A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God

Author: ludofl3x

Posts

Total: 1,007
#601
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Yassine
Funny, I would argue (and have) the same attributes (1-4) for the God of Christianity
- Almost, but not quite. Christianity adds an extra couple things, Intelligent Omnibenevolent God, which the Quran does not decree.
Intelligence goes without speaking, but where do you find a specific reference to His intelligence in the Bible?

I don't understand. Is Allah not all good and are some of the things done by Allah evil?



yet the teaching of the Qu'ran and the Bible differ in many respects so do you think we are speaking of the same God or that one of us is not worshiping God as He truly is?
- I believe we are worshipping the same God, of course in different terms. Arab Christians & Jews call God Allah as well, just like Muslims: "To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)
How can we worship the same God when what we believe about Him differ? I accept that you call God Allah. 

The teachings of Jesus state:

John 4:22-24 (NASB)
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 
24 God is 
spirit
, and those who worship Him must worship
 in spirit and truth.”


If we are not worshiping God as He truly is then are we not committing idolatry, a false concept of God? If so, then how can you say we are all worshiping the same God if one of us identifies Him as all good in all He does and the other does not?


What we have in common is what we as Christians call the OT. Both religions acknowledge the OT yet the teachings of both religions contradict each other many times. 
- That is true. Of course we don't believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), in his crucifixion or resurrection ; though we believe he is the Messiah & of virgin birth.
Those underlined points are key/vital truths of Christianity. This brings me to another point - do you have to earn salvation in Islam and how would you know you have achieved a right standing with God/Allah? IOW's, is your acceptance with God/Allah based on what you do?

 


As a Christian, I believe that Mohammed was influenced by Christianity but here again the teachings differ from the NT teaching in what is contained in the Qu'ran.  
- The thing about Islam is that it does not deny in other religion. On the contrary, it approves of all God's religions, Christianity or Judaism or Zoroastrianism...etc. We believe these are actually all one religion, that is Islam, with slightly different paths, though most have not been perfectly preserved.


So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?
#602
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I notice that swarm predictions require no interpretation(read room for error) they simply state a result and poof 94% accurate. 
I think this would be great for jury deliberations and remote controlled drone strikes. [LINK] and [LINK]
#603
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Example B restated: (IFF) a creator god is the only thing that exists necessarily (AND) nothing exists that this god hath not wrought (THEN) everything is necessarily comprised wholly of bits of this type of proposed creator god.
Example B is somewhat like a pantheistic view of "god" as all and in all and on par with what is (i.e., not transcendent). It would be like saying that a painting is part of the artist instead of created by the artist, or the painting and the artist are one, or the painting is derived from the same substance. A painting does not have the DNA of the artist, does it? Granted, it requires the artist for its existence.
Imagine an artist, floating in a vast blackness of empty space.  This artist wants to create a work of art.  What do you think they will use to create this magnum opus?
Since it is your scenario, and I have no idea of how it relates to the above, you tell me, then I will discuss whether I think it is reasonable or not. 


Example A restated: (IFF) a god is fundamentally separate from the material realm (THEN) such a god cannot possibly interact with the material realm in any way whatsoever.
Why? 

God is separate in His nature from the material realm. God is also not created whereas the material realm would be. The universe is contingent [i.e., occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on] on something else for its existence. God is not. 
A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence.
Your hypothesis makes no sense.

First, you are assuming He is hypothetical based on your logic above. Second, why can't the biblical God interact with what He creates?

If you make something it did not exist in the form you made it before you made it. 

He is similar in some ways (i.e., reason, logic, personal, conscious) yet His essential nature is different in other ways, just like your nature is different from that of a bird since you can fly - it is not in your nature. You have a physicality to your nature, He does not. You have a beginning to your nature, He does not. Thus, you are created, He is not. The universe has a beginning, He does not. 
 

An interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally 100% of existence.
And what makes you think the biblical God is not interactive in every aspect of His creation?

Acts 17:24-30
24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”


A non-interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally indistinguishable from non-existent (it can't see or know us and we can't see or know it).



#604
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I like the atheist reason of a random chance universe coming into existence for who knows what as not magical. 
An unknown/unknowable "first cause" has exactly the same utility and explanatory power as "god(s)".
The Christian God is knowable. He reasons with humanity in both by 1) what He has made and 2) by His written word. 

1) Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.

I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,

in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.





If I say "unknown/unknowable-first-cause" (noumenon) and you say "god(s)", THEN WHAT?

Which one of us knows "more" about our universe?
What do you truly know about it and how did you come to this knowledge? Which theory of the universe do you hold to? Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists? 


How are theses explanations FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT?

What do you mean?
#605
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?

So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to christianity then which one is right/true?

So, when another religion teaches something similar to christianity/islam then what makes it right/true?


#606
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?

So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to christianity then which one is right/true?
The question becomes how reasonable are the teachings of another religion and how well are they verified?

I contend only for the Judea-Christian teachings as true. So name your religion and let's see how consistent it is to what is reasonable and logical to believe. 


So, when another religion teaches something similar to christianity/islam then what makes it right/true?

Only if what is said is true. What exactly are you comparing? When this gentleman explained his Islamic belief, how well did it stack up to the Christian belief? His religious view has similarities, like the virgin birth which we agree upon, and his denial of the Trinity which we disagree with or the resurrection (a doctrine the Christian faith is built upon). His religious belief comes 600 years later. What is the evidence for that belief being true in its interpretation of Christianity? What do both testaments teach in terms of the Trinity, either overtly or by implication and deductions? 

#607
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Islam is much closer to Judaism than it is to Christianity.  My cynicised view is that the mohammedan empire created Islam from scratch as a unifying creed based on the model of Judaism.  It was given some tweaks to make it distinct from Judaism, most noticeably by including Jesus as a prophet.

In my view Islam originated as a political tool, but it gained a life of its own when people started believing in it.

#608
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok let's focus on just one difference. The trinity. How do you know that Christianity is correct regarding the trinity and Islam is incorrect regarding the trinity? Can you independently verify the trinity?

#609
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Imagine an artist, floating in a vast blackness of empty space.  This artist wants to create a work of art.  What do you think they will use to create this magnum opus?
Since it is your scenario, and I have no idea of how it relates to the above, you tell me, then I will discuss whether I think it is reasonable or not. 
The artist (that is the only thing in existence) would necessarily be required to create any work of art out of itself.  Perhaps it could use some strands of hair to form a brush and perhaps some blood and saliva for paint, and perhaps a patch of skin for a canvas. 

A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence.
Your hypothesis makes no sense.

First, you are assuming He is hypothetical based on your logic above. Second, why can't the biblical God interact with what He creates? 
Of course this god is hypothetical, that does not invalidate the logic.  The point isn't that "the biblical god can't interact".  The point is that you have to pick one or the other.  (IFF) such a god is the sole creator of everything (THEN) everything is pieces parts of god and as such this type of god CAN interact with those pieces parts of itself.  On the other hand, (IFF) such a god is supposedly "transcendent" or otherwise fundamentally separate from the material realm and the material realm is NOT part of god (THEN) such a god would never be able to interact with or observe the material realm and anything and everything in the material realm would never be able to interact with or observe such a god.

If you make something it did not exist in the form you made it before you made it. 
The key question here is, "what did god make everything out of?"

He is similar in some ways (i.e., reason, logic, personal, conscious) yet His essential nature is different in other ways, just like your nature is different from that of a bird since you can fly - it is not in your nature. You have a physicality to your nature, He does not. You have a beginning to your nature, He does not. Thus, you are created, He is not. The universe has a beginning, He does not. 
Certainly such a god would not be LIMITED TO the material realm, but it also cannot logically be EXCLUDED FROM the material realm (without also necessarily excluding it from all possible observation and or interaction with the material realm).
 
An interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally 100% of existence.
And what makes you think the biblical God is not interactive in every aspect of His creation?
I'm not saying that a god CANNOT be interactive.  I'm saying that a god cannot be interactive AND transcendent (not 100% of everything).
#610
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
609 posts to day. Some religions name a creator god and some don't. Atheists, doing it the wrong way again. 
#611
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
An unknown/unknowable "first cause" has exactly the same utility and explanatory power as "god(s)".
The Christian God is knowable. He reasons with humanity in both by 1) what He has made and 2) by His written word. 
The holy scriptures have no coherent explanation for the formation of our universe.  The holy scriptures have no coherent version of the scientific method.  The holy scriptures do not contain a coherent description of what we call the laws of physics (Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica).

If I say "unknown/unknowable-first-cause" (noumenon) and you say "god(s)", THEN WHAT?

Which one of us knows "more" about our universe?
What do you truly know about it and how did you come to this knowledge?
I know what is within our epistemological limits.  I have confidence in these conclusions because of the demonstrable efficacy of logic, mathematics, and the scientific method.

As far as speculation about what may or may not be beyond our current epistemological limits, I do not hesitate to say, "nobody knows".

Which theory of the universe do you hold to?
The one supported by verifiable data.

Why is your view the necessary view of how and why the universe exists? 
Because it is consistent with logic and mathematics and the scientific method, validated by verifiable efficacy.

How are theses explanations FUNCTIONALLY DISTINCT?
What do you mean?
When someone asks, "what existed or happened BEFORE the big-bang?"

And you say "god"

And I say "nobody knows"

These answers are FUNCTIONALLY identical.

Your answer does not logically necessitate ANY modification to our daily behavior.

Your answer does not reveal any useful or actionable data or insights.

Saying, "god did it" is functionally identical to saying, "nobody knows". [LINK]

I understand that when you say, "god did it" you try to add "therefore we must obey the teachings written in some old book".

But you have yet to bridge that incomprehensible gap with any sort of (even tacitly) coherent argument.
#612
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
609 posts to day. Some religions name a creator god and some don't. Atheists, doing it the wrong way again.
Are gods in your philosophical framework like a room full of toddlers, all making incoherent claims?

"I'm the best", "no, I'm the best", "I'm the only god", "no you're not", "I was first", "no, I was first"...
#613
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Atheists are like a room full of toddlers. I said nothing about gods. 
#614
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Atheists are like a room full of toddlers. I said nothing about gods. 
Your contribution to this particular topic is greatly appreciated.
#615
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't really give a shit. 
Topic's author
#616
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
We'd have never guessed. So let me get this straight, you got banned, for at least the second time, then spent that time plotting the pettiest revenge of all time, returning here and going right back to completely inane non-contributions to every discussion? Sounds like someone didn't learn her lesson! 
#617
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser

Islam is much closer to Judaism than it is to Christianity. 
While I would agree, it has also misrepresented the OT. 

One such teaching where the Qur'an is mistaken is the teaching regarding the patriarchs found here:

To quote from the above:

"And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, ‘I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants.’" Genesis 28:13
Here, God identifies himself to Jacob as the God his fathers, Abraham and Isaac. Obviously, when Jacob is addressed, God only refers to his fathers and Jacob’s own name is not yet part of the reference.
"He blessed Joseph, and said, ‘The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day,’" Genesis 48:15
In the above passage Jacob is addressing Yahweh as the God of his fathers and could not, therefore, call him the God of Jacob since he couldn’t call himself his own father! However, when addressing later generations, i.e. when God reveals himself to Moses and calls him to become his prophet/spokesman/the leader of Israel, he uses this identification:
"He said also, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God." Exodus 3:6
"Go and gather the elders of Israel together and say to them, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, "I am indeed concerned about you and what has been done to you in Egypt."’" Exodus 3:16
"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him." Acts 3:13
The Quran also uses these same expressions:
When Joseph said to his father, 'Father, I saw eleven stars, and the sun and the moon; I saw them bowing down before me.' He said, 'O my son, relate not thy vision to thy brothers, lest they devise against thee some guile. Surely Satan is to man a manifest enemy. So will thy Lord choose thee, and teach thee the interpretation of tales, and perfect His blessing upon thee and upon the House of Jacob, as He perfected it formerly on thy fathers Abraham and Isaac; surely thy Lord is All-knowing, All-wise.' S. 12:4-6
And I have followed the creed of my fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not ours is it to associate aught with God. That is of God's bounty to us, and to men; but most men are not thankful. S. 12:38
As anyone can see, the expression "your father(s)" along with the naming of the Patriarchs is obviously referring to the progenitors of Israel, to the ancestral line from whence the nation came. Abraham begot Isaac who in turn begot Jacob, who had twelve sons that became the nation or children of Israel. Interestingly, the Israelites are called the "Bani Israel" in the Quran. However, where on earth does this name come from? In the Bible it is clear, God himself gave Jacob the name Israel (Genesis 32:24-30). So his descendants are the children of Israel. But does the Quran explain anywhere why the Israelites are called Israelites?

***

#618
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Same source as the previous post:

With all that behind us we can now turn our attention to the Quran and see how it once again gets its expressions and history jumbled up. The Quran contradicts this biblical pattern, and itself, by mentioning Ishmael as one of Jacob’s fathers!
And Abraham charged his sons with this and Jacob likewise: 'My sons, God has chosen for you the religion; see that you die not save in surrender.' Why, were you witnesses, when death came to Jacob? When he said to his sons, 'What will you serve after me?' They said, 'We will serve thy God and the God of thy fathers Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, One God; to Him we surrender.' S. 2:132-133
Since Ishmael wasn’t one of the progenitors of Jacob, who became known as Israel, the name by which his descendants were called, nor was he part of the covenant blessing:
"Then God said to Abraham, As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. ‘I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.’ Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’ And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh that Ishmael might live before You!’ But God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.’" Genesis 17:15-21
The Quran is therefore blatantly wrong here.
But there are further problems with these Quranic statements. We said that the expression "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" refers to Israel’s ancestry. More specifically, the expression refers to biological relations shared by the three in that Abraham fathered Isaac who in turn fathered Jacob. The expression clearly refers to father, son and grandson. Taking the statements of the Quran seriously we are left to conclude that the author thought that Abraham fathered Ishmael who in turn begot Isaac who then fathered Jacob! Notice once again what the text says:
Were you present when death came to Jacob, when he said to his sons. ‘What will you worship after me?’ They answered, ‘We will worship thy God, the God of thy fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, the One God; and to HIM we submit ourselves.’ S. 2:133 Sher Ali
There is further support for this interpretation from the following texts:
Or do you say, ‘Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes -- they were Jews, or they were Christians’? Say: ‘Have you then greater knowledge, or God? And who does greater evil than he who conceals a testimony received from God? And God is not heedless of the things you do.’ S. 2:140
Say: 'We believe in God, and that which has been sent down on us, and sent down on Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.' S. 3:84
We have revealed to thee as We revealed to Noah, and the Prophets after him, and We revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, Jesus and Job, Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave to David Psalms, S. 4:163
Note the pattern here. Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve tribes are all listed consecutively. In fact, this is the only consistent pattern in all of these verses, since the Quran jumbles the timeline by mixing together different prophets from different periods. For instance, no one will doubt that the following text is structured sequentially in terms of lineage:
Remember also Our servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- men of might they and of vision. Assuredly We purified them with a quality most pure, the remembrance of the Abode, and in Our sight they are of the chosen, the excellent. S. 38:45-47
No one would have a problem in understanding that the above text means that Abraham fathered Isaac who begot Jacob. We know from the Holy Bible that Isaac fathered Jacob and that the latter then had twelve sons that became the twelve tribes forming the nation of Israel.
The foregoing strongly implies that the author thought that, much like Isaac begot Jacob, Ishmael begot the former who in turn was begotten by Abraham! Putting it simply, these passages presuppose the following sequence:
Abraham fathered Ishmael who fathered Isaac who fathered Jacob who fathered the twelve tribes.
It is obvious that the Quran is confused.


***

There are some good articles on the differences for those who want to read more:


My cynicised view is that the mohammedan empire created Islam from scratch as a unifying creed based on the model of Judaism.  It was given some tweaks to make it distinct from Judaism, most noticeably by including Jesus as a prophet.

In my view Islam originated as a political tool, but it gained a life of its own when people started believing in it.




#619
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok let's focus on just one difference. The trinity. How do you know that Christianity is correct regarding the trinity and Islam is incorrect regarding the trinity? Can you independently verify the trinity?

I can show a reasoned belief of the Trinity that is present in both Testaments.

I can give you good reasons to believe the Qur'an misrepresents the biblical teachings even though it claims those teachings are inspired by Allah/God.

It is an involved process. Both tasks take a lot of time.

Christianity has many verifiable proofs, of which I like prophecy to demonstrate the reasonableness and logic of its truthfulness. There is a unity and there is explanatory power that comes from the NT in understanding the OT and fulfillment of everything predicted. I argue that OT prophecy, in large, concerns a Mosaic Covenant that does not exist after AD 70 in the prescribed form of worship. There is a constant pointing ahead in the OT to the Messiah who is given attributes that God alone has in the NT (i.e., what is said of God in the OT is said of Jesus Christ in the NT). There is also a continuous warning in the OT that I believe I can show finds its fulfillment in the NT in both the Messiah and judgment. The OT Mosaic curses can be demonstrated to have taken place with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.  

#620
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Before we go any further I would like to remind you that I asked if you can independently demonstrate the trinity.

Islam being wrong aboit the trinity would not necessarily make Christianity right.

Also and as I've said before even if we accept that there is some accurate prophecy in the bible that by itself does not tell us the source of said prophecy not does it prove that anything else in the bible is true.

That is why I ask for independent verification.
#621
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Intelligence goes without speaking, but where do you find a specific reference to His intelligence in the Bible?
- No, 'Intelligent' is not one of the attributes of Allah as decreed in the Quran, so we do not say God is intelligent. & I'm no expert in the Bible, but Christians do indeed claim God as an Intelligent Omnibenevolent being. 


I don't understand. Is Allah not all good and are some of the things done by Allah evil?
- All-Good is not an attribute of God either. In Islam, Good & Evil are relative concepts. God is not contingent on Good. We do not worship God because God is Good, for then in the absence of Good, God deserves no worship, which entails Good is what you worship, not God. God does not have to be Good or Bad, God is not subject to Morality.


How can we worship the same God when what we believe about Him differ? I accept that you call God Allah. 
- Beliefs of God =/= God. 


The teachings of Jesus state:
John 4:22-24 (NASB)
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 
24 God is 
spirit
, and those who worship Him must worship
 in spirit and truth.”
If we are not worshiping God as He truly is then are we not committing idolatry, a false concept of God? If so, then how can you say we are all worshiping the same God if one of us identifies Him as all good in all He does and the other does not?
- Indeed. I guess one of us must be wrong, "To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ." (5:48)


Those underlined points are key/vital truths of Christianity. This brings me to another point - do you have to earn salvation in Islam and how would you know you have achieved a right standing with God/Allah? IOW's, is your acceptance with God/Allah based on what you do?
- You don't earn salvation in Islam, just hope of salvation. We believe salvation rests solely on God's Mercy which we have no power over, while reward after salvation rests on our deeds.


So, when another religion teaches what is contrary to Islam then which one is right/true?
- Islam of course, for it is the last religion & the seal on all religions. When I say Islam approves all religions, I mean they were divinely revealed when revealed, which may not necessarily correspond with how they are practiced today.

#622
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
If you mean by god that god people claim to know, then yeah. Contingent means its existence is in the realm of possibility, as it may or may not exist. If it does exist, it must have an explanation for its existence. If it doesn't then it doesn't -which it doesn't, no explanation needed. 
- No. Utter retardation. Once you define God as a necessary being & proceed to demonstrate the existence of said necessary being, then you can not identify it with a contingent being. That would violate the very law of non-contradiction, it's like saying God is both contingent & non-contingent, which is a contradiction. It's just too embarrassing when retards attempt to be clever.
#623
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Saying 'thing' rather than 'being' leads to a less impressive-seeming conclusion!
As an atheist i'm easy with the idea that there's some thing underneath it all, waiting to be discovered.  But 'thing' is a lot less loaded than 'being'!  There's no reason to think that the 'thing' is in anyway god-like - it's probably more like a law of nature, such the laws of thermodynamics. 
- 'Thing' would not the proper word. When we talk of 'existence', we use 'being' from 'to be' as in 'to exist' to denote it. Nothing changes if you use the word 'thing' instead of 'being' though. Both are just labels, the meaning is the same, you might as well say '%^&##)'... As Umar (raa) says, "the fool is he who rejects the name yet accepts the meaning".


No need to suspect the 'thing' answers prayers or has views on women's clothing.
- In Islam, the majority opinion is that there is no issue in referring to God as a 'thing'.

#624
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) a god is the only thing that exists (AND) this god "made" every "thing" (THEN) such a god MUST have "made" every "thing" out of itself.
- No. God is not material...


Interact: able to communicate with, influence, or even observe in any conceivable way shape or form. 
- God is Transcendent in Self, but Immanent in Attributes.
#625
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so demonstrate that Islam is right.
- That would take a while. Any specific questions?


Don't just say "this us what Muslims believe" prove it. Why is Allah specifically necessary.
- Refer to previous post, which you conveniently deleted...


Why are Odin and Zeus not necessary.
- God as the singular necessary is *one*, unless Odin & Zeus are identical to Allah, they can not be necessary. Again, refer to previous post.


Do you have any have any objective reason to believe or just a prescriptive definition?
- Forget this nonsense of "prescriptive definition" BS. I'm speaking from philosophical terms, not English literature.
#626
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
So even though you told me you know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive you actually don't?
#627
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine an artist, floating in a vast blackness of empty space.  This artist wants to create a work of art.  What do you think they will use to create this magnum opus?
Since it is your scenario, and I have no idea of how it relates to the above, you tell me, then I will discuss whether I think it is reasonable or not. 
The artist (that is the only thing in existence) would necessarily be required to create any work of art out of itself.  Perhaps it could use some strands of hair to form a brush and perhaps some blood and saliva for paint, and perhaps a patch of skin for a canvas. 
Here again, you are equating what is in the created world/realm/order to God by the analogy. Both you and God would use their imaginations to create. The difference is that God does not use any preexisting physical material when He creates. You do unless it is a story from your mind and you use preexisting things from the material realm mostly to describe the things existing in the story unless you are imagining abstractions such as principles of logic or mathematics. 


A hypothetical god can (EITHER) be interactive and therefore fundamentally similar to all things in existence (OR) non-interactive and therefore fundamentally dissimilar to all things in existence.
Your hypothesis makes no sense.

First, you are assuming He is hypothetical based on your logic above. Second, why can't the biblical God interact with what He creates? 
Of course this god is hypothetical, that does not invalidate the logic.  The point isn't that "the biblical god can't interact".  The point is that you have to pick one or the other.
Why? Why either/or instead of and/both?

 (IFF) such a god is the sole creator of everything (THEN) everything is pieces parts of god and as such this type of god CAN interact with those pieces parts of itself.  On the other hand, (IFF) such a god is supposedly "transcendent" or otherwise fundamentally separate from the material realm and the material realm is NOT part of god (THEN) such a god would never be able to interact with or observe the material realm and anything and everything in the material realm would never be able to interact with or observe such a god.
How can something be a piece or part of God if God is immaterial and the something is material? Why can't Someone who is immaterial and omnipotent as well as omniscient produce something material by using His mind? You just presuppose this is impossible because you can't do that, yet you are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. If you are spirit as well as body then you interact with the world in both aspects of your being. If you are solely a biological material machine how do you come up with concepts that are not material but abstract and do not owe their existence to any material thing?


If you make something it did not exist in the form you made it before you made it. 
The key question here is, "what did god make everything out of?"
He imagined it into existence. Just like you can create something out of what exists by reshaping and moulding it through your imagination so God can create something physical from His imagination.


He is similar in some ways (i.e., reason, logic, personal, conscious) yet His essential nature is different in other ways, just like your nature is different from that of a bird since you can fly - it is not in your nature. You have a physicality to your nature, He does not. You have a beginning to your nature, He does not. Thus, you are created, He is not. The universe has a beginning, He does not. 
Certainly such a god would not be LIMITED TO the material realm, but it also cannot logically be EXCLUDED FROM the material realm (without also necessarily excluding it from all possible observation and or interaction with the material realm).
The Son became part of the realm He created as well as sustaining it and interacting with it, so He does not exclude Himself from it. He excludes Himself from sin and wrongful action. 

 
An interactive god is necessarily and fundamentally 100% of existence.
And what makes you think the biblical God is not interactive in every aspect of His creation?
I'm not saying that a god CANNOT be interactive.  I'm saying that a god cannot be interactive AND transcendent (not 100% of everything).


I still don't understand why not?

You are not a part of the chair in your dining room but you can interact with it. You probably did not create the chair and even if you did the chair is not you, yet you interact with it. Your being transcends the chair in a sense (although not solely in the same sense or definition that I would apply to God - including #3 especially - below) in that God and you are both conscious but you have a corporeal/bodily existence, God doe not. The chair does not have consciousness, just physical existence.

Definition of transcendent

1a: exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING
b: extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
2: being beyond comprehension
3: transcending the universe or material existence—
4: universally applicable or significant


#628
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Your god is not defined as a necessary being, you claim it is a necessary being and you have no supporting evidence for that claim. Your god is totally contingent on the people who claim it's existence as do all gods, it simply doesn't exist without that.
#629
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
So even though you told me you know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive you actually don't?
- *Sigh*... forget it. A piece of friendly advice, being an atheist doesn't give you magic powers of reason. If you wish to understand, then you need to learn. No offense, but your attempts at being clever are ridiculous. You don't understand the basics of logic, or the slightest bit of philosophy or metaphysics. It's just hard trying to explain things which you don't understand. This discussion would've been much better with just a little bit of understanding. Alas. You kewl doe.
#630
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
Your god is not defined as a necessary being, you claim it is a necessary being and you have no supporting evidence for that claim. Your god is totally contingent on the people who claim it's existence as do all gods, it simply doesn't exist without that.
- Once you define God as a necessary being & proceed to demonstrate the existence of said necessary being, then you can not identify it with a contingent being. That would violate the very law of non-contradiction, it's like saying God is both contingent & non-contingent, which is a contradiction. It's just too embarrassing when retards attempt to sound clever. ;-)