Muslims and "Circular Reasoning"

[birdsong]

=Mirdath;2560653]Then tell me, what makes ‘the Bible is right because it says it is’ so different and so much more logically sound and valid than ‘the Quran is right because it says it is’?

I am not asking for a proof of God’s existence or anything like that, only for a demonstration of how one set of writings can be self-validated while another cannot.

You still want to play the smart guy, eh Miradath? Great, unlike you, I’m not here 24/7 posting nonsense, but since I have little time to spare now, I’ll have fun debunking your latest balderdash :

Who is arguing that what the Bible says is right or wrong? That’s not what is being discussed here! InJESUS and I are talking about a CONSISTENT message!

Ok, since I am sure you’ll have a difficult time grasping what I just said, let me put in terms more fitting of your “intellect”:

Is the message contained in the Harry Potter’s series right or wrong? I don’t know, and I could care less about it, because I have not even read on of the books. However, I can assure you that whatever message is contained there is CONSISTENT and follows the logic that J.K. Rowling decided to give!

Now, to put it in a Biblical context, think of the old testament as the first on the series of God’s messages, and the new testament as being the last one. The thing is that we Christians, DO NOT deny previous revelations nor say that Jews corrupted them when they do not suit our faith.

Now, muhhamedans, when they are shown that their quoran and other scriptures are totally in contradiction with the Old and New testament (and hence DO NOT follow the logic that was laid out by the original author), they resort to their “bible is corrupted because Koran/muhhamad said so” mantra.

You get it now, smart guy?

I am a skeptic and a fool; and what’s so bad about that?

Indeed, you have proven without a shadow of doubt that you are a world-class fool.

 

[Mirdath]

Who is arguing that what the Bible says is right or wrong? That’s not what is being discussed here! InJESUS and I are talking about a CONSISTENT message!

What’s under question is not consistency but validity. Both the Bible and the Quran claim to be valid in and of themselves, relying on no external sources. ‘I am right because I say I am right’. How do you Christians accept the Bible as self-evidently valid but point and laugh at Muslims applying the same principle?

Now, to put it in a Biblical context, think of the old testament as the first on the series of God’s messages, and the new testament as being the last one. The thing is that we Christians, DO NOT deny previous revelations nor say that Jews corrupted them when they do not suit our faith.

Yes, that’s true. How does that have any bearing on the point here? You say text A is self-valid, somebody else says text B is self-valid. And you have the gall to take your neighbor to task over doing the exact same thing you are?

Indeed, you have proven without a shadow of doubt that you are a world-class fool.

And I dare say I’m the happier for it. Are you happy, thinking yourself wise?

 

[birdsong]

Mirdath;2560872]What’s under question is not consistency but validity. Both the Bible and the Quran claim to be valid in and of themselves, relying on no external sources. ‘I am right because I say I am right’. How do you Christians accept the Bible as self-evidently valid but point and laugh at Muslims applying the same principle?

Yes, that’s true. How does that have any bearing on the point here? You say text A is self-valid, somebody else says text B is self-valid. And you have the gall to take your neighbor to task over doing the exact same thing you are?

I love it when fools keep digging themselves in deeper holes !

I’ll ask you some questions:

Do you need external sources to believe and claim that your parents love you? That your g-friend loves you? And again, who is saying that Judaism/Christianity can be totally authenticated by external sources outside the theological realm and/or that our beliefs are self-evident?

The problem that I and others in this thread have been addressing is the claim by muhhamedans that they follow in the Abrahamic tradition! To continue using my Harry Potter example, let’s suppose that JK Rowling died tomorrow, and that some time in the future, some guy in Saudi Arabia claims that he has found a book by JK Rowlings in which Harry Potter is a black guy, with no glasses and who does not speak English. Of course he’d be refuted by the readers of JK Rowling, because in her writings, it was clearly established that Harry Potter was a white guy who speaks English and who uses eye-glasses.

Likewise, we can refute islam’s claims to the lineage of Abraham because its message is totally inconsistent with the key tenets of the Old and New testament!

Are budhism, Taoism, huduism, etc, etc self-evident and/or not in need of validation of external sources? I could care less, and that’s not the point! However, if they claimed that they follow in the Abrahamic tradition, I and others would have a problem, because, as far as I know, their beliefs and tenets contradict key Christian dogma and doctrine.

Again I ask you: who is claiming that the bible is self-evident and/or totally validated by sources outside a theological context?

Your belief that your parents and g-friend love you are self-evident? Does it need to be validated by external sources? I could care less ! if it suits your needs/beliefs/existance, then good for you!

And I dare say I’m the happier for it. Are you happy, thinking yourself wise?

Glad to know that you are happy being a fool.

 

[Khalfan]

I love it when fools keep digging themselves in deeper holes !

I’ll ask you some questions:

Do you need external sources to believe and claim that your parents love you? That your g-friend loves you? And again, who is saying that Judaism/Christianity can be totally authenticated by external sources outside the theological realm and/or that our beliefs are self-evident?

The problem that I and others in this thread have been addressing is the claim by muhhamedans that they follow in the Abrahamic tradition! To continue using my Harry Potter example, let’s suppose that JK Rowling died tomorrow, and that some time in the future, some guy in Saudi Arabia claims that he has found a book by JK Rowlings in which Harry Potter is a black guy, with no glasses and who does not speak English. Of course he’d be refuted by the readers of JK Rowling, because in her writings, it was clearly established that Harry Potter was a white guy who speaks English and who uses eye-glasses.

Likewise, we can refute islam’s claims to the lineage of Abraham because its message is totally inconsistent with the key tenets of the Old and New testament!

Are budhism, Taoism, huduism, etc, etc self-evident and/or not in need of validation of external sources? I could care less, and that’s not the point! However, if they claimed that they follow in the Abrahamic tradition, I and others would have a problem, because, as far as I know, their beliefs and tenets contradict key Christian dogma and doctrine.

Again I ask you: who is claiming that the bible is self-evident and/or totally validated by sources outside a theological context?

Your belief that your parents and g-friend love you are self-evident? Does it need to be validated by external sources? I could care less ! if it suits your needs/beliefs/existance, then good for you!

Glad to know that you are happy being a fool.

Jesus In Christianity Jesus In Islam Which Account Is Historically Correct

This House Believes Jesus Was A Muslim

Christianity

 

[scapularkid8]

God also performed an illusion in order to fool those who intended to harm Jesus (pbuh)?

I don’t know about you, but my God doesn’t trick people by performing “illusions”. That’s lying, and God is Truth. My God says what He says (Bible) and does what He does (Resurrection/Ascension) and that’s that.

If you believe God creates illusions, we’re not worshiping the same God!

 

[Mirdath]

Do you need external sources to believe and claim that your parents love you? That your g-friend loves you? And again, who is saying that Judaism/Christianity can be totally authenticated by external sources outside the theological realm and/or that our beliefs are self-evident?

To your first two questions, sometimes yes. However, these people have the distinct advantage of existing in the present. Neither Jesus nor Mohammed is available for comment. I can call my parents or turn my head and ask my significant other.

To your third question, it is a common Christian assertion that the Bible is right in and of itself, just as it is a common Muslim assertion that the Quran is also. I do not believe in the self-evident truth of either, but I do think those living in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing rocks at each other.

The problem that I and others in this thread have been addressing is the claim by muhhamedans that they follow in the Abrahamic tradition!

Are you saying they don’t?

To continue using my Harry Potter example, let’s suppose that JK Rowling died tomorrow, and that some time in the future, some guy in Saudi Arabia claims that he has found a book by JK Rowlings in which Harry Potter is a black guy, with no glasses and who does not speak English. Of course he’d be refuted by the readers of JK Rowling, because in her writings, it was clearly established that Harry Potter was a white guy who speaks English and who uses eye-glasses.

If, however, our discoverer claimed that these ancient texts were corrupted by the publisher, he might well be able to make a case for himself. Ever read Motel of the Mysteries? For that matter, if you’ve read anything by Ursula LeGuin, do you remember the covers of the Earthsea books showing the protagonist with white skin when the books clearly mentioned his copper skin? There wasn’t even any wait – the novels hadn’t been released!

Are budhism, Taoism, huduism, etc, etc self-evident and/or not in need of validation of external sources? I could care less, and that’s not the point! However, if they claimed that they follow in the Abrahamic tradition, I and others would have a problem, because, as far as I know, their beliefs and tenets contradict key Christian dogma and doctrine.

You, perhaps, couldn’t care less (I think that’s what you mean), but that is the point and the problem. How do you believe in the truth of the Bible, other than believing that your faith – founded upon that work, among others – is true? You operate in the same kind of circle you dismiss whenever someone else uses it.

Your accusation that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion makes about as much sense as saying that any particular branch of Christian Protestantism is not an Abrahamic religion.

Glad to know that you are happy being a fool.

It’s a better station than many.

 

[scapularkid8]

If, however, our discoverer claimed that these ancient texts were corrupted by the publisher, he might well be able to make a case for himself.

No. The Truth of Coherence would not permit that. Individuals have gained the knowledge (by definition: a justified, true-for-all belief) of what actually happened (i.e. the Scriptures), nothing can refute that.

 

[eliasaph99]

What’s under question is not consistency but validity. Both the Bible and the Quran claim to be valid in and of themselves, relying on no external sources. ‘I am right because I say I am right’. How do you Christians accept the Bible as self-evidently valid but point and laugh at Muslims applying the same principle?

You’ve completely derailed this thread, which was perhaps your goal.

I, for one, have never claimed that the Bible is right simply because it claims to be so. The Bible is supported by external sources. It is an accurate record of history, geography, and political geography. The kings and peoples of the Bible have been found to live when the Bible claims they did. The countries and places referenced are real countries and places which either exist now or did exist in the past.

To me, the Bible’s accuracy in verifiable facts lends credence to its accuracy in non-verifiable facts. i.e. The Bible claims that king so-and-so said such-and-such to his servant. This is completely unverifiable, but it is verifiable that king so-and-so lived when the Bible claims he did, and lived in the city the Bible claims he lived in, and textual analysis puts the authorship of the text near to the lifetime of the king. So it is likely that the king spoke the words he did.

The beginning of the Book of Luke is an example of this. The author took care to p(name removed by moderator)oint the time of Christ’s birth by reference to large scale verifiable historical facts. The veracity of these facts lends support to the truth of the unverifiable records.

That’s my counter argument.

Now here’s my question to you.

Can you quote a verse in the Bible which makes the claim you have stated above? I am not aware of such a verse.

 

[scapularkid8]

You’ve completely derailed this thread…

I heard the breaks squealing when you started it!

 

[hamba2han]

I don’t know about you, but my God doesn’t trick people by performing “illusions”. That’s lying, and God is Truth. My God says what He says (Bible) and does what He does (Resurrection/Ascension) and that’s that.

If you believe God creates illusions, we’re not worshiping the same God!

So then, standing by and allowing your “only begotten son” to be crucified by evil people is GOOD… but on the other hand, performing an illusion in order to save that “son” is BAD.

Have I got the gist of Christian morality correct here?

 

[scapularkid8]

So then, standing by and allowing your “only begotten son” to be crucified by evil people is GOOD… but on the other hand, performing an illusion in order to save that “son” is BAD.

Have I got the gist of Christian morality correct here?

No. Because it was His choice to suffer under the hands of evil, not our choice to make Him suffer, and suffering is real, deep, and powerful. Lies and illusions are weak and false. It’s not a question of morality, it’s a question of truth: suffering is true, illusions are, well, illusions!..and He died for you too, not just Christians.

I think we’ve exhausted this topic enough. We’re getting nowhere with circular reasoning and petty bickering as opposed to rational argument. In the words of the Jew (2Maccabees15:39) “And here will be the end.”

 

[Mirdath]

No. The Truth of Coherence would not permit that. Individuals have gained the knowledge (by definition: a justified, true-for-all belief) of what actually happened (i.e. the Scriptures), nothing can refute that.

When no outside sources verify that, for instance, the man on Calvary was actually Jesus of Nazareth, who can say who’s correct?

eliasaph99:

You’ve completely derailed this thread, which was perhaps your goal.

I did not derail the thread. I called upon you and other Catholics to defend your faulty premise just as you tried to call Muslims out for theirs.

I, for one, have never claimed that the Bible is right simply because it claims to be so. The Bible is supported by external sources. It is an accurate record of history, geography, and political geography. The kings and peoples of the Bible have been found to live when the Bible claims they did. The countries and places referenced are real countries and places which either exist now or did exist in the past.

To me, the Bible’s accuracy in verifiable facts lends credence to its accuracy in non-verifiable facts. i.e. The Bible claims that king so-and-so said such-and-such to his servant. This is completely unverifiable, but it is verifiable that king so-and-so lived when the Bible claims he did, and lived in the city the Bible claims he lived in, and textual analysis puts the authorship of the text near to the lifetime of the king. So it is likely that the king spoke the words he did.

And this verification of some facts by external sources is true of the Quran as well. It’s also true of Shakespeare’s Richard the Third and Julius Caesar. How am I to tell where fact ends and fiction begins?

Can you quote a verse in the Bible which makes the claim you have stated above? I am not aware of such a verse.

John 21:24: It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. That’s your holy book saying it provides a proper and correct account of things. And you accept it – why should Muslims not accept Mohammed’s word for what he heard from Allah, if you take John’s for what he heard from Jesus?

 

[eliasaph99]

When no outside sources verify that, for instance, the man on Calvary was actually Jesus of Nazareth, who can say who’s correct?

I did not derail the thread. I called upon you and other Catholics to defend your faulty premise just as you tried to call Muslims out for theirs.

And this verification of some facts by external sources is true of the Quran as well. It’s also true of Shakespeare’s Richard the Third and Julius Caesar. How am I to tell where fact ends and fiction begins?

John 21:24: It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. That’s your holy book saying it provides a proper and correct account of things. And you accept it – why should Muslims not accept Mohammed’s word for what he heard from Allah, if you take John’s for what he heard from Jesus?

The Quran was recited around 600 A.D. putting it well out of a reasonable time frame to be a contemporary source of the events it describes. Also, many events and statements in the Quran are completely historically refuted. An example is the existence of two lands with supposedly large populations (cities and such) who were wiped out by God. There is no evidence of the existence of these people.

You are certainly not suggesting that it is completely impossible to tell fact from fiction by comparing Shakespeares use of historical setting to actual history?

If you can’t tell the difference between Shakespeare and written history or can’t do the research to determine which was recorded as fact and which as entertainment, then there is very little point in having a discussion with you.

I cannot cut the universe out of whole cloth and hand it to you in the CAF. I am certainly not interested in first debating certain reasonable premises with you, such as the existence of truth and possibility of discovery of that truth, every time I encounter you in the forums. Your distraction of discussions to the truth of basic axioms certainly seems to be your main manner of debate, however, and it’s truly annoying.

As for your last paragraph, quite plainly John is not referring to the entire Bible, but only his own testimony, what we now know as the Gospel of John. I find this particular line very personal and touching. John, knowing how incredible the things are that he has written, is reaching across the centuries to try and give me his personal promise. Much as I would if I were relating an incredible story to you. However, I have never heard anyone cite that line as concrete support for the truth of the Gospel of John. It provides no support. What it does for me, is reveal the deep and caring character of the Apostle.

Finally, you did derail the thread. What we are discussing right now has almost nothing to do with Muslims. You should have started a separate thread and posted a link in this thread to it to spur discussion.

 

[Mirdath]

The Quran was recited around 600 A.D. putting it well out of a reasonable time frame to be a contemporary source of the events it describes. Also, many events and statements in the Quran are completely historically refuted. An example is the existence of two lands with supposedly large populations (cities and such) who were wiped out by God. There is no evidence of the existence of these people.

Cite for the last? And isn’t the Quran mostly about what’s happening to Mohammed and the messages he relays and the people around him?

You are certainly not suggesting that it is completely impossible to tell fact from fiction by comparing Shakespeares use of historical setting to actual history?

If you can’t tell the difference between Shakespeare and written history or can’t do the research to determine which was recorded as fact and which as entertainment, then there is very little point in having a discussion with you.

Not at all – just that exactly as Shakespeare’s histories have a lot of facts right, so too does the Bible and so too does the Quran. It doesn’t mean Jesus rose from the dead and it doesn’t mean Mohammed was talking to Allah. It does not make them history; it makes them possibly history, possibly historical fiction.

I cannot cut the universe out of whole cloth and hand it to you in the CAF. I am certainly not interested in first debating certain reasonable premises with you, such as the existence of truth and possibility of discovery of that truth, every time I encounter you in the forums. Your distraction of discussions to the truth of basic axioms certainly seems to be your main manner of debate, however, and it’s truly annoying.

So get your premises right I’ll stop badgering people about faulty premises and basic axioms when they use them correctly and don’t dig their own graves as they have in this thread.

As for your last paragraph, quite plainly John is not referring to the entire Bible, but only his own testimony, what we now know as the Gospel of John. I find this particular line very personal and touching. John, knowing how incredible the things are that he has written, is reaching across the centuries to try and give me his personal promise. Much as I would if I were relating an incredible story to you. However, I have never heard anyone cite that line as concrete support for the truth of the Gospel of John. It provides no support. What it does for me, is reveal the deep and caring character of the Apostle.

Yes, it’s very personal; but it’s an appeal to you to accept it as self-evidently true. You do so. You have no outside evidence that John is a reliable recorder or even sane (look at the Apocalypse for an interesting view of that; amazing guy, but let’s say I doubt he was all there upstairs). Why then do you accept John’s gospel as self-evidently true and deny that the Quran can be so?

Finally, you did derail the thread. What we are discussing right now has almost nothing to do with Muslims. You should have started a separate thread and posted a link in this thread to it to spur discussion.

I am endeavoring to help you guys improve your skill and tact with apologetics by showing you where you need to look out for pitfalls. If you would criticize others, first ensure you yourself are not screwing up in exactly the same way.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Cite for the last? And isn’t the Quran mostly about what’s happening to Mohammed and the messages he relays and the people around him?

I’m curious as well. Could be the Quranic prophet Salih, not recognized as a biblical monothesitic prophet as does the Quran. Arabic tradition before Islam had such a story about a people destroyed by lava. The Thamood, who were alleged to live in caves at Al Hijr, apparently were mentioned in an inscription of Sargon, King of Assyria in 715 BC. I could not find any pre-Islamic reference to Salih, so Mohamed may have invented him. Mohamed said they were destroyed by lightning/earthquake because Silah called them to allah (monotheism), and though the poor believed, but not the rich, the rich peopel mocked and persecuted Salih- they were all destroyed. There seem to be ancient, extinct volcanos to the west of Al Hijr making the pre-Islamic tradition more likely.

The Islamic prophet Shuaib is somewhat similar in story with the land of Midian located in the northern Hejaz. Seems his tomb is in a valley west of Amman, Jordan today. Midian is a land mentioned in Exodus- the Sinai peninsula, but obviously that is not near Jordan which is much farther to the East.

Though these lands and people may have actually existed it only shows me that both were known pre-Islam, and Mohamed confused other OT biblical stories, so it is most likely he screwed these up as well, but told them in an effort to relate his own rejection by the wealthy in Mekka before he fled to Medina. It is also likely Mohammed stopped referring to these ‘prophets’ because they showed a weakness, after he became a power himself in Media- before he ultimately conqured Mekka- since most records indicate these verses were before he ran away to Medina for protection.

I am endeavoring to help you guys improve your skill and tact with apologetics by showing you where you need to look out for pitfalls. If you would criticize others, first ensure you yourself are not screwing up in exactly the same way.

This made me laugh and actually caused me to respond here rather than the above. It is like saying ‘let me help you be more wrong (becasue you don’t believe it), but look smarter doing it.’

You seem to know enough of both the Catholic and Mohammedean faiths, but by knowing both as you do…do you agree that other than your personal view of both being wrong (or less than the complete truth)- if one were right- the other could not be? Or do you sugest there may be some truth in both?

I say only one could be true, if either is. Of course I believe one is true in its entirety, which makes the other false in its entirety despite any surface similarity. To bring this thread back on topic specifically; it is the falseness of the Quran with it’s wrongly approriated similarities to both the OT & NT that requires such circular logic to make it seem logical to Muslims. I think you even believe its logic stands on its head.

If it stood on its own like Hinduism, Buddha…there would be little to debate- either accept or reject it on its own merit. But because Islam attemts to lay claim to Abraham, Moses…Jesus, and so much more- the Catholic/Christain need only debate with the Muslim with regard to where the two holy books differ. The non-Catholic/Christian- Muslim’s (name removed by moderator)ut- such as yours, adds a new dynamic that is not altogether relevent to the Catholic/Christian - Mohammedean debate, which I think we discussed once before. Though there may be some resulting merit to your purpose- being that others will better their arguments, I don’t get the warm-n-fuzzy that it is your true intent.

 

[eliasaph99]

Cite for the last? And isn’t the Quran mostly about what’s happening to Mohammed and the messages he relays and the people around him?

Not at all – just that exactly as Shakespeare’s histories have a lot of facts right, so too does the Bible and so too does the Quran. It doesn’t mean Jesus rose from the dead and it doesn’t mean Mohammed was talking to Allah. It does not make them history; it makes them possibly history, possibly historical fiction.

So get your premises right I’ll stop badgering people about faulty premises and basic axioms when they use them correctly and don’t dig their own graves as they have in this thread.

Yes, it’s very personal; but it’s an appeal to you to accept it as self-evidently true. You do so. You have no outside evidence that John is a reliable recorder or even sane (look at the Apocalypse for an interesting view of that; amazing guy, but let’s say I doubt he was all there upstairs). Why then do you accept John’s gospel as self-evidently true and deny that the Quran can be so?

I am endeavoring to help you guys improve your skill and tact with apologetics by showing you where you need to look out for pitfalls. If you would criticize others, first ensure you yourself are not screwing up in exactly the same way.

The fictional people of the Quran are the Aad and the Thamud. Many modern Muslims try to identify them as the Nabateans or try to claim that the works of the Nabateans were really the works of these peoples. However, the general history of the geographical area is well known. The Nabateans are known from ancient historical records and occupied the lands which the Quran appears to say the Aad and the Thamud did. However, what the Quran claims happened to the Aad and the Thamud did not happen to the Nabateans. They were a relatively successful desert culture, developing a remarkable architectural style (they built, or rather carved, the city of Petra) and were conquered by the Romans in about 100 A.D.

 

[Montalban]

So then, standing by and allowing your “only begotten son” to be crucified by evil people is GOOD… but on the other hand, performing an illusion in order to save that “son” is BAD.

Have I got the gist of Christian morality correct here?

So you think self-sacrifice is bad, but deception and lying about self-sacrifice is good?

 

[Montalban]

I’m quite aware of that. I was trying to keep it simple – sure, add the Didache, add the epistles of Clement and everybody, add City of God and the other writings of the Church fathers – it doesn’t change anything. You’re still justifying your faith based on writings of the faith.

And that’s false. Unless you can show that these writings were in existence AT PENTECOST your notion is false.

And, we Orthodox aren’t so accepting of Augustine’s works, which again undermines your argument - to do with acceptence.

The Bible was not compiled until the 300s.

Woops I keep forgetting you’re Orthodox.

Don’t blame me for your mistakes!

Feel free to make the word-substitution. How do you justify your chosen method of worship? What makes you so sure it’s correct, in the end?

It’s a living faith with witnesses to God. We have men who have been transformed with an aforetaste with what is to come.

AND we have tradition!

 

[JFonseka]

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.

 

[Verisimilitude]

So then, standing by and allowing your “only begotten son” to be crucified by evil people is GOOD… but on the other hand, performing an illusion in order to save that “son” is BAD.

Have I got the gist of Christian morality correct here?

By that illogic- Did allah stand by and allow Mohamed to lose battles by evil idolators on one hand, and then provide the illusion angles helped them win others?

Have I got the gist of Mohammedean history correct here? Is the Islamic moraility that it is permitted to fight, subjugate and kill non-Mohammedean peoples in this world, because allah will do so in the next?

How much does allah love the Mohammedean? Does it say in the Quran? It says how much he hates the un-believer. Since all humans are slaves to allah according to the Quran, and since your tradition states an angel writes four words on the soul of each human in the womb identifing where that person will end up regardless of how he lived his life- does the Mohammedean have any control over their life since allah has already decided your fate?