Islam Vs. Atheism Debate

unrealdummy wrote:

False analogy and comparison. In science we don't need to see things to prove it scientifically just like atoms and sub atomic particles.

And no, you're the one who is not improving. Until now all you do is make claims and cite from the Quran but you didn't prove any of its claims and definitions.

In short, you didn't prove anything. What you did is cite from the Quran and make definitions and claim.

We'll let the readers judge between us as to who is not improving here.

My position is clear, I am arguing for the existence of God based on the universally accepted concept of God in theism because I believe that the theistic understanding/concept of God is the correct concept and understanding rather than that of atheism. After that I cited at least two physical proof that are free to be examined in addition to my philosophical and theological arguments.

I believe that I have the upper hand in this point because I can bring you authorities from theologians that the concept of God that I am presenting is correct. On the otherhand, you cant bring any theologian or any theist for that matter that your understanding/concept of God is the correct one - That's the bottom line there.

You tried to appeal that because the Quran was written during 14th century, you implied that it is impossible for humans to make such discoveries. I only proved your point wrong. Don't bark on the wrong tree. You are trying to divert the point of discussion.

and I also have proven you to be wrong on the point because the comparison which you made is really a false comparison.

How would you compare a complete book of guidance for both worldly and spiritual aspects of man with its inimitable language and style to a book which mere talks about very little thing about the world and not even mentioning about spiritual stuff --- that is simply false.

I have been challenging you, bring your book here and we'll start comparing them - Let's start with their respective language, which of them is superior.

The point here is that your Quran is ambigious as the bible. It is vague as the bible. It is so vague that anyone could just interpret it differently so it would fit science as if it is "scientific".

It's ambiguous may be for you who is ignorant of it, but not for us, not for me at least. Your ignorance of the arabic language is not our problem, not ours right? It is not the problem of the Greeks that I dont know/undersand Greek language, it's my own problem hehehhee

I aleady lined them up to you. I gave you the list.

And as I have kept on saying, discussing inimitability is pointless. We will never be in agreement on what is inimitable and what is not. Such is _subjective_ discussion. There's no _objective_ measure of inimitability of a book.

You just cited names of books but what about the contents? I cited the Quran, not just its name but its contents and what made it inimitable as the Quran claims for itself.

Bring your book here, let's start from chapter one, and 'ill show you the chapter 1 of the quran in its original form and then we'll see which is superior and inimitable. -- c'mon, bring your book here

See, you are now setting the measure of inimitability. Linguistic excellence? Very subjective. Pointless discussion.

halerrr, Im not the one who imposed the criteria, it's the Quran itself, it's the challenge of the Quran not of me.

After the language, we'll compare which of those books has the complete guidance for mankind in both spiritual and worldly affairs of man.

After that, we can talk of their authenticity and power -

I assure you, all your books will be badly, or let me call it, you will see a world of difference.

bring your book my dear, c'mon...

That's not the point. As I said, discussing the inimitability of a book is a subjective discussion.

No, it is not subjective really especially that the challenge if from the proof itself. The very point there is that since it claims that it is from God, it has to have a clear evidence that it cant be produced other than God, otherwise if anybody can produce the same, then we cant really rely that the claim is true.

This is the reason why God chose an illiterate man from a forgotten desert;


And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.[29:48]


That's the wisdom there.



S

aying "hellow" repeatedly doesn't prove that inimitability can be discussed objectively. As I said, discussing the inimitability of a book is a subjective discussion. Regardless if the definition came from Quran or the Bible.

Deal with what is presented as proof and dont bring red herrings. I prsented the quran so Deal with the Quran not the bible. Bring your book here, c'mon, bring any...

You said it already, you don't have scientific evidence. Your book only makes claim and definition. It doesn't prove anything.

Who says that I dont have scientific evidence? Halerrr?? What I was saying was that in the issues about the existence of God, science is not the only criterion because science is limited mainly to physical or at least what is known physically by man. You have to consider also most especially philosophical and theological arguments because that is where you will find issues about the existence of God.

With regards to scientific evidences, I can present the same - the Quran - how is it that its language is unmatched, inimitable, preserved and never corrupted for 1400 plus years, has many fulfilled prophecies and no unfulfilled ones, how is it that it talks about scientific matters that are only known lately yet the prophet was illiterate, how is that book is so complete in giving guidance for both worldly and spiritual matters - how, how, how it that possible? bring a book like it, c'mon...

Something existing without time is called absurd.

see, measuring God with science again hehehe

Why dont you touch philosophy and theology to answer that question?? I wonder why...

As absurd as that one.

In limited science yes it is somehow absurd but not in philosophy and theology.

Now, tell me, how can your god do anything without time. That's more important.

Simple! Because God is the creator of time, so His creation is not a necessity for him to do anything - that's theology my friend heheheh. Are you gonna measure it with science again??

There's nothing in your Quran that explains how can something exist outside the time. If your Quran only makes claims and definition, then therefore, presenting Quran doesn't prove anything. Presenting Quran is simply equivalent to making claims and definitions.

Who told you that the Quran doesnt explain how God existed outside of time?? you are very wrong my friend. It just shows that you did not read the Quran yet you are talking negatively about it. That's not a good attitude of a truth seeker.


peace too

unrealdummy wrote:

LOL. Jewel was right, you should not rely only on physical matters. But you should also use your wild imagination and fantasies.

Partly right, partly wrong.

You dont impose the limited science to God. Extend more on philosophy and theology - that's the point there

Are philosophy and theology mere wild imagination and fantasies, I dont think so hehhee

Jewel wrote:

I think you are the one stuck in your very limited realm. Your scope is limited on physical matters yet you are trying to put theological and Philosophical issues - that's very sad my friend

Admission of magical argument. Thanks Jewel^_~

Jewel wrote:

Partly right, partly wrong.

You dont impose the limited science to God. Extend more on philosophy and theology - that's the point there

Are philosophy and theology mere wild imagination and fantasies, I dont think so hehhee

I guess that concludes this discussion. Your arguments are all based on theology and philosophy.

Peace

vril wrote:...

False accusation; is that all that you can say?

Did i appeal to magical stuff? lolzz

The fact is that I dont limit my arguments to science only, but I extended the scope to philosophy and theology because the issue is about God.

So i dont think that philosophical and theological arguments are magical stuff hehehhe

Dont get mad my friend, we are just discussing issues here, nothing personal

unrealdummy wrote:

I guess that concludes this discussion. Your arguments are all based on theology and philosophy.

Peace

Oh you didnt get it from the beginning?? Watta man!

Anyway, this is what i could tell you in relation to this discussion;

I am not against science, I am very pro to it. I just did not make it as a sole arbiter for the existence of God because it's scope is so limited to the issue. That is why when people wanted to know about God, they wont pick a biology book or any science book because that is not the right book to consult about it. They would either pick a philosophy book or a religious book. - I think that is the point which missed to understand.

Peace

unrealdummy & vril

Do you agree with me now that if we extend the scope of our discussion to philosophy and theology, the belief about the existence of God is clear, dont you?

Jewel wrote:

Do you agree with me now that if we extend the scope of our discussion to philosophy and theology, the belief about the existence of God is clear, dont you?

Nothing can be proven by theological and philosophical means.

unrealdummy wrote:Nothing can be proven by theological and philosophical means.

It depends on what do you consider as proof, i supposed.

If you only consider scientific evidences to be the only acceptable proof for theological matters, then you are clearly wrong. You are also very wrong for trying to deny the existence of God without taking in to consideration philosophical and theological arguments because the issue about the existence of God is theological and not about science, isnt it? heheheh

Jewel wrote:

It depends on what do you consider as proof, i supposed.

If you only consider scientific evidences to be the only acceptable proof for theological matters, then you are clearly wrong. You are also very wrong for trying to deny the existence of God without taking in to consideration philosophical and theological arguments because the issue about the existence of God is theological and not about science, isnt it? heheheh

Discussing opinions, philosophies and theologies aren't fruitful when trying to prove something. Such things can never be proven. They are ideas, concepts and opinions.

unrealdummy wrote:

Discussing opinions, philosophies and theologies aren't fruitful when trying to prove something. Such things can never be proven. They are ideas, concepts and opinions.

That depends on the topic my dear hehhehe

If you wanna prove scientific theories or any idea for that matter, then use scientific principles to test it.

However, if you wanna prove theological matters, then use theological and or philosophical principles in addition to science.

That's the way how to resolve issues such as like this. That is why I said that when people want to know about God, they pick philosophy book and or religious scriptures not a biology book hehehe.

This is because, as proven here, the most common answer that you can get from science to the main question about theological issues is "I DONT KNOW" - you always say that to me right?

That is because science is limited on that regard; so dont be blinded over it.

Nope. Philosophy outside science are nothing but concepts, ideas and speculations. If your philosophy is not based on science, then it is simply unprovable. Philosophy violating the laws of science is worse (e.g. Violation of law of conservation of energy).

Philosophies without scientific bases can never be proven. Just like you cannot prove the existence of a unicorn. It doesn't matter as much as like opinions don't matter.

Anyone can have his own philosophy in life just like anyone is entitled to have his opinions. That's just subjective (e.g. Machiavelli's the end justifies the means), and speculative at best.

Jewel wrote:

Do you agree with me now that if we extend the scope of our discussion to philosophy and theology, the belief about the existence of God is clear, dont you?

what is unclear is where did your god come from..you have not solved this problem yet. And to prove something outside of time is simply magical^_~.

Do you believe in magic Jewel? I know you do. ^_~

Jewel wrote:

False accusation; is that all that you can say?

Did i appeal to magical stuff? lolzz

The fact is that I dont limit my arguments to science only, but I extended the scope to philosophy and theology because the issue is about God.

So i dont think that philosophical and theological arguments are magical stuff hehehhe

Dont get mad my friend, we are just discussing issues here, nothing personal

Oh yes it is. If you try and discuss things before T-0, everything becomes magic..^_~. Unless you can support that state prior time but of course you can't.

vril wrote:

what is unclear is where did your god come from..you have not solved this problem yet. And to prove something outside of time is simply magical^_~.

If you limit your scope in science, then you may consider it as magical because science cant explain that, but if you extend to philosophy and theology, then it is in fact logical and reasonable.

Science is very limited; it cant explain super natural stuff, so how can it be the sole reference to this issue.

How would science explain the fulfilled prophecies of the prophets - what science can say is it's magical, or else I dont know hehehe

[quote="vril"

Oh yes it is. If you try and discuss things before T-0, everything becomes magic..^_~. Unless you can support that state prior time but of course you can't.[/quote]

extend a little bit in philosophy and theology, you'll know.

Your ignorance about the idea doesnt make it false hehehehe

Jewel wrote:[quote="vril"

Oh yes it is. If you try and discuss things before T-0, everything becomes magic..^_~. Unless you can support that state prior time but of course you can't.

extend a little bit in philosophy and theology, you'll know.

Your ignorance about the idea doesnt make it false hehehehe[/quote]

That's where it will all be. Magic...^_~