-Snip-
Interesting points you bring up. But I'll focus on the few that bothered me.
Allah is vain, violent, jealous, homophobic, sexist, petulant, angry and capricious. He is apparently also loving, merciful, wise, a deceiver (lol) and just. You say that's not a personality and I say it is. You build up four walls of brick and mortar, fit some doors and windows, insulate it, put a roof over the top, equip it with a kitchen and bathroom, decorate and furnish it, and then tell me I'm mad for calling it a house. OK. We can work with that.
Just because you see things that are like human traits doesn't make it so. God is above that. He made these traits we hold so dear. He needs not to be put in a group as these definitions simply do not apply. Gods mercy is different then that of a humans. God only used this to put a picture in our mind so we could comprehend it. So calling God things you would call another human being simply aren't applicable.
Again, a first-mover god does not even have to be capable of caring. Caring is an emotion. We care because we evolved to care. It's a childish and arrogant thought to think we are so special that we, one of millions of species, not even capable of synthesising something so simple as vitamin C because of a mutation in apes long ago, we who cannot live in most of the world, who die from falls greater than 10 feet and are often powerless at the hands of a virus, we who exist for a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things,, inhabiting a speck of dust that is orbiting one of 200 billion stars in one of 100 billion galaxies in the known Universe, wecould only have been created by an all-powerful god, who can conveniently see and hear everything, even your innermost thoughts, who is perfectly just and will reward/punish every human for their smallest of deeds, because that is the purpose of this magnificent Universe. You are the purpose of the world. Obviously.
Just because it seems selfish doesn't make it wrong. We maybe feeble creatures but it is as such that we need God more then ever. But to move something, to start something, to begin something, shows you have a once of care. You wanted to move it therefore you cared about it. If you hadn't you wouldn't to begin with.
The problem is with the first premise. My friend, you need to understand that Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages that share many common roots. My name, a classical Arabic name, has an Israeli airplane named after it. "Muhammad" in Arabic comes from the root "H-M-D". This root exists in Hebrew as well. "Muhammad" is a word in Arabic with a meaning that is used in conversation, unlike most English names. In the same way, a cognate of that word exists in Hebrew which means "desirable". This is like someone being named "Joy", and then you reading an old French text that has the word "joie" (which is the concept of "joy", happiness) in it and claiming
this means that text predicted the existence of a person named "Joy".
From
http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a08islam/song5v16.html:
"If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Moslems. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by God (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by God (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by God (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad."
Therefore, the first premise is mistaken and the argument falls.
Later on you say that *because* an ancient text (that could be right or wrong) *says* a prophet is going to rise, and a person comes and *claims* (and he could be lying or saying the truth) that he is a prophet and he ends up being the one most known/recognized/followed by the people, that this means the ancient text was right and because it is that the prophet is indeed a righteous prophet. Do you not see the circular reasoning here? I could write in a book today that someone will be able to communicate telepathically with aliens in the future. 50 years later, a person may claim to be able to do that. Can you therefore logically conclude that he must be saying the truth?
"I conformed to that by saying that it's a "infinite regression""
Wala habibi, that's basically saying *something* created Allah. And that's shirk (polytheism). For which, in Islam, you should burn for all eternity in hell. Muslims make a special case for their prime mover. But that violates Occam's Razor.
Also, do read this article, please:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.htmlIt's about the Big Bang and why it *seems* counter-intuitive to most people but why it's scientifically sound. If you found that your dog died, and you have the awesomest mom ever, you wouldn't think she killed him, right? But if you see it in a recording from a security camera? Would you follow what should "logically" (a better word would be "intuitively") be true, and claim she never harmed the dog, or would you follow the evidence and admit that for some reason she did?
But seriously, if you do nothing else, do please read that article in particular.
Cheers!
"Really? Particles pop in and out of existence from the foundation of a quantum field. One can hardly equate the quantum field with 'nothing'."
Well, matter spontaneously generating in a vacuum in a way that seemingly violates the conservation of energy principle could justly perhaps in layman's terms be described as "particles coming out of nothing", for all intents and purposes, right?
Something I just found:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.htmlI understand what you're saying but note that there are even more verses in the New Testament and the Old testament prophesying of Prophet Muhammed(PBUH). Not only are there more but they used the term "The Praised One" in which Arabic means Muhammed. Here are a few:
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you." John 16:7-14
The word "Comforter" is translated from "Paraclete"(Ho Parakletos in Greek) Parakletos in Greek is interpreted as "an advocate"
Jesus(Isa)(PBUH) is also called the "Parakleto" though in a different meaning.
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."1 John 2:1
In the Greek manuscripts the word "Parakelto" is used but when translated the translators purposely changed the meaning. Now why would that be?
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate(parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."1 John 2:1
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter(parakletos), that he may abide with you for ever" John 14:16
Now if we translated them to the same word. We have Jesus(Isa)(PBUH) being spoken of as "parakletos" and foretelling of a "parakletos".
Topic: Hey New Member