The proof of Islam (in theory)

[Link]

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.

You only assume and conjecture.

 

[KWED]

You only assume and conjecture.

Everything to do with the life of Muhammad is conjecture.
However, when we look at what information we have, the most reasonable conclusion 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 (much like the character of Jesus in the Bible didn't exist).

The content and style of the Quran clearly shows it is absolutely in keeping with what we would expect it to look like if it was written by 7th century Arabs with access to information that was currently available in the region. There is literally nothing in there that looks out of place in this context.
The claims made by or about Allah are either non-falsifiable, irrational, contradictory or demonstrably false, so there is nothing to support claims that he actually exists.

If you disagree with this, feel free to present a counter argument.
(Note: if you are going to keep claiming that there are "clear proofs" you have to provide something more than "It says so in the Quran")

 

[Link]

(Note: if you are going to keep claiming that there are "clear proofs" you have to provide something more than "It says so in the Quran")

You are right in that the proofs have to be assessed themselves. This argument is saying all religions in theory who leaders have no proof or rely on non-proven non-chosen leaders are false. This is includes all versions of Islam that do that.

This why I put in brackets (in theory).

Whether Islam has proofs or not, it does claim to have them. Therefore if there is a God, to me, it's a very good starting to ground to recognize the religion in theory would have proofs for the leaders.

On my personal investigation, all religions except one out there, rely on leaders without proof and mix it with those who they believe have proof.

If the argument is sound, it leaves any religion that meets the potential argument to be potential true. Right now, I'm only aware of Islam (and one version of it) that meets the criteria in theory.

Of course, you have to see the proofs themselves as claims can be made that are without backing.

 

[KWED]

You are right in that the proofs have to be assessed themselves. This argument is saying all religions in theory who leaders have no proof or rely on non-proven non-chosen leaders are false. This is includes all versions of Islam that do that.

This applies to all religions to the objective observer. It is noticeable that all religionists take the same position as you - "Only my religion has clear proofs!" I'm sure you can see the problem there.

Whether Islam has proofs or not, it does claim to have them.

Yes it does! In the Quran, Allah repeatedly states that he has sent clear proofs. (Have you read it?)

Right now, I'm only aware of Islam (and one version of it) that meets the criteria in theory.
Of course, you have to see the proofs themselves as claims can be made that are without backing.

So you admit that your "proofs" are just unsubstantiated claims that you simply accept because they support your existing belief.
This is what I have been telling you. If you have been raised in a different religion, you would be accepting their claims without question and dismissing Islam as falsehood.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Which Sufi order are you speaking of that speaks of not relying on any guide?

 

[Link]

This applies to all religions to the objective observer. It is noticeable that all religionists take the same position as you - "Only my religion has clear proofs!" I'm sure you can see the problem there.

Yes it does! In the Quran, Allah repeatedly states that he has sent clear proofs. (Have you read it?)

So you admit that your "proofs" are just unsubstantiated claims that you simply accept because they support your existing belief.
This is what I have been telling you. If you have been raised in a different religion, you would be accepting their claims without question and dismissing Islam as falsehood.

Most religions from my observation don't require you to have clear proof for a leader you follow. For example some religions emphasize that their philosophy can be observed and you can observe the truths and religion based on these observations, and they emphasize to learn the principles to see, this is different then a leader requiring proof for you to rely on in the first place.

 

[KWED]

Most religions from my observation don't require you to have clear proof for a leader you follow. For example some religions emphasize that their philosophy can be observed and you can observe the truths and religion based on these observations, and they emphasize to learn the principles to see, this is different then a leader requiring proof for you to rely on in the first place.

Islam doesn't demand you have "clear proofs" for a leader you follow. Only that they rule by Allah's book "even if they are an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin", as Muhammad said.

 

[Link]

Islam doesn't demand you have "clear proofs" for a leader you follow. Only that they rule by Allah's book "even if they are an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin", as Muhammad said.

There is chapters and writing, in Quran, about requiring clear proofs as well as only to follow leaders with clear proofs (those appointed by God). I will make a thread about it.

I'm not talking political government and rulers, I'm talking about guidance and those we rely on for that.

 

[KWED]

There is chapters and writing, in Quran, about requiring clear proofs as well as only to follow leaders with clear proofs (those appointed by God).

Which verses are those?

I'm not talking political government and rulers, I'm talking about guidance and those we rely on for that.

Well, there is no one after Muhammad, so you can only be talking about him.
What are the "clear proofs" that Muhammad actually communicated with a god rather than being delusional, dishonest of an constructed character?

You keep going on about these "clear proofs" but you still haven't said what they are - although you did admit that they were just unsubstantiated claims, which kinda puts the whole thing to bed really.

 

[Link]

Which verses are those?

Well, there is no one after Muhammad, so you can only be talking about him.
What are the "clear proofs" that Muhammad actually communicated with a god rather than being delusional, dishonest of an constructed character?

You keep going on about these "clear proofs" but you still haven't said what they are - although you did admit that they were just unsubstantiated claims, which kinda puts the whole thing to bed really.

I said I will make a thread. You should know I was non-Muslim for 5 years. I know how Quran can look to both the blind and seeing. It takes time and patience to see Quran as it's meant to be.

 

[KWED]

I said I will make a thread.

Just answer the question.

You should know I was non-Muslim for 5 years.

You were raised a Muslim though.

I know how Quran can look to both the blind and seeing.

Me too.

It takes time and patience to see Quran as it's meant to be.

Whereas it only takes one read to see it as it really is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Being this is religious debate, I'll maintain its always people saying everything along lines like that.

It's never sourced anywhere else, which makes any and all claims strictly ideological.

 

[sayak83]

Which Sufi order are you speaking of that speaks of not relying on any guide?

The experience is the validation, not the words of a guide. The guide teaches the method for having the spiritual encounter.

 

[firedragon]

The experience is the validation, not the words of a guide. The guide teaches the method for having the spiritual encounter.

Sayak. The state of Bakaa is not a validation, it is called "al kafaafu" which means something like livelihood. Sufism is dependent upon the Silsilah where the al murshid is indeed the "validation" if one needs to use that word. The bayaah is between the adherent and the murshid. Thats why I asked you which thuruk you are speaking of.