Muslims and "Circular Reasoning"

[Booklover]

Why is it that Muslims cannot see that the proof for their religion is based on circular reasoning?

In this debate on FFI between Aprakat, one of the posters on that site, and Dr. Khalid Zaheer, Aprakat asks the following question:

You do realize that claiming prophet-hood for Mohammad on authority of Quran and claiming that Quran is word of God on the authority of Mohammad is “Circular” reasoning. Don’t you? If you say that it is your subjective belief, then let us not argue about this.

Zaheer replied:

1. You haven’t gone through the process of finding out whether the claim of Qur’an is right or not. I am not too sure what circular argument is, but I tell you that whoever reads the Qur’an with an open mind will have no doubt even today that is the word of God. I am saying this because a reader cannot miss the fact that book is claiming right from the beginning that the messenger who has brought it will prevail over his enemies like the earlier messengers did.

If I rephrase my questions: who said that Quran was word of God? You would say, “Mohammad”. Who said that Mohammad was a messenger? Again Mohammad. Though he claimed that Allah was using him to pass this message. Can these statements be considered as a proof enough? If yes, then by what logic?

The proof of Islam’s veracity is neither subjective nor objective. It is like the moon of the first evening of the lunar calendar: It is visible, but only to those who want to see it. For those who don’t to see it, it’s not there. Unwillingness to see the moon (and the Qur’an’s truth) can be caused by a number of reasons including a strong emotional prejudice against Islam.

Does this kind of “reasoning” make sense? Is this the kind of “proof” that Muslims find convincing?

Vickie

 

[Mirdath]

What’s so surprising about that? Christianity justifies itself based on the bible in exactly the same way. Catholicism adds a second loop for the papal succession, but it’s the same reasoning: we’re right because this says we’re right, nevermind that we came up with it.

If that reasoning makes sense to Christians when applied to Christianity, why shouldn’t it make sense to Muslims when applied to Islam?

 

[inJESUS]

from a theological point of view, one thing is sure though :Jesus and the NT have the eyewitness and support of previous scriptures that Islam and Muhammad do not have.

 

[Contarini]

Why is it that Muslims cannot see that the proof for their religion is based on circular reasoning?

In this debate on FFI between Aprakat, one of the posters on that site, and Dr. Khalid Zaheer, Aprakat asks the following question:

You do realize that claiming prophet-hood for Mohammad on authority of Quran and claiming that Quran is word of God on the authority of Mohammad is “Circular” reasoning. Don’t you? If you say that it is your subjective belief, then let us not argue about this.

Zaheer replied:

1. You haven’t gone through the process of finding out whether the claim of Qur’an is right or not. I am not too sure what circular argument is, but I tell you that whoever reads the Qur’an with an open mind will have no doubt even today that is the word of God. I am saying this because a reader cannot miss the fact that book is claiming right from the beginning that the messenger who has brought it will prevail over his enemies like the earlier messengers did.

If I rephrase my questions: who said that Quran was word of God? You would say, “Mohammad”. Who said that Mohammad was a messenger? Again Mohammad. Though he claimed that Allah was using him to pass this message. Can these statements be considered as a proof enough? If yes, then by what logic?

The proof of Islam’s veracity is neither subjective nor objective. It is like the moon of the first evening of the lunar calendar: It is visible, but only to those who want to see it. For those who don’t to see it, it’s not there. Unwillingness to see the moon (and the Qur’an’s truth) can be caused by a number of reasons including a strong emotional prejudice against Islam.

Does this kind of “reasoning” make sense? Is this the kind of “proof” that Muslims find convincing?

Vickie

I don’t see circular reasoning in that quote. I see an argument that the Qur’an is self-evidently God’s Word. To which I can only respond that it doesn’t seem so to me. Of course, then they will say that it only works in Arabic. Well, when I learn Arabic (which I would like to do) I will be in a position to speak about that!

Edwin

 

[inJESUS]

I don’t see circular reasoning in that quote. I see an argument that the Qur’an is self-evidently God’s Word. To which I can only respond that it doesn’t seem so to me. Of course, then they will say that it only works in Arabic. Well, when I learn Arabic (which I would like to do) I will be in a position to speak about that!

Edwin

i know Arabic and my position is clear

 

[OneAugustKnight]

You could point out the contradictions and mistakes in the Qu’ran and say it isn’t perfect, therefore can’t be from God, therefore Muhammad can’t be a prophet of God. The same circular logic used to confirm it can also be used to refute it.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Hi Vickie,

No, that kind of “reasoning” does not make sense.

Unfortunately, muslims have no reason to believe what they do; They just believe with blind faith.

Unlike muslims, the scriptures for christians was revealed with Prophecy. (Prophecy is God’s signature because it reveals stories about the future that came true, and nobody can claim to know the future except for God.)

Muslim’s scripture was revealed by Muhammed. Who the heck was Muhammed and why should we believe he was a messenger of God? Nobody can answer that question.

 

[inJESUS]

Hi Vickie,

No, that kind of “reasoning” does not make sense.

Unfortunately, muslims have no reason to believe what they do; They just believe with blind faith.

Unlike muslims, the scriptures for christians was revealed with Prophecy. (Prophecy is God’s signature because it reveals stories about the future that came true, and nobody can claim to know the future except for God.)

Muslim’s scripture was revealed by Muhammed. Who the heck was Muhammed and why should we believe he was a messenger of God? Nobody can answer that question.

yep. When we have the previous scriptures to back up our belief since they show the Old Covenant and it’s fulfillment in the New in the person of the Messiah, in other words, we have scriptures that complement and back up each other in prophecies, themes and fulfillments, Muslims’ belief is usually based on the beauty of the Quran, the corruption of everything else, the “feeling” that the Quran is the word of God; i wouldn’t know how to differetiate between Muhammad and Joseph Smith for that matter.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why is it that Muslims cannot see that the proof for their religion is based on circular reasoning?

In this debate on FFI between Aprakat, one of the posters on that site, and Dr. Khalid Zaheer, Aprakat asks the following question:

You do realize that claiming prophet-hood for Mohammad on authority of Quran and claiming that Quran is word of God on the authority of Mohammad is “Circular” reasoning. Don’t you? If you say that it is your subjective belief, then let us not argue about this.

Zaheer replied:

1. You haven’t gone through the process of finding out whether the claim of Qur’an is right or not. I am not too sure what circular argument is, but I tell you that whoever reads the Qur’an with an open mind will have no doubt even today that is the word of God. I am saying this because a reader cannot miss the fact that book is claiming right from the beginning that the messenger who has brought it will prevail over his enemies like the earlier messengers did.

If I rephrase my questions: who said that Quran was word of God? You would say, “Mohammad”. Who said that Mohammad was a messenger? Again Mohammad. Though he claimed that Allah was using him to pass this message. Can these statements be considered as a proof enough? If yes, then by what logic?

The proof of Islam’s veracity is neither subjective nor objective. It is like the moon of the first evening of the lunar calendar: It is visible, but only to those who want to see it. For those who don’t to see it, it’s not there. Unwillingness to see the moon (and the Qur’an’s truth) can be caused by a number of reasons including a strong emotional prejudice against Islam.

Does this kind of “reasoning” make sense? Is this the kind of “proof” that Muslims find convincing?

Vickie

Hi

For your pleasure, I have prepared a parody (please don’t mind) of your above post, see if you like it, or you suggest any changes.
Thanks

Catholics and "Circular Reasoning

Why is it that Catholics cannot see that the proof for their religion is based on circular reasoning?

In this imaginary debate on FFI between Aprakat one of the posters on that site, and Dr. KZ asks the following question:

You do realize that claiming deity for Jesus on authority of NTBible and claiming that NTBible is word of God on the authority of Jesus is a “Circular” reasoning. Don’t you? If you say that it is your subjective belief, then let us not argue about this.

Aprakat replied:

1. You haven’t gone through the process of finding out whether the claim of NTBible is right or not. I am not too sure what circular argument is, but I tell you that whoever reads the NTBible with an open mind will have no doubt even today that NTBible is the word of God. I am saying this because a reader cannot miss the fact that NTBible book is claiming right from the beginning that the Jesus messenger and Deity who has inspired it will prevail over his enemies like a deity should.

If Dr. KZ is to rephrase his questions he would say: who said that NTBible was word of God? You would say, in NTBible “Jesus” inspired his Apostles. Who said that Jesus was a deity? Again Jesus. Though he claimed that God was using him to pass this message. Can these statements be considered as a proof enough? If yes, then by what logic?

The proof of Catholics’ veracity is neither subjective nor objective. It is like the moon of the first evening of the lunar calendar: It is visible, but only to those who want to see it. For those who don’t want to see it, it’s not there. Unwillingness to see the moon (and the NTBible‘s truth) can be caused by a number of reasons including a strong emotional prejudice against Catholicism.

Does this kind of “reasoning” make sense? Is this the kind of “proof” that Catholics find convincing?

Vickie

 

[pharmacistUH]

Hi

For your pleasure, I have prepared a parody (please don’t mind) of your above post, see if you like it, or you suggest any changes.
Thanks

Catholics and "Circular Reasoning

Why is it that Catholics cannot see that the proof for their religion is based on circular reasoning?

In this imaginary debate on FFI between Aprakat one of the posters on that site, and Dr. KZ asks the following question:

You do realize that claiming deity for Jesus on authority of NTBible and claiming that NTBible is word of God on the authority of Jesus is a “Circular” reasoning. Don’t you? If you say that it is your subjective belief, then let us not argue about this.

Aprakat replied:

1. You haven’t gone through the process of finding out whether the claim of NTBible is right or not. I am not too sure what circular argument is, but I tell you that whoever reads the NTBible with an open mind will have no doubt even today that NTBible is the word of God. I am saying this because a reader cannot miss the fact that NTBible book is claiming right from the beginning that the Jesus messenger and Deity who has inspired it will prevail over his enemies like a deity should.

If Dr. KZ is to rephrase his questions he would say: who said that NTBible was word of God? You would say, in NTBible “Jesus” inspired his Apostles. Who said that Jesus was a deity? Again Jesus. Though he claimed that God was using him to pass this message. Can these statements be considered as a proof enough? If yes, then by what logic?

The proof of Catholics’ veracity is neither subjective nor objective. It is like the moon of the first evening of the lunar calendar: It is visible, but only to those who want to see it. For those who don’t want to see it, it’s not there. Unwillingness to see the moon (and the NTBible‘s truth) can be caused by a number of reasons including a strong emotional prejudice against Catholicism.

Does this kind of “reasoning” make sense? Is this the kind of “proof” that Catholics find convincing?

Vickie

We claim that Jesus is God because of the 500 eye witnesses who saw Him alive after His death. We also claim that Jesus is God because of the way He fulfilled all of the Old Testament scriptures about Him that were written by many people over thousands of years. Mind you, this is all before the NTBible. The New Testament wasn’t even compiled until ~400AD. It also brings up a question. Why would St.Peter, a man who denied Christ three times earlier die for Christ later? What changed? Jews didn’t just sacrifice their life for nothing unless they had proof.

 

[paarsurrey]

We claim that Jesus is God because of the 500 eye witnesses who saw Him alive after His death. We also claim that Jesus is God because of the way He fulfilled all of the Old Testament scriptures about Him that were written by many people over thousands of years. Mind you, this is all before the NTBible. The New Testament wasn’t even compiled until ~400AD. It also brings up a question. Why would St.Peter, a man who denied Christ three times earlier die for Christ later? What changed? Jews didn’t just sacrifice their life for nothing unless they had proof.

Hi

I have already written on some of these arguments, yet for you , I would write a little bit again.

1. On the current standards as in vogue in the Western countries, there is not a single witness.
2. There is no list of those five hundred adulterous Jews by names and addresses provided by Catholics who are said to have witnessed it and recorded in the gospels.
3. They never presented themselves to a witness box for cross-examination anywhere in a properly constituted, valid, and unbiased court up to this day. Cross-examination is a very useful method of investigation used almost everywhere.
4. If Jesus could have ascended to skies, for proving himself a deity, he missed the chance, which was arranged for him. He should have risen to skies before the Pilate, all Roman officials present, Caiaphas and other adulterous Jews and of course the Catholics, that might have been a five hundred or so people, later he was weak, and he feared lest the Jews would catch him again and put him and his friends and also the officials who helped him a lot to make good the escape of his killing in this episode of Crucifixion, so he had to do the things secretly.

The Pilate and the officials could have made a list of names, father’s name, and the whereabouts of the five hundred individuals of different religions, put his official stamp on the list and sent to Rome, but nothing like this happened.
Jesus did not, and could not and neither he would have liked such a spider’s web for climbing to the--------.

Well this is what I do understand with reasons; my Catholic friends need not convert to my view point, they must remain stuck to their guns, but they are peaceful people like me, no need doing such a thing. Jus be a rational, reasonable, logical, and research oriented human being, and stead fast on the true faith that is what is required.

Thanks

The ultimate truth about Jesus is that he died in Kashmir

 

[Montalban]

What’s so surprising about that? Christianity justifies itself based on the bible in exactly the same way. Catholicism adds a second loop for the papal succession, but it’s the same reasoning: we’re right because this says we’re right, nevermind that we came up with it.

If that reasoning makes sense to Christians when applied to Christianity, why shouldn’t it make sense to Muslims when applied to Islam?

That’s simply false! Christianity existed 300 years before the Bible was compiled!

 

[Montalban]

Hi

For your pleasure, I have prepared a parody (please don’t mind) of your above post, see if you like it, or you suggest any changes.
Thanks

Catholics and "Circular Reasoning

Paarsurrey’s argument in defence of the notion that Islam uses circular logic is not to defend it at all, but to attack Catholicsm!

The standard Moslem response seems to be not to deal with the issue but instigate a tu quoque fallacy

 

[Montalban]

We claim that Jesus is God because of the 500 eye witnesses who saw Him alive after His death. We also claim that Jesus is God because of the way He fulfilled all of the Old Testament scriptures about Him that were written by many people over thousands of years. Mind you, this is all before the NTBible. The New Testament wasn’t even compiled until ~400AD. It also brings up a question. Why would St.Peter, a man who denied Christ three times earlier die for Christ later? What changed? Jews didn’t just sacrifice their life for nothing unless they had proof.

I commend your willingness to fight for the faith, but the problem here is that this thread is not about Christainity, but Islam.

Don’t get hooked by paarsurrey’s diversion.

 

[Booklover]

Hi

I have already written on some of these arguments, yet for you , I would write a little bit again.

1. On the current standards as in vogue in the Western countries, there is not a single witness.
2. There is no list of those five hundred adulterous Jews by names and addresses provided by Catholics who are said to have witnessed it and recorded in the gospels.
3. They never presented themselves to a witness box for cross-examination anywhere in a properly constituted, valid, and unbiased court up to this day. Cross-examination is a very useful method of investigation used almost everywhere.
4. If Jesus could have ascended to skies, for proving himself a deity, he missed the chance, which was arranged for him. He should have risen to skies before the Pilate, all Roman officials present, Caiaphas and other adulterous Jews and of course the Catholics, that might have been a five hundred or so people, later he was weak, and he feared lest the Jews would catch him again and put him and his friends and also the officials who helped him a lot to make good the escape of his killing in this episode of Crucifixion, so he had to do the things secretly.

The Pilate and the officials could have made a list of names, father’s name, and the whereabouts of the five hundred individuals of different religions, put his official stamp on the list and sent to Rome, but nothing like this happened.
Jesus did not, and could not and neither he would have liked such a spider’s web for climbing to the--------.

Well this is what I do understand with reasons; my Catholic friends need not convert to my view point, they must remain stuck to their guns, but they are peaceful people like me, no need doing such a thing. Jus be a rational, reasonable, logical, and research oriented human being, and stead fast on the true faith that is what is required.

Thanks

The ultimate truth about Jesus is that he died in Kashmir

500 adulterous Jews???

Vickie

 

[Mirdath]

That’s simply false! Christianity existed 300 years before the Bible was compiled!

‘Compiled’, not ‘written’.

Let me ask you: why do you believe Catholicism the proper mode of worship? How can you justify its propriety to an outsider?

Generally, Christians answer this question by pointing to the gospels and saying ‘these writings in our holy book say how we’re supposed to worship’. Well, how about that! Convenient, isn’t it?

 

[hamba2han]

To those who are citing the testimony of the “500 eye witnesses” as proof of the divinity of Jesus (pbuh), remember that some 20 years ago, David Copperfield seemingly made the Statue of Liberty disappear before a live audience of hundreds as well as a TV audience of countless millions.

Well then, did the Statue of Liberty really vanish or was it merely an illusion?

If your answer is that it was merely an illusion that David Copperfield did, then why do you say that it is not possible that God also performed an illusion in order to fool those who intended to harm Jesus (pbuh)?

On the other hand, if your answer is that what David Copperfield did with the Statue of Liberty was real and not an illusion, then does this make David Copperfield divine as well?

 

[eliasaph99]

‘Compiled’, not ‘written’.

Let me ask you: why do you believe Catholicism the proper mode of worship? How can you justify its propriety to an outsider?

Generally, Christians answer this question by pointing to the gospels and saying ‘these writings in our holy book say how we’re supposed to worship’. Well, how about that! Convenient, isn’t it?

A Protestant Christian would do that, but a Catholic would not.

A Catholic response would be that the Church instructs us to worship this way and that the manner of worship has been passed down through the centuries from the Apostles themselves.

The Bible provides important confirmations and supporting arguments. However, if all the Bibles were to disappear tomorrow, the teaching of the Church would be enough to sustain the Catholic.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t see circular reasoning in that quote. I see an argument that the Qur’an is self-evidently God’s Word. To which I can only respond that it doesn’t seem so to me.

but wouldn’t it seem that way to you (or me) if you were born into a muslim family in a mulim country?

 

[Contarini]

but wouldn’t it seem that way to you (or me) if you were born into a muslim family in a mulim country?

Quite possibly, which is why I do not rely strongly on Christian (mostly Protestant) claims that the Bible’s truth is self-evident.

However, at the end of the day we can’t step outside our skin. I can’t base my beliefs on what I might think in different circumstances. I have to base them on how things look to me here and now, while trying to incorporate a more universal perspective as much as I can (this is one of the good arguments for the authority of the Church, of course).

Edwin