The God of Abraham (Muslim, Christian, and Jewish God) probably does not exist
Debate Rounds (4)
The burden of proof in any argument always lies on the people making the claim. A person is guilty until proven innocent. The person who says something happened, or says something exists must prove it. An infinite amount of things do not exist at any given point, and an infinite among of things are not happening as you read this, but only a finite amount of things are happening. Each moment that I type the letter "A" I am not typing the letter "B" or "C" or taking a shower or eating a banana or eating banana pudding. I could list things that I am not doing for a quite a bit longer than things I am doing. Now if you are given no evidence at a given point in time that I am in the process of typing the letter A, it is absurd and irrational to assume that I am typing that letter (there is an infinite list of things I could be doing which are more or less equiprobable but there is only one potential event that I type the letter A, which is that I type it) at that point in time. Furthermore, it is ridiculous and time-wasting (at best) to then to worship my typing of the letter A (one because it is so obviously improbable, but also because it is quite strange to worship single-minded typists). That said, I am not definitively not typing the letter A at any given point in. I could be, but the chances are so slim as to beyond consideration. This is the way I feel about the existence of God. Of course, me typing a particular letter and the worship thereof is a ridiculous idea, but the point still stands and the analogy is clear. This is the essence of Russell's teapot argument (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and an argument which is very compelling. Our system of guilty until proven innocent is one of the things that makes the American judicial system great, and that same logic and reasoning should be applied to all issues worthy of debate (such as this one).
Because of all this, there is very little I can say in this opening in the way of arguing. I can point out the lack of evidence presented to me in favor of God, although hopefully some will be shown to me as this continues. I am doomed to wait for a response, and then respond to the arguments put forward with counter-arguments. Because when we debate the existence of something, the assumption is that it does not exist. Therefore, once someone puts forth the idea that something (be it God, rainbows exists or something has/is/will happened/happening/happen, they must put forth their evidence, and the skeptic must discuss and pry at the aforementioned evidence. It is in this way that we can reach at the truth (or the probability) of such a statement. I eagerly anticipate the response of one of the faithful.
The Earth: (1)
The Earth is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. This obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The irrefutable proof on above commentary is that there are hundreds of fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and saints who are preserved from decay in their graves since centuries and years without used any chemicals. Once we had dug their graves for any reasons, we found them in above condition, our doctors examined them and there are thousands of eyewitnesses too. We will not dig their graves again for every person on his desire now because you non-Muslims are 5 billion at this time in the world.
So, if you are sincere for truth, but you do not trust us, then contact us with your doctors, researchers and media team about the research of these fresh dead bodies. If you refuted above research, we will pay you 1 million dollars and we will be ready for any punishment from you in front of world media otherwise accept our research and enter in Islam. Do not see condition of some bad Muslims because the Islam is perfect, but all Muslims are not perfect.
According to my research there is no fresh dead body with fresh blood of any Atheists and Non-Muslims that is preserved from decay under the Earth or on the Earth since centuries and years without used any chemicals. So it is 100% proof that there are no other Gods except Almighty Allah and the nature Earth doesn't support or obey any fabricated Gods (except Almighty Allah) or followers of fabricated Gods or Atheists.
The Air: (2)
The Air is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. It obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The 100% proof on it is that if you leave intact dead bodies of all soldiers on the Earth who fought against each other in the name of their Gods and religion, then after death only Muslim Martyrs will remain in fresh condition with fresh blood and their enemies will decay.
There are two questions to all Atheists and Non-Muslims:
1) The Muslim soldiers who are slain in the way of Islam, why their dead bodies remain in fresh condition with fresh blood? And, all Atheists and all Non-Muslims soldiers who are murdered in the way of their religions, why their dead bodies do not remain in fresh condition with fresh blood?
2) Why the God did not preserve your soldiers' dead bodies who sacrificed for Him and why the God of Islam Almighty Allah preserved the dead bodies with fresh blood of those Muslim soldiers who sacrificed for Him?
The Fire: (3)
It is perfect that the Fire is a nature. It does not have any capacity to save any human body in it. So, if a Muslim goes in it without using any chemicals and he is immune to burn, then it will be a miracle and a 100% proof on truth of Islam. And, look how intransigents are majority of Atheists and Non-Muslims that they do not agree to demonstrate such miracle and if we Muslims are ready to demonstrate such miracle (by the mercy of Allah) then they are not even willing to convert to Islam.
Dear Atheists and non-Muslims, I ask you that if a Muslim goes in Fire without using any chemical on his body in front of world media and he is immune to burn in it, then will you all convert to Islam or not?
If yes, then fix a time, date and place and start announcement in whole world because you are 5 billion and it is impossible that we enter in Fire for every Atheists and Non-Muslims for proving the truth of Islam.
The Water: (4)
The water is a nature. Our claim is that it only obeys the God of Islam or only true followers of God of Islam. So please study following research and event that is proof on our claim
Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) were escaping from Egypt. When they reached to the Red Sea, they prayed to Almighty Allah. Allah the exalted said to Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) to hit the Red Sea with his staff. When the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the Red Sea, then sea split in two parts and they found the open path to cross the sea. So, the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) crossed the sea.
The Pharaoh Ramesses and his army who were chasing the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) reached to Red Sea. They found the open path, so they walked on dry ground following them, but when they reached in the middle of Red Sea, the sea joined back on them and they drown in it.
After this event, Almighty Allah saved the dead body of Pharaoh forever as a sign for Atheists and Non-Muslims.
So according to head of archaeologist and anatomical scientists the Professor Maurice Bucaille (who converted to Islam after his research) and according to Holy Quran, Pharaoh Ramesses died in the Red Sea following the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them).
For details on research of Professor Maurice Bucaille on this event please study "The Dead body of Pharaoh" in the article section on www.rightfulreligion.com.
Commentary on this event:
(1) This event is 100% true. So this event proves that there is existence of a God Almighty Allah (who is God of Islam and the God of Prophet Moses) because the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the red sea via his staff by the order of Almighty Allah and the red sea obeyed the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and his God Almighty Allah.
(2) This event also proves that water obeys the God Almighty Allah and His true followers because when the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the red sea via his staff by the order of Almighty Allah, it divided in two parts and gave the way for Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and his followers.
(3) There are some true Muslim followers of Almighty Allah who can split the red sea in two parts at this time too in front of world media by the order of Almighty Allah but only if 5 billion Atheists and Non-Muslims will agree to convert to Islam.
(4) My challenge forever is that there is no other God except Almighty Allah who is the God of Islam. If anyone from Non-Muslims claims that there is another God except Almighty Allah, then he should prove his God by any neutral, natural and irrefutable proofs & evidence in front of world media.
(5) I also challenge forever that there is no any Atheists and Non-Muslims who can claim that the water obeys or supports him.
References from Holy Quran:
Holy Quran, Surah 10, Verse 90-92:
We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam).
(It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)!
This day shall We save you in your body, that you may be a Sign to those who come after you! But verily, many among mankind are neglectful of Our Signs"
Holy Quran, Surah 41, Verse 53:
We shall (continue to) show them Our evidence in the world and within their souls until it becomes clear that the Quran is the truth. Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord witness all things?
Holy Quran, Surah 7, Verse 179:
We have destined many men and jinn for hell. They have hearts but do not understand, eyes but do not see. They have ears but do not hear. They are worse than lost cattle. These are the heedless ones.
Firstly, I think it is highly improbable that these bodies do not decay. You cited no sources for such and there is proof for the fact that bodies do decay, it is irrational to therefore assume that certain bodies do not decay because of a factor that has nothing to do with the biology of decaying (beliefs about the world held beforehand).
Even if we accept the postulate that the bodies of dead jihadis do not decay, you argument on the Earth still does not stand. "The Earth is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. This obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The irrefutable proof on above commentary is that there are hundreds of fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and saints who are preserved from decay"
First, let us point out that most inanimate objects can tell a lie. The exception would be texts and things of such nature (telling a story, which by definition can be true or false), but the Earth is not one of those. As far as I know, the Earth has no way of expressing itself as a conscious being. Correct me if I am wrong (with evidence). Next, the position that the Earth cannot support wrong thinking or beliefs is outrageous. Explain serial killers, rapists, criminals, and for that matter, Non-Muslims (a definite majority of all of these, as far I know, live on the Earth). Thirdly, anything that is "100% true and neutral" cannot "obey only true God or true followers of God" unless you are using a very strange and unorthodox version of the word neutral. Next, if the Earth doesn't obey fabricated Gods or atheists, why are countries such as the United States (a non majority Muslim nation) suffering less hardship and horror than Syria (a majority Muslim nation).
Now, let us get to the crux of your argument, featuring the bodies of martyrs. The idea that the corpses of martyrs do not decay is not true. Also, even if it were true there is so much evidence that the Earth is not "biased" such that that fact would not irreversibly turn the debate in your favor. Firstly, the corpses of those who use suicide vests are not recognizable when compared with their bodies beforehand (also, one might wonder why Allah is concerned with the state of the body of a martyr when is he in paradise and has no need of that bodily form). To get back to my second point in this paragraph, which was discussed before, is that the Earth does not favor followers of Allah. Indeed, many of the nations whose religion is predominately Islam, such as those of Southeast Asia and the Middle East, as a general rule, are not doing as well economically and politically (and really any other measure of how a country is doing) then those of America and Western Europe, who's most dominate religion is Christianity. So, even if we accept that the bodies of Muslim martyrs do not decompose (which I don't) there is still little evidence to support the idea that the Earth supports Islam. We could say, seeing as the Earth is an inanimate object it has little concern with supporting any particular belief system, that the Earth could not play a factor in the prevalence of one ethical system or religion over the other. Of course, this may seem a tad radical, so I'll just throw it out there as a thought. Your last claim was that the Earth does not obey any God but Allah, to which I simply say that there needs to be evidence to such a statement. Until then it simply falls under worshipping the teapot in Russell's teapot argument.
To respond to your argument about the air, I am still unclear what a nature is, so please explain it in your next reply. My argument to these statements are quite similar to the arguments for the Earth. The inability of inanimate objects to speak or communicate meaning, nonetheless lie, is proof of the ridiculousness of the state "[The Air] cannot tell a lie." Neither can the desk that I am writing this on or the chair which I currently sit upon, but that provides no foundation for the belief that these are holy or the product of a supernatural being. The air clearly does "support" wrong thinking, at least wrong thinking if we accept Islam to be true (I don't). Now, as I have mentioned before, the non-decaying of martyrs doesn't work as an argument because they do (the bodies of suicide bombers). To answer your two questions to all Atheists and Non-Muslims (which are basically the same question) I quote The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins: ""The fact that a question can be phrased in a grammatically correct English sentence doesn"t make it meaningful, or entitle it to our serious attention." Seeing as we have already cast doubt on the existence of non-decaying martyrs and the significance thereof, I think we safely categorize these as questions not entitled to "serious attention."
The Fire argument is different than the other two arguments. This seems to me the essence of it. Correct me if I am wrong (also, in your response, please define a nature). If a Muslim person enters flame without any sort of protection, and survives, then Islam is correct. So, you propose that Muslims issue this as a challenge to all non-Muslims and have such an event heavily spectated so Allah can be proven to exist once and for all. Leaving aside whether or not that if that process definitively happened (i.e.. the non-burnee did not have any flame protection) that still might not mean that Allah had interfered. Other supernatural explanations could do just fine such as (this is purely speculative) the god of fire did not want someone whose stupidity was of such quality amusement to burn to death in a pointless demonstration of faith in a book written in the seventh century. Now, if we accept the idea that this event would be definitive proof of Allah's existence, we would still need it to be actually tested, so until then no further commentary can be made on the subject.
Your next argument on the "natures" (please define) hinges on the idea that the Red Sea parted for Moses. If it did, then you are correct. But, unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest such an occurrence, and again I must point out that the burden of proof lies on those making the claims, not denying them (innocent until proven guilty). All the evidence you have is in a book written by a bronze age tribe. If you could prove your claims about the Red Sea, this would be a very different discussion. Also, assuming that the Ramses you are talking about is Ramses II, your statement is incorrect in saying that he died in the Red Sea. He died of complications of arthritis. Next, to deal with Maurice Bucaille, who claimed that Islam must be true because it violates no known scientific principle. Here is an example from the Koran, which implies that stars set (hint: they don't); (53:1) "By the Star when it setteth." Lastly, when it comes down to you commentary labelled (3) under the water section, if a Muslim is able to per for such a feat publicly, then we will talk then, Until then, there is not a lot to be said. To number 5, I say that I do not know what you mean by Atheists and Non-Muslims not being able to have water support them.Explain.
Lastly, your references from the Koran have no effect on rational discourse, seeing as they are part of a book written 1500 years ago that provide no evidence for the claims they make and thus should be excluded from citation in rational discourse.
In conclusion, I feel that I have dealt with all the arguments you have put forward effectively. I will clarify if you have any questions. Also, please define a "nature." I look forward to your response
abraralam forfeited this round.
abraralam forfeited this round.
abraralam forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.