Re: Christ in Islam
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
my God has a Son name Christ Jesus.
islam's god does not.
therefore they cannot be the same god and they are not, no matter how hard
islam tries to horn in and claim it as so.
allah IS NOT the same god as the God of the hebrew and christians.
231
> here's what i know:
Nope.
> my God has a Son name Christ Jesus.
You dont know that.
> islam's god does not.
Its the same god, stupid.
> therefore they cannot be the same god
Or it is the same god and its devotees cant get the basics right.
> and they are not, no matter how hard islam tries to horn in and claim it as so.
Just as true of the stupid xtians.
> allah IS NOT the same god as the God of the hebrew and christians.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
In spades that there is any 'god' at all.
George
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> here's what i know:
>
> Nope.
>
>> my God has a Son name Christ Jesus.
>
> You dont know that.
231 formally known as "Rod",
But since a negative can never be proved how do you know?
Anthony Matonak
> But since a negative can never be proved how do you know?
Can you supply any proof to this negative statement? :)
Anthony
231
> 231 wrote:
>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> here's what i know:
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> my God has a Son name Christ Jesus.
>>
>> You dont know that.
> But since a negative can never be proved
That is just plain wrong. I can trivially prove that
there is no gigantic pink elephant in this room.
> how do you know?
How do I know what ?
rupert...@gmail.com
Read the following article:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
The Allah of Quran swears by morning star or by mountain etc etc...
Allah of Quran cannot be True Allah (GOD).
In addition, God granted Musa the privilege of directly speaking to
him (An-Nisa 4:164).
004.164
YUSUFALI: Of some messengers We have already told thee the story; of
others We have not;- and to Moses Allah spoke direct;
surprisingly Mohamad was NEVER granted such priviledge... GOD revealed
HIMSELF to Moses and never to Mohamad but Muslims consider Mohamad is
greatest of all prophets. Muslims believes that even thoguh Scriptures
were revealed in Hebrew and later in Greek/Arami but Quran is in
Arabic and that is why it is Allah's language. The reveal Quran is NOT
supported by Torah or other Scriptures and the msg of Quran is
DIFFERENT than the Bible. The all authors of bible give one msg and
supports the works of other prophets while Mohamad and so Quran
rejects and blames other Scriptures as corrupted.
The allah of Quran denies Jesus' death (and thus resurrection) and HIS
being GOD which is the most important faith for forgiveness of sins
and eternal salvation. Definitely, the enemy of mankind is Satan and
NOT GOD.
Who can attempt to stop mankind from eternal blessings???
Who will be rejoicing when a man rejects Jesus Christ, the GOD on
Earth, Emmanuel, the forgiveness of Sins..!!!??????
Judge yourself...
George
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 231 wrote:
>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> here's what i know:
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> my God has a Son name Christ Jesus.
>>> You dont know that.
>
>> But since a negative can never be proved
>
> That is just plain wrong. I can trivially prove that
> there is no gigantic pink elephant in this room.
I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of logic
are invalid but there is always the possibility that you are unable to
observe something that may be there. You can only make an assertion that
a "giant pink elephant" defined as you know it isn't there. You can
never prove that there isn't a giant pink elephant in the room.
Peter Bruells
> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of logic
> are invalid but there is always the possibility that you are unable to
> observe something that may be there. You can only make an assertion
> that a "giant pink elephant" defined as you know it isn't there. You
> can never prove that there isn't a giant pink elephant in the room.
When I fill the root with water and it takes as much water as the room
is able to hold, there isn't a giant pink elephant in there for for
reasonable definitions of "being in there".
Mac Cool
> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of logic
> are invalid but there is always the possibility that you are unable
> to observe something that may be there. You can only make an
> assertion that a "giant pink elephant" defined as you know it isn't
> there. You can never prove that there isn't a giant pink elephant in
> the room.
An elephant that cannot be observed or measured by any means known, is not
an elephant by definition but something else entirely.
If you want to prove god, you must first prove it is possible for a god to
exist.
--
Mac Cool
George
First let me state that my objection has nothing to do with believing in
God.
Your example uses only using tests that you know about. There is always
the possibility that something can exist that can't be detected by
methods that are currently available.
Just imagine once we could only see things with the naked eye. Then we
devised optical magnification and found more stuff. Then we devised
better magnification and found even more stuff. Then we illuminated with
different wavelength light and found even more stuff. Then we devised a
method to scan with really short wavelengths (electron microscope) and
found even more stuff. And then there are the methods we haven't yet
discovered.
At any point along the line observers made the seemingly sensible for
the moment but illogical declaration that there is nothing else and were
proved wrong.
George
> George:
>
>> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of logic
>> are invalid but there is always the possibility that you are unable
>> to observe something that may be there. You can only make an
>> assertion that a "giant pink elephant" defined as you know it isn't
>> there. You can never prove that there isn't a giant pink elephant in
>> the room.
>
> An elephant that cannot be observed or measured by any means known, is not
> an elephant by definition but something else entirely.
>
That is like saying since by all current definitions there is no cure
for cancer so there can never be a cure for cancer.
> If you want to prove god, you must first prove it is possible for a god to
> exist.
Why are you changing the argument? We are discussing can you ever prove
a negative. No one made an assertion about proving there is a God only
that God doesn't exist.
Anthony Matonak
> Mac Cool wrote:
>> An elephant that cannot be observed or measured by any means known, is
>> not an elephant by definition but something else entirely.
>
> That is like saying since by all current definitions there is no cure
> for cancer so there can never be a cure for cancer.
Saying that you can prove there is no giant pink elephant in a room
by simply looking is nothing like saying that since, by all current
definitions, there is no giant pink elephant in the room so there
can never be a giant pink elephant in the room.
More to the point, is it more frugal to have a giant pink elephant
in the room and not believe in it or to believe in a giant pink
elephant in the room and not have one?
Anthony
Rod Speed
> 231 wrote:
>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> 231 wrote:
>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> here's what i know:
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> my God has a Son name Christ Jesus.
>>>> You dont know that.
>>
>>> But since a negative can never be proved
>>
>> That is just plain wrong. I can trivially prove that
>> there is no gigantic pink elephant in this room.
> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of logic are invalid
Didnt do that. I JUST rubbed your nose in the FACT that that
claim that you can never prove a negative is just plain wrong.
> but there is always the possibility that you are unable to observe something that may be there.
And that possibility can be eliminated by using a number of ways
of measuring if there is a gigantic pink elephant in the room.
> You can only make an assertion that a "giant pink elephant" defined as you know it isn't there.
Wrong again. You can measure whether the gigantic pink elephant is there or not.
> You can never prove that there isn't a giant pink elephant in the room.
You can assert that until you are blue in the face, changes nothing.
231
> Peter Bruells wrote:
>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of
>>> logic are invalid but there is always the possibility that you are
>>> unable to observe something that may be there. You can only make an
>>> assertion that a "giant pink elephant" defined as you know it isn't
>>> there. You can never prove that there isn't a giant pink elephant
>>> in the room.
>>
>> When I fill the root with water and it takes as much water as the
>> room is able to hold, there isn't a giant pink elephant in there for
>> for reasonable definitions of "being in there".
> First let me state that my objection has nothing to do with believing in God.
Yes, we are now discussing your assertion that you can never prove a negative.
> Your example uses only using tests that you know about.
All you need is a number of tests that all show that there is
no gigantic pink elephant in the room to prove that negative.
> There is always the possibility that something can exist that can't be detected by methods that are currently
> available.
Yes, but that does not apply to that particular negative,
that there is no gigantic pink elephant in this room.
> Just imagine once we could only see things with the naked eye. Then we
> devised optical magnification and found more stuff. Then we devised
> better magnification and found even more stuff. Then we illuminated
> with different wavelength light and found even more stuff. Then we
> devised a method to scan with really short wavelengths (electron
> microscope) and found even more stuff. And then there are the methods
> we haven't yet discovered.
Irrelevant to the fact that there are a number of tests that
all show that there is no gigantic pink elephant in this room.
> At any point along the line observers made the seemingly sensible for the moment but illogical declaration that there
> is nothing else and were proved wrong.
Irrelevant to the fact that there are a number of tests that
all show that there is no gigantic pink elephant in this room.
231
> Mac Cool wrote:
>> George:
>>
>>> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of
>>> logic are invalid but there is always the possibility that you are
>>> unable to observe something that may be there. You can only make an
>>> assertion that a "giant pink elephant" defined as you know it isn't
>>> there. You can never prove that there isn't a giant pink elephant in
>>> the room.
>>
>> An elephant that cannot be observed or measured by any means known,
>> is not an elephant by definition but something else entirely.
>>
>
> That is like saying since by all current definitions there is no cure
> for cancer so there can never be a cure for cancer.
Nope, nothing like.
Mac Cool
>> An elephant that cannot be observed or measured by any means known,
>> is not an elephant by definition but something else entirely.
>>
>
> That is like saying since by all current definitions there is no cure
> for cancer so there can never be a cure for cancer.
No, it's like saying that if you cannot see a pink elephant in the room,
then there is no pink elephant in the room because by definition, pink
elephants can be seen. Otherwise how would you know it's pink? The same
would be true of an unknown colored elephant because elephants by their
nature can be seen.
--
Mac Cool
Anthony Matonak
You are discounting the possibility of a giant pink elephant in the
room that can not be seen, touched, heard, smelled or tested for in
any way. From a practical view, such an elephant could be considered
to not exist because it shows no ordinary signs of existence, like
being seen, heard, etc. but thats just pragmatism.
What I would like to know is...
How do you prove that a negative can never be proven?
Anthony
Robert
Why are you idiots posting this religious crap here?
Robert
Mac Cool
> You are discounting the possibility of a giant pink elephant in the
> room that can not be seen, touched, heard, smelled or tested for in
> any way.
There is no such thing. Such a thing would not be an elephant but
something as of yet undefined. An elephant is not 'just any damn thing we
please for the sake of argument'.
> What I would like to know is...
> How do you prove that a negative can never be proven?
Learning begins with a question, go find out. It's silly to demand answers
from the internet like a petulant child when there are many opportunities
for learning available.
--
Mac Cool
George
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 231 wrote:
>>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 231 wrote:
>>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> here's what i know:
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>> my God has a Son name Christ Jesus.
>>>>> You dont know that.
>>>> But since a negative can never be proved
>>> That is just plain wrong. I can trivially prove that
>>> there is no gigantic pink elephant in this room.
>
>> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of logic are invalid
>
> Didnt do that. I JUST rubbed your nose in the FACT that that
> claim that you can never prove a negative is just plain wrong.
I do understand that some people have limited or no imagination or
exposure to science so they only believe things they know or can touch.
>
>> but there is always the possibility that you are unable to observe something that may be there.
>
> And that possibility can be eliminated by using a number of ways
> of measuring if there is a gigantic pink elephant in the room.
But unless you are making the claim that you are omniscient you can't
possibly know every method. If you don't know every possible method then
you can't definitively say there is nothing.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> 231 wrote
>>>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>> 231 wrote
>>>>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> here's what i know:
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>> my God has a Son name Christ Jesus.
>>>>>> You dont know that.
>>>>> But since a negative can never be proved
>>>> That is just plain wrong. I can trivially prove that
>>>> there is no gigantic pink elephant in this room.
>>> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of logic are invalid
>> Didnt do that. I JUST rubbed your nose in the FACT that that
>> claim that you can never prove a negative is just plain wrong.
> I do understand that some people have limited or no imagination or
> exposure to science so they only believe things they know or can touch.
And plenty have more professional exposure to science and
better qualifications in it than you do and realise that there is
a lot more than just what they know or can touch involved.
>>> but there is always the possibility that you are unable to observe something that may be there.
>> And that possibility can be eliminated by using a number of ways
>> of measuring if there is a gigantic pink elephant in the room.
> But unless you are making the claim that you are omniscient you can't possibly know every method.
You dont have to know every method to use a number of
methods and when every single one you try shows that there
is no gigantic pink elephant in the room, you have indeed
proved that there is gigantic pink elephant in the room.
The fact that there may also be other ways of proving that
there is no gigantic pink elephant in the room is irrelevant.
> If you don't know every possible method then you can't definitively say there is nothing.
Wrong, ALL you need is to to use a number of methods that
show that there is no gigantic pink elephant in the room to
prove that there is no gigantic pink elephant in the room.
Its perfectly possible to prove that the earth is not flat too.
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
says...
> Anthony Matonak:
>
> > You are discounting the possibility of a giant pink elephant in the
> > room that can not be seen, touched, heard, smelled or tested for in
> > any way.
> There is no such thing. Such a thing would not be an elephant but
> something as of yet undefined. An elephant is not 'just any damn thing we
> please for the sake of argument'.
Yeah. The invisible pink supernatural friend isn't an elephant.
It's an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
I think she hangs out with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
--
Earn Money With Your Web Site
http://www.WebSponsorZone.Net
Web Site Advertising Directory