The Qur'an and/or the Bible

Negative proof fallacy


Negative proof fallacy



Negative proof fallacy



Negative proof fallacy



Negative proof fallacy


Negative proof: Information from Answers.com



Buddy, no matter how many times you try to ignore it, by asking us to prove you wrong you are committing one of the oldest logical fallacies. Something isn't true simply because it hasn't been proven wrong.

So I am to assume that you cannot back up the claims you make? You're the one that claims divine inspiration and power based off of a single book.

If not, then your claims are baseless. Just because a book say something does not make it so in any sense of the word. You need evidence, you need to be able to back up what you say.

So far, you have not. You have argued the same old tired logical fallacies that attempt to start with your preconceived notion and push the burden on others. You are the one that comes forth with a claim, it is you which must provide evidence to back up these claims. A single book by itself is by no means evidence, you need to be able to back up your claims with evidence that does not require this book, otherwise you fall into a circular argument... yet another logical fallacy.

The masters long gone? And this invalidates his teaching because society changes, cultures change? Do you actually know what the "MASTER" had to say about the NONSENSE that you are espousing? Of course not...its clear you know nothing about what the Holy Scriptures teach and inform us about the divine nature of God, yet you want to use ad hominem personal philosophy to debunk the truth found in the Holy Scriptures? :rollinglaugh:

As I said Jesus indeed had something to say about your logic or the lack thereof. On one occasion the Sadducees came to Jesus...clearly to put him to the test with a question pertaining to the resurrection. In their minds they had concocted the perfect challenge...and unanswerable query..a paradox, in an attempt to prove his lack of wisdom. Thus, they asked, "If a woman had seven husbands in this life.....whose wife would she be in the resurrection?" Jesus, very well knew their wicked intent....and their obviously clear ignorance of the scriptures. He simply explained, "...in the resurrection they neither marry or are given in marriage." (Matthew 22:30) He then said to the Sadducees, "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, HAVE YOU NOT READ WHAT WAS "spoken" by God, saying, 'I am the God Abraham...the God of Isaac....and the God of Jacob'? GOD IS NOT THE GOD of the DEAD but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32).

Take note...THE MASTER HIMSELF (Jesus)....was quoting from a segment of scripture that was then, at that time almost 1500 years old...a passage taken from the Pentateuch (Ex. 3:6). This was written eons before the Sadducees were even born. In the text God was speaking to Moses ( A master under the Old Law), who himself had a much different culture than those living at that time in the 1st century. And yet...The Master informs us that these WORDS OF GOD are an everlasting truth that still must be followed even after such a lengthy time span. Thus, its clear, THE MASTER"S teaching concerning the WRITTEN WORD...is as far from your PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY as night is from day.

Any one can gain several important lessons from just this one brief recording of something that happened over 2000 years ago. First we learn that God still speaks to everyone through His revealed word even after centuries of elapsed time.....just as He was speaking to the Sadducees 2000 years ago, to present an unchanging absolute truth. Second...the ideology that you are attempting to propagate is extremely dangerous..while it may be true that the scriptures must be considered in the cultural sitting in which they were first revealed....its proven via the MASTERS own words...its nonsense to declare that the Words of God which are written...no longer apply simply because they were written years ago...and thus they no longer apply because SOMETHING HAS CHANGED. What has changed is society and its humanistic and prideful approach to God and His revelations.....Men may change....Society may change....but the truth and advise given by God and proven to be truth time and time again in Actual Science and History Actual...NEVER CHANGES.

Thus its very easy to observe your deflection in NOT WANTING these absolute truths to have the authority to JUDGE "YOU"...thus this nonsensical presentation of humanistic witchcraft and occultism. :ban:

Response: Your inability to answer the challenge presented in post #12 is no fault of mine.

It certainly is. You are using the book to validate the book. That's a circular argument. The only thing it shows is that you cannot validate your deity or text outside of themselves. This alone invalidates both.

There is no challenge, merely a fool's question, which speaks of the person presenting it.

You're going to have to try much harder than that.

Then what should I take it? That he cannot disprove your god and you cannot prove your god. If this the case then you are still greatly disadvantaged.

Response: And once again, you still haven't answered the challenge. Instead you have forced yourself into making it seem as if this simple challenge is illogical but the unfortunate part about that whole argument is that you can't produce any evidence as to why. So not only have you failed in the challenge but you also can't even produce any logical evidence as to why the challenge isn't substantial. That argument alone further proves the authenticity of the qur'an.

Response: Not at all. If you fail the challenge, then my case is proven correct. A great disadvantage on his part, not mine.

The challenge isn't substantial because you have yet to show that something. Your book states something, but there is no other evidence to support this claim. It's that simple. I can produce a book that says I can fly, but until I actually take flight, it means nothing. I can provide books about dragons, unicorns and aliens, but unless I provide physical evidence of their existence, they are just that... books.

So, I need you to do a few things: tell me what was done and provide evidence for it outside of this book. If you can do that, then you have completed the challenge and the weight is on my shoulders.

You still have not, instead you repeatedly fall back on a logical fallacy, thus failing to prove the authenticity of your book.

Your challenge stating a verse of "Will they not, then, meditate upon the qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy" uses the book to attempt to validate the book itself. Again, this is similar to me providing a book saying I can fly, and then show you inside this book a like saying "If this book says he can fly, he can most surely fly!" - It doesn't work that way. Your challenge eats itself before it can be presented or answered.

Of course you have refused any other arguments, constantly falling back on your logical mismatch, using its circular loop fallacy as an escape. If you truly had any physical evidence that would validate your book or deity, you would have presented it.

Put simply: Your argument is illogical because the object being validated cannot validate itself, which you are attempting to do.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we're all laughing at you because of this.

not disproven =/= proven

He doesn't get it... the scientific method of inquiry is a completely foreign concept to him.

It's not the scientific method, it's simple logic. I do not understand how he can beat upon the same drum when it has so many holes in it. I've point out to him the specific formal logical fallacy he's committed, and yet he dismisses it as if it were nothing.

Because to him it isn't a fallacy. In his mind, this MUST be right, this deity MUST exist for the world to exist. Logic may fly true in every other case, but everything must bow to this one single belief.

Indoctrination.

Response: It is either you don't understand simple english or you still insist on dancing around the challenge because you lack the humility to state the fact that the challenge proves the qur'an's authenticity. What was done has been explained in post #17. Also, your analogy is an obvious poor example to anyone who reads it and yet somehow you've managed to epress it anyway and stand by it with such confidence.

Here is what I said:
"Will they not, then, meditate upon the qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have found therein much discrepancy" In other words, if you can point out at least one discrepancy in the qur'an than it would discredit it from being the word of Allah because my claim is that God can not make a book filled with discrepancy.

Your analogy in comparison is as follows:
"Again, this is similar to me providing a book saying I can fly, and then show you inside this book a like saying "If this book says he can fly, he can most surely fly!"

Your quotation specifically says that you can fly because the book says so. My quotation does not say that. Nothing in my quotation says that the qur'an is true because it says so. My quotation is asking you to point out a discrepancy. (an illogical fact) Clearly they are saying two completely different things and yet for some reason, you're reading simple english, and insist that both statements say the same thing!!!

So since you obviously can't seem to understand simple english then perhaps the idea of further dialogue is pointless on both sides. (Hopefully the english in this post isn't difficult as well).

Response: Exactly.

lol

you do know what this symbol =/= means right? I don't think you do, otherwise you wouldn't have agreed with me considering that my statement undermines your whole argument.




PS. =/= means "does not equal"

Is the Bible unknown to the Qur'an?


When Christians use the testimony of the Qur'an in support of the Bible's integrity, some Muslims argue that the Qur'an does not relate to present day versions of the Torah and the Gospel. They say that the "Scriptures", which Christians and Jews had at the time of Muhammad (571 - 632 CE), were different from those available today. That the Jews of Muhammad's day were reading a different Torah, something which was "certainly not identical", "nor resembled anything like the Old Testament" which contains the reports, stories and myths of groups of people gone by. Similarly the Injil (Gospel) was "not at all identical with the New Testament or even the four gospels" available to us today (Izzat Khan and Abu Abdullah, Divine Revelations, The Muslims and the Bibles: A Clarification, pp. 4-6).

It is stated that when the Qur'an talks about a single book known as the Gospel (as given to Jesus) and a single book as given to Moses (known as the Torah) that they were not the four gospels as we find them in the New Testament nor the first five books of the Old Testament known today as the Torah. To conclude the matter, such Muslims add that even the title "Bible" for the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians is foreign to the Qur'an.

The word 'Bible'
Any good dictionary will explain that the word Bible is derived from the Greek word biblia (neuter plural), which means "books". As the collections of Jewish and Christian texts came increasingly to be considered as one unit, the term in Latin began to be understood as feminine singular, denoting "The Book". The same word has come through to Modern English in words like bibliography. So when the title Bible, the book, was used, it denoted a collection of writings or books of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures.

It is indeed true that the title "Bible" is not used in the Qur'an nor does it contain the proper title, "Bible" for the scriptures of the Jews and Christians but has identified it as "Kitab" (the Book) by calling the followers as "Ahlal Kitab", the people of the Book. Although, the Qur'an has borrowed many foreign terms and names like Tawrat, Furqan, Injil, Isa and Musa etc.; and Arabized them into its text, when it came to using the word Bible, it used its own Arabic words derived from Hebrew and Aramaic, thus calling the Jews and Christians "Ahlal Kitab", the people of the book, and referring to their scripture not only as "the book", Kitab, but also listing the parts of it as the Tawrah, Zaboor, Injil and Sahaif (Torah, Psalms, the Gospel(s) and the books of the prophets respectively).

Therefore the notion that the Qur'an does not mention the Bible is simply wrong. It will be like saying that the Qur'an does not mention "God". The Muslim listener will refer to many verses where Arabic words like "Allah" or "Rab" are mentioned. If those words stand for God in the Qur'an then it should not be difficult to recognise that the words Ahlal Kitab stands for Jews and Christians and their Kitab stands for their scriptures - the Bible - in the contexts as referred to them in the Qur'an.

Torah and the Injil
Some Muslim writers contend that the original Pentateuch and the original Gospel have disappeared and became extinct from the world. For example, the late Rahmatullah, whose writings are still prominent among Muslim readers, expanded this claim by asserting, "We strictly deny that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and the original Evangel existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and that they were not changed until later." He added further by claiming that, "The present gospels, chronicles and epistles are certainly not the Evangel referred to by the Holy Qur'an and so they are not, as such, acceptable to the Muslims."(Rahmatullah, Izharul Haqq, Part III, p.30-31)

Similarly, Yusuf Ali, whose translation and commentary is popular among Muslims in the West, claims that "the Injil (Greek, Evangel = Gospel) spoken of by the Qur'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels ..." (Yusaf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p.292, (Saudi Arabian Edition, p.334)

Christians believe there is indeed one Injil, brought by Jesus, the Christ. The word Injil in Arabic is a transliteration of the Greek Evangelion as Yusaf Ali has rightly mentioned in his statement. The Greek word Evangelion means "happy message" or "good news". Distinguished Muslim commentators like Baidhawi and Zamakshari openly admit that Injil is not an Arabic word but is derived from the Syriac and/or Greek word Evangel - the Gospel, the good news. Taking this as true, one should look no further than among those who have been using this term for their scriptures in Muhammad's time and even before then. When we look at the documentary evidences available to us even before Muhammad, it can be concluded that a long time before Islam started, these titles were used for the collection of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as available today.

If the Gospel and the Torah spoken of by the Qur?an are not the same as the Old and the New Testament (known also as the Injil and Tawrat among millions of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Turkish speaking Christians) and did not exist in the same form as in Muhammad's time, then what was the Qur'an referring to? Why did the Qur'an require Christians and Jews to accept the Old and New Testament of Muhammad's time? Why did the Qur'an tell the Jews and Christians to follow their scriptures if they were not yet in existence or were only available in corrupted versions? If a Muslim is to believe in the integrity of the Qur'an then he has also to believe that in Muhammad's time the scriptures of the Jews and Christians existed and that the Qur'an certified their message by saying that they contained guidance and light (Surah 5:47,49). If somehow the author of the Qur'an was doubtful of the integrity of the previous scriptures, why does it ask both Jews and Christians to follow them in their decisions?

Some Muslims assume that the Qur'an only confirmed and testified to the "original autographs" of the Torah and the Gospel, although the evidence within the Qur'an itself testifies that it was referring to that which was actually available, there and then, to the Jews and Christians. For example, to confirm and uphold their scriptures, the Qur'an uses the following words: musadiqalima mahum (confirming what is with them), musadiqalima bainah yadih (confirming that which is between their hands) and musadiqalima makum (confirming that which is with them) (Surah 2:41,89; 3:3, 4:47; 5:48; 35:31 and so on).

In the light of the available evidence of manuscripts (both incomplete and whole), it can be said with certainty that the Old and the New Testaments of Muhammad's time were exactly the same as available today. Today's Bible translations are based on existing manuscripts that go back even hundreds of years before Muhammad's day. Hence the logic of the Qur'anic verses immediately is that the Injil and Torah as mentioned in the Qur'an are the same as those available to us today in the New Testament and Old Testament of the Bible.

In Judaism, there is a book called "the Pentateuch" or "the five books of Moses" which are identical to those in the Bible. These books contain the major part of the Jewish law and are known as the Tawrat/Torah/Law. However, Jews often use the same term to describe the whole collection of books, which Christians call the Old Testament. It is interesting to read in a tradition of Islam that the Torah read by the Jews of Madina also included the book of Isaiah, which indicates that the Qur'an was referring to the whole collection of the Jewish scriptures with the word Torah and not just what was revealed to Moses. (See, for example, the Islamic tradition transmitted by Bukhari, Darimi and is available in Mishkat al, Masabih, Vol. II, p. 1232).

Koran says Torah and Gospel not corrupted and are words of God:

http://www.conflictingviews.com/religion/all-religions/koran-says-torah-gospel-not-corrupted-3324.html

I think it is you that does not understand it. For if you did, you would have understood my response.

Is it true that Mohammed was an illiterate goat herder who made his way in life by marrying and burying several affluent wives? Is it true he married and f*cked a nine year old girl?

You people are batshit crazy.

Being that you can't provide any proof that Muhammad(saw) was a goat herder, had sex with a 9 year old, or any other claim you made, that alone shows who's the clear fool.