The proof of Islam (in theory)

[KWED]

I'm sorry, but that is insanely circular, incestuous logic, bordering on incoherence.

Worth repeating.

 

[KWED]

The leaders chosen by God have proofs from God proving them, while leaders chosen by people do not.

What are these proofs?
And why are they only apparent to people who already believe those leaders are chosen by god?

 

[KWED]

In theory, it must be in a way that clearly proves them so that people have to accept them, and not choose their own leaders.

Well, that's always worked out well, hasn't it?

 

[Link]

Protestant Christian denominations (with only one or two exceptions) don't have priests. They hold as a tenet of faith that there are no intermediaries between a believer and God.

Protestant pastors aren't considered to have any special power or authority.

They still rely on people not appointed by God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They still rely on people not appointed by God.

You're not interested in a real discussion. Fair enough.

 

[KWED]

Clergy/Priests/Rabbis, etc, cannot be chosen, but rather are chosen by people same way soothsayers are chosen by people but think they are chosen by gods/angels/jinn and in turn God, but really are misguided by Devils.

Clergy/Priests/Rabbis, etc only become Clergy/Priests/Rabbis, etc because they have been chosen by god to be Clergy/Priests/Rabbis, etc.

Chosen ones in my paradigm have proof of being chosen by God and far exalted above normal humans.

So "your paradigm" is the same as every other religionist's paradigm. You all think your "chosen ones" are the only chosen ones, and the chosen ones of other sects and religions are making it up. Just as they think about yours.
And you all claim to have "proofs" to support your claims, yet you all reject each others proofs.
Hmm...

 

[KWED]

I will give the explanation of what must fit this criteria later. For now, let's keep it simple: in theory God can provide clear proofs, and they require it if they are leaders to be followed by God's permission and command.

Sorry, but refusing to provide any evidence to support you claims is not "keeping it simple". It is admitting that you are talking nonsense.

 

[KWED]

So what you really wanted to say, is get better at rationality and logic. Will try thanks.

The first step is to stop making unsupported assertions.
The second is to understand that an argument relies on its first premise. If you cannot demonstrate your fist premise, the rest of the argument can be dismissed, even if it seems reasonable.

 

[KWED]

They still rely on people not appointed by God.

Question begging.
How do you know that they are not appointed by god?

 

[viole]

1. There is proof God exists (won't debate this in this thread)
2. The only possible leaders to get guided by would be those appointed by God.

For clarification purposes, I'm going to paraphrase 2 differently.

2. All leaders not appointed by God are not reliable for guidance and they have no proof, and we ought to follow only on proof for guidance, and hence if guidance is to be achieved, it will be through guidance and leadership from God.

2. God's leaders guarantee guidance, and so any leaders opposed to them lead astray, and without such leaders, there is no guaranteed path for humanity to get guided upon.

2. God's connection connects to him, and everything else not connected to his connection, disconnects.

Premise 3.

3. It is upon God to guide the way, and there are misleading ways.

Paraphrase this.

3. It's upon God to show the truth and manifest it.

3. It's upon God to have a pathway to him that is based on clear proof.

3. It's upon God to establish guidance and true guidance can only be his guidance.


Premise 4.

4. We should not delegate the authority, leadership, and guidance of God's books and leaders to people not appointed by God.

4. We should not mix falsehood with truth but seek truth from those we know are guaranteed to teach it.

4. Insights all found in God's guidance, should rely God.

4. God's guidance suffices and God suffices for his servants as a Guide and helper.

Given these premises. I see Islam only as the possible religion. This is because of the literature attributed to Prophet, Fatima, and 12 Imams and because there is a Guide in this era, and because Quran is protected.

True Islam is the only guidance that possible fits the criteria (this is premise 5).

Premise 5 takes longer to prove. But I will devote time to it later.

How do you know that X has been appointed by God?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

1. There is proof God exists (won't debate this in this thread)
2. The only possible leaders to get guided by would be those appointed by God.

For clarification purposes, I'm going to paraphrase 2 differently.

2. All leaders not appointed by God are not reliable for guidance and they have no proof, and we ought to follow only on proof for guidance, and hence if guidance is to be achieved, it will be through guidance and leadership from God.

2. God's leaders guarantee guidance, and so any leaders opposed to them lead astray, and without such leaders, there is no guaranteed path for humanity to get guided upon.

2. God's connection connects to him, and everything else not connected to his connection, disconnects.

Premise 3.

3. It is upon God to guide the way, and there are misleading ways.

Paraphrase this.

3. It's upon God to show the truth and manifest it.

3. It's upon God to have a pathway to him that is based on clear proof.

3. It's upon God to establish guidance and true guidance can only be his guidance.


Premise 4.

4. We should not delegate the authority, leadership, and guidance of God's books and leaders to people not appointed by God.

4. We should not mix falsehood with truth but seek truth from those we know are guaranteed to teach it.

4. Insights all found in God's guidance, should rely God.

4. God's guidance suffices and God suffices for his servants as a Guide and helper.

Given these premises. I see Islam only as the possible religion. This is because of the literature attributed to Prophet, Fatima, and 12 Imams and because there is a Guide in this era, and because Quran is protected.

True Islam is the only guidance that possible fits the criteria (this is premise 5).

Premise 5 takes longer to prove. But I will devote time to it later.

One can experience God or Absolute Reality directly through the methods describe in Hindu scriptures. Thus there is no need to rely on any guide whatsoever. This is also true in Sufi and other mystical methods showing that the methods are not idiosyncratic to a single culture, a charge often laid at the feet of religions.

 

[Link]

How do you know that X has been appointed by God?

Ciao

- viole

By the proofs and evidence God shows regarding them.

 

[Link]

One can experience God or Absolute Reality directly through the methods describe in Hindu scriptures. Thus there is no need to rely on any guide whatsoever. This is also true in Sufi and other mystical methods showing that the methods are not idiosyncratic to a single culture, a charge often laid at the feet of religions.

Whatever the case maybe, whether God can be experienced directly or not, it's upon God to guide the way because many people are misguided. And if he doesn't appoint leaders and proves them, we are left at the mercy of choosing misleading leaders (we can't know without proof).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

By the proofs and evidence God shows regarding them.

We have no evidence that God even exists, even less evidence or proof from God at all.

All scripture ever written has come from the mind or pens of men.
The most that can be claimed is that they were inspired by God, but we have no proof of that either. Only their own word, whic of course is a circular argument and not proof.

 

[sayak83]

Whatever the case maybe, whether God can be experienced directly or not, it's upon God to guide the way because many people are misguided. And if he doesn't appoint leaders and proves them, we are left at the mercy of choosing misleading leaders (we can't know without proof).

Direct experience is proof.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1. There is proof God exists (won't debate this in this thread)
2. The only possible leaders to get guided by would be those appointed by God.

For clarification purposes, I'm going to paraphrase 2 differently.

2. All leaders not appointed by God are not reliable for guidance and they have no proof, and we ought to follow only on proof for guidance, and hence if guidance is to be achieved, it will be through guidance and leadership from God.

2. God's leaders guarantee guidance, and so any leaders opposed to them lead astray, and without such leaders, there is no guaranteed path for humanity to get guided upon.

2. God's connection connects to him, and everything else not connected to his connection, disconnects.

Premise 3.

3. It is upon God to guide the way, and there are misleading ways.

Paraphrase this.

3. It's upon God to show the truth and manifest it.

3. It's upon God to have a pathway to him that is based on clear proof.

3. It's upon God to establish guidance and true guidance can only be his guidance.


Premise 4.

4. We should not delegate the authority, leadership, and guidance of God's books and leaders to people not appointed by God.

4. We should not mix falsehood with truth but seek truth from those we know are guaranteed to teach it.

4. Insights all found in God's guidance, should rely God.

4. God's guidance suffices and God suffices for his servants as a Guide and helper.

Given these premises. I see Islam only as the possible religion. This is because of the literature attributed to Prophet, Fatima, and 12 Imams and because there is a Guide in this era, and because Quran is protected.

True Islam is the only guidance that possible fits the criteria (this is premise 5).

Premise 5 takes longer to prove. But I will devote time to it later.

So, in your view, who is the current true leader of Islam, who is appointed by God?

 

[Link]

Direct experience is proof.

It can be or it can subjective and on whims that is assumed to be a spiritual decision.

 

[viole]

By the proofs and evidence God shows regarding them.

And what proofs are those? That God talked to them?

Look: yesterday I had a nice Earl Grey tea with Superman. After that, he flew me over the Swiss Alps since it was excellent weather. And to make me enjoy the view, he removed a huge stone from a mountain just by blowing on it, so that I could better enjoy the lake view. He was such a gentleman. That fits perfectly with what we know about Superman.

Ergo, Superman exists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

It can be or it can subjective and on whims that is assumed to be a spiritual decision.

Then Muhammad's experience could also have been on subjective "whims" could it not?

 

[Link]

Then Muhammad's experience could also have been on subjective "whims" could it not?

From our perspective yes, which is why he requires proof(s).

 

[KWED]

From our perspective yes, which is why he requires proof(s).

But there is no proof that either the god of Islam exists, or that Muhammad communicated with him.
However, there is evidence that the Quran was written by 7th century Arabs.
Therefore the most likely explanation is that Muhammad did not communicate with any god. Which logically leads to the conclusion that he was delusional or dishonest. Or possibly that the character in the Quran didn't actually exist.