Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#5151

Islam

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1479
rating
316
debates
39.08%
won
Description

Any topic of Islam is open to critique. Please limit to 1-3 main topics that you disagree with. I can give examples like Sharia, Muhammad, Hijab, etc. Put the topic in the comment and ask a question about it. Then the discussion can start.

Use logical arguments and don't use normative, assertive fallacies, or appeals to emotion.

Since Islam is a religion, the assumption is that God exists so we are not debating this topic.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Jesus being God in the flesh/divine Son of God
Logically speaking I can't accept this. Simply because God is: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. If he is the creator of everything than how can he be in "the flesh"?


The virgin Mary/Virgin birth
In Islam, this is accepted. Bible is a valid source and a holy book with (some/most) divine revelations.  


The death/resurrection of Christ from crucifixion
Muslims believe that Jesus didn't get get crucified but it was "made to appear so":  https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=157 Since Jesus is a very old historical figures it's difficult to prove whether it was Jesus or someone else. Testimonies are not the most reliable source of evidence or knowledge. If God is capable of giving a prophet miracles (bring back the dead, cure leprosy, etc.) then he is capable of making the death appear like Jesus was crucified. 


Con
#2
" If he is the creator of everything than how can he be in "the flesh"?"

I see many folks that believe in God , believe certain things about God and yet preface those things with "if".

I understand the context of this topic is already accepting who God is which would be accepting God as the creator.

I understand the Islam religion accepts God as the creator. So it's being that God is the creator of everything then how could God be in flesh?

Well does the Islam religion believe that all things are possible with God? Do Islam folks believe God is Almighty?

The biblical scriptures support this. This is where and why I see the disagreement comes in on who or what God is. 
A God that has created all things can certainly use that mighty power to be manifested in flesh as the biblical scriptures teach and hideth himself as well as filling heaven and earth. Flesh is on earth so why couldn't God fill flesh?

Does the Islam belief accept what God can do?

I'm interested and like to know.

"In Islam, this is accepted. Bible is a valid source and a holy book with (some/most) divine revelations.  "

Apparently all members in the Islam faith don't as I've heard biblical discussions on this with the NOI being in the negative on the virgin birth.

Maybe the nation is a different thing. If you don't have anything on that or know about why there would be disagreement, we can scratch this sub topic off the list.


"Muslims believe that Jesus didn't get get crucified but it was "made to appear so": https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=157 Since Jesus is a very old historical figures it's difficult to prove whether it was Jesus or someone else. Testimonies are not the most reliable source of evidence or knowledge."

The bible teaches the account of Jesus hung and slew on a tree(cross), whom they have pierced and out came blood and water.

Now you say testimonies are not the most reliable source but they're biblical which you say is valid.

"Bible is a valid source and a holy book with (some/most) divine revelations.  "

Someone testifies and witnesses something. Their testimony serves as a witness.
The scriptures teach the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

Does Islam accept the witness of God of his only begotten Son ?


"If God is capable of giving a prophet miracles (bring back the dead, cure leprosy, etc.) then he is capable of making the death appear like Jesus was crucified. "

Likewise God being capable of raising up a prophet as the scripture says, that prophet says "but this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” That same God that gave his only begotten Son, the flesh that he will give for the life of the world.

So it appears to be me that Islam takes some of the scripture as true or believes parts. 

The big disagreement there is with taking only part . Why is some of it taken and the rest not taken for the sake basis which really comes down to belief?
Round 2
Pro
#3

I see many folks that believe in God , believe certain things about God and yet preface those things with "if".
We arrive at the conclusion of God through logic (not science). Therefore, everything that we question and assume about him has to align logically. 

I understand the Islam religion accepts God as the creator. So it's being that God is the creator of everything then how could God be in flesh?
Yes, that's the question. 

Well does the Islam religion believe that all things are possible with God? Do Islam folks believe God is Almighty?
Islam believes that God is omnipotent (all -powerful) but he can't do impossible things (i.e create a rock that he can't lift). 
Def: Impossible 
1. not able to occur, exist, or be done.
2. very difficult
Synonyms of impossible: illogical, irrational, etc. 
Here I am talking about impossible based on the 1st definition i.e the logical meaning of impossible. Impossible means not possible at all. God being both creator and created is a contradiction, and impossible. I will clarify more later. 

The biblical scriptures support this. This is where and why I see the disagreement comes in on who or what God is. 
Yes Christian and Islamic understanding of God is different (but mostly similar). Not all Christians would say the biblical scriptures support God being a human (unitarians). But I'm not going to argue through biblical scriptures because they are mainly historical narrations not logical arguments.

A God that has created all things can certainly use that mighty power to be manifested in flesh as the biblical scriptures teach and hideth himself as well as filling heaven and earth. Flesh is on earth so why couldn't God fill flesh?

Does the Islam belief accept what God can do?
Okay now to answer the question why Muslims believe God is omnipotent but not able to do impossible things. The problem is we can't accept God to do impossible (illogical) things like "can God create a rock he can't lift", "or can God make 2+2=5". God can't do contradictory things. This is not a limit of God, but a limit of humans. Human logic and knowledge is limited. Since we talk in terms of logic and define God logically, we also assume that impossible things can't happen. It could be that God can do possible things, but we can't use logic to argue this. Talking outside the realm of logic is agreeing to contradictory things (2+2=5). So we can't accept. 

Apparently all members in the Islam faith don't as I've heard biblical discussions on this with the NOI being in the negative on the virgin birth.

Maybe the nation is a different thing. If you don't have anything on that or know about why there would be disagreement, we can scratch this sub topic off the list.
Firstly Islam is not based on faith. 
Def: Faith 
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Based on the 2nd defintion belief in God is through spiritual means rather than proof. Mainstream Christianity is more faith-based whereas Islam is reason-based. The concept of the trinity is illogical as explained earlier so requires a "leap of faith". 

I don't know what kind of biblical discussions that you saw but  Islam believes that Mary had Jesus as a virgin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_in_Islam#:~:text=Mary%20is%20one%20of%20the,above%20the%20women%20of%20the

Since we agree we don't need to discuss the topic of virginity of Mary. Let me know in the comments. 

The bible teaches the account of Jesus hung and slew on a tree(cross), whom they have pierced and out came blood and water.

Now you say testimonies are not the most reliable source but they're biblical which you say is valid.
Yes, but how does one know it was Jesus? God can deceive people into thinking it was Jesus. Or people can deceive themselves. Our sensory experience is not the strongest means of truth. Therefore, testimonies are not reliable. Yes Bible is valid but arguments for validity can be sound or unsound. 

Someone testifies and witnesses something. Their testimony serves as a witness.
Testimony serves as evidence but evidence is not a strong proof. In epistemology there are 4 main sources of knowledge and justified belief: perception, reason, memory, and testimony. Only one of those sources i.e reason is the main arbiter of truth. All the others can be easily disproved and are not strong sources of proof. 
Def: Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
At best evidence can be used to disprove something. Not prove something. 

The scriptures teach the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Does Islam accept the witness of God of his only begotten Son ?
Muslim believe the Quran is a greater authority because it is the word of God. Bible is mainly historical narrations with some texts inspired by God. So if the word of God says he was not crucified then Muslims take that over the Bible accounts. The Quran does not contain contradictions. The Bible does. So the Bibles account on history can be refuted because its Gods word > humans word. 

Likewise God being capable of raising up a prophet as the scripture says, that prophet says "but this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” That same God that gave his only begotten Son, the flesh that he will give for the life of the world.
I already explained why Muslims don't believe God can do impossible things (have a literal son). 

So it appears to be me that Islam takes some of the scripture as true or believes parts.  

The big disagreement there is with taking only part . Why is some of it taken and the rest not taken for the sake basis which really comes down to belief?
It doesn't come down to belief but using logical reasoning. If the Bible says 2+2=5, we can't that that. Islam does not accept the contradictory parts like God having a son (argument for impossibility as explained), or that prophets were fallible (like committing incest, etc.).  
Con
#4
"how does Christianity answer the question: how can God be both the creator and created? Is that not contradictory?"

This is interesting because we can flush out the distinction between "Christianity" a man made invented religion versus the holy religion outlined biblically.

Now because this thing called Christianity is an umbrella of denominations with multiple different sectors, I suppose it will have multiple different answers for the question above.

But according to the scriptures, it teaches that God is from everlasting to everlasting. It said all things were made by him and without him not anything was made. So God was never created according to the scripture. 
I believe it says in Revelation 3 about the beginning of the creation of God or God's creation.

"We arrive at the conclusion of God through logic (not science). Therefore, everything that we question and assume about him has to align logically. "

This wasn't even my point but I'll point out an observation right here from what you said.

I think this is another disagreement in Islam. From what I'm getting so far, Islam relies on logic and the understandings limited to it. Where people that follow the teachings of Christ and the biblical scriptures, it goes passed your own understanding and that they receive their wisdom and understanding from the spirit see.

Also I can conclude that this is the reason some things are rejected of Islam over the scriptures due to actually not receiving understanding from God but just based on what they can understand and naturally rationalize.

"Islam believes that God is omnipotent (all -powerful) but he can't do impossible things (i.e create a rock that he can't lift). 
Def: Impossible 
1. not able to occur, exist, or be done.
2. very difficult
Synonyms of impossible: illogical, irrational, etc. 
Here I am talking about impossible based on the 1st definition i.e the logical meaning of impossible. Impossible means not possible at all. God being both creator and created is a contradiction, and impossible. I will clarify more later. "

Let's just get down to the point. Do you or Islam folks find it impossible that Almighty God can fill flesh like he fills earth?

"But I'm not going to argue through biblical scriptures because they are mainly historical narrations not logical arguments."

The bible is the reference used to draw the disagreements so it's relevant and will be referred to .

"Okay now to answer the question why Muslims believe God is omnipotent but not able to do impossible things."

So I guess the short answer is no. Islam folks don't believe God is Almighty and that nothing is impossible for God. Islam believes it's impossible to fill flesh. Maybe fill all of earth but not flesh. 

Mind you we're not talking about the holiness of God according to the scriptures. God can't do anything that will be against that. Let's not get that twisted with the idea of limited power. 

So big disagreement people will have, particularly Christian or holiness folks will have with Islam is that you believe in a finite God and it's really their own logic tripping them up.

Reminds me of the book . 
"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom". "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. "

Since the recurring subject here is logic, logic,logic, is it not logical , would it not stand to reason or would it not make sense that a God creator of all things, let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, have the power to do impossible things?

Mind you impossible things to people. This is why people in the holy faith believe that they can do all things through Christ that strengthens them. They also believe their own wisdom is foolishness to God so they don't dictate, decide, rationalize themselves what is and isn't possible for God . 

So as we can see this is a huge divide and disagreement with what Islam holds.

It's like Islam has made their own god according to them .

Brings me to put forth Jeremiah. This is where others outside of Islam would disagree with Islam based on this passage and it's dealing with what we've been discussing so far regarding power and the might of God.

Jeremiah 16:
"20 Do people make their own gods?
    Yes, but they are not gods!”
21 “Therefore I will teach them—
    this time I will teach them
    my power and might.
Then they will know
    that my name is the Lord."

In Romans 9 " Hath not the potter power over the clay"

Very very interesting interaction on these topics.

"Firstly Islam is not based on faith. "

Allow me to explain what I particularly mean by the terms in way I use them. I believe in understanding what the other person is saying and it's where you get clarity.

When I say Islam faith , I'm referring to people that are a part of Islam, involved in Islam, following Islamic content and their beliefs in pertaining to it.

We don't have to get too sidetracked with this just as long as we have a general idea of what the other is saying.

"Yes, but how does one know it was Jesus? God can deceive people into thinking it was Jesus. Or people can deceive themselves. Our sensory experience is not the strongest means of truth. Therefore, testimonies are not reliable. Yes Bible is valid but arguments for validity can be sound or unsound. "

Well it's not even about "know". Is this why Islam rejects the death of Jesus Christ because they're hung up on "knowing " it was Jesus Christ? 

I think I pointed this out . Islam in spite of what you've been saying, doesn't really believe in the scriptures. See because the scriptures say to be believe on him as the scriptures have said. Where in the scriptures does it teach that God will deceive you about the death of his son?

See instead believing the scripture, it appears Islam is relying on what they know perhaps swayed by the Quran walking by sight.
Although according to the centurion in the book "When the centurion standing there in front of Jesus saw how He had breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!" "

The bible is valid but is not totally reliable to Islam is that right? 

Isn't something that is valid true and correct?
So what kind of truth exists that is unreliable?

You can always rely on truth opposed to falsehood.

So really in summary even before we've reached the end of this debate, I can see how and where the disagreement comes in with Islam.

They have a God that really is not mightier than them or not much than. You have demonstrated that by only having a God that can only exist to fit what can only logically make sense of, argue of by arguing limitations and possibilities, arguing logic to the point that it shuts out or rejects anything that absolutely cannot fit into the finite reasoning of man.

"Testimony serves as evidence but evidence is not a strong proof."

To bring it to the main point, biblical testimonies are valid according to you as you said the bible is valid.

If you want to retract this, go ahead.

" At best evidence can be used to disprove something. Not prove something. "

According to the scriptures it proves things not seen. Valid according to you , I guess rejected by Islam.

Anything that is proven and has been proven has been done so with what is called evidence.

"Does Islam accept the witness of God of his only begotten Son ?"

Please answer yes or no to this question. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.

"Bible is mainly historical narrations with some texts inspired by God. "

Is this what people in Islam know or believe?

Do they believe or know that some of the texts that were inspired didn't include the witness of God of his son that died, was buried and resurrected? How so? How do they believe or know which is which?

"So if the word of God says he was not crucified then Muslims take that over the Bible accounts. "

Can you provide the Quran reference and QUOTE it in this debate? Don't just reference it, please quote it likewise to me quoting the scriptures.

"The Quran does not contain contradictions. The Bible does. "

Well perhaps we can have another time to debate on what is thought to be contradictions in the bible. 

I'm going to tell you right now, people leaning on their logic and understanding WILL always see the bible as contradictory.

The gospel is hid to them that are lost.
Just saying flat out.

"So the Bibles account on history can be refuted because its Gods word > humans word. "

Then it's not valid as you say then. 

"I already explained why Muslims don't believe God can do impossible things (have a literal son). "

So interesting. Just think about it. Doing something like creating all the planets and everything, causing a virgin to be with child. Impossible as far what man can do. Islam believes the power of God created all that but can't accept that power to be at work inside a man. 

It's either a contrary stance or a biased one. Matter of realization, it's truly both.

"It doesn't come down to belief but using logical reasoning."

That's where the problem comes in. The book says faith comes by hearing the word of God. Perhaps that is rejected to by Islam.

Islam hears the word and doesn't believe. Reminds me of the parable about seed hitting the ground not taking root.

"If the Bible says 2+2=5, we can't that that."

The bible is not a math book. It's not a science book, logical book, natural book. 

To those that BELIEVE of course, it is a spiritual book. A book of life. A book of words , they are spirit, they are life. So those that believe search the scriptures in which is thought to have eternal life.

So that is the stumbling block . Islam does not really believe in a God greater or too far greater than them limited to logic, limited to the natural, limited to human wisdom.

I think we've pretty much covered everything in this topic.

"Islam does not accept the contradictory parts like God having a son (argument for impossibility as explained), or that prophets were fallible (like committing incest, etc.).  "

I rest my case due to character limit.
Round 3
Pro
#5

This is interesting because we can flush out the distinction between "Christianity" a man made invented religion versus the holy religion outlined biblically.

Now because this thing called Christianity is an umbrella of denominations with multiple different sectors, I suppose it will have multiple different answers for the question above.

But according to the scriptures, it teaches that God is from everlasting to everlasting. It said all things were made by him and without him not anything was made. So God was never created according to the scripture. 
I believe it says in Revelation 3 about the beginning of the creation of God or God's creation.
I am aware that Jesus was “eternally begotten” by God (according to Christians after nicean creed) but it still implies that the father was the uncaused and Jesus and Holy Spirit were caused. In this case you have 3 beings or persons that you say is 1 God but the distinction between them is that they are dependent on each other except the father. 

This wasn't even my point but I'll point out an observation right here from what you said.

I think this is another disagreement in Islam. From what I'm getting so far, Islam relies on logic and the understandings limited to it. Where people that follow the teachings of Christ and the biblical scriptures, it goes passed your own understanding and that they receive their wisdom and understanding from the spirit see.

Also I can conclude that this is the reason some things are rejected of Islam over the scriptures due to actually not receiving understanding from God but just based on what they can understand and naturally rationalize.
Receiving an understanding from "spirit" could also be argued by muslims or any group. The common understanding is that when we argue we have to come from a rational perspective not my book says this so it's right. That would be circular reasoning. 

Let's just get down to the point. Do you or Islam folks find it impossible that Almighty God can fill flesh like he fills earth?
Yes because the trinity when explained in any model resorts in either heresy or contradictions. Please propose the model of trinity you believe. You have't explained why it's not a contradiction.

The bible is the reference used to draw the disagreements so it's relevant and will be referred to .
Yes the bible is relevant but saying X is true because the bible says it's true is not a good argument. Also, you quote a bible verse which gives no explanation of how your view of trinity is coherent. The argument is circular. 

So I guess the short answer is no. Islam folks don't believe God is Almighty and that nothing is impossible for God. Islam believes it's impossible to fill flesh. Maybe fill all of earth but not flesh. 
I already explained my answer to the paradox of omnipotence. Christians also have the same answer. They say God can't create a rock he can't lift. Do they not believe in a all-powerful God too?

Mind you we're not talking about the holiness of God according to the scriptures. God can't do anything that will be against that. Let's not get that twisted with the idea of limited power. 
So big disagreement people will have, particularly Christian or holiness folks will have with Islam is that you believe in a finite God and it's really their own logic tripping them up.
As explained above let's get down to the belief in the trinity so we can discuss why it's not plausible. 

Since the recurring subject here is logic, logic,logic, is it not logical , would it not stand to reason or would it not make sense that a God creator of all things, let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, have the power to do impossible things?
Mind you impossible things to people. This is why people in the holy faith believe that they can do all things through Christ that strengthens them. They also believe their own wisdom is foolishness to God so they don't dictate, decide, rationalize themselves what is and isn't possible for God .So So as we can see this is a huge divide and disagreement with what Islam holds.
It's like Islam has made their own god according to them .
No I would argue it's Christians who have made their own "God" because the God is 1 for most monotheists Jews and Muslims. 

Well it's not even about "know". Is this why Islam rejects the death of Jesus Christ because they're hung up on "knowing " it was Jesus Christ? 

I think I pointed this out . Islam in spite of what you've been saying, doesn't really believe in the scriptures. See because the scriptures say to be believe on him as the scriptures have said. Where in the scriptures does it teach that God will deceive you about the death of his son?

See instead believing the scripture, it appears Islam is relying on what they know perhaps swayed by the Quran walking by sight.
Although according to the centurion in the book "When the centurion standing there in front of Jesus saw how He had breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!" "

Where is your argument? All you are doing is making argument from the Bible. This is not how we debate. The debate becomes circular. I'm reffering to the trinity. It is the main reason that I can't believe Christianity. If you would provide me why, then this argument would hold. 

The bible is valid but is not totally reliable to Islam is that right? 

Isn't something that is valid true and correct?
So what kind of truth exists that is unreliable?

You can always rely on truth opposed to falsehood.

So really in summary even before we've reached the end of this debate, I can see how and where the disagreement comes in with Islam.
Yes parts of the bible are valid. Even the main doctrine of the trinity was later formed during nicean creed. 

They have a God that really is not mightier than them or not much than. You have demonstrated that by only having a God that can only exist to fit what can only logically make sense of, argue of by arguing limitations and possibilities, arguing logic to the point that it shuts out or rejects anything that absolutely cannot fit into the finite reasoning of man.
Christians believe the same. God can't do contradictory things. I don't think you are aware of your own beliefs.

To bring it to the main point, biblical testimonies are valid according to you as you said the bible is valid.
Yes but there are contradictory testimonies. So how do we take that as the main bearer of truth? 

According to the scriptures it proves things not seen. Valid according to you , I guess rejected by Islam.

Anything that is proven and has been proven has been done so with what is called evidence.
You are saying it proves things not seen however testimonies are things that are seen. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Proof does not mean evidence. Proof can be without evidence like proof for the existence of God. 

Please answer yes or no to this question. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.
Who is this witness? 

Is this what people in Islam know or believe?
Do they believe or know that some of the texts that were inspired didn't include the witness of God of his son that died, was buried and resurrected? How so? How do they believe or know which is which?
Well they believe this because they reject many things in the bible like the trinity. Because of this a book with no contradictions comes affirming those beliefs so they take that book. You still have not shown how trinity is not contradictory or shown a model. This argument is going nowhere. 

Can you provide the Quran reference and QUOTE it in this debate? Don't just reference it, please quote it likewise to me quoting the scriptures.

I'm going to tell you right now, people leaning on their logic and understanding WILL always see the bible as contradictory.
It's not my logic. I did not create it. It was created and supported by people of all religions and backgrounds. If you have a better system to determine truth than entire human history, please let me know. You may win millions with this new idea. 

So interesting. Just think about it. Doing something like creating all the planets and everything, causing a virgin to be with child. Impossible as far what man can do. Islam believes the power of God created all that but can't accept that power to be at work inside a man. 
Impossible does not mean very hard. God can break the laws of nature and physics i.e perform miracles. Not logic. Even Christians believe this.

Islam hears the word and doesn't believe. Reminds me of the parable about seed hitting the ground not taking root.
You are just making assertions or preaching at best. This is a debate. 
The bible is not a math book. It's not a science book, logical book, natural book. 
If it's not a logical book then it's an illogical book. I don't think you understand what you are saying. 

To those that BELIEVE of course, it is a spiritual book. A book of life. A book of words , they are spirit, they are life. So those that believe search the scriptures in which is thought to have eternal life.
It's okay to believe in the Quran too for that same reason. These are not good arguments and can be used either way. 

I think we've pretty much covered everything in this topic.
Except for the main subject of Trinity. The central belief of 95% of Christians. 







Con
#6
"I am aware that Jesus was “eternally begotten” by God (according to Christians after nicean creed) but it still implies that the father was the uncaused and Jesus and Holy Spirit were caused. In this case you have 3 beings or persons that you say is 1 God but the distinction between them is that they are dependent on each other except the father. "

Well long story short because of time and character limitation, the biblical scriptures doesn't teach all this of what you just stated . I understand you may receive this from the man made religion of Christianity but far from the truth it is and this is not a topic on the trinity so I will leave it there.

"Receiving an understanding from "spirit" could also be argued by muslims or any group. The common understanding is that when we argue we have to come from a rational perspective not my book says this so it's right. That would be circular reasoning. "

Long story short again which is receiving understanding from the spirit or a rational perspective.

"Yes because the trinity when explained in any model resorts in either heresy or contradictions. Please propose the model of trinity you believe. You have't explained why it's not a contradiction."

Ok Islam rejects an almighty God with all things being possible. Pretty much end of story.

You'd have to quote where I stated anything about a trinity or even where I stated I believe in a trinity. Scriptures say speak on what you know.

"Yes the bible is relevant but saying X is true because the bible says it's true is not a good argument. Also, you quote a bible verse which gives no explanation of how your view of trinity is coherent. The argument is circular. "

Here's what I've been saying because I think it's being missed. According to the scripture it has this and that to say. Now Islam folks believe it or they don't. Apparently where they don't is where the disagreement comes in. This is what I been pointing out throughout the rounds. As you mention in the topic description, bring up things of disagreement.

Right here this segues into the comment made:

"Most of what you said is not even necessary to the discussion. Please keep it short. Quoting random bible verses that have nothing to do with the argument does not help. Thanks"

My last response applies to this comment. Whatever you see as unnecessary, just don't respond to it. I will add anything that appears relevant and necessary to me and that's that. 

"I already explained my answer to the paradox of omnipotence. Christians also have the same answer. They say God can't create a rock he can't lift. Do they not believe in a all-powerful God too?"

I don't know about"christians ". I look at what the bible has to say about God. If you got scripture talking about this "God can't create a rock", bring it forth. I'm aware about the spiritual rock in scripture. I'd advise you to stop looking at people and look at the words from God. Now you have to believe the words are the oracles of God or it does no good.

But yes, forget about people, Christians , whatever title you throw on them. Let God be true and every man a liar.

"As explained above let's get down to the belief in the trinity so we can discuss why it's not plausible. "

If you want to debate about the so called trinity, message me on that and we can argue what's actually in the scripture.

"No I would argue it's Christians who have made their own "God" because the God is 1 for most monotheists Jews and Muslims. "

Both Islam and Christianity has. 

"Where is your argument? All you are doing is making argument from the Bible. This is not how we debate. The debate becomes circular. I'm reffering to the trinity. It is the main reason that I can't believe Christianity. If you would provide me why, then this argument would hold. "

I notice the deflection from my points from you but again with this trinity mess.

If you want to debate about the so called trinity, message me on that and we can argue what's actually in the scripture.

I thought this discussion was regarding Islam. You seek to argue about so called Christianity now . Oh ok.

"Yes parts of the bible are valid."

So the parts that are valid is what your finite understanding and mind can absorb. If I'm wrong, say so.

"Christians believe the same. God can't do contradictory things."

Christians so called believe in a lot of contrary things against scripture.

"I don't think you are aware of your own beliefs."

First off I never ever stated anywhere in this discussion what my personal beliefs are in religion. So this shouldn't even be mentioned. Scriptures say speak on what you know. 

Another thing, it seems as though you have not yet made a distinction between Christianity a man made religion, christians (which is a name sake vehicle) and holiness folks(actual complete bible believing holy spirit filled folks in the body of Christ).

There is a distinction and now is a time more than ever for you to learn that if not already.

"Yes but there are contradictory testimonies. So how do we take that as the main bearer of truth? "

I don't know what is meant by "main bearer". I guess you're trying to say how can any of it be true if all witness accounts contradict. 

Since you're looking to get on that logic train, come on aboard this train of thought. One person can say I was driving a black car while another says I was driving a dark gray car. Yet another dark green . Doesn't necessarily prove I wasn't driving a car at all or don't have one. 

Now if you just don't believe I have a car or can drive one to start with , that bias is all more than ready to reject the whole thing at the first detail of inconsistency.

"You are saying it proves things not seen however testimonies are things that are seen. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Proof does not mean evidence. Proof can be without evidence like proof for the existence of God. "

No I wasn't referring to testimonies in that context. You gotta stay with me. 

You made the statement " At best evidence can be used to disprove something. Not prove something. "

You communicated that evidence does not prove something.

The scriptures says, I'm not saying it but the scriptures says it, it what? Evidence of things not seen. Which I say again you or Islam, I don't know if you are a part of Islam, you or Islam I guess reject that part of the bible.

For context sake, somebody has to keep the context posted; my question to you :

"Does Islam accept the witness of God of his only begotten Son ?"


Your response ultimately was another question:
"Who is this witness? "

GOD.

So let me rephrase the original question, make it even plainer.

Does Islam accept God as a witness of his only begotten Son ?

Just go ahead and say no.

"Well they believe this because they reject many things in the bible like the trinity. Because of this a book with no contradictions comes affirming those beliefs so they take that book. You still have not shown how trinity is not contradictory or shown a model. This argument is going nowhere. "

I get it. Part of the scripture is doubted and thrown out so then adopt another religion indirectly throwing the rest of it out.

Right, atheists do that too.

"Can you provide the Quran reference and QUOTE it in this debate? Don't just reference it, please quote it likewise to me quoting the scriptures.

So are you not going to quote the words from it?
I just asked about quoting it .


"It's not my logic. I did not create it. It was created and supported by people of all religions and backgrounds. If you have a better system to determine truth than entire human history, please let me know. You may win millions with this new idea. "

Whoever of any man's logic you want to pin it on , whosoever will still see the book as contradictory. The gospel is hid to them that are lost.

"Impossible does not mean very hard. God can break the laws of nature and physics i.e perform miracles. Not logic. Even Christians believe this."

Look , Islam either believes God was at work in flesh manifested or they don't. Now which one is it?

"If it's not a logical book then it's an illogical book. I don't think you understand what you are saying. "

It appears you believe it is or supposed to be a logical book. Also I can tell you what I actually am saying instead of you misrepresenting me. 

The book is a spiritual book. Now if you choose to call anything that is spiritual illogical, that's your business, your words. By your words you shall be justified, by your words you shall be condemned.

See the spirit is greater, above and outside logic. This is why your understanding has to come from the spirit. The spirit is not in a limited box such as our finite thinking of what makes sense to us , what doesn't. There can be no categorization to searching the deep things of God.

"It's okay to believe in the Quran too for that same reason. These are not good arguments and can be used either way. "

I'm just pointing out where the disagreements come in as the topic description mentions. I don't really have to argue anything. Now if you disagree with the disagreements I broached, then you can argue how they're not actually disagreements or they don't have to be.

"Except for the main subject of Trinity. The central belief of 95% of Christians. "

95 percent huh, well as the book says many are called few are chosen.

See there's truth in the book people believe in and that's in all the book because the scripture is not broken but you or Islam may have been exposed or taught the wrong things that have been touted as biblically.






Round 4
Pro
#7
Well long story short because of time and character limitation, the biblical scriptures doesn't teach all this of what you just stated . I understand you may receive this from the man made religion of Christianity but far from the truth it is and this is not a topic on the trinity so I will leave it there.
The topic is trinity since you wrote this in the comments 
Jesus being God in the flesh/divine Son of God 
I am not going to address any of your points because you are being intellectually dishonest. You believe in the trinity and this claim. The burden of proof is on YOU. Defend the trinity with logical arguments not "Bible is a spiritual book" and other subjective claims. 
Con
#8
"The topic is trinity since you wrote this in the comments "
"Jesus being God in the flesh/divine Son of God "

So you're interpretation of that was trinity. You see not one word in there  says "trinity ". That was your read on it. You pretty much read that into it.

Jesus being God in the flesh is simply that is what I meant. There's no ambiguity at all. We speak plainness of speech.

Jesus being God in the flesh. Jesus was the son of God, was he not?

When he was asked about himself, "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? "

He was Jesus the Son of God. Jesus the Son was flesh and blood. I'm just want to break this down for what it is. 

See I think you've been hit with false corrupted doctrine and now have been persuaded off the book for what it is. You or Islam, whoever of the two that it applies to have been dissuaded not believing on him as the scripture have said.

Jesus the Son was flesh and blood born of a woman.
Scripture says GOD was manifested in the flesh. So my statement or comment is just pulling from exact words from the book that Islam rejects apparently. 

Now, I didn't use the word "trinity " because I can't pull that from any scripture. I don't add to scripture. I don't add to his pure words as the scriptures says. I leave it just as is in the plain exact words it has said.

This is the error with so called biblical teachers. They themselves add and read things into the text resulting in teaching error.

This is the same error that occured upon reading my topic.

I see this issue frequently when communicating with one another.

"I am not going to address any of your points because you are being intellectually dishonest. You believe in the trinity and this claim. The burden of proof is on YOU. Defend the trinity with logical arguments not "Bible is a spiritual book" and other subjective claims. "

Then you're a copout. You're bearing false witness on me. As the book says the gospel is hid to them that are lost which you or and all of Islam are .

See I'm going to call it like I see it. It's a copout move . You can't debunk anything I've said.

This is why Islam rejects the book hypocritically claiming that parts of it are accepted. You or they try to get understanding from logic.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. The understanding comes from the spirit. If Islam won't accept that, they'll never understand anything truly of the Bible. Having eyes and seeing not, ears and hearing not. Not walking by sight. This has to be understood.
Round 5
Pro
#9
So you're interpretation of that was trinity. You see not one word in there  says "trinity ". That was your read on it. You pretty much read that into it.
This is the beleif of 95% of Christianis that God became flesh i.e Jesus is God in human form? Are you not a trinatarian?

Jesus being God in the flesh is simply that is what I meant. There's no ambiguity at all. We speak plainness of speech.

Jesus being God in the flesh. Jesus was the son of God, was he not?
Was he the literal son or metaphorical son? If he was the literal son then you affirm trinity. 
When he was asked about himself, "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? "

He was Jesus the Son of God. Jesus the Son was flesh and blood. I'm just want to break this down for what it is. 
So Jesus is the son of God but also God because the Bible said this verse which you interpreted. Where is the argument. You are stating the same thing "Jesus is the son of God in flesh" and "this doesnt have anything to do with trinity". lol next time I won't be having a debate with you. 

See I think you've been hit with false corrupted doctrine and now have been persuaded off the book for what it is. You or Islam, whoever of the two that it applies to have been dissuaded not believing on him as the scripture have said.
No see I think you've been hit with a false corrupted doctrine and have been persuaded off the book for what it is. You or Chrsiatnity, whoever of the two that it applied have been dissuaded not believing on him as the scripture have said. Your arguments are weak and circular. You believe in X because the Bible says so.

I can use the same "logic" against you. I believe in X man because the book says so. 

Jesus the Son was flesh and blood born of a woman.
Scripture says GOD was manifested in the flesh. So my statement or comment is just pulling from exact words from the book that Islam rejects apparently. 
Yes and so is mine. So what can we deduce from here? Is the main authority of truth "because scripture says so". No one can take you seriously. You're just hear to preach not give arguments to support your belief. 

Now, I didn't use the word "trinity " because I can't pull that from any scripture. I don't add to scripture. I don't add to his pure words as the scriptures says. I leave it just as is in the plain exact words it has said.
I did not mention where is the word "trinity". You are straw-manning. I said support the doctrine of trinity.

This is the error with so called biblical teachers. They themselves add and read things into the text resulting in teaching error.
No this is a logical error made by you because you don't use logic. You preach 
This is the same error that occured upon reading my topic.

I see this issue frequently when communicating with one another.
Because people arent going to communicate with you if every argument is "because my book says so". The burden of proof to prove trinity is on YOU. 
"I am not going to address any of your points because you are being intellectually dishonest. You believe in the trinity and this claim. The burden of proof is on YOU. Defend the trinity with logical arguments not "Bible is a spiritual book" and other subjective claims. "

Then you're a copout. You're bearing false witness on me. As the book says the gospel is hid to them that are lost which you or and all of Islam are .
So I am a copout because your book says that its a mystery. Lol makes sense. 

See I'm going to call it like I see it. It's a copout move . You can't debunk anything I've said.
Neither can you mine. See? 
This is why Islam rejects the book hypocritically claiming that parts of it are accepted. You or they try to get understanding from logic.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. The understanding comes from the spirit. If Islam won't accept that, they'll never understand anything truly of the Bible. Having eyes and seeing not, ears and hearing not. Not walking by sight. This has to be understood.
lol I'm sorry I can't debate with you further. You don't know how to give logical arguments. I'm getting a headache listening to your preachings. 
Con
#10
"This is the beleif of 95% of Christianis that God became flesh i.e Jesus is God in human form? Are you not a trinatarian?"

I am not a trinitarian. I never said I was. You READ THIS INTO MY STATEMENT(S).

"Was he the literal son or metaphorical son? If he was the literal son then you affirm trinity. "

You responded with a question. Is Jesus the Son of God?

If you read the Bible, the answer is simple.

"So Jesus is the son of God but also God because the Bible said this verse which you interpreted. Where is the argument. You are stating the same thing "Jesus is the son of God in flesh" and "this doesnt have anything to do with trinity". lol next time I won't be having a debate with you. "

When you can't refute what I'm saying I don't blame you. Of course it has nothing to do with the trinity because I'm not arguing the trinity for 100th time.

"No see I think you've been hit with a false corrupted doctrine and have been persuaded off the book for what it is. You or Chrsiatnity, whoever of the two that it applied have been dissuaded not believing on him as the scripture have said. Your arguments are weak and circular. You believe in X because the Bible says so."

Hence the disagreement comrade.

"I can use the same "logic" against you. I believe in X man because the book says so. "

Except when it comes to the bible , it's not about logic. Islam looks for logic instead of the spirit so they go without understanding.

"Yes and so is mine. So what can we deduce from here? Is the main authority of truth "because scripture says so". No one can take you seriously. You're just hear to preach not give arguments to support your belief. "

I hope this topic hasn't upset you. It's just a discussion. You wanted to talk about disagreements with Islam and I did. I believe you wanted a trinity debate but that wasn't the topic. Take no offense ok.

"I did not mention where is the word "trinity". You are straw-manning. I said support the doctrine of trinity."

Being that I didn't use the word trinity, then don't expect me to argue about it, duh.

"No this is a logical error made by you because you don't use logic. You preach "

You don't want any preaching. It'll bring you to the light. I do use logic. I'm bound by a reality it exists in. Do you want to debate that too about we're all bound to use logic?

"Because people arent going to communicate with you if every argument is "because my book says so". The burden of proof to prove trinity is on YOU. "

You're really soar over this trinity thing. I'll message you on it .

"So I am a copout because your book says that its a mystery. Lol makes sense. "

Your words not mine.

"Neither can you mine. See? "

First off you're looking to debate about a false doctrine. So that had to be corrected.

"lol I'm sorry I can't debate with you further. You don't know how to give logical arguments. I'm getting a headache listening to your preachings. "

You reject or Islam rejects understanding of biblical scriptures that comes from the spirit.

I enjoyed the topic. I'm sorry if it got to you but learn to take it easy, it'll be alright.