Answering Christianity Research Center

Quote from: Black Muslim on October 01, 2013, 01:32:05 PM

I'll be straight , just because you hate Christianity and see myths in it it doesn't mean you can spam nonsense about Islam . There's nothing in Islam called "Unconditional love" . Allah loves those who do good deeds and hates those who do the opposite . That's called common sense .
Question : Let's be generous with you and say that God is not loving , how in world does it mean he doesn't exist ? What kind of logic is "the mayor is unjust , so he doesn't exist" .

As'salamu Alaikum my beloved Brother "Black Muslim" and to every Brother and Sisters on this board,

Just wanted to bring to your attention dear brother that never once did Allah Almighty use the word "hate" in the Glorious Quran.  It's always either Allah Almighty Loves or doesn't Love or doesn't Like something or those who do evil.  The difference between them is that there is Admonishment and Advise and Wisdom from Allah Almighty towards those who do evil.  This is different from just hating.

I hope this helps, insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Thanks!

Btw, I love your site! I use it all the time to debate Christians.

Quote

What do you need proof of? That the Gnostic texts exist? Go to the museum and see them...

No I was asking for you for proof that Adam and Eve(peace be upon them both) did not exist. Just because earlier civilization knew of them doesn't mean they didn't exist

Quote

"Nothing exploded and became something and then we got this finely tuned beauty called the universe"
I know, then why do creationists keep claiming that God came out of nothing and then created the universe in six days?

Don't put words into our mouths we never claimed that god came out of nothing and we don't claim that the universe was created in six days. 1.It is basic Islamic philosophy that god is eternal and never had a beginning. Look up the Kallam cosmological argument for the existence of god.
2.The word yawm in arabic has two meanings "day" and "any period of time".

Quote

The second law of thermodynamics only works on a closed system. Our Earth is driven by various forces, such as energy from the Sun (solar energy, radiation) or the Moon (tides).

Did you seriously think I didn't know you would respond by saying that. We all agree that any valid theory of evolution must explain how it is that life gives rise to low entropy. There are two, and only two, kinds of processes known to create low entropy:

1.Law-like processes (processes that occur in accordance with known physical laws -- gravity, quantum mechanics, Newtonian laws of motion, relativity, etc.). Crystals, planets, mountains etc. are low entropy aggregations created by law-like physical processes.

2.Mind-like processes -- intentionally planned processes, such as machines, architecture, art, etc.

Any valid theory of evolution must incorporate at least one of these two processes if it is to explain the low entropy in living things.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/life_explains_l076791.html#sthash.i1ie41TF.dpuf
Darwinian evolution does not fall under any of two above processes as natural selection is an unguided process with no end in mind.

Quote

Ironically, the law of conservation of energy is violated by creationists, it states that energy can't be created or destroyed.

This law only applies to the natural and not the supernatural.

Quote

"which also has no hope of explaining irreducible complexity in organisms."
Transitional fossils. Google it.

1. I don't think you know what irreducible complexity is. In organisms we find organelles of a cell and organs that if you were to take one part away from the organelle/ organ it would render the whole organelle/ organ useless. Therefore the organelle/ organ could not have developed slowly. It  must have appeared in the organism complete in order for it to work. And the chances of that happening via mutation is beyond astronomical.
2. Did you seriously just cite the fossil record as proof of evolution, it only goes against evolution. Cambrean Period? all them problems it's causing darwinian evolutionists.

Quote

RNA -- > DNA -- > Prokaryotes --- > Eukaryotes (via endosymbiosis)
What was so hard to explain? that's fourth grade biology right there.

You didn't even explain the first cell, you just explained the evolution of the cell. I hope you realize this is all theoritical. They have literally zero proof for a cell that can work on RNA alone. Also lets just assume that amino acids can form spontaneously (which they can't btw) It is literally impossibble for the amino acids to randomly combine and form a single RNA that knows how to replicate itself, act as a protein, convert energy,etc.,etc.. Not only that but the "RNA Cell" has another huge flaw.the RNA world hypothesis can't explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA/protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines -- which themselves are encoded by genetic information. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html#sthash.n2gL6BHu.dpuf

"No I was asking for you for proof that Adam and Eve(peace be upon them both) did not exist. Just because earlier civilization knew of them doesn't mean they didn't exist"
The burden of proof lies on YOU. You made the claim that they existed, you bring forth the proof. For example, can you prove the invisible pink unicorn does not exist?

"Don't put words into our mouths we never claimed that god came out of nothing"
Really? Then who created God?

"There are two, and only two, kinds of processes known to create low entropy"
Are you really gonna ignore the Sun?

"This law only applies to the natural and not the supernatural."
That is a fundamental law of the universe. Our universe.

"In organisms we find organelles of a cell and organs that if you were to take one part away from the organelle/ organ it would render the whole organelle/ organ useless. Therefore the organelle/ organ could not have developed slowly. It  must have appeared in the organism complete in order for it to work. And the chances of that happening via mutation is beyond astronomical."

God of the gaps fallacy.

Have you heard of Miller's experiment? There is plenty of evidence, you need to start reading the other side too!

No one claimed amino acids formed 'spontaneously'.

By the way, if you apply all this logic to your own Quran, then it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

What's even more odd is that earlier there was a Muslim on here claiming that there was evolution in the Quran. Yet here you are, disagreeing. Why didn't Allah make it clear: Did evolution happen?
Has the Quran contradicted itself?

As for your rather ancient argument on the Cambrian era:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

For some reason it's not letting me post Hitler's quotes on Christianity...

Is this forum censored or something?

The theory evolution directly contradicts the Quran for two reasons:

1) 38:71 clearly says "Indeed, I am going to create a human being from clay."
2) Evolution via the law of natural selection (the weak lose the struggle) is not the work of a loving creator
3) Why would God work using elimination of the unfit? Why not just make humans on the spot?

Before reading, you must know that there were two different trees, the tree of knowledge, and the tree of eternal life. They both made up God. Some Gnostic texts (like this one) predate the Bible, and the lesson learned in this story is to always question authority. This was later changed in the Christian bible to "Ignorance is bliss: Ignorant slavery is better than dangerous freedom".
According to Genesis 2, Eve was never told by God not to eat from this tree. In the biblical version, as opposed to the Gnostic version, she did not yet exist.
(There is a conflict between Genesis 1:27 and 2:22 as to when Eve came into existence.)
The snake represents gnosis or knowledge (the logos) in nearly all of the ancient mythologies and philosophies. Only in Christianity does the snake appear to mean something evil. When we look at the creation story in the book of Genesis, it is interesting because who lies? Does the serpent lie, or does God lie? The serpent tells Eve (Gen 3:5) " ...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Eve sees (Gen 3:6) "a tree to be desired to make one wise." God tells Adam, who in turn must have told Eve (Gen 2: 17), " .. .for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." She does not die, at least not a physical death. Adam doesn't die either. Neither died in the day of eating the fruit.
Think of the forbidden fruit as the red pill in the Matrix. The reason they chose the serpent is because snake venom was sometimes used for healing: A dangerous bite for the greater good of man.
Exodus 20:5 - You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
This is the story they never told you!
 
The Testimony of Truth
"It is written in the Law concerning this, when God gave a command to Adam, "From every tree you may eat, but from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, for on the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." But the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, "On the day when you eat from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be opened." And Eve obeyed, and she stretched forth her hand; she took from the tree and ate; she also gave to her husband with her. And immediately they knew that they were naked, and they took some fig-leaves (and) put them on as girdles. But God came at the time of evening, walking in the midst of Paradise. When Adam saw him, he hid himself. And he said, "Adam, where are you?" He answered (and) said, "I have come under the fig tree." And at that very moment, God knew that he had eaten from the tree of which he had commanded him, "Do not eat of it." And he said to him, "Who is it who has instructed you?" And Adam answered, "The woman whom you have given me." And the woman said, "It is the serpent who instructed me." And he (God) cursed the serpent, and called him "devil." And he said, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good." Then he said, "Let us cast him out of paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
"But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said "Adam, where are you?" God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger! And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations." And he said, "I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said." But these things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!"

I take my word back on Quran 13:2
It could be talking about the platonic year.

As for 27:61, that's clearer
"Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah ? [No], but most of them do not know."

Some translations say "fixed abode" meaning it does not move

1.) So when you don't like something, its not real. Seems like a reasoned logic. I don't like prison, so it doesn't exist.

Off-topic rant

Is Allah a good biologist? Why, yes, yes he is. He understands our biology. He created man to be a leader of the pride, to be a dominant figure to be a hunter, to be in charge of the family. Those are simple biological truths of the primates and the mammalian family. Don't question things you don't know about. Just because your society deluded you into believing women and men are equal, doesn't mean its true. Biological facts matter. If Men and Women are equal then we would see it phenotypically, genotypically and psychologically. But we don't. End of story. There is a reason men are what they are and why women are what they are. The creator knows his creation.

Did Allah knowingly create women weaker than men? If he was a good biologist he wouldn't make weak species at all...
Instead, he decides to make the Earth a jungle, with survival of the fittest. Meaning the weak lose the struggle, the top of the evolutionary ladder (Men) oppress all that are below. This just means, that he created women just so men could give them orders and have sex with them and use them as automatic sandwich makers? Your examples are of the animal kingdom, today women are independent (except in countries where they can't even drive or leave the house unaccompanied). Those still in the ages of tepees think men should be hunters and think for women.

Mistranslated. The Word Daraba does not have to mean beat your wife. This would contradict this verse here on the same CHAPTER (4) as 4:34

If it's mistranslated why didn't anyone spot the error for 1400 years?
As for your links, I have read them. I actually like Edip Yuksel, explained it nicely.

If you still don't feel compelled by what I have given you.

Nuh-uh. No compulsion in religion. That's 2:256 of your own book! Amazing how I know more of the Quran than most Muslims, and more about the bible than most Christians (though that one isn't really fair, I was a Christian till I was 12)

Then, consider maybe you are letting your perceptions get in the way of objective reality. If you continue to do such, kindly leave this forum.

If you're begging me to leave this forum, what does that tell me about the debate?

You will never believe, not even evidence can make the unwilling believe.

Yup, like evolution.

In conclusion:

Do I still believe that verse implies beating your wife up until she obeys? Nope.
Does this mean I'll accept Islam or the Quran as the divine truth? Nope.
Is this debate over? Nope. Far from it. You may have proven the usage of the word "DaRaBa", but you still have a lot to answer for. Geo-centrism in the Quran for example.