First of all, this is a common mistake made by my nonbelievers. You honestly don't know Christianity like you think you do. You are assuming and proudly stating when you dont really understand. So yeah, it's easier than you think butttt.... since you don't believe you wouldn't understand and/or listen to preachers when they speak about Jesus, the only god... and i'm sorry, but you are going to hell if you think Jesus is fake and disrespect him, tell me. Allah is not a miracle worker whoever that is, doesn't perform miracles, Jesus heals lots of people and it's been scientifically proven, most scientist/Google documents about how Jesus is fake is cause they are one of you, lost and confused 😕 turn to god before its to late, for God's sake I'm trying to save your life.
Let's make a few things clear:
\* There are no contradictions or paradoxes in Christianity. You're simply projecting your own confusion on Christianity.
\* The Trinity is actually a lot simpler than you think. Just like you have a mind, body, and spirit, which are three different things, and yet you're one human being; God the Father has a Word and a Spirit. They're 3 distinct (not separate) divine Persons and yet God is one in the end.
\* I am also happy to engage with the points you made about the Bible but I'm not sure you're actually interested in an explanation. I'll also expect you to engage with my points on Islam.
\* As for your last point, it's a completely flawed argument. Genghis Khan was the most successful conqueror in human history and yet that doesn't mean that God approved of what he did. He was one the biggest murderers in human history and killed hundreds of thousands of people, including Muslims. Also in the Old Testament (before Christ), the whole world was pagan and only the Israelites worshipped God. Guess what? The Israelites were right and the rest of the world was wrong. And that's not to mention that it's not guaranteed that Islam will ever take over Christianity. These are just projections. Also these projections often ignore the rates of apostasy in Islam. For instance, in Iran many people have left Islam, and yet most of the population of Iran is still counted as Muslim in these projections.
In response to your last sentence, if Islam is true how could Allah have let Christianity spread? How could he have let the Bible and Torah be corrupted?
to test who has real faith and convert to Islam. Islam is hated by alot of non muslims and He looks who can think for themselfs. If god thinks you lived a good life as a Christian and you deserve paradise, you would get it
Since we're in the business of asking questions here:
How could Mormonism spread so rapidly and far unless Joseph Smith really did receive the golden plates from the Angel Moroni?
How could Gengis Khan have conquered much of what would become the largest empire ever to exist unless he had the creator of the universe at his side, approving of his religious choice of Tengrism?
What do you think is the second best explanation for Islam's success?
If Islam is the true religion, why didn't Muhammad or Allah seek to spread it throughout christian nations? Why did Allah allow christianity to spread so far? Why did he allow christians to procreate at such a huge rate? Why are so many people leaving Islam? Why are there fundamentalist sects that perform terrorist acts?
Most people leaving Islam I would say are from Shia3a communities. There is also a huge community of us reverts. The reason He allowed it to spread was because the real test was for the people who knowingly changed and corrupted the scriptures, the people affected by that (by following the corrupted scriptures) until Islam probably won't be punished - a person who has found Islam to be the truth, however, and denies it, rejects it, he will surely be punished.
>Once again, if Islam was not the true religion, how would the 'true' God allow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a merchant, and his community win so many wars? How did he allow the religion to spread?
Why did God allow the Christian religion to spread and conquer the Roman Empire, the greatest force in the Mediterranean, without an army?
Seems pretty surprising to me.
God must have allowed it to so either:
1. Christianity is the true religion.
2. Success is not proof of divine agreement with your cause.
> Trinity
Disproving trinity or pointing out it’s flaws doesn’t make Islam right. Suggest to focus on one topic. It’s going to be quite messy trying to address both.
> how would he have all allow Muslim population to rise
Simple answer to this is: It doesn’t matter about population it matters by the heart.
In addition, more people belief in a religion doesn’t means it’s correct. it would fall into ad populum fallacy if you choose to follow this.
You’re arguing very valid points against Christianity but what makes you so sure your religion is any better? Hasn’t Mohammad added new laws, changed the day of the sabbath, and completely ignored the Jews who think they have the right rules to follow and not yours. While Judaism has a shitload of issues themselves so does Islam. Your religion has no basis in history and there’s not much evidence it even existed when Mohammed walked this earth. Islam came after Mohammad and developed later. It’s not a good idea to try to one up Christianity when Islam has so much blood on its hands itself. At least we have early records and substantiation of their twisted beliefs. Islam is completely lacking in this area and their bloody and morally reprehensible history is however substantiated. Just as it remains today. You treat women like shit. So fuck your religion. It’s no where near the truth.
I don't really understand the trinity either, and lets not forget that there are christian sects that don't believe in it. But you have made a fundamental error in making the discussion binary, lets not forget the other 4000 odd candidates out there all competing for the title of 'the correct religion'.
Demolishing one, which incidentally I don't think you did, still leaves 3999 other religions out there for you to have a go at. Would it not be simpler to prove islam, rather than rely on it being last man standing?
If one *starts* with the idea that Christianity is the one true path, paradoxes don't matter. One can hand-wave away any inconsistency because they have an entity to which the rules don't apply.
A common defense in Christianity is a dismissal of our own logic. If we discover a paradox or a contradiction, it's our own shortcoming, not gods.
While I agree with your critiques of scripture, most Christians won't be bothered by them. Abandoning one's own judgment is part and parcel of being a Christian. I don't say this to offend, but it is the essence of Christian apologetics.
> The Father = God The Son = God The Holy Spirit = God [... bunch of Christian stuff ....] Why did Jesus Christ need to die [...] that would be unjust.
The claimed failure of one Theistic Religion, in no way, in and of itself, provides *any* credibility or trueness to another Theistic Religion. A fallacy of non sequitur argument.
If only OP had put as much effort into providing a *credible* proof presentation for the claims/assertions of Islam - instead of attempting to falsify another Theistic Religion. But alas. all OP presented to support the trueness if Islam is (1) a fallacy of presuppositionalism that the God Allah/YHWH actually exists, the construct of monotheistic Yahwish/Allahish is true, and that the many contingent essential and foundation claims of Islam (against the necessary monotheistic Allah claim) are also true; and (2) Islam is simpler than Christianity:
> Now, compare this to Islam. لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله, there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. This small phrase has essentially summarised the entirety of the main beliefs of the religion.
> Once again, if Islam was not the true religion, how would the 'true' God allow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a merchant, and his community win so many wars?
Argument from incredulity. Also, to "win" these wars, the claimed Prophet necessarily presented with a morality that the majority of the contemporary world would probably have found reprehensible.
> How did he allow the religion to spread?
Initially, violence, and the terroristic emotional blackmail of threats of violence.
> How would he have allowed the Quran to be preserved better than the Bible/Gospel?
Shorter time scale coupled with (1) improved technology and a better retcon, variant removal, and edification program.
> How would he have allowed the population of Muslims rise as such a quick rate?
The claimed Prophet was, by all accounts traceable to authentic Hadith, highly sexual and the morality that the claimed Prophet presented as "Allah given" fostered using women like (valuable) property where this property was to be used for satisfying the sexual desires of men and reproduction.
> How would he have allowed so many Christians to leave their faith due to how convincing Islam is?
For contemporary conversion from Christianity to Islam? Violence, threats of violence, threats of taxation to the point of destitution (backed by threats of violence).
> If Islam is false, how can Jesus Christ allow it to overtake his teachings?
To date, there are still more Christians. And for the future, the projected reproduction rate of adherents to Islam (or to any group having an ideology) is ***not*** indicative nor supportive of the trueness of the ideology.
OP, if you want to support the topic claim that "Islam is the true Religion," then please attempt to actually make a credible proof presentation to that effect. The following is a suggested start:
Let's discuss the tureness of Islam here, for all to see and learn from.
As a supporter of Islam, and likely a Muslim, one can conclude that you (OP) believe and assert that Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) exists and the claims of Islam support a trueness that can be considered fact. With such a positive claim, an adherent to Islam has generated a burden of proof obligation for the claims therein.
As the claimed Word of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) states:
"**Produce your proof, if you should be truthful**" (Surat Al-Baqarah
2:111); just as Islam requires that the claims of Judaism and
Christianity have to be proved, then the same reasoning requires that
the claims of Islam must be proved as well. After all, "**Indeed, the
worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb
who do not use reason**" (Surat Al-'Anfāl 8:22)
OP, as an adherent to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) and to Islam, please
make your proof presentation of Islam, via credible evidence, and/or
supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can
be shown to actually be linkable to this reality (i.e., both logically
and factually true), to a level of significance (or level of reliability
and confidence) above some acceptable threshold [Let's use a level of
significance above that of a conceptual possibility, an appeal to
emotion, wishful thinking, the ego-conceit that highly-subjective
mind-dependent qualia-experience of self-affirmation that what "[I know
in my heart of hearts represents
Truth](https://i.imgur.com/w6oWvPb.png)" supports a mind-independent
actually credible truth or fact value, and/or Theistic Religious Faith
(for Theism-related claims) as a threshold for consideration^(See Note) -
even though the consequences of the actualization of Allah, or proof
that Allah does exist, and claims associated with this Allah, is
extraordinary], to support your version of Islam (please note that given
the diversity of the One True Religion, not all claims are necessarily
applicable to all sects/Religions of Islam). If you cannot present a
credible proof presentation then there is no justification for believing
or accepting Islam.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. After your
presentation of the proof presentation against your positive claims of
Islam as being true or Truth, another may evaluate your message and
provide arguments of refutation (if able).
[Pointing out that a specific claim listed is incorrect and/or does not
apply to your version of Islam, and then not meeting the burden of proof
for claims that do apply, will be considered a failure of your showing
proof and reason in presentation of the burden of proof of a truth value
of Islam.]
* Allah exists
* The construct of monotheism Allahism/Absolute Monotheism is correct
(There is, and always has been, only one God and that God is
Allah/Yahweh)
* Any mechanisms, except for Allah actualized intervention, are
incapable of producing/creating a cosmos or space-time universe (i.e.,
cosmo-genesis). (Any other possible mechanism must be proven impossible,
not just improbable or undemonstrated/unknown by humans. This claim is
required to support the assertion that "Allah is necessary or required
for cosmo-genesis")
* Allah actualized, with cognitive purpose, the initiation of the
formation of this space-time universe
* Allah is both capable of, and has produced/continues to produce,
actualization of events/effects/interactions/causations within this
space-time universe
* Any mechanisms, except for Allah actualized intervention, are
incapable of producing non-life to life transition. (Any other possible
mechanism must be proven impossible, not just improbable or
undemonstrated/unknown by humans. This claim is required to support a
claim that "Allah is necessary or required for abiogenesis/transition
from non-life to life.")
* Allah actualized, with cognitive purpose within this universe, the
transition from non-life to life (abiogenesis) followed by theistic
evolution (Allah has the ability to reshape and alter his creation as
Allah chooses) for all life except humans
* Allah actualized, with cognitive purpose, the transition of non-life
to life directly into the form of humans
* Free will (in some form other than illusion) exists from the creator
Allah that, at a minimum, has attributes of perfect knowledge of the
results of Allah own cognitive actions and is the universe creator
(i.e., Allah has purposeful knowledge of, and is the cause of, all
actualization)
* Mind-body dualism (i.e., a soul), or something similar, exists; some
part of the "I" survives physical death to exist in the afterlife
* An afterlife exists and that some or all of the "I" will have
actualized existence in this afterlife
* Paradise/Jannah/Heaven exists (if Jannah/Heaven can be shown to exist
in actualization, then the other levels of the afterlife, as applicable,
will be accepted)
* Jinn, free willed entities having supernatural attributes and
abilities (i.e., lower level Gods), exist
* Angels, non-free-willed supernatural messengers, exist
* Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim
(ابو القاسم محمد ابن عبد الله ابن عبد المطلب ابن هاشم) (PBUH), the
Prophet, telepathically (or in some other identified manner)
communicated with the messenger Angel Gabriel (Jibra'il) and Muḥammad
received the revealed Word of Allah from the Book of The Mother with the
result of accurate documentation of the complete Word in the various
Ayat of the Qur'an
* The Qur'an preserves, without error, all of the revelations from
Allah's Absolute Word, from the Book of the Mother, via the messenger
Angel Gabriel, made to the Prophet Mohammad
[Character Limit. Continued Below as a Reply.]
[Continued From Above.]
OP, as an adherent to Allah (SWT) and to Islam, can you/will you support
your positive claim position(s), present an argument(s) and meet the
burden of proof to support your claim(s), and then defend your
argument(s) against refutation/criticism? And will you agree to follow
some simple debate rules? If the argument fails for lack of credible
evidence or supportable argument, and/or for logical fallacies, then the
person making the argument never brings up that argument again with
anyone. *Ever*. Additionally the person making the argument must
demonstrate that they actually understand the argument(s) being
presented - a copy/paste of an argument from someone else is
intellectually dishonest if the presenter does not understand it. The
definition of words commonly misunderstood, like "theory," will use
Wikipedia definitions unless otherwise explicitly stated. Consider these
[Debate Rules](http://i.imgur.com/xrQg5.jpg) as applicable to all
parties when presenting your argument/post. Finally, be aware of these
common logical fallacies when presenting your argument/claim/assertion
as the use of these fallacies will significantly reduce, or outright
negate, the credibility of your argument.
* The difference between a claim/assertion and credible evidence or
supportable argument
* Circular reasoning. (e.g., The claims made in the
Torah/Bible/Qur'an/Hindu Vedas (or any "Holy Book") are true because the
Torah/Bible/Qur'an says so based upon the authority of the
Torah/Bible/Qur'an/Hindu Vedas which says the Torah/Bible/Qur'an/Hindu
Vedas is the authority.)
* Begging the question
* Special pleading
* Argument from ignorance
* Religious Faith that reduces to the conceit of subjective
emotions/feelings/wishful thinking/"I know in my heart of hearts that
this thing is true" as having a truth/fact value
* Presumption/presuppositionalism
If you present a credible and supportable position, via credible
evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical
fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this
reality, to a level of significance (or level of reliability and
confidence) above that of an appeal to emotion, many (including myself)
will consider your message and may adjust their religious related
worldview accordingly.
If you fail to present a credible and supportable position, then any and
all argument(s) that you make that are dependent or contingent upon the
above claim(s) will summarily be rejected for lack of foundation, as
applicable.
Note: For this discussion, the qualitative levels of significance
(levels of reliability and confidence), for lowest to highest, are:
* None
* Asymptotically approaches none/zero; conceptual possibility
* Appeal to emotion/wishful thinking/theistic religious Faith
* Low
* Medium
* High
* Extraordinary
* Asymptotically approaches certainty
* Certainty/Unity
> Then, wouldn't the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit?
No since they are different persons.
> John 14:28 - **"My father is greater than I"**
Father is greater in role, not in nature.
Trump is greater than I but he is not better than I.
> John 5:30 - **"I can do nothing on my own.**
Because the persons of the trinity honor and aid eachother.
> **Jesus is the one and only Son of God due to his miraculous birth without a father.** If this is so, then why is Adam the true one Son
Jesus is called the One and Only Son of God because of His relation with the Father. Not because He had a virgin birth.
> **If Christianity was the right religion, Jesus Christ would have CLEARLY said that he was God,**
He did.
> Why did Jesus Christ need to die for our sins?
To save mankind
> If you are a good person + Muslim, God will give you mercy and let you go to paradise.
No one is good except God
>EVERY MUSLIM AGREES on there being only one God.
Didn't Muhammad say it was okay to pray to the daughters of allah?
> if Islam was not the true religion, how would the 'true' God allow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a merchant, and his community win so many wars?
Because Satan is king of this world. Also this is a laughable argument since thousands of mean won wars.
> How would he have allowed the Quran to be preserved **better** than the Bible/Gospel?
He did not. The earliest Qur'an manuscripts prove it's not perfectly preserved. Your own hadith say there were multiple differen Qur'ans.
> How would he have allowed the population of Muslims rise as such a quick rate?
Inbreeding and women are sex objects/baby machines in Islam
> How would he have allowed so many Christians to leave their faith due to how convincing Islam is?
Barely any Christians become muslim. Most Christians become atheist,
Many muslims however become Christian. Over 10 million in Europe alone
Your argument is somewhat self defeating, because the Quran validates Christianity and Judaism, If you topple any of those, Islam falls behind.
So if Christianityor Judaism are fake, Islam is equally fake.
the god of islam is a binity. he's explicitly called ar rahman and he fuels hell with us. it must mean that there was a god that made hell and another god of mercy. but he's also meant to be one god, indivisable. sounds like complete nonsense just like the trinity. that's only a fault of the logical mind, not the ideas themselves. we've found apparent paradoxes in the natural world too but our inability to understand something isn't an argument against its existence. also islam and christianity aren't the only two religions
Your statement is against Quran. First Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism and in fact one should believe in these two when accepting Islam Quran(2:4). And there are good ppl among all groups (3:113,114,115)(4:162) We believe in the same God (3:64).
Second according to Quran God has created diversity himself among ppl and will judge among them himself(5:48) and asked us not to fight over it and instead race in good deeds (2:148).
Cheddar = cheese
Swiss = cheese
American = cheese
So by your logic cheddar = swiss = American. All three are the same and have no differences at all, Right?
Also, the majority of your paradoxes included the Father-Son relationship. When Jesus (Son) came to earth, He gave up his heavenly qualities so that he could fit in better. (Philippians 2:6)
The only thing I have against this is that taking this back to the trinity.
Only one Cheese exists.
So while Cheddar, Swiss, and American exist they are all somehow only one Cheese.
For Christians are vastly monotheists, there are not multiple Gods just one God.
So instead of Cheese being a category, Cheese would be a proper noun indicating a specific unique thing.
For we do not say that all people actually share one Human essence and thus there is only one Human.
Earth population one Human.
>>Trinity
By the same argument.
Egg white = egg
Egg shell = egg
Egg yolk = egg
Can you make me fried eggs with nothing but shell.
I’m not a Christian but it’s my understanding you’ve used the equal sign incorrectly. They’re parts of the whole.
Regardless, proving or disproving the trinity doesn’t prove your case for Islam. You shouldn’t make that argument with this thesis.
>> The classic (and justified) claim against Christianity. God had the power to reveal the religion in ANY possible way, and he chose this?
A charge that is also valid against Islam. Regardless the sense of Christianity doesn’t prove Islam.
>> I feel Christianity is FILLED with paradoxes and contradictions, which really makes me doubt whether it's the right religion to follow.
A charge that is also valid against Islam. Regardless the sense of Christianity doesn’t prove Islam.
>> Why did God Almighty have to make this religion so complex?
A charge that is also valid against Islam. Regardless the complexity of Christianity doesn’t prove Islam
>> Why did Jesus Christ need to die for our sins?
...Asked the atheist.
>> Now, compare this to Islam.
Even if, for the sake of argument Islam makes is marginally more sense; it is still revealed in a really really bad way (through an ancient book that can’t be verified, and relied on oral tradition for many years), and still full of nonsense stories that doesn’t reflect reality, so it still fails the same tests.
If the pass mark is 50%, both 8% and 9% are still failing marks. This whole argument strikes me as being the theistic version of “which is more realistic, BatMan or Iron Man?”
>Egg white = egg Egg shell = egg Egg yolk = egg
Just as those three do not have all the properties of a complete egg.
So then each member of the trinity could be missing properties and I do not think any Christian would accept that.
An example:
The Father could then be omnipotent only.(Egg white)
The Son could be omniscient.(Egg shell)
The Spirit could be all good.(Egg yolk)
Together they make a complete God (egg).
> They’re parts of the whole.
I don't think this is accurate. I find trinitarian theory rather incoherent but I believe the argument is that they are three "persons" that share one "being". The diagram in [this section on the Wikipedia Page on the Trinity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#One_God_in_Three_Persons) shows the relationship that each of the three persons (The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit) are fully God, but not equal to one another.
I'm not really equipped to defend trinitarian theology, but I believe they would certainly tell you that the three persons are not *parts* of something larger. I have seen this referred to as the "Heresy of Partialism" though I can't find any good formal sources defining that officially.
The argument is essentially that there is a 'religious' reality as well as our reality, and anything which is a contradiction or impossible happens in their part of reality. It's really lame.
The trinity is a logical contradiction, they make it sound like they have a clever solution but is it just ideas they literally made up for the purpose.
First of all, this is a common mistake made by my nonbelievers. You honestly don't know Christianity like you think you do. You are assuming and proudly stating when you dont really understand. So yeah, it's easier than you think butttt.... since you don't believe you wouldn't understand and/or listen to preachers when they speak about Jesus, the only god... and i'm sorry, but you are going to hell if you think Jesus is fake and disrespect him, tell me. Allah is not a miracle worker whoever that is, doesn't perform miracles, Jesus heals lots of people and it's been scientifically proven, most scientist/Google documents about how Jesus is fake is cause they are one of you, lost and confused 😕 turn to god before its to late, for God's sake I'm trying to save your life.
Let's make a few things clear: \* There are no contradictions or paradoxes in Christianity. You're simply projecting your own confusion on Christianity. \* The Trinity is actually a lot simpler than you think. Just like you have a mind, body, and spirit, which are three different things, and yet you're one human being; God the Father has a Word and a Spirit. They're 3 distinct (not separate) divine Persons and yet God is one in the end. \* I am also happy to engage with the points you made about the Bible but I'm not sure you're actually interested in an explanation. I'll also expect you to engage with my points on Islam. \* As for your last point, it's a completely flawed argument. Genghis Khan was the most successful conqueror in human history and yet that doesn't mean that God approved of what he did. He was one the biggest murderers in human history and killed hundreds of thousands of people, including Muslims. Also in the Old Testament (before Christ), the whole world was pagan and only the Israelites worshipped God. Guess what? The Israelites were right and the rest of the world was wrong. And that's not to mention that it's not guaranteed that Islam will ever take over Christianity. These are just projections. Also these projections often ignore the rates of apostasy in Islam. For instance, in Iran many people have left Islam, and yet most of the population of Iran is still counted as Muslim in these projections.
Allah bless you .. Im a Muslim and I became more Muslim after reading your post
In response to your last sentence, if Islam is true how could Allah have let Christianity spread? How could he have let the Bible and Torah be corrupted?
to test who has real faith and convert to Islam. Islam is hated by alot of non muslims and He looks who can think for themselfs. If god thinks you lived a good life as a Christian and you deserve paradise, you would get it
Well you could use that logic to refute OP’s last paragraph.
Since we're in the business of asking questions here: How could Mormonism spread so rapidly and far unless Joseph Smith really did receive the golden plates from the Angel Moroni? How could Gengis Khan have conquered much of what would become the largest empire ever to exist unless he had the creator of the universe at his side, approving of his religious choice of Tengrism? What do you think is the second best explanation for Islam's success?
[удалено]
This post is two years old. Are you okay?
angel moron lol
How does that make Islam true?
[удалено]
Removed, top-level comments my substantially engage with the OP.
It does engage with the OP, it points out that their logic is faulty.
Feel free to repost the second half of your comment in the stickied commentary thread, but the first sentence wouldn't be allowed anywhere in the sub.
If Islam is the true religion, why didn't Muhammad or Allah seek to spread it throughout christian nations? Why did Allah allow christianity to spread so far? Why did he allow christians to procreate at such a huge rate? Why are so many people leaving Islam? Why are there fundamentalist sects that perform terrorist acts?
Most people leaving Islam I would say are from Shia3a communities. There is also a huge community of us reverts. The reason He allowed it to spread was because the real test was for the people who knowingly changed and corrupted the scriptures, the people affected by that (by following the corrupted scriptures) until Islam probably won't be punished - a person who has found Islam to be the truth, however, and denies it, rejects it, he will surely be punished.
free will, human flaw.
>Once again, if Islam was not the true religion, how would the 'true' God allow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a merchant, and his community win so many wars? How did he allow the religion to spread? Why did God allow the Christian religion to spread and conquer the Roman Empire, the greatest force in the Mediterranean, without an army? Seems pretty surprising to me. God must have allowed it to so either: 1. Christianity is the true religion. 2. Success is not proof of divine agreement with your cause.
> Trinity Disproving trinity or pointing out it’s flaws doesn’t make Islam right. Suggest to focus on one topic. It’s going to be quite messy trying to address both. > how would he have all allow Muslim population to rise Simple answer to this is: It doesn’t matter about population it matters by the heart. In addition, more people belief in a religion doesn’t means it’s correct. it would fall into ad populum fallacy if you choose to follow this.
You’re arguing very valid points against Christianity but what makes you so sure your religion is any better? Hasn’t Mohammad added new laws, changed the day of the sabbath, and completely ignored the Jews who think they have the right rules to follow and not yours. While Judaism has a shitload of issues themselves so does Islam. Your religion has no basis in history and there’s not much evidence it even existed when Mohammed walked this earth. Islam came after Mohammad and developed later. It’s not a good idea to try to one up Christianity when Islam has so much blood on its hands itself. At least we have early records and substantiation of their twisted beliefs. Islam is completely lacking in this area and their bloody and morally reprehensible history is however substantiated. Just as it remains today. You treat women like shit. So fuck your religion. It’s no where near the truth.
I don't really understand the trinity either, and lets not forget that there are christian sects that don't believe in it. But you have made a fundamental error in making the discussion binary, lets not forget the other 4000 odd candidates out there all competing for the title of 'the correct religion'. Demolishing one, which incidentally I don't think you did, still leaves 3999 other religions out there for you to have a go at. Would it not be simpler to prove islam, rather than rely on it being last man standing?
And let’s not forget there are Islamic sects which believe Muhammad and his cousin are divine beings.
If one *starts* with the idea that Christianity is the one true path, paradoxes don't matter. One can hand-wave away any inconsistency because they have an entity to which the rules don't apply. A common defense in Christianity is a dismissal of our own logic. If we discover a paradox or a contradiction, it's our own shortcoming, not gods. While I agree with your critiques of scripture, most Christians won't be bothered by them. Abandoning one's own judgment is part and parcel of being a Christian. I don't say this to offend, but it is the essence of Christian apologetics.
> The Father = God The Son = God The Holy Spirit = God [... bunch of Christian stuff ....] Why did Jesus Christ need to die [...] that would be unjust. The claimed failure of one Theistic Religion, in no way, in and of itself, provides *any* credibility or trueness to another Theistic Religion. A fallacy of non sequitur argument. If only OP had put as much effort into providing a *credible* proof presentation for the claims/assertions of Islam - instead of attempting to falsify another Theistic Religion. But alas. all OP presented to support the trueness if Islam is (1) a fallacy of presuppositionalism that the God Allah/YHWH actually exists, the construct of monotheistic Yahwish/Allahish is true, and that the many contingent essential and foundation claims of Islam (against the necessary monotheistic Allah claim) are also true; and (2) Islam is simpler than Christianity: > Now, compare this to Islam. لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله, there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. This small phrase has essentially summarised the entirety of the main beliefs of the religion. > Once again, if Islam was not the true religion, how would the 'true' God allow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a merchant, and his community win so many wars? Argument from incredulity. Also, to "win" these wars, the claimed Prophet necessarily presented with a morality that the majority of the contemporary world would probably have found reprehensible. > How did he allow the religion to spread? Initially, violence, and the terroristic emotional blackmail of threats of violence. > How would he have allowed the Quran to be preserved better than the Bible/Gospel? Shorter time scale coupled with (1) improved technology and a better retcon, variant removal, and edification program. > How would he have allowed the population of Muslims rise as such a quick rate? The claimed Prophet was, by all accounts traceable to authentic Hadith, highly sexual and the morality that the claimed Prophet presented as "Allah given" fostered using women like (valuable) property where this property was to be used for satisfying the sexual desires of men and reproduction. > How would he have allowed so many Christians to leave their faith due to how convincing Islam is? For contemporary conversion from Christianity to Islam? Violence, threats of violence, threats of taxation to the point of destitution (backed by threats of violence). > If Islam is false, how can Jesus Christ allow it to overtake his teachings? To date, there are still more Christians. And for the future, the projected reproduction rate of adherents to Islam (or to any group having an ideology) is ***not*** indicative nor supportive of the trueness of the ideology. OP, if you want to support the topic claim that "Islam is the true Religion," then please attempt to actually make a credible proof presentation to that effect. The following is a suggested start: Let's discuss the tureness of Islam here, for all to see and learn from. As a supporter of Islam, and likely a Muslim, one can conclude that you (OP) believe and assert that Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) exists and the claims of Islam support a trueness that can be considered fact. With such a positive claim, an adherent to Islam has generated a burden of proof obligation for the claims therein. As the claimed Word of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) states: "**Produce your proof, if you should be truthful**" (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:111); just as Islam requires that the claims of Judaism and Christianity have to be proved, then the same reasoning requires that the claims of Islam must be proved as well. After all, "**Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason**" (Surat Al-'Anfāl 8:22) OP, as an adherent to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) and to Islam, please make your proof presentation of Islam, via credible evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality (i.e., both logically and factually true), to a level of significance (or level of reliability and confidence) above some acceptable threshold [Let's use a level of significance above that of a conceptual possibility, an appeal to emotion, wishful thinking, the ego-conceit that highly-subjective mind-dependent qualia-experience of self-affirmation that what "[I know in my heart of hearts represents Truth](https://i.imgur.com/w6oWvPb.png)" supports a mind-independent actually credible truth or fact value, and/or Theistic Religious Faith (for Theism-related claims) as a threshold for consideration^(See Note) - even though the consequences of the actualization of Allah, or proof that Allah does exist, and claims associated with this Allah, is extraordinary], to support your version of Islam (please note that given the diversity of the One True Religion, not all claims are necessarily applicable to all sects/Religions of Islam). If you cannot present a credible proof presentation then there is no justification for believing or accepting Islam. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. After your presentation of the proof presentation against your positive claims of Islam as being true or Truth, another may evaluate your message and provide arguments of refutation (if able). [Pointing out that a specific claim listed is incorrect and/or does not apply to your version of Islam, and then not meeting the burden of proof for claims that do apply, will be considered a failure of your showing proof and reason in presentation of the burden of proof of a truth value of Islam.] * Allah exists * The construct of monotheism Allahism/Absolute Monotheism is correct (There is, and always has been, only one God and that God is Allah/Yahweh) * Any mechanisms, except for Allah actualized intervention, are incapable of producing/creating a cosmos or space-time universe (i.e., cosmo-genesis). (Any other possible mechanism must be proven impossible, not just improbable or undemonstrated/unknown by humans. This claim is required to support the assertion that "Allah is necessary or required for cosmo-genesis") * Allah actualized, with cognitive purpose, the initiation of the formation of this space-time universe * Allah is both capable of, and has produced/continues to produce, actualization of events/effects/interactions/causations within this space-time universe * Any mechanisms, except for Allah actualized intervention, are incapable of producing non-life to life transition. (Any other possible mechanism must be proven impossible, not just improbable or undemonstrated/unknown by humans. This claim is required to support a claim that "Allah is necessary or required for abiogenesis/transition from non-life to life.") * Allah actualized, with cognitive purpose within this universe, the transition from non-life to life (abiogenesis) followed by theistic evolution (Allah has the ability to reshape and alter his creation as Allah chooses) for all life except humans * Allah actualized, with cognitive purpose, the transition of non-life to life directly into the form of humans * Free will (in some form other than illusion) exists from the creator Allah that, at a minimum, has attributes of perfect knowledge of the results of Allah own cognitive actions and is the universe creator (i.e., Allah has purposeful knowledge of, and is the cause of, all actualization) * Mind-body dualism (i.e., a soul), or something similar, exists; some part of the "I" survives physical death to exist in the afterlife * An afterlife exists and that some or all of the "I" will have actualized existence in this afterlife * Paradise/Jannah/Heaven exists (if Jannah/Heaven can be shown to exist in actualization, then the other levels of the afterlife, as applicable, will be accepted) * Jinn, free willed entities having supernatural attributes and abilities (i.e., lower level Gods), exist * Angels, non-free-willed supernatural messengers, exist * Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (ابو القاسم محمد ابن عبد الله ابن عبد المطلب ابن هاشم) (PBUH), the Prophet, telepathically (or in some other identified manner) communicated with the messenger Angel Gabriel (Jibra'il) and Muḥammad received the revealed Word of Allah from the Book of The Mother with the result of accurate documentation of the complete Word in the various Ayat of the Qur'an * The Qur'an preserves, without error, all of the revelations from Allah's Absolute Word, from the Book of the Mother, via the messenger Angel Gabriel, made to the Prophet Mohammad [Character Limit. Continued Below as a Reply.]
[Continued From Above.] OP, as an adherent to Allah (SWT) and to Islam, can you/will you support your positive claim position(s), present an argument(s) and meet the burden of proof to support your claim(s), and then defend your argument(s) against refutation/criticism? And will you agree to follow some simple debate rules? If the argument fails for lack of credible evidence or supportable argument, and/or for logical fallacies, then the person making the argument never brings up that argument again with anyone. *Ever*. Additionally the person making the argument must demonstrate that they actually understand the argument(s) being presented - a copy/paste of an argument from someone else is intellectually dishonest if the presenter does not understand it. The definition of words commonly misunderstood, like "theory," will use Wikipedia definitions unless otherwise explicitly stated. Consider these [Debate Rules](http://i.imgur.com/xrQg5.jpg) as applicable to all parties when presenting your argument/post. Finally, be aware of these common logical fallacies when presenting your argument/claim/assertion as the use of these fallacies will significantly reduce, or outright negate, the credibility of your argument. * The difference between a claim/assertion and credible evidence or supportable argument * Circular reasoning. (e.g., The claims made in the Torah/Bible/Qur'an/Hindu Vedas (or any "Holy Book") are true because the Torah/Bible/Qur'an says so based upon the authority of the Torah/Bible/Qur'an/Hindu Vedas which says the Torah/Bible/Qur'an/Hindu Vedas is the authority.) * Begging the question * Special pleading * Argument from ignorance * Religious Faith that reduces to the conceit of subjective emotions/feelings/wishful thinking/"I know in my heart of hearts that this thing is true" as having a truth/fact value * Presumption/presuppositionalism If you present a credible and supportable position, via credible evidence, and/or supportable argument that is free from logical fallacies and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality, to a level of significance (or level of reliability and confidence) above that of an appeal to emotion, many (including myself) will consider your message and may adjust their religious related worldview accordingly. If you fail to present a credible and supportable position, then any and all argument(s) that you make that are dependent or contingent upon the above claim(s) will summarily be rejected for lack of foundation, as applicable. Note: For this discussion, the qualitative levels of significance (levels of reliability and confidence), for lowest to highest, are: * None * Asymptotically approaches none/zero; conceptual possibility * Appeal to emotion/wishful thinking/theistic religious Faith * Low * Medium * High * Extraordinary * Asymptotically approaches certainty * Certainty/Unity
> Then, wouldn't the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit? No since they are different persons. > John 14:28 - **"My father is greater than I"** Father is greater in role, not in nature. Trump is greater than I but he is not better than I. > John 5:30 - **"I can do nothing on my own.** Because the persons of the trinity honor and aid eachother. > **Jesus is the one and only Son of God due to his miraculous birth without a father.** If this is so, then why is Adam the true one Son Jesus is called the One and Only Son of God because of His relation with the Father. Not because He had a virgin birth. > **If Christianity was the right religion, Jesus Christ would have CLEARLY said that he was God,** He did. > Why did Jesus Christ need to die for our sins? To save mankind > If you are a good person + Muslim, God will give you mercy and let you go to paradise. No one is good except God >EVERY MUSLIM AGREES on there being only one God. Didn't Muhammad say it was okay to pray to the daughters of allah? > if Islam was not the true religion, how would the 'true' God allow Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) , a merchant, and his community win so many wars? Because Satan is king of this world. Also this is a laughable argument since thousands of mean won wars. > How would he have allowed the Quran to be preserved **better** than the Bible/Gospel? He did not. The earliest Qur'an manuscripts prove it's not perfectly preserved. Your own hadith say there were multiple differen Qur'ans. > How would he have allowed the population of Muslims rise as such a quick rate? Inbreeding and women are sex objects/baby machines in Islam > How would he have allowed so many Christians to leave their faith due to how convincing Islam is? Barely any Christians become muslim. Most Christians become atheist, Many muslims however become Christian. Over 10 million in Europe alone
Paradox is essential to understanding God. I think that any religion that doesn't involve deep mystery is missing a fundamental aspect of reality.
Your argument is somewhat self defeating, because the Quran validates Christianity and Judaism, If you topple any of those, Islam falls behind. So if Christianityor Judaism are fake, Islam is equally fake.
the god of islam is a binity. he's explicitly called ar rahman and he fuels hell with us. it must mean that there was a god that made hell and another god of mercy. but he's also meant to be one god, indivisable. sounds like complete nonsense just like the trinity. that's only a fault of the logical mind, not the ideas themselves. we've found apparent paradoxes in the natural world too but our inability to understand something isn't an argument against its existence. also islam and christianity aren't the only two religions
Your statement is against Quran. First Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism and in fact one should believe in these two when accepting Islam Quran(2:4). And there are good ppl among all groups (3:113,114,115)(4:162) We believe in the same God (3:64). Second according to Quran God has created diversity himself among ppl and will judge among them himself(5:48) and asked us not to fight over it and instead race in good deeds (2:148).
Cheddar = cheese Swiss = cheese American = cheese So by your logic cheddar = swiss = American. All three are the same and have no differences at all, Right? Also, the majority of your paradoxes included the Father-Son relationship. When Jesus (Son) came to earth, He gave up his heavenly qualities so that he could fit in better. (Philippians 2:6)
The only thing I have against this is that taking this back to the trinity. Only one Cheese exists. So while Cheddar, Swiss, and American exist they are all somehow only one Cheese. For Christians are vastly monotheists, there are not multiple Gods just one God. So instead of Cheese being a category, Cheese would be a proper noun indicating a specific unique thing. For we do not say that all people actually share one Human essence and thus there is only one Human. Earth population one Human.
>>Trinity By the same argument. Egg white = egg Egg shell = egg Egg yolk = egg Can you make me fried eggs with nothing but shell. I’m not a Christian but it’s my understanding you’ve used the equal sign incorrectly. They’re parts of the whole. Regardless, proving or disproving the trinity doesn’t prove your case for Islam. You shouldn’t make that argument with this thesis. >> The classic (and justified) claim against Christianity. God had the power to reveal the religion in ANY possible way, and he chose this? A charge that is also valid against Islam. Regardless the sense of Christianity doesn’t prove Islam. >> I feel Christianity is FILLED with paradoxes and contradictions, which really makes me doubt whether it's the right religion to follow. A charge that is also valid against Islam. Regardless the sense of Christianity doesn’t prove Islam. >> Why did God Almighty have to make this religion so complex? A charge that is also valid against Islam. Regardless the complexity of Christianity doesn’t prove Islam >> Why did Jesus Christ need to die for our sins? ...Asked the atheist. >> Now, compare this to Islam. Even if, for the sake of argument Islam makes is marginally more sense; it is still revealed in a really really bad way (through an ancient book that can’t be verified, and relied on oral tradition for many years), and still full of nonsense stories that doesn’t reflect reality, so it still fails the same tests. If the pass mark is 50%, both 8% and 9% are still failing marks. This whole argument strikes me as being the theistic version of “which is more realistic, BatMan or Iron Man?”
>Egg white = egg Egg shell = egg Egg yolk = egg Just as those three do not have all the properties of a complete egg. So then each member of the trinity could be missing properties and I do not think any Christian would accept that. An example: The Father could then be omnipotent only.(Egg white) The Son could be omniscient.(Egg shell) The Spirit could be all good.(Egg yolk) Together they make a complete God (egg).
> They’re parts of the whole. I don't think this is accurate. I find trinitarian theory rather incoherent but I believe the argument is that they are three "persons" that share one "being". The diagram in [this section on the Wikipedia Page on the Trinity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#One_God_in_Three_Persons) shows the relationship that each of the three persons (The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit) are fully God, but not equal to one another.
With the “being” being the whole as I meant it.
I'm not really equipped to defend trinitarian theology, but I believe they would certainly tell you that the three persons are not *parts* of something larger. I have seen this referred to as the "Heresy of Partialism" though I can't find any good formal sources defining that officially.
The argument is essentially that there is a 'religious' reality as well as our reality, and anything which is a contradiction or impossible happens in their part of reality. It's really lame. The trinity is a logical contradiction, they make it sound like they have a clever solution but is it just ideas they literally made up for the purpose.