The Religion Discussion

[AdamB]

Christians interpret the OT through the NT, so if the NT doesn't reiterate a OT principle in the NT we don't carry it over..... However Christians study these abrogated laws to understand the character of God but we don't practise them.

New Testament
1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet."

Also Jesus said in Matthew 5-17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (Old Testament); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

As I have said, they don't follow the Old Testament. They claim they do by following the New Testament which I have challenged in having no validity because the writers of those books WERE NOT INSPIRED.

They disregard all that Jesus has said by going with "interpretations" presented in the NT, like Jesus being some Archangel, being the first born of all creation, CREATION I TELL YOU (yet they worship him). Like Jesus dying for their sins, so they NOW have no accountability, no laws to follow (like the Jews).

Eat, drink, sin and make merry!! Paganism at it's best...that is what Christianity IS / HAS BECOME! It certainly is not what Jesus preached...

[AdamB]

There are other books that didnt make it into the bible as they were just simply historical accounts of evidence giving a eye witness account but not inspired,there are actually books that go against the bible and encourage some rather strange practises,the Maccabees is an example of one such book.Some of the writers themselves never even claimed to be inspired.
@AdamB,how is the individual holding on to the laws of the Jews,can you prove that from the bible,I can prove that is not the case.But I will give you first go at proving your point.

Is observing the Sabbath, IN THE MANNER OF THE JEWS, not holding on to a law of the Jews?

Question: why have the rest of Christian let it go?Will deal with your points one by one depending on if you answer the questions.Your arch enemy again bro The dreaded BURDEN OF PROOF.

Because it too hard on them! Must go with something easier.

Jesus said(paraphrasing) , "I have not come except TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL" and "Why take the scraps from the tables and give it to the dogs?"

These prove that Jesus was a prophet sent to the JEWS ONLY. Duane posted evidence above that the LAW OF THE JEWS were to be upheld.

Enter your proofs...

[Habit7]

I respect your views maj.tom. You have clearly outlined the extent and parameters of trust in science based on the principle of logic and observation. As stated before, you admit that there are fundamental areas of this world that science cannot explain due to our incapability of observing it, and there are areas where we have observed and there is little dissension as to how it works.

The scientific method however can be seen as a philosophy. A philosophy is a study and or attempt to attain truth and knowledge about the world and ourselves. To engage in the scientific method there has to be the presumption of the predictability and stability of the universe. This is where the laws of logic come in (Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle). In order for a scientist’s observation to be objective and testable, this presumption must be assumed. The predictability and stability of the universe must be in place for the scientific method to work, but the scientific method cannot test that. One must go on that assumption throughout.

Now while the scientific method is good and works well and is a valid way of observing what is around us, there is a philosophical flaw. The scientific method presumes materialism and/or naturalism as it is focused on testable and repeatable things, things which will only be contained in a material world. Materialism says that matter and energy are all there is while naturalism says the world can only exist by scientific means. As a result, a supernatural being such as God can never be observed and would not exist in the realm of knowledge devised by the scientific method. This is not a problem when adherents to the sufficiency of the scientific method exclude themselves from things theological. However, these adherents constantly apply their worldview to areas outside its scope and claim belief in God to be irrational. In order for God to exist in their worldview the transcendent, immaterial, eternal God must provide non-transcend and material evidence now, in order for it to be true. This is akin to looking at the world with red lenses and proclaiming green doesn’t exist due to one’s numerous tests and observations. Therefore what one learns by philosophical assumptions is limited to these assumptions and as in the case of some, it becomes dogmatic.

So if the scientific method was to confine itself to materialistic phenomena and not venture into the existence of God, there will not be any confluence. However regularly people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Coyne, etc. speak absolutely and authoritatively on realms not covered by science. They would have it that we apply the philosophical view that science is the only means by which we attain truth. But if we were to define truth only being what we can research in a lab, how are we to quantify love, mercy, justice, morality and other realities that daily factor in our lives? How could we measure a God that created and sustains our Universe and transcends to have dealings with us in the only way we can observe it? He sent men, they wrote His message, He sent His Son whose life, death and resurrection has had the biggest impact of any individual for the past 2000 years. This is what Christians put their faith in, it is not in the absence of evidence as some would want to claim, but in the evidence revealed. So also apply your logic there too. Test the claims of every religion and see if they are true. I have been trying to give and apologetic for Christianity for the past 30+ pages and I hope I could answer any more. But to create your own parameters for God to exist, see that He that doesn’t meet them, high-five each other on how smart you are, and then call others foolish who apply the same logic as you but just differently, then you won’t meet the true God. You have to come humbly, on His terms, otherwise He will exclude you.

So in summation, the scientific method is a philosophy, that some elevates to dogmatism, and limit themselves to what truth is.

[Habit7]

Supernatural explanations is not evidence.

So since everything in the natural world came from something natural prior, how do you account for nature? (You are free to include evidences in pie chart or spreadsheet format)

do you want me to post the entire subjects of Science, Biology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, Archeology etc etc?

Dude that will be committing the logical fallacy of argumentum verbosium. Plus you will be holding me to a different standard than you are holding yourself.

Simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law.

this is a seriously flawed piece of argument

you are saying that because you are claiming a supernatural force, I cannot expect you to provide me with natural evidence. That has to be the most fantastical cop-out ever!

Yes my argument is flawed, yes I am claiming a supernatural force, point and laugh at the Christian hahahaha....





So can I expect you answer the question? I have answered so many of yours.

[AdamB]

^^^ You are right that the universe is a closed system. However the Big Bang doesn't explain the genesis of matter, energy, space and even time within that system. The Big Bang explains the existence of the Universe with the pre-existing constituents of matter, energy, space and time.

You are also right when you say "What happened before, we don't know" but I don't agree with "it doesn't concern scientists because we have no way to observe it." It has to concern scientists especially those who believe that everything in this world can be explained by nature. What good is it to postulate how a building was constructed when you cannot account for where the building blocks and other material came from?

So back to my original question, if everything in nature has an antecedent, what preceded nature?

What preceded god? What preceded the moment he had the idea to create creation? What happened before 6000 years ago in your creation theory? Where did god get that energy to make creation which is a closed system?

Is he inside this universe? If so, why/how does he break the laws of thermodynamics to perform "miracles?" Is he outside this closed system? How can we observe something outside our universe system without actually being a part of that outside system thermodynamically? Which would mean he doesn't interact with us if he is indeed outside.

Does the energy of God follow entropy? Why can't we observe the effects of that entropy then? I mean he created everything in this universe and everything holds true to the laws of thermodynamics. If he doesn't, don't you think that would cause a big disruption in observations?

The Islamic View: HE is above everything (creation) and separate from it, in whatever way you can imagine - literally IN HIS ESSENCE and figuratively BY HIS ATTRIBUTES.

Would it be fair to you to now scold you and tell you to go and research this matter to find out the details of what the above means in ISLAM? Obviously not but I won't even try to tell that to Spikey!

Let's go back to when GOD existed alone (not lonely). Where was HE? There was no Earth or Heavens or anything else?

Now when HE created the Creation (everything that exists other than HIM), where did HE put the Creation? In HIMSELF or separate from HIMSELF? The Islamic view is the latter partly because it is not befitting of HIS majesty that HE be "mixed" in dirty places, sewers and the like.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&p=6264449&hilit=+where+did+god+put#p6264449

[sMASH]

to spike (but any body could read):

how's it hanging? remember the explanation u gave me? it did not make logical sense as compared to what we normally encounter in the world, taught in schools etc. but it very weirdly settled in my mind.
i tried to understand it as IT, and not compared to any thing else i knew.
what was unnerving was the extent to which my mind was at ease with it. what i have realized is that i am not smart(duh). but my subconscious is a lot smarter than me. some may call it instinct, another sense, inspiration, what ever. but my mind operates on things in science and maths and other physics related things. i can watch something and realize something is off, but can't figure out what. like in school, i was taught einstien's theory of relativity, i.e. e=mc sq. but it had never seemed that simple to me. all the years passed and that was never a topic that came up, but it was like a worm eating away at the back of my mind that it was not correct, that it was more of a generalization or approximation to a very close degree to how it is in real reality, but not an absolute relation. lo and behold, even einstein doubted him self and made errors. is only after more than a decade that i have learned that there are theories of dark matter and dark energy, which COMPENSATE for the things not explained by the theory of relativity.
it was a great relief.

i am no where near a physicist, as i can't do the basic math necessary(hence why i have not touched the topic since school). but i do watch the video clips where the real scientists generalize the equations for us normel folk to grasp a bit of what they think.

what i have seen recently with black holes is that as an object passes into it, its information is also stored on its surface. this information is like a copy, but it can be used to make an exact reproduction of the actual object. i don't understand how that works, but it is uncannily similar to the mechanics contained in the explanation u gave me.
here's another quaint decipher, this information is in a 2 dimensional form. but some scientist purport that all of reality is 2 dimensional at the picoscopic scales, but just seems 4 dimensional........ u make the link, no?
if the copy of the object is 2 dimensional, and reality is actually 2 dimensional, that means the copy is already in a form that can exist in the reality we know, and the actual object is in a different form or 'location' to us.

interesting?!!!

[marlener]

@AdamB when was the sabbath first mention in the bible? Also look at Mark 2:27 and get back to me,don't get side tracked now.Ask ur questions I will answer them,I'll ask mines and hopefully you will answer.

[nareshseep]

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.

It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma. The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence -- and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day. Only the atheist appreciates just how uncanny our situation is: most of us believe in a God that is every bit as specious as the gods of Mount Olympus; no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that such a God exists; and much of what passes for public policy in our country conforms to religious taboos and superstitions appropriate to a medieval theocracy. Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

Consider: the city of New Orleans was recently destroyed by hurricane Katrina. At least a thousand people died, tens of thousands lost all their earthly possessions, and over a million have been displaced. It is safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Katrina struck believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate God. But what was God doing while a hurricane laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters for the safety of their attics, only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Only the atheist has the courage to admit the obvious: these poor people spent their lives in the company of an imaginary friend.

Of course, there had been ample warning that a storm “of biblical proportions” would strike New Orleans, and the human response to the ensuing disaster was tragically inept. But it was inept only by the light of science. Advance warning of Katrina’s path was wrested from mute Nature by meteorological calculations and satellite imagery. God told no one of his plans. Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces. And yet, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that eighty percent of Katrina’s survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.

As hurricane Katrina was devouring New Orleans, nearly a thousand Shiite pilgrims were trampled to death on a bridge in Iraq. There can be no doubt that these pilgrims believed mightily in the God of the Koran. Indeed, their lives were organized around the indisputable fact of his existence: their women walked veiled before him; their men regularly murdered one another over rival interpretations of his word. It would be remarkable if a single survivor of this tragedy lost his faith. More likely, the survivors imagine that they were spared through God’s grace.

Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world’s suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is -- and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all.

Of course, people of faith regularly assure one another that God is not responsible for human suffering. But how else can we understand the claim that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? There is no other way, and it is time for sane human beings to own up to this. This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil. Pious readers will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality. But, of course, human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place. And any God who could concern himself with something as trivial as gay marriage, or the name by which he is addressed in prayer, is not as inscrutable as all that. If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.

There is another possibility, of course, and it is both the most reasonable and least odious: the biblical God is a fiction. As Richard Dawkins has observed, we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different. Consequently, only the atheist is compassionate enough to take the profundity of the world’s suffering at face value. It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harri ... _8459.html

“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.” – David Stevens

QhG4I.jpg (61.82 KiB) Viewed 1623 times

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Supernatural explanations is not evidence.

So since everything in the natural world came from something natural prior, how do you account for nature? (You are free to include evidences in pie chart or spreadsheet format)

do you want me to post the entire subjects of Science, Biology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, Archeology etc etc?

Dude that will be committing the logical fallacy of argumentum verbosium. Plus you will be holding me to a different standard than you are holding yourself.

Simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law.

this is a seriously flawed piece of argument

you are saying that because you are claiming a supernatural force, I cannot expect you to provide me with natural evidence. That has to be the most fantastical cop-out ever!

Yes my argument is flawed, yes I am claiming a supernatural force, point and laugh at the Christian hahahaha....





So can I expect you answer the question? I have answered so many of yours.

If you mean this question: "Simply explain how nature came to exist through natural law."

I answered it already when I said to refer to Science, Biology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, Archeology etc etc. I would just be regurgitating content that is already readily available online and in libraries.

In a nutshell you can read this Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

and FYI I am not pointing and laughing AT ALL.
I am very much intrigued and completely fascinated as I've always been of religions and its adherents / apologetics.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I respect your views maj.tom. You have clearly outlined the extent and parameters of trust in science based on the principle of logic and observation. As stated before, you admit that there are fundamental areas of this world that science cannot explain due to our incapability of observing it, and there are areas where we have observed and there is little dissension as to how it works.

The scientific method however can be seen as a philosophy. A philosophy is a study and or attempt to attain truth and knowledge about the world and ourselves. To engage in the scientific method there has to be the presumption of the predictability and stability of the universe. This is where the laws of logic come in (Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle). In order for a scientist’s observation to be objective and testable, this presumption must be assumed. The predictability and stability of the universe must be in place for the scientific method to work, but the scientific method cannot test that. One must go on that assumption throughout.

Now while the scientific method is good and works well and is a valid way of observing what is around us, there is a philosophical flaw. The scientific method presumes materialism and/or naturalism as it is focused on testable and repeatable things, things which will only be contained in a material world. Materialism says that matter and energy are all there is while naturalism says the world can only exist by scientific means. As a result, a supernatural being such as God can never be observed and would not exist in the realm of knowledge devised by the scientific method. This is not a problem when adherents to the sufficiency of the scientific method exclude themselves from things theological. However, these adherents constantly apply their worldview to areas outside its scope and claim belief in God to be irrational. In order for God to exist in their worldview the transcendent, immaterial, eternal God must provide non-transcend and material evidence now, in order for it to be true. This is akin to looking at the world with red lenses and proclaiming green doesn’t exist due to one’s numerous tests and observations. Therefore what one learns by philosophical assumptions is limited to these assumptions and as in the case of some, it becomes dogmatic.

So if the scientific method was to confine itself to materialistic phenomena and not venture into the existence of God, there will not be any confluence. However regularly people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Coyne, etc. speak absolutely and authoritatively on realms not covered by science. They would have it that we apply the philosophical view that science is the only means by which we attain truth. But if we were to define truth only being what we can research in a lab, how are we to quantify love, mercy, justice, morality and other realities that daily factor in our lives? How could we measure a God that created and sustains our Universe and transcends to have dealings with us in the only way we can observe it? He sent men, they wrote His message, He sent His Son whose life, death and resurrection has had the biggest impact of any individual for the past 2000 years. This is what Christians put their faith in, it is not in the absence of evidence as some would want to claim, but in the evidence revealed. So also apply your logic there too. Test the claims of every religion and see if they are true. I have been trying to give and apologetic for Christianity for the past 30+ pages and I hope I could answer any more. But to create your own parameters for God to exist, see that He that doesn’t meet them, high-five each other on how smart you are, and then call others foolish who apply the same logic as you but just differently, then you won’t meet the true God. You have to come humbly, on His terms, otherwise He will exclude you.

So in summation, the scientific method is a philosophy, that some elevates to dogmatism, and limit themselves to what truth is.

um no.

In the context that you are using, Philosophy is subjective however we all know that Science is objective

I see you've borrowed some argument from other Christian apologetics
http://carm.org/scientific-method-philosophy
but unlike you I don't think borrowing, copy/pasting, or sharing ideas of others is bad.

anyway as I was saying, the scientific method is CANNOT be the same as philosophy in that context and so your point is invalid there.
subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).
objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Also you assume Dawkins, Hitchens et al are the "Gospel writers" for this scientific method or for the "naturalists" as you refer to it. They are not. they have their own arguments and like any scientific method, based on the evidence, they have their own hypotheses.
I assume you think that way because you are accustomed to having that structure in religion and think that it operates the same way in science. The only dogma, "gospel" or absolute in science is truth found via evidence.

If science were to consider the supernatural and other things it cannot actually observe and repeatedly test then it would make room for any supernatural claim to be stated as true. That would make Leprechauns to be considered as absolute fact, which they are not.

[Habit7]

Duane I think you believe you are being clear as possible. But you can recall that whenever you posed a question to me, I answered specifically and did not point to a body of text for my answer. The organisation and function of an already present nature explained in the sciences you referred, doesn't account for how it came into existence. maj.tom went further than you and pointed to the theory of the Big Bang, but I explained that the Big Bang only accounts for the start and organisation of the Universe with pre-existing constituents. Since these constituents are natural, again I ask, how did nature come to exist through natural law?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ If the body of text explains the same point I am trying to make, then what is the problem with quoting it? You quote scripture to prove your point all the time!

maj.tom already tolda you that science is based on observation and testing. If things prior to the big bang cannot be observed and tested then science cannot claim any of it as fact.

tell me something. If you asked someone "how did that building get there?" and they replied "magic!" would you consider that a valid answer?

[AdamB]

Duane I think you believe you are being clear as possible. But you can recall that whenever you posed a question to me, I answered specifically and did not point to a body of text for my answer. The organisation and function of an already present nature explained in the sciences you referred, doesn't account for how it came into existence. maj.tom went further than you and pointed to the theory of the Big Bang, but I explained that the Big Bang only accounts for the start and organisation of the Universe with pre-existing constituents. Since these constituents are natural, again I ask, how did nature come to exist through natural law?

And We created not the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, for mere play.
( سورة الدخان , Ad-Dukhan, Chapter #44, Verse #38)

And Allah has created the heavens and the earth with truth, in order that each person may be recompensed what he has earned, and they will not be wronged.
( سورة الجاثية , Al-Jathiya, Chapter #45, Verse #22)

We created not the heavens and the earth and all that is between them except with truth, and for an appointed term. But those who disbelieve turn away from that whereof they are warned.
( سورة الأحقاف , Al-Ahqaf, Chapter #46, Verse #3)

y (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to these pagans): "Think you about all that you invoke besides Allah? Show me. What have they created of the earth? Or have they a share in (the creation of) the heavens? Bring me a Book (revealed before this), or some trace of knowledge (in support of your claims), if you are truthful!" ( سورة الأحقاف , Al-Ahqaf, Chapter #46, Verse #4)

And indeed We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in six Days and nothing of fatigue touched Us.
( سورة ق , Qaf, Chapter #50, Verse #38)

[Habit7]

tell me something. If you asked someone "how did that building get there?" and they replied "magic!" would you consider that a valid answer?

No, because through observation we know that buildings requires a builder, likewise I propose a creation requires a Creator.



I disagree with copying and pasting large swaths of texts and especially not citing, but we all use resources to buffer our views and most of the arguments here are parroting of views that came to us.

I disagree that philosophy and science are as mutually exclusive as you make it out to be. While there are aspects of science that are objective, there are other aspects that are subjective. A hypothesis is a subjective inference based on objective fact.

The scientific method is an effective way of verifying some truth, but it falls short tremendously in examining past events. So if you continue to use the scientific method as your only barrister of truth you will obvious come to different conclusions than some of the rest of us do.

I think we are arguing in a circle now.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ well circular reasoning has been the status quo from many in here!

no probs if you want to call it quits, sorry you weren't able to prove your point though.

A hypothesis is one of many parts in the PROCESS of science. The result however is a scientific fact, which is objective, not subjective.

hypotheses are tested and retested, peer reviewed and retested again and again. If it doesnt conform to fact then the process starts over with observation and testing.

[AdamB]

Quran Ch41:

9 Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): "Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days? And you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists).

10 He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four days were equal in the length of time) for all those who ask (about its creation).
11 Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come willingly."

12 Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower.

There is evidence above in the perfect words of Allah that:
1. The creation of the heavens was INITIATED FIRST (before the earth)
2. The earth was created, completed before the heavens...as the heavens were still SMOKE.
3. The heavens and the earth OBEY Allah.

This verse provides textual evidence / a challenge that "scientific evidence" does not exist that "mother nature" is responsible for creation (Bring some trace of knowledge in support of your claims):

(O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to these pagans): "Think you about all that you invoke besides Allah? Show me. What have they created of the earth? Or have they a share in (the creation of) the heavens? Bring me a Book (revealed before this), or some trace of knowledge (in support of your claims), if you are truthful!" ( سورة الأحقاف , Al-Ahqaf, Chapter #46, Verse #4)

That is why "Science / observation" cannot and will not be able to explain what happened before the Big bang or at t=0, what caused it to occur.

Allah challenges that there are no "rifts" in the heavens, yet they can't also explain the phenomenon of the black holes / what occurs in passing through them.

Maybe majtom or duane can explain....

[Habit7]

no probs if you want to call it quits, sorry you weren't able to prove your point though.

Nice shot there, as if you are able to explain nature coming into existence from a natural process. As I said way before, we interpret the evidence differently. I have pointed out that my position considers that if it is wrong, the most I missed out was by having a chased life.

What if your position is wrong and you have to face a holy God in judgement when you do die, how would you account for yourself?

[DFC]

oh Adamb, the heavens is SMOKE?
Where is this Seven Heavens?

Tell me again how did Muhammed split the moon in half ?

Did Muhammed have strength and powers?
1 is 1?

[*$kїđž!™]

oh Adamb, the heavens is SMOKE?
Where is this Seven Heavens?

Tell me again how did Muhammed split the moon in half ?

Did Muhammed have strength and powers?
1 is 1?

u arguing with a muslim...dont u know that muslims are always correct and everyone else is wrong?>?

[AdamB]

So tell me, was there SMOKE after the "Big Bang"?

If animals "evolved", did inanimate objects also evolve (went thru a transformation one phase after another)?

[AdamB]

Skidz,
Correct is the worship of the ONE TRUE GOD, ALLAH. Wrong is associating partners with HIM.

After that, from whom else are you going to seek guidance?

[Sacchetto Boutique]

This is the best thread in this whole forum...and the more I read, the more I see, that even when Adamb shows you the truth, many will still question and turn away and thats exactly how it should be because Jannah is NOT for everyone. It is only for those who deserve it by worshiping God in the way HE has commanded.
Btw, referring to any piece of text in a religious book that is different from the Quran is pointless to a true believer bc as I have mentioned before, there are MANY errors within the Bible and Torah and a muslim will only take what has remained the same in the Quran. Have you ever noticed that in the Quran, it is written in the 1st person but the bible is a written account from several other persons...that is why there is that verse which says bring forth another book that can match the quran....it cant be done...

[Dizzy28]

This is the best thread in this whole forum...and the more I read, the more I see, that even when Adamb shows you the truth, many will still question and turn away and thats exactly how it should be because Jannah is NOT for everyone. It is only for those who deserve it by worshiping God in the way HE has commanded.
Btw, referring to any piece of text in a religious book that is different from the Quran is pointless to a true believer bc as I have mentioned before, there are MANY errors within the Bible and Torah and a muslim will only take what has remained the same in the Quran. Have you ever noticed that in the Quran, it is written in the 1st person but the bible is a written account from several other persons...that is why there is that verse which says bring forth another book that can match the quran....it cant be done...

And this where the fallacy is with you people. You BELIEVE Islam is the truth. There is no proof it is more any more valid than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion. And you all insult those that don't have faith in your religion when you post your supporting evidence.

[Sacchetto Boutique]

oh im sorry...did I insult YOU or anyone? please direct me to where I did that and I will humbly apologize bc insulting anyone isnt my intention.

[DFC]

I will not seek guidance from an schizophrenic, illiterate cave dweller that lived thousands of years ago.

A religion founded by an idiot will only produce more idiots.

Its ironic when a scripture want to talk about TRUTH, when the book itself is a compilation of lies, stolen ideologies, inconsistencies, war, murder, rape, with complete chapters of utter nonsense.


And followers of this "religions" expect to be taken seriously?

[Mr. Red Sleeper]

iz quarrel allyuh still quarreling bout things allyuh eh shore abt?/
This aint religion.....this is madness.....!!

[Sacchetto Boutique]

i respect your views DFC, perhaps YOU might be right...I suppose when we all die, its only then we would really know for sure. Till then, I will continue trying to be a good muslim and learn more and follow more. This is the way of life I have chosen and I have explained why I chose it yet still many people insult me for my choice. I have not forced islam on anyone nor have I tried to kill or oppress anyone who does not follow it. Just because someone practises islam, doesnt mean you HAVE to hate them or dislike them..they not troubling you

[megadoc1]

This is the best thread in this whole forum...and the more I read, the more I see, that even when Adamb shows you the truth, many will still question and turn away and thats exactly how it should be because Jannah is NOT for everyone. It is only for those who deserve it by worshiping God in the way HE has commanded.
Btw, referring to any piece of text in a religious book that is different from the Quran is pointless to a true believer bc as I have mentioned before, there are MANY errors within the Bible and Torah and a muslim will only take what has remained the same in the Quran. Have you ever noticed that in the Quran, it is written in the 1st person but the bible is a written account from several other persons...that is why there is that verse which says bring forth another book that can match the quran....it cant be done...

question still needs to be answered, what are the errors and how did you know that they are errors? because the quran say so?

[Sacchetto Boutique]

but ent i posted it TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! u gona make me post it again ent..ok ok fine! all in the name of truth....i shall.. and i want to remind you that what i posted isnt the whole article..ikts pretty long so i posted only the 1st few paragraphs...check teh site to read the rest and offfer counter points if u have..i welcome it. Thanks for reading!!!!

its a copy n paste from a sheikh who WAS a PASTOR and then he converted. His knowledge on the bible and Quran is very sound.

There are more comparisions but I didnt want to post them all here bc its really long and I know that would not encourage others to read. Please take a look at the website where I got the information.
http://islamtomorrow.com/articles/Bible_vs_Quran.asp
That is the official website of Sheikh Yusuf Estes. He was a pastor before he converted to islam many years ago and is very known in the islamic world. He has conducted lectures in Trinidad as well as all over the world. I chose to mention him because of his extensive knowledge about christianity.


COMPARISON of BIBLE & QURAN-
[Dr. Gary Miller- with Commentary by Yusuf Estes]

Bible is Collection of Writings -
Quran is Recitation From God to Muhammad (p) who could neither read nor write

Whereas, The Bible is a collection of writings by many different authors, the Quran is a dictation (or recitation). The speaker in the Quran - in the first person - is God Almighty (Allah) talking directly to man. In the Bible you have many men writing about God and you have in some places the word of God speaking to men and still in other places you have some men simply writing about history or personal exchanges of information to one another (ex: Epistle of John 3). The Bible in the English King James Version consists of 66 small books. About 18 of them begin by saying: This is the revelation God gave to so and so… The rest make no claim as to their origin. You have for example the beginning of the book of Jonah which begins by saying: The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Elmitaeh saying… quote and then it continues for two or three pages.



Compare this to the beginning of the Book of "Luke" begins by saying: “In as much as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, (2) Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, (3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, (4) That you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

We see the author of the Book of "Luke" saying essentially, "Many people have written about things, it seems fitting for me to do so too.” "Luke" says it seems to him that as long as others are taking in hand to write something about it, even though they were eye witnesses to the whole thing, he feels that even though he was not, he still has "perfect understanding of all things from the very first."

Therefore this is only a letter from one person to another, neither of whom knew Jesus, peace be upon him, nor were eyewitnesses to any of what had taken place. [Y. Estes]


If you compare that to one of the four accounts of the life of Jesus, Luke begins by saying: “many people have written about this man, it seems fitting for me to do so too”. That is all… no claim of saying “ these words were given to me by God here they are for you it is a revelation”, there is no mention of this.

"Bible" is NOT in the Bible

The Bible does not contain self-reference, that is, the word 'Bible' is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible talk about itself. Some scriptures are sometimes pointed to in the Bible, say: Here where it talks about itself, but we have to look closely. 2nd Timothy 3:16 is the favourite which reads: “All scripture is inspired of God” and there are those who would say, here is where the Bible it talks about itself, it says it is inspired of God, all of it. But if you read the whole sentence, you read that this was a letter wrote by Paul to Timothy and the entire sentence says to Timothy: “Since you were a young man you have studied the holy scriptures, all scriptures inspired by God” and so on… When Timothy was a young man the New Testament did not exist, the only thing that stems he was talking about are scriptures – which are only a portion of the Bible - from before that time. It could not have meant the whole Bible.

Anybody even bothered to read Sheikh Yusuf Estes responses to the various 'errors' in the bible???
I would agree that "there is no other book outside our recent era that has more analogous manuscripts and corroborated historical fact." IS the Quran

http://islamtomorrow.com/articles/Bible_vs_Quran.asp

[Dizzy28]

oh im sorry...did I insult YOU or anyone? please direct me to where I did that and I will humbly apologize bc insulting anyone isnt my intention.

If I do not believe in Islam but another religion or maybe in no religion at all isn't it insulting for you to claim your belief to be the truth? You have more or less implied my beliefs are untruths.