㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 94
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
- Both are scam artists. I guess the smarter is the one who didn't get caught. Where is the argument? – 'X doesn't believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist' is invalid. I suppose, as al-Ghazali postulates, most people are not rational believers rather imitators who believe based on either loyalty or the principle: 'X is  is powerful or X is pious or X is intelligent, therefore X is right'.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,696
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
Ultimately, both theist and non-theist have to accept either infinite existence or magical creation.

Infinite existence does not require a GOD.

And magical creation requires an infinite magician.

Neither of which is metaphysically or epistemologically definitive.


Nonetheless, theistic hypotheses are recent concepts, relative to evolved species intellect. Wherein the inevitable assumption was that an evolved intellectual specimen is the infinite magician.

Which of course is not epistemologically definitive. (See above)

And in short, simply implies that thinking man must have created thinking man.

Whimsically negating any of thinking mans subsequent scientific and epistemological achievements.

All in all not a particularly strong argument.


So, the other guy who is not prepared to accept atheistic assumptions out of hand, realises that although inevitable, the MAN GOD hypothesis is not epistemologically sound.

Such is the argument.

If an argument at all.


That said, I would suggest that the ongoing debate tells us what we need to know.

Which is, that we don't know the answer to the ultimate question.

Which is by far the best argument for the non-theist.




Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,509
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
- There is no strong argument for Atheism. Not many beliefs out there are logically less cogent than believing Everything comes from Nothing & every thing has a cause for its existence except everything.
Even Jesus could not prove he was God.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,310
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
The strongest argument for atheism is that there isn't enough hard evidence for the existence of God. Other arguments include:

  • Evil has been done in the name of religion.

  • There’s historical evidence that religious leaders have lied.

  • Why would God allow bad things to happen?.

  • Science explains more than religion does.

  • The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,223
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Why do atheists allow bad things to happen?

Atheism is also a faith.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,310
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Jesus Cried "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me"

FYI, I have never let my son be nailed to a cross.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Ultimately, both theist and non-theist have to accept either infinite existence or magical creation.

Infinite existence does not require a GOD.

And magical creation requires an infinite magician.

Neither of which is metaphysically or epistemologically definitive.
- I mean by God the necessary being. If anything exists, then a necessary being must exist. That's metaphysically necessary. 

Nonetheless, theistic hypotheses are recent concepts, relative to evolved species intellect. Wherein the inevitable assumption was that an evolved intellectual specimen is the infinite magician.

Which of course is not epistemologically definitive. (See above)

And in short, simply implies that thinking man must have created thinking man.

Whimsically negating any of thinking mans subsequent scientific and epistemological achievements.
- You need to define your stuff. Whole lotta hooha! 

All in all not a particularly strong argument.

So, the other guy who is not prepared to accept atheistic assumptions out of hand, realises that although inevitable, the MAN GOD hypothesis is not epistemologically sound.

Such is the argument.

If an argument at all.
- God is not a man.

That said, I would suggest that the ongoing debate tells us what we need to know.

Which is, that we don't know the answer to the ultimate question.

Which is by far the best argument for the non-theist.
- You can not not know all things have a explanation for their existence. The same way you can not not know a circle & a square are identical. This is not something you, or any human, are capable of conceiving. What you have is what Christians have, faith, not belief. – Belief being judgement contingent on knowledge, & Faith being judgement with no knowledge import.

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
Even Jesus could not prove he was God.
- He wasn't. God =/= man. God is a necessary being, therefore can not be contingent. Claiming God is man is saying God is not God, which is a contraction. 

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,696
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
God is not a man.

For sure, which is a distinction between a mind concept and actuality, and how the atheist or non-theist  might also see things.

Obviously as a non-theist I can still appreciate the possibility of a metaphysical interventionist entity.

Whereas the traditional Abrahamic theist accepts a God not as a possibility, but as a metaphysical certainty. Therein attributing said GOD with distinctly male human characteristics and qualities.

GOD created by man, in the image of man...And as a kid, I was subjected to theistic conditioning, wherein GOD was always portrayed and illustrated as such.

A despite what you say, I doubt that there are many Muslim kids who are not similarly inspired.

So, if  GOD is not a man, then what is it?

 I would suggest an indefinite metaphysical principle, which is an idea that I as a non-theist can happily run with and hypothesise about at length. Though in order to do so, I see absolutely  no reason to join a theistic club and subject myself to a bizarrely unnecessary ritualistic routine, in reverence to an indefinite metaphysical uncertainty.


So:

"Islam rejects characterising god in any human form or depicting HIM as."

"HE created  human beings."

"Nothing is comparable to HIM."

D'oh...Pronouns Homer, prounouns.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,279
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Yassine
@zedvictor4
eternally existent, dynamically transforming, finite, occupied space Universe.

all else is meta-space fantasy land of mind/intellect/concepts and ego. 

ask zed. he understands logical, common sense critical thinking fairly well also
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,509
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
Even Jesus could not prove he was God.
- He wasn't. God =/= man. God is a necessary being, therefore can not be contingent. Claiming God is man is saying God is not God, which is a contraction.
The Christians didn’t need proof that Jesus was God. Jesus said “I am.” At his trial and that was exactly what God said to Moses.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
The Christians didn’t need proof that Jesus was God. Jesus said “I am.” At his trial and that was exactly what God said to Moses.
- So, you drop everything else Jesus (pbuh) did & said: in praying to God, calling "my God", that only the Father knows the Hour & he doesn't, to not call him good for only God is good... etc & hold on to the two words "I am" mentioned in the Gospel of John, allegedly written by someone 60 years after Jesus (pbuh)'s death in a language other than John's tongue -Greek- by an author nobody really knows who he is, found in a manuscript dated 300 years after Jesus (pbuh)'s death; which btw is said by others in that same book... & INSIST this "I am" is the true unequivocal declaration of Jesus (pbuh) that he is God Himself in the flesh, as metaphysically impossible as that is. OK!


Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,509
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
The Christians didn’t need proof that Jesus was God. Jesus said “I am.” At his trial and that was exactly what God said to Moses.

- So, you drop everything else Jesus (pbuh) did & said: in praying to God, calling "my God", that only the Father knows the Hour & he doesn't, to not call him good for only God is good... etc & hold on to the two words "I am" mentioned in the Gospel of John, allegedly written by someone 60 years after Jesus (pbuh)'s death in a language other than John's tongue -Greek- by an author nobody really knows who he is, found in a manuscript dated 300 years after Jesus (pbuh)'s death; which btw is said by others in that same book... & INSIST this "I am" is the true unequivocal declaration of Jesus (pbuh) that he is God Himself in the flesh, as metaphysically impossible as that is. OK!
Who Did Jesus Claim To Be?
Examining what Jesus said about Himself.

Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say I am?” The impact of His life begs the same question to you today—who do you say Jesus is? But perhaps the answer resides in what Jesus said about Himself. There is plenty of evidence of Christ’s divinity in Scripture, such as His miracles, but let’s zero in on what Jesus claimed about Himself:

He claimed that He was Lord of the Sabbath with the authority over it (Mark 2:23-28).

He took the divine name “I AM” for Himself (John 8:58, from Exodus 3:14).

He said that the way to the Father is through Him (Matthew 11:27, John 14:1-7).

He made Himself equal with God (John 5:18).

He claimed that whoever saw Him saw the Father (John 14:9).

When He was given the opportunity to correct people treating Him as if He were God, He didn’t (Matthew 26:63-65, John 19:7-10).

He claimed to have descended from heaven (John 3:13).

He claimed to have the power to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19, 10:17-18).

He claimed to be replacing the temple (John 2:19-21), which was the place known to house God’s presence and the forgiveness of sins.

He claimed to share “glory” with God before the world existed (John 17:5).

He claimed to be sent from Heaven (John 6:38, John 4:34, John 3:13).

He claimed He would send His angels (Matthew 13:41, Luke 12:8-9).

He claimed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5).

He assumed the authority to judge the world (Mark 14:62) and that one’s attitude toward Him would impact the end of their life (Matthew 10:32-33).

He claimed to be perfectly sinless (John 8:46).

He claimed that to know Him was to know God (John 8:19), to see Him was to see God (John 12:45), and to receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37).

He claimed, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:29-33), which was not lost on Jewish listeners, who responded, “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (verse 33).

In His teachings, He consistently demonstrated authority over the Law, or Torah, most notably in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
Who Did Jesus Claim To Be?
Examining what Jesus said about Himself.

Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say I am?” The impact of His life begs the same question to you today—who do you say Jesus is? But perhaps the answer resides in what Jesus said about Himself. There is plenty of evidence of Christ’s divinity in Scripture, such as His miracles, but let’s zero in on what Jesus claimed about Himself:

- Suspiciously, all the dubious passages are in John, the last Gospel. But for the sake of argument let's see:

He claimed that He was Lord of the Sabbath with the authority over it (Mark 2:23-28).
- "Ben Adem" just means Mankind or a human being, literally. We have plenty of such references in our scripture as well, we don't jump to calling everything God.

He took the divine name “I AM” for Himself (John 8:58, from Exodus 3:14).
- Means he existed before Abraham, not existed with God. Contradicts your claim.

He said that the way to the Father is through Him (Matthew 11:27, John 14:1-7).
- As any prophet, & no God, would say, by design. Contradicts your claim.

He made Himself equal with God (John 5:18).
- No. "My Father is at His work, and I too am working." is not "I am equal to God".

He claimed that whoever saw Him saw the Father (John 14:9).
- Yes, something a prophet would say. We have such references as well in our scripture too.

When He was given the opportunity to correct people treating Him as if He were God, He didn’t (Matthew 26:63-65, John 19:7-10).
- No. This is literally proof that he was the messiah. They had anticipation about a prophet or a messiah. 

He claimed to have descended from heaven (John 3:13).
- And? Angels do, as do prophets sometimes.

He claimed to have the power to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19, 10:17-18).
- That's a miracle. God works through His creations. Others in the Bible did too, & many extraordinary things.

He claimed to be replacing the temple (John 2:19-21), which was the place known to house God’s presence and the forgiveness of sins.

He claimed to share “glory” with God before the world existed (John 17:5).
- He was praying to God. This, like everything else contradicts your claims.

He claimed to be sent from Heaven (John 6:38, John 4:34, John 3:13).
- Literally a prophet, NOT God.

He claimed He would send His angels (Matthew 13:41, Luke 12:8-9).
- This is funny to me, because we have similar passages in our scriptures, yet I am in awe of the Christians' ability to read impossibilities into them.

He claimed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5).
- This is very common speak among prophets, for they have divine inspiration to know wether sin are forgiven.

He assumed the authority to judge the world (Mark 14:62) and that one’s attitude toward Him would impact the end of their life (Matthew 10:32-33).

He claimed to be perfectly sinless (John 8:46).

He claimed that to know Him was to know God (John 8:19), to see Him was to see God (John 12:45), and to receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37).

He claimed, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:29-33), which was not lost on Jewish listeners, who responded, “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (verse 33).

In His teachings, He consistently demonstrated authority over the Law, or Torah, most notably in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
- Yeah, everything you said contradicts your claim. For such a central creed in Christianity, the Trinity, why didn't Jesus just say "I am a triune God" so consistently that no doubt is left, just like Tawhid is mentioned virtually every page in the Quran.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,310
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

If Jesus was God why did he say, "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me" ?


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,696
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
And what did Mary say to daft Joe?

Jesus!

I'm pregnant, for God's sake.


Yep, these things quickly get misinterpreted.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,509
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
- Yeah, everything you said contradicts your claim. For such a central creed in Christianity, the Trinity, why didn't Jesus just say "I am a triune God" so consistently that no doubt is left, just like Tawhid is mentioned virtually every page in the Quran.

Unlike Jesus who performed miracles. It is not the Qur'an itself that says the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not perform miracles. So the verse does not deny that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ever showed them signs. The verse only says that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not show the signs they specifically asked for.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
Unlike Jesus who performed miracles.
- Perform miracles =/= God. 

 It is not the Qur'an itself that says the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not perform miracles.
- The beloved Prophet (pbuh) did perform miracles. Some of which reported independently by dozens of witnesses.

So the verse does not deny that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ever showed them signs. The verse only says that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not show the signs they specifically asked for.
- Yes. And?

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,696
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
Hi Yas, just waiting to see if you have something to say.

If I don't here soon, I just will assume that you have run out of ideas.

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4

Hi Yas, just waiting to see if you have something to say.
If I don't here soon, I just will assume that you have run out of ideas.
For sure, which is a distinction between a mind concept and actuality, and how the atheist or non-theist  might also see things.
- The world is not contingent on your thoughts, & certainly God is not contingent on you or anything else.

Obviously as a non-theist I can still appreciate the possibility of a metaphysical interventionist entity.
- Well, there you have it. That possibility is a necessity.

Whereas the traditional Abrahamic theist accepts a God not as a possibility, but as a metaphysical certainty.
- I agree, Christians tend to identify the necessary being first cause as God, then unjustifiably jump to say this being is identical to the Biblical God. – Although this objection may be valid & indeed it is against Christianity & other faiths, it isn't against Islam. Here is how we postulate this:
P1. The necessary being is.
D1. God is the necessary being.
P2. God is singular absolute transcendent.
D2. Allah is the singular absolute transcendent necessary being
P3. God is Allah.
C. Allah is.

- Defence:
P1. God/first cause/necessary being/ultimate reality... proofs.
D1. Definition of God.
P2. A necessary being is not contingent. Therefore, not complex nor multiple, nor limited, nor intersects with contingent beings. Therefore, singular (simple & unique), absolute, & transcendent (disjoint from all contingent beings)
D2. Definition of Allah in the Quran. From surah 112: 1."Say: He is Allah, the One and Only" – singular • 2."Allah, the Eternal, Absolute" – absolute • 3."He begetteth not, nor is He begotten" – necessary • 4."And there is none like unto Him" – transcendent.
P3. Identity.

Therein attributing said GOD with distinctly male human characteristics and qualities.
- That's categorically prohibited in Islam: "there is no thing like unto Him". <= the original verse in Arabic, as short as it is (ليس كمثله شيء), actually expresses 7 consecutive negatives between thing & Him. It is the most expressive negative in the Arabic language, to maximally emphasize how all things & God are not at all the same stuff. – Some non-Sunni "Muslims", namely Wahhabis & their predecessor sect (Muqatilia), who are anthropomorphists, like to attribute human characteristics to God. The founder of this sect Muqatil Ibn Suleiman was a ex-Jew convert to Islam, so he brought his anthropomorphism with him from the Torah/Bible into Islam.

GOD created by man, in the image of man...And as a kid, I was subjected to theistic conditioning, wherein GOD was always portrayed and illustrated as such.
- Yeah, no. That's blasphemous in Islam. But it could've been just a mistranslation like many other Christian creeds. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) said: "God created Adam in his image" – 'his' here referring to Adam, not God. That is, God created Adam not as an embryo that grew to a full fledge human being, rather as the full final form of the human being Adam.

A despite what you say, I doubt that there are many Muslim kids who are not similarly inspired.
- I've never had an image of God in my head... I imagine the same goes for other Muslims in similar upbringing. Kids will not put an image of God in their heads unless instructed to do so.

So, if  GOD is not a man, then what is it?
- God is the necessary being. By definition, an entirely different kind of being from all else. God does not & can not have a form, lest be contingent, thus not-God. God does not occupy space or time, for God is contingent on neither & these themselves are contingent on God. 

I would suggest an indefinite metaphysical principle, which is an idea that I as a non-theist can happily run with and hypothesise about at length. Though in order to do so, I see absolutely  no reason to join a theistic club and subject myself to a bizarrely unnecessary ritualistic routine, in reverence to an indefinite metaphysical uncertainty.
- God is, regardless of your reasons.

So:
"Islam rejects characterising god in any human form or depicting HIM as."
"HE created  human beings."
"Nothing is comparable to HIM."
D'oh...Pronouns Homer, prounouns.
- Human language... Though in Arabic it's neutral. – 'Him' 'God' is just word referring to God, not the ultimate reality that is God; the same way 'fire' is just a word referring to fire, not the actual fire that burns you.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,696
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
For sure, contingency is merely a life time of process.

And why is a possibility necessarily a necessity?

And the rest is a latter day version of a previous version of......

And as wordy as it maybe, it still doesn't prove a sausage.

And a GOD maybe, regardless of my suggestions.

And your suggestions too.

Or maybe not.

Such is the bottom line of all these GOD hypotheses.

And "Instructing kids" is about the strength of it.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,509
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
Unlike Jesus who performed miracles.
- Perform miracles =/= God. 

 It is not the Qur'an itself that says the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not perform miracles.
- The beloved Prophet (pbuh) did perform miracles. Some of which reported independently by dozens of witnesses.

So the verse does not deny that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ever showed them signs. The verse only says that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not show the signs they specifically asked for.
- Yes. And?
The prophet Mohammad was illiterate and could not read the Quran.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure, contingency is merely a life time of process.
And why is a possibility necessarily a necessity?
- 'It is possible that a necessary being exists' is equivalent to 'it is necessary that a necessary being exists'. 

And the rest is a latter day version of a previous version of......

And as wordy as it maybe, it still doesn't prove a sausage.

And a GOD maybe, regardless of my suggestions.

And your suggestions too.

Or maybe not.

Such is the bottom line of all these GOD hypotheses.

And "Instructing kids" is about the strength of it.
- Ok. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,696
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine


Possible and necessary are not synonymous.

Necessity implies need

Possibility says maybe.

So one could say that an interventionist creator maybe needed.

Or maybe not.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,509
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
The prophet Mohammad was illiterate and could not read the Quran.
So he didn’t know what was written in the Quran.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4

Possible and necessary are not synonymous.

Necessity implies need

Possibility says maybe.
- If you don't get it, then you don't. Move along.

So one could say that an interventionist creator maybe needed.
Or maybe not.
- That's not what a necessary being is, by definition. You don't seem to understand what these things mean. Oh well.

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,198
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
So he didn’t know what was written in the Quran.
- Shila, again, is this a question or a objection? – The Quran is a Recitation, the word 'quran' itself literally means 'recitation'. The written form is a secondary medium. Even if there was no written version of the Quran it wouldn't change much, since just as many would still memorize the Quran as a recitation. & no, the beloved Prophet (pbuh) was indeed aware of what is written because the scribes would recite the transcribed passages back to him for confirmation, as reported in several narrations. He (pbuh) also had many scribes, as many as 42. 

TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 385
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Yassine
That's not what a necessary being is, by definition.
A being is only necessary IF there is no other possible explanation. Stephen Hawking articulated a possible explanation for the universe whereby the laws of physics explain everything, negating the need for a creator.

Being unable to think of another explanation does not mean one does not exist. Until all other possibilities are eliminated, a creator is a possibility, not a necessity.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,696
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
Oh well.

I could say the same about you Yas.


A necessary being, is a solely word based concept relative to the ongoing uncertainty of an unnecessary but seemingly necessary acceptance of a particular genre of  unverifiable creation and existence theory.

Basically a GOD exists because it cannot not exist.

Though we can replace the word GOD with any other word/s.

How about cosmic super-banana?



Of course, The necessary being was inevitably regarded as  "HIM", relative to our own predicament...


So, Mr Cosmic Super-Banana it is then.







Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,509
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Yassine
So he didn’t know what was written in the Quran.
- Shila, again, is this a question or a objection? – The Quran is a Recitation, the word 'quran' itself literally means 'recitation'. The written form is a secondary medium. Even if there was no written version of the Quran it wouldn't change much, since just as many would still memorize the Quran as a recitation. & no, the beloved Prophet (pbuh) was indeed aware of what is written because the scribes would recite the transcribed passages back to him for confirmation, as reported in several narrations. He (pbuh) also had many scribes, as many as 42. 
So the Prophet Mohammad used the transcribed version of the Quran read to him by many scribes. But never read the Quran directly.
Is Jesus a prophet in Islam?
Jesus in Islam 
The Quran places Jesus among the greatest prophets and mentions him with various titles.