defines what is BS or not? Your implication (because you appear to be a strong atheist) is that
theistic religion = BS. (It could be just that certain ones you loathe particularly though as is the case with durrrr/SylviaB)

In the opinion of some, atheism seems unreasonable, but to others it is not. Personal preference does not determine whether something is true or not unfortunately, and it applies both ways.

What is your opinion on the existence of the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda?
Assuming you believe it doesn't exist, explain why. (Without referring to your own religion)

That seems to be more a question for the Muslim. But for me, I reject the religion Zoroastrianism in general, obviously because of my beliefs (or lack of beliefs/atheistic beliefs*, in the case of others not myself since I am not an atheist). But even more so, because the most accurate information and the earliest copies of the texts that actually describe the ancient form (as opposed to the modern form) of the Zoroastrian religion date to the 13th century, hardly a compelling case.

Also I know why I raised this, because you want to say that all these other religions borrowed from Zoroastrianism because its modern-teachings (by modern 13th century or later), seem to be similar to that of other religions. There is a lack of evidence, ironically, to substantiate the claim, that the old form of religion influenced what is mainstream forms of the religions (ignoring the cults, Gnosticism and certain heretical sects that were present in Arabia at around the time Islam was founded), because the texts only go back as far as the 13th century. Zoroaster as a historical figure, in fact scholars are unsure on whether he dates to the 5th-6th century BCE or earlier, if the former is the case, then the whole argument goes out the window mostly, and the latter is not very compelling either.

I'll let DrSoccerball defend Islam, if he so desires and have an answer.
And I'd expect objections from braintic, if he so desires.

*beliefs = in the general sense.

 

[dan964]

A Jew, a Christian and a Muslim Walk Into a Bar

After a few friendly beers they begin a discussion about who was the most religious.

The measure of "religiousness" is different from religion to religion. Being religious, does not equate with being mature, faithful, more spiritual in every religion mentioned.

 

[Drsoccerball]

What is your opinion on the existence of the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda?
Assuming you believe it doesn't exist, explain why. (Without referring to your own religion)

Okay, so the claim would be that Islam and all other "monotheistic" religions copied Zoroastrianism. First to start off we have to consider the fact that God sent a messenger/one who warns to every people to teach the religion of God and to also warn them of consequences if they are ignorant and deny etc... This is so that they can't say "we wern't warned," like many try to say after a test. (We can see this in normal exams were if they're not taught something they would think they would be unjustly treated.)

And therin they will cry aloud: "O our Lord! Take us out, we will do good, (righteous deeds), not (the wrong) we use to do before," "Did We not grant you a life long enough for whoever would reflect and be mindful to reflect and be mindful? In addition, a warner came to you(to warn against this punishment). Taste then (the consequences of your heedlessness); for the wrongdoers have none to help them (against it)." 35:37

Now here's where you call bs about how disbelieving is such a despised sin here is a summary :

• Disbelief is an unforgivable ingratitude in the face of infinite divine favours;
• A limitless disrespect to God and His Attributes
• A rejection of, and contempt for, the innumerable signs of God in the universe;
• An accusation of lying and deceit against numberless beings who have believed in God, among whom are angels, righteous and believing humans beings, more than a hundred thousand prophets, and millions of saints, honourable scholars whom never lie.
• An everlasting destruction of human conscience, which has been created for eternity and, therefore, aspires to it.

God sent down only one religion but allowed it to be changed by humans because it was only meant for those people and that specific time period. (While leaving the religion in its complete form when humanity was ready for its message AKA Islam. This is the Islam (we believe) that all the Holy prophets followed.(Dan would disagree).)

So it is very possible that this religion was sent down by God so it may show some similarities like Islam shows with Christianity. But since we don't know for certain we can't claim it to be the case. Also according what Dan said it can also be disputed.


How is this related to my first question?

 

[Drsoccerball]

The measure of "religiousness" is different from religion to religion. Being religious, does not equate with being mature, faithful, more spiritual in every religion mentioned.

A religious Muslim would never call himself religious. We must humble ourselves in every possible circumstance. And also like someone mentioned a devout Muslim wouldn't be in a bar.