Islam is more true than Christianity
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Islam is more true than Christianity
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
“The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
“ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39
“if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2
“I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1
“the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others (Luke 24:9).
No man has seen or can see [God] (1 Timothy 6:16).
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).
Jesus . . . was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli (Luke 3:23).
- Pro obviously bears the burden of proof in its entirety. In such burden is not upheld beyond any proportion of reasonable doubt, the resolution should default the to contender position.
- By what standard do we evaluate whether religion is more true than another? This is of course is pro's burden to stipulate. I posit that we should use the factor of historical accuracy and plan to make arguments with such thus forward.
True religion has no faults, no flaws.
- Note: I have not set this standard, pro has set it for himself.
- If I show that Islam has one flaw, pro must concede that Islam is not a true religion. I plan to do so in our subsequent round of argumentation as our cases have been generally introductory.
- Pro clearly plagiarized this entire section from atheists.org.
- As plagiarized it in its entirety, this essentially discards these points and gives con the point of conduct.
- Pro's argument is:
- p1. If Christianity has the trinity and Islam does not, Islam is more true than Christianity.
- p2. Christianity has the trinity and Islam does not
- c. Islam is more true than Christianity.
- This is a non-sequitur. What about the trinity makes Christianity less true?
- Jesus had not yet conclusively revealed himself to be God in the flesh in the majority of the Gospels.
- He eventually reveals and establishes this in Matthew 28:17 which says "when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." When Jesus revealed himself as divine, the worship came without a demand. He doesn't literally need to say worship me in order for people to know he is a divine figure as this was revealed to the hears of men after his resurrection.
- If I show that Islam has one flaw, pro must concede that Islam is not a true religion. I plan to do so in our subsequent round of argumentation as our cases have been generally introductory.
- Pro clearly plagiarized this entire section from atheists.org.
- As plagiarized it in its entirety, this essentially discards these points and gives con the point of conduct.
What about the trinity makes Christianity less true?
- He eventually reveals and establishes this in Matthew 28:17 which says "when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." When Jesus revealed himself as divine, the worship came without a demand. He doesn't literally need to say worship me in order for people to know he is a divine figure as this was revealed to the hears of men after his resurrection.
He doesn't literally need to say worship me in order for people to know he is a divine figure as this was revealed to the hears of men after his resurrection.
- Simply put nothing in this round proves that Islam is more true than Christianity. Every notion pro produces is a non sequitur and if I left my round to this overview alone I would be winning the debate.
- To make some principal notes on the pro's arguments:
- I don't understand the trinity therefore Islam is more true than Islam (obviously doesn't follow).
- Pro argues the bible has contradictions but hasn't shown a single one, and claims that the Quran has no contradictions and hasn't shown evidence of that either.
- One particularly objective way we can analyze truth claims about religion is its historical accuracy. I posit that the foundation of the Christian faith has presented itself as a document that strongly coincides with historical study, archeology, and evaluation
- Archeologically, "out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider a few examples to illustrate the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. Excavations at Nuzi (1925-41), Mari (discovered in 1933), and Alalakh (1937-39; 1946-49) provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period." [3]
- Historically, even the Smithsonian Museum states that "on the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed" [4]
- For such a credible historical source to inform us of this, only confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible.
- Luke Wayne has already shown this to be incorrect.
A 10th-century manuscript known as BNF Arabe 370a has several places where the original text has been erased and replaced with text matching the modern reading in different handwriting. The interesting thing is that, in each of these places, the modern text is too long to fit into the erased space and must be crammed in with smaller print.13 This seems to indicate that the manuscript originally preserved a text that was in several places shorter (and therefore obviously different) than the text we have today. These kinds of examples show that, while the overall text of the Quran appears to be rather stable for most of its history, in the past there were certainly readings substantively different than what we have today.
I have not plagiarized anything
- Last time I checked "plagiarism is the representation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work," which is exactly what you did in round one by copying word for word from this website out of laziness to make your own argument. I appeal to the voter's sense of basic reasoning to recognize such as a conduct violation and dispense the respective points to the contender.
- Because these were previously plagiarized we can discard these points in their entirety. I am simply addressing them for fun. Voters should not take this as giving credence to pro's arguments and can also dismiss this section for assorted reasons for decisions.
- This isn't a contradiction, there are different contexts assertions are made within any form of conversation. John 1:18 is referring to God's face in his glory or fullness, a feat that would kill an individual. Jacob, like many people, saw a manifestation of God in a different form [8]. God can appeal angelically, or even mortally, there are many manifestations of him.
- There is no contradiction here. Proposition a is that with God, all things are possible. Proposition b is that Judah did not achieve x end with God on their side. That is not a logical contradiction as the negation of proposition a does not conflict with its affirmation. Something can be possible and still not happen. I can jump off a bridge, it's possible, but it won't happen, for example. For many different reasons, God allowed the Jews to lose many battles [9], reasons that could potentially benefit them in the long term.
- This is simply explained by the fulfillment of the past stipulations of Mosaic law with the new covenant and the coming of Jesus Christ, who of course, perfected them [5].
- A similar response goes to the case of circumcision. Both Peter and James emphasized the idea of spiritual circumcision to the gentiles, a simple product of following and keeping God's word. In the new covenant, physical circumcision is not required, but "circumcision," of one's heart to the holy spirit [6].
- This is just really lazy reading. Job is speaking of physical death and John is prophesying about the resurrection and return of Christ in which death will be abolished and Christ will judge the living and the dead.
- I have to ask, did you even read these two verses? They are both saying the same message, what do you think the contradiction is here?
- Weird, again, there isn't even a contradiction in these two verses. Can you explain what you believe the two propositions that come in logical contradiction are?
- This is the same thing as #1, so the same source, [8] is also applicable here. Moses spoke to god in different manifestations and not face to face in his fullness of glory as no one can survive seeing this. The Lord appeared to Abraham in a mortal form as a man if you were to read just a few verses subsequent.
- Someone can have both a father and a father-in-law. Jacob's father was Jacob and his father-in-law was Heli.
- This is just a question, not a contradiction. To answer Jesus accumulated the sins of the world upon himself as a perfect sacrifice, so he was "cursed" in the sense of being temporarily removed from the presence of God the father but redeemed as the salvation of mankind, in essence, fulfilling the scripture
The trinity is confusing.
- I could say:
- p1. Cogusing things are not true or less true.
- p2. Gravity is confusing.
- c. Gravity is not true or less true.
- Something being confusing to you doesn't prove it is more or less true than anything else. This is frankly a non sequitur.
- An explanation of the trinity is best understood as a divine nature or substance in which instantiations or persons are of the same divine essence/nature. Consubstantial. Ontological essence can be understood as substance and the trinity ontology of a person is a being who regards and expresses themself personally but is also full of the same ontological essence.
Is it Jesus that says this, or is it the author of Matthew?
- Matthew is describing the events that occurred in reality. Also, the books were written by their respective apostles and John the baptist.
John 5:19-Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
- Right, because Jesus is God (ontological essence). This is actually just evidence of the trinity. Jesus acts in correspondence with God.
- No, you are just reading a passage and saying it describes the big bang theory. That doesn't really mean much. Besides, in the Bible God separated the heavens and earth as well (Genesis 1:1-25) in the same fashion "Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens."
- I hate to break it to you, but if "Allah," created these just days apart that would indicate that the universe is only a few days older than earth. You don't provide evidence for a day actually meaning something else so I don't know what to say there.
- The Bible says the same thing in Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, and Isaiah 45:12. I don't know if both texts indicate a coincidence or a prophecy congruent with reality.
- Lastly, many Bible prophecies have been fulfilled. So many. I can even document more interesting ones next round.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/
- https://bible.org/article/
- https://moam.info/
- https://www.catholic.com/
- https://www.christianity.com/
- https://answersingenesis.org/
- http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
Simply put nothing in this round proves that Islam is more true than Christianity
- I don't understand the trinity therefore Islam is more true than Islam (obviously doesn't follow).
- Pro argues the bible has contradictions but hasn't shown a single one, and claims that the Quran has no contradictions and hasn't shown evidence of that either.
religion is its historical accuracy.
- Luke Wayne has already shown this to be incorrect.
I appeal to the voter's sense of basic reasoning to recognize such as a conduct violation and dispense the respective points to the contender.
- Because these were previously plagiarized we can discard these points in their entirety. I am simply addressing them for fun. Voters should not take this as giving credence to pro's arguments and can also dismiss this section for assorted reasons for decisions.
1. This isn't a contradiction, there are different contexts assertions are made within any form of conversation. John 1:18 is referring to God's face in his glory or fullness, a feat that would kill an individual. Jacob, like many people, saw a manifestation of God in a different form [8]. God can appeal angelically, or even mortally, there are many manifestations of him.
2. There is no contradiction here. Proposition a is that with God, all things are possible. Proposition b is that Judah did not achieve x end with God on their side. That is not a logical contradiction as the negation of proposition a does not conflict with its affirmation. Something can be possible and still not happen. I can jump off a bridge, it's possible, but it won't happen, for example. For many different reasons, God allowed the Jews to lose many battles [9], reasons that could potentially benefit them in the long term.
3. This is simply explained by the fulfilment of the past stipulations of Mosaic law with the new covenant and the coming of Jesus Christ, who of course, perfected them [5].
4. A similar response goes to the case of circumcision. Both Peter and James emphasized the idea of spiritual circumcision to the gentiles, a simple product of following and keeping God's word. In the new covenant, physical circumcision is not required, but "circumcision," of one's heart to the holy spirit [6].
5. This is just really lazy reading. Job is speaking of physical death and John is prophesying about the resurrection and return of Christ in which death will be abolished and Christ will judge the living and the dead.
6.I have to ask, did you even read these two verses? They are both saying the same message, what do you think the contradiction is here?
7. Weird, again, there isn't even a contradiction in these two verses. Can you explain what you believe the two propositions that come in logical contradiction are?
8. This is the same thing as #1, so the same source, [8] is also applicable here. Moses spoke to god in different manifestations and not face to face in his fullness of glory as no one can survive seeing this. The Lord appeared to Abraham in a mortal form as a man if you were to read just a few verses subsequent.
9. Someone can have both a father and a father-in-law. Jacob's father was Jacob and his father-in-law was Heli.
10. This is just a question, not a contradiction. To answer Jesus accumulated the sins of the world upon himself as a perfect sacrifice, so he was "cursed" in the sense of being temporarily removed from the presence of God the father but redeemed as the salvation of mankind, in essence, fulfilling the scripture
- Something being confusing to you doesn't prove it is more or less true than anything else. This is frankly a non sequitur.
- Matthew is describing the events that occurred in reality. Also, the books were written by their respective apostles and John the baptist.
An explanation of the trinity is best understood as a divine nature or substance in which instantiations or persons are of the same divine essence/nature
- Right, because Jesus is God (ontological essence). This is actually just evidence of the trinity. Jesus acts in correspondence with God.
- No, you are just reading a passage and saying it describes the big bang theory. That doesn't really mean much. Besides, in the Bible God separated the heavens and earth as well (Genesis 1:1-25) in the same fashion "Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens."
- I hate to break it to you, but if "Allah," created these just days apart that would indicate that the universe is only a few days older than earth. You don't provide evidence for a day actually meaning something else so I don't know what to say there.
- The Bible says the same thing in Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, and Isaiah 45:12. I don't know if both texts indicate a coincidence or a prophecy congruent with reality.
- Lastly, many Bible prophecies have been fulfilled. So many. I can even document more interesting ones next round.
- I want to draw the attention of voters to some of the conduct of this final round. Previously, I refuted all of the supposed Bible contradictions presented. Currently, most of my opponent's responses amount to "nuh uh."
- Is it annoying to respond to, perhaps? If left the debate to where it currently stands my opponent has not even come close to meeting his burden, whereas if anything, I have shown that Christianity is more true than Islam based on historical accuracy.
- Lastly pro is bringing up many new points in the final round. Combining this with the shallow responses to my rebuttals of each contradiction that was plagiarized in the first place, this is clearly in the territory of a gish gallop. Voters would not hold be obligated to address such but as typical, I will oblige them when I can.
- Dropped.
- Con drops my whole disposition of evidence including evidence from the Smithsonian museum an extremely credible historical source on the historical accuracy of the Bible.
- He drops each point effectively, and in response, goes on some random tangent so we can conclude with the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Where was the New Testament in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century? In fact the earliest manuscript was in the 4th century.
- Citation is not provided so ignore this. There are manuscripts that date back to the early second century.
- In his rebuttal to this, con cites no sources and responds in a seemingly incomprehensible fashion. Discard all of his claims as unsubstantiated. Extend.
There are no copyist errors in the Quran
- Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami, Islamic professor and Quran scholar admits here that the Quran has copyist errors saying:
"we must nevertheless take into consideration that there are over 250,000 manuscripts of the Qur’an scattered all over the globe. When comparing them it is always possible to find copying mistakes here and there; this is an example of human fallibility, and has been recognized as such by authors who have written extensively on the subject of “unintentional errors.”
I have sent a lot. If the Quran has no contradictions, what am I supposed to send? Non-contradictions? That would make no sense. Absurd point to make there. It is in fact upon you to show me contradictions so I can answer
- Incorrect. "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever" [1].
- Last time I checked, you claimed that "the Quran has no contradictions." As you made a claim, I don't have to prove your claim for you. Thus far, for all we know, this is an unsubstantiated claim.
- Simply extend. Pro copied and pasted his entire round one section from atheits.org. I posit that this invalidates all the bible contradiction points and I simply addressed them for fun. I appeal to voters to observe this debate where a previous opponent did the exact same thing and was punished severely for his plagiarism.
- The preface is that in each of the non-contradictions pro posted that I responded to with sources and basic logic pro essentially responds with "no," to each of them, an obvious waste of the voter's time. I suggest any reader brace him/herself for a mind-numbing analysis of "responses."
1. This isn't a contradiction, there are different contexts assertions are made within any form of conversation. John 1:18 is referring to God's face in his glory or fullness, a feat that would kill an individual. Jacob, like many people, saw a manifestation of God in a different form [8]. God can appeal angelically, or even mortally, there are many manifestations of him.Con makes no sense here. It says he sees God face to face meaning he sees the literal God. It is not referring to his glory, this is a lie. And then it also says his life was spared. You made a point where if someone saw God's face, it would kill him? His life was spared, why? This is a contradiction.
- Extend my rebuttal. I even cite a theological source that goes through the contextual use of these terms. Sometimes God appears to people as a burning bush, as an angel, or even in a human form. When people say they saw God's face they speak of these interactions, however, no one can see God in his divine form or in his Glory [8 round 1].
2. There is no contradiction here. Proposition a is that with God, all things are possible. Proposition b is that Judah did not achieve x end with God on their side. That is not a logical contradiction as the negation of proposition a does not conflict with its affirmation. Something can be possible and still not happen. I can jump off a bridge, it's possible, but it won't happen, for example. For many different reasons, God allowed the Jews to lose many battles [9], reasons that could potentially benefit them in the long term.It states the reason why God could not do it. 'because they had chariots fitted with iron.'. This is the reason. It does not say he could do it but he did not want to. It states the reason.
- Extend. This isn't even a response it's a non-response. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it actually happens or that God allows it to happen. So yes, they could not achieve X end because they had chariots fitted with iron, and it is possible that they could have regardless, but God did not allow such possibility.
3. This is simply explained by the fulfillment of the past stipulations of Mosaic law with the new covenant and the coming of Jesus Christ, who of course, perfected them [5].But Jesus was surely the God of the Old Testament? There is no point adding big words into this, you are beating around the bush. It went from eye to eye to turn the other cheek. Clear contradiction. Con has not answered this in the slightest, complete different teaching. If the Old Testament was the word of God and Jesus then it would be perfect, no errors and no contradictions. This is a contradiction.
- As voters can see my previous assertions of pro's responses amounting to "nuh uh," is evidently true. Extend my rebuttal. Jesus was in the old testament, but he had not descended to earth yet to save mankind. When he did he established the new covenant that perfected the majority of mosaic law and repealed the old covenant.
- As for perfection, I will quote Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe for you as they explain it best. "The law was perfect in its nature but imperfect in its results. It was a perfect expression of God’s righteousness, but an imperfect means of making man righteous [3]. God sent Jesus as a means to empower us to overcome sin, something the law could not account for is human fallibility.
6 .I have to ask, did you even read these two verses? They are both saying the same message, what do you think the contradiction is here?It states in one verse where no one will return and the other they will come forth. Contradiction
- Pro is talking about the wrong verses here. "This is just really lazy reading. Job is speaking of physical death and John is prophesying about the resurrection and return of Christ in which death will be abolished and Christ will judge the living and the dead."
7. Weird, again, there isn't even a contradiction in these two verses. Can you explain what you believe the two propositions that come in logical contradiction are?Do you think Jesus has sinned? And the other Prophets? Because Muslims do not.
- Jesus isn't of earth he is of heaven (part of the trinity). Also, the verses are from Romans/Ecclesiastes, books after Jesus had ascended to heaven.
9. Someone can have both a father and a father-in-law. Jacob's father was Jacob and his father-in-law was Heli.Jacobs father was himself? Also if you look at the genealogy of Jesus from account of Matthew and Luke, Matthew's is subsequently longer. Human error? Bible cannot have human error. Bible has to be the preserved word of God, or it is not the word of God.
- Nitpicking. I was obviously saying that Josephs's father is Jacob you know, what we were literally talking about?
- As for the genealogy, Mattew shows Jesus's father's family and Luke shows his mother's family. That explains the differences.
- lastly, Islamic scholars admit the Quran has human errors.
10. This is just a question, not a contradiction. To answer Jesus accumulated the sins of the world upon himself as a perfect sacrifice, so he was "cursed" in the sense of being temporarily removed from the presence of God the father but redeemed as the salvation of mankind, in essence, fulfilling the scriptureHe was cursed full stop. Then the father raised him up as cursed, but why would the father raise up a cursed man?
- Extend. pro does not engage with my rebuttal.
- Right, because Jesus is God (ontological essence). This is actually just evidence of the trinity. Jesus acts in correspondence with God.
Well it is not. The son can do nothing by himself. If he cannot do anything by himself, how is he God? Is God omnipotent? Is God independent? Yes and Yes. Is Jesus any of those? No. Because Jesus can only do things via the father and is dependant of His creation.
- The verse is saying he acts in accordance with the Father. He cannot do anything without him because they are one of the same ontological essence, God.
- Lastly, just because you don't understand the trinity, doesn't prove it false. We don't understand gravity completely but that doesn't mean it is false.
- Addressing the specific "prophecies" brought up by con.
"the verse in Genesis does not describe it at all. That is talking about the earth, not the universe. And the word heavens is referring to not in the universe."
- This is special pleading. The Bible passage shows God dividing the heavens and the earth just like the Islamic verse, even stating explicitly "then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. God called the space “sky.” (Genesis 1:1-25 NLT).
- Con's verse does not mention the word Universe either, ("21:30- Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then We separated them...") in fact, both verses have the same message, that God separated the heavens and the earth
- No source is provided for any translational meaning of "heaven." Ignore this as an unsubstantiated claim.
As I said, a day is not specified. A day can mean 50,000 years and in one case in the Quran it states that. So a day in the Quran is defined as a 'period of time'. So thank you very much and that is another miracle.
- No citation provided that a day secretly means more than a day. Unsubstantiated claim.
"40:22 refers to heavens, not universe. Same with Jeremiah. Same as 45:12. Try again."
- Your own verse was literally referring to the heavens as well, did pro not even read his own quote? "51:48-And We have built the heaven with might and We continue to expand it indeed." Either the Bible verses are making the same prediction as pro's Quranic verses or none of them are. Otherwise is special pleading.
- Con responds to me saying many Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled to saying many Quran prophecies have been fulfilled.
- This simply shows that both religions have fulfilled prophecies whereas pro's burden is to prove that Islam is more true than Christianity.
- Pro has to prove Islam is more true than Christianity
- I show irrefutable evidence from unbiased and credible historical sources that show the Christian Bible is historically accurate. Pro drops this and shows no evidence of the Quran's accuracy. On this point, we can ascertain that pro has already lost the debate as he has failed to show Islam is more true on an objective standard of analysis.
- Pro loses conduct points for the plagiarism of an entire section of his case in round one.
- Pro does not present a single contradiction in the Bible, evidently because I showed they are not contradictions, and more evidently because he continues to draw them out not even responding to how I disproved them with additional bible verses as context and sources simply serving as a waste of our time. Pro also shows no evidence that the Quran has no contradictions. For all we know, it does.
- Pro doesn't understand the trinity, but that doesn't make it any less true or false. We don't understand gravity completely, however, that doesn't mean it isn't a true phenomenon. Additionally how exactly does this make Islam more true than Christianity? We shall never know as it seems.
- The last point is the prophecies point which all pro is able to demonstrate is that some Quranic prophecies have been fulfilled and some Biblical ones have been fulfilled. That doesn't prove Islam is more true than Christianity.
- This makes our debate quite a simple decision for the voters.
PRO makes a gigantic claim without defining terms or setting burdens.
PRO's entire thesis begins with big leaps in logic, stating that if he can prove that his book has no contradictions while his opponent's book has contradiction his religion must be proved true but never explains the connection between these books and religious veracity. Lack of contradiction does not imply truth or vice versa. "Mary had a Little Lamb" has no contradictions while Thucydides has plenty but nobody would argue that Mary is therefore fact and the Peloponnesian War fiction. PRO never connects his argument to thesis.
This VOTER agree with CON that all plagiarized cut & pastes can be disregarded as any kind of argument.
That leaves PRO arguing that the Trinity is confusing but again, PRO never gets around to explaining why confusing information can't possibly be true.
CON's syllogism game needs some work but he nevertheless effectively bats down PRO's single argument as unconnected to thesis.
PRO's argument never takes his burden to prove Islam more true seriously. Even if we accept these arguments about Biblical contradiction vs. Qur'anic non-contradiction, we're still left with two super old pre-scientific testaments that claim all kinds of magic powers entirely inconsistent with physics and the observable universe.
CON correctly calls out PRO for claiming truths without establishing any facts.
ARGs to CON
SOURCES to CON for PRO's cut & paste plagiarism in place of argument
CONDUCT to CON for same.
Plagiarism can be avoided just be giving due credit. A single line such as 'list compiled by...' is enough. A link for the bible is not needed, but when literally copy/pasting someone else's analysis of it, it's antiethical to not give them credit.
Accept the challenge of the debate, make one and I will accept.
Christianity is more true than Islam because pedophilia is wrong. That's your logic there.
Have I answered your misconceptions?
Glad you have more misconceptions let me answer them for you.
1. Backbone verse
Does not say that semen/sperm comes from the backbone. It is gushing water. Only 2-5% of the fluid are actually semen. The rest is a mix of different things, comes from the seminal gland etc etc. Plus, ribs is not the correct translated word. It is actually loins.
2. Flat Earth
[79:30] He made the earth egg-shaped.
[Q39:5] He created the heavens and the earth truthfully. He rolls the night over the day, and rolls the day over the night.*- Meaning it is not flat.
Plus the verse that you mentioned 88:20, means the earth is spread out, not flat. The earth is not flat.
3. Seven Earths
Different opinions on this verse as it is only mentioned once.
https://quran.com/en/at-talaq/12
That is the verse and it says 'layers;. So it may be referring to the different layers of earth like the heavens. And scientifically, there are 7 layers. However as it is only mentioned once, there is not enough information.
4. Sun and Moon chasing each other
Where does it say the sun and moon chase each other around the earth? But offensive for you to even say this. 'Each is travelling in an orbit of their own.' 36:40
5. Human embryos
The word 'alaqa' is also defined as a leech like substance. This is also true according to science.
6. Sky would fall
What is the contradiction here?
7. Stars being missiles
Untrue. Stars keep the devil/s away.
I have to pray now, let me know if you have any more misconceptions for me to answer. Have a great day
Ok, thanks. I have a couple more.
The Qur'an claims that semen is formed between the backbone and ribs (Surah 86, verses 6-7), that the earth is flat (Surah 88, verse 20), that there are seven earths (surah 65, verse 12), that the sun and the moon chase each other around the earth (surah 36, verses 38-40), that human embryos are blood-clots (surah 22, verse 5), that the sky would fall on the earth if Allah didn't hold it up (surah 22, verse 65), and that stars are missiles that Allah uses to shoot demons who try to sneak into heaven (surah 37, verses 6-10, and surah 67, verse 5).
Glad to help.
It says 41:11- 'Then He turned towards the heaven'
This means that the universe was already there. Good try, misconception however
How can Muslims believe the Quran is true if it has major errors like saying the Earth was made before the universe in Surah 41:9-12?
Clearly we have a difference of opinion.
Now what Muslims believe is when the day of judgement is going to come, Jesus is going to say to those who worshipped him to 'get out of his sight'. He gave a message and the people corrupted it. Obviously you will not believe that, however this is just a warning. If you do not believe it, then we will see when it comes to it.
God is omnipresent. He has no "seat" lol
Once more you can only have this thought through the illusion of duality, separateness. Its simply a metaphor.
I will try to watch the video tomorrow, gotta watch Arsenal vs Orlando City today. Prediction Gabriel Jesus gonna score a double
How about that last part, where is God in heaven? Where does he sit?
It is an interesting conversation. But it isn't contradictory in the least once we don't see God as separate from Jesus. God sent himself through Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg0c32KbA-g&t=2s
its a long video, you can put it in 1.5x speed if you find it long.
Can you send the video again please? I seem to have lost it
Secondly,
Islam is completely different. These things that we believe in, the 5 pillars, these are the fundamental things which are not confusing, everyone thinks the same on them and are explicitly said that a human must do these things at the very basics. However, the trinity is nothing like these. Each Christian gives a different answer. I have had the EED argument, I have had the water argument, I have had the forefathers argument, I have had the body argument, so much. This is a fundamental belief. It depends on salvation. Name me 1 thing in Islam that is like this and depends on salvation. There is none.
This illusion argument as well. Seems like Christians have gotten confused. Everyone is human temporarily, we then die. Jesus did the same. Everyone is born, Jesus was the same. He was a man yes, but had humanistic qualities. The argument of being 100% human and 100% God is a paradox in itself. Jesus is Gods creation. The water analogy-https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html
Yes I agree with the last bit to an extent. People do change religions. I watch speakers corner, debate videos. I do not think 1 Christian video that I watched, the Christian has come off better than the Muslim. And these videos are on different channels. some being non-Muslim channels too. I pick the religion that makes the most sense, the book in which has no contradictions, no errors etc.
No one knows the authors of the 4 gospels, these are anonymous. The earliest manuscript for the new testament was in the 4th century. We can see errors and contradictions in the Bible, Jesus does not admit to being God, nor did any Prophet worship him. There is no trinity in the Bible however Christians constantly are like its there.
Muslim : Who is God?
Christian : Jesus
Muslim : Is Jesus the son of Mary.
Christian : Yes
Muslim : Who created Mary?
Christian : God.
Muslim : Who is God?
Christian: Jesus
Muslim : Jesus is the begotten son.
Christian : Yes
Muslim : Who is his father?
Christian : God.
Muslim : Who is God?
Christian : Jesus.
Muslim : Jesus is a servant of God.
Christian : Yes
Muslim : Jesus died on the cross?
Christian : Yes
Muslim : Who resurrected him?
Christian : God.
Muslim : Is Jesus a messenger.
Christian : Yes
Muslim : Who sent him?
Christian : God.
Muslim : Who is God?
Christian : Jesus.
Muslim: Did Jesus worship while on earth.
Christian: Yes
Muslim: Whom did he worship?
Christian: God.
Muslim : Who is God?
Christian : Jesus.
Muslim : Did God have a beginning?
Christian : No
Muslim: Then who was born on 25/DEC?
Christian : Jesus.
Muslim : Is Jesus God.
Christian : Yes
Muslim : Where's God?
Christian : In heaven.
Muslim : How many Gods are there in heaven?
Christian : Only one God.
Muslim : Where's Jesus?
Christian : He is seated on the right hand of his father.
Muslim : Then how many are they in heaven?
Christian : Only one God.
Muslim : Then how many seats?
Christian : one
Muslim : where's Jesus?
Christian: Seated next to God.
This is an interesting conversation
Jesus was only a human temporarily. His identity as a human was an illusion, as he was more than his body, more than the qualities of the body he temporarily possessed, he was a man but MORE than just a human and the qualities of man. Jesus isn't separate from God, so he did indeed get his power from god but God is Jesus, so therefore he god his powers from himself... Simply because he talks about God in separate pieces for coherence doesn't mean he was. My water analogy still stands. Just as water can be in separate states doesn't mean it isn't one.
Again you will never change your mind on this topic. The thing is if you were born a Christian you would agree with all of this. You only refuse to see it because you were born into a different religion. I say this as someone who is not even a christian.
I don't understand your salvation argument. I would agree with it, i would just say Islam isn't much different. At least an atheist wouldn't believe it anymore than Christianity. Its filled with tales of flying horses lifting Muhammad up in flames too. Its filled with morals which no one in their right mind would make a maxim in the modern day aswell. Much of shari'ah for instance believe you should have the punishment for death for homosexuality and adultery, all things incompatible with democratic values.
That's your opinion. Catholics have their own doctrine and philosophy which overcomes these problems and so do the Quakers. Watch the meister eckhart video....please lol
If you truly care to get the best answer to this possible and not to simply try to convert people to Islam, then you would watch it if you care for the truth. It would truly refute all your arguments in a manner you would not be able to respond.
It is not accurate comparing something which is part of humanity to God. God is above humanity. He is the creator.
Now if Jesus relies on God for his existence, how is he God. Think about it. Muslims believe that God has not inherited these powers or attributes. They have been there with Him, always. Jesus is not an attribute, he was a human. You may disagree, but this is facts. He was a human. Jesus relied on the father, the father never relied on anything else. Tell me what makes sense?
Also you never answered the part where I talked about, this is a huge issue and my salvation relies upon it. Why is it so argued upon, it should be categorically clear otherwise the Christian God is selfish and tells people to rely on blind faith.
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-state-of-matter-can-be-solid-and-liquid-at-the-same-time
"The same water cannot be solid, liquid and gas at the same time, but this is what the trinity is."
wrong.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52562.0
EVEN if water couldn't (which it can) be all 3 at once, why could GOD not be? God is beyond these things.
" If we remove the father, the other 2 parts of the trinity won't. Jesus relies on the Father. Now if Jesus relies on the father, to do whatever, to live, to do miracles etc, then he is dependant. And if Jesus is dependant, then he is not God. It is as simple as that."
Yes, Jesus relies on God. But God is still himself. Just like God relies on himself for his own powers too! you can only think this thought as you still see God as separate pieces.
Bad analogy.
The same water cannot be solid, liquid and gas at the same time, but this is what the trinity is. All 3 components are God, fully divine to 100% , yet Jesus is 100% human as well. If we remove Jesus, the father will exist. If we remove the holy spirit, the father will exist. If we remove the father, the other 2 parts of the trinity won't. Jesus relies on the Father. Now if Jesus relies on the father, to do whatever, to live, to do miracles etc, then he is dependant. And if Jesus is dependant, then he is not God. It is as simple as that.
Yes I know there is a difference of opinion, however my salvation relies on this, so why is it not simple? Why is there such a huge difference of opinion amongst Christians when it is the most fundamental teachings in my opinion. There is no mention of the trinity in the Bible, that they are some co-equal God. It just does not work.
My point is this. Bible contains errors and contradictions, yes Con has 'answered' some however I need to have a rebuttle. The Quran does not. Both are the main books of the religions. Thus, this makes Islam more true than Christianity. As the basis of Islam is to follow the Quran and the basis of the latter is to follow Christianity. Nothing new
these are easily your weakest debates in my opinion, rayhan. Your entire argument comes from assuming you know God more than Jesus did. Unless you believe the Bible is 80% lies. Either the Bible is a book full of lies or you know more than a prophet.
"Another analogy for the Trinity is that God is three in one, just as H2O can exist as a solid, a liquid, and a gas. This, too, can be helpful in understanding that there is something about God that is one and something about God that is threefold. However, ice, water, and vapor are three modes of being of H2O. To take this analogy too far would be to think that God exists in three modes and can express being God in three ways. However, the Father, Son, and Spirit are not just modes of being. We might say that this analogy emphasizes the oneness of God at the expense of God’s three-ness."
I think this one was a great analogy, you just cant seem to understand how God can have different qualities from which you imagine him having. You clearly put God into your own mental boxes, of what he should and shouldn't do if he were a self reliant being. If you simply watched ibn arabi, which you still clearly haven't done. You would have an answer to this question a week ago. Just because Jesus chose to indulge in human sensations and eating food etc, doesn't mean he needed too or was even reliant on such things, He clearly wasn't (at least through most of his life). He could do anything he wanted according to scripture, he just didnt to respect free will. He allowed himself to feel pain of a human body and take on our sins. There's no contradictions here, simply black and white thinking. Does God truly lose infinity in your eyes if aspect of his infinity CHOOSE to feel non infinity temporarily? that still doesn't deny the fact God is still overall infinite in his highest form and can attain union with this form once more. Theres a million different sects of Christianity which all have their own consistent philosophies which answer these questions already. Just in their own ways. Catholics say Jesus never sinned, so he never needed to eat. Quakers say he was born a man like me and you, he did sin but attained immortality in oneness with God on the cross. The answers are there. All of them have consistent answers to this in their own way.
I do acknowledge I got the quotes from the atheist site, however it should not really affect it. Plus, round 2 I copied the quotes from the actual bible NIV so hopefully that should be enough
If this comes down to the definition of plagiarism, that will be annoying. I think Pro has a point since the points are just from the bible (he's literally citing the primary source); they could settle it by citing atheists.org, but Con may win on a technicality.
I don't think arguments themselves are copyrighted, maybe some of the phrasing though.
How could I plagiarize quotes? It is written in your Bible. It is not plagiarism as we know I never wrote it, it's in the bible. Stupid point to make
They always run in the end
Right, so as you have not provided any evidence for your claims nor have you given your point of view on how the universe was created, you have not got my permission to talk to me. Once you provide that evidence and point of view then expect an answer.
Sorry, I have to go.
Have you ever been under a general anesthetic? That is your afterlife.
I am asking you as you made the claim. The old saying 'whoever makes the claim you gotta provide the evidence' or your claim is invalid.
"What could create the universe if it was not God following my criterium in my last message?"
Ask Elon Musk.
First of all, how does that correlate to my questions?
I am on earth for 1 reason only, and you already know that reason
Secondly
Please answer these questions
What could create the universe if it was not God following my criterium in my last message?
Who is under a bigger risk?
Well, I do have a Harvard COOP card. Sorry, I'm just working on my Silver Medal.
First of all, how does that correlate to my questions?
I am on earth for 1 reason only, and you already know that reason
Secondly
Please answer these questions
What could create the universe if it was not God following my criterium in my last message?
Who is under a bigger risk?
You are on Earth for one reason only. That is to promote evolution. Look around you, there are filthy rich stupid people and kids dying of cancer.
I am not Christian but a Muslim.
You never answered any of my points,
What could create the universe if it was not God following my criterium in my last message?
Who is under a bigger risk?
'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses,' Einstein wrote to Gutkind, 'the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. '-Albert Einstein
"There is no God," wrote Stephen Hawking, "No one directs the universe."
First of all, opium gives you hope. Opium is there for peace of mind, for a purpose in life. Fake religion does not.
First of all, religion gives you hope. Religion is there for peace of mind, for a purpose in life. Atheism does not.
Besides, who has more to lose here
Me or you?
Lets say there is no God (I do not believe this but it is hypothetical), nothing would happen to me, I would die and that would be it.
Then lets say there is a God, and Islam was the truth. You would be in a sticky situation my friend,
We can also discount the theory that nothing created the universe as nothing does not exist.
A dependant entity cannot create the universe because it would be an infinite regress.
The entity that created the universe must have no beginning or else it would be dependant of time
This just discounts the theory of nothing creating the universe, the multiverse, any dependant thing that you can think of right now cannot create the universe.
It is illogical to say anything other than God created the universe.
Unless you can give me a sufficient answer, religion is the truth
Religion is the opium of the people.
Well, if you want for me to leave you alone in your debates, you should have said so. I will leave this comment section now. We will still meet in that debate that you challenged me to .
Why you so obsessed with me? You moving like a pedo. Get out of my comment section
This is why you shouldnt let terrorists(muslims) in your country. First they want to constantly debate you and after they lose every debate, they want to chop off your head.