A review of baseless assertions

[mansio]

Let us assume the Seven Sleepers have existed and let us have a look at the theological implications for Islam in such a case.

The Seven Sleepers were Christians and were protected by God from the persecutions of the Roman emperor Decius.
What does that story prove if it is true ? That the Christian God protected people who believed in the Trinity. It is a proof that Christianity is true.

Another theological problem: Catholics (and Orthodox) are well known for their cult of the saints. You cannot imagine the extension of that phenomenon if you do not live in Catholic countries. In some places nearly every village has its saint. The lives of those saints are often as incredible as the Seven Sleepers story.
That cult is denounced by the Quran in 9:31 "They have taken their scholars and their monks as lords instead of/besides God...". As the Seven Sleepers were revered as saints (and still are in Orthodoxy) accepting that story goes against the Quran.

You are asking for proofs that the Seven Sleepers have not existed. Here is one : the Catholic Church reformed its liturgy in 1969. It suppressed the cult of the Seven Sleepers and some other saints as mythical.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The Seven Sleepers were [trinitarian] Christians

Prove it.

and were protected by God from the persecutions of the Roman emperor Decius.

Prove it was Decius.

All you have done is just assume that the Christian account of this story is correct and not the Qur'anic account. But there is no basis for this assumption. We find that you consistently advance ideas and opinions as though they are established fact, and this is why you close yourself off from learning because you do not engage in scientific discussion - that is discussion that is based on the analysis of EVIDENCE.

What does that story prove if it is true ? That the Christian God protected people who believed in the Trinity.

Where in the Qur'an does it say that these people believed in a trinity? It doesn't. So there is no basis for such a claim.

Why do you assume that the Christian description of this story is correct and the Qur'anic description is incorrect? You have to PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ALLEGATION!

Another theological problem: Catholics (and Orthodox) are well known for their cult of the saints. You cannot imagine the extension of that phenomenon if you do not live in Catholic countries. In some places nearly every village has its saint. The lives of those saints are often as incredible as the Seven Sleepers story.
That cult is denounced by the Quran in 9:31 "They have taken their scholars and their monks as lords instead of/besides God...". As the Seven Sleepers were revered as saints (and still are in Orthodoxy) accepting that story goes against the Quran.

This doesn't prove anything! That's like saying the Muslim belief in Jesus as a Prophet goes against the Qur'an because Christians view him to be God!!

You are asking for proofs that the Seven Sleepers have not existed. Here is one : the Catholic Church reformed its liturgy in 1969. It suppressed the cult of the Seven Sleepers and some other saints as mythical.

This isn't proof that they didn't exist! The Catholic church suppressed anyone who opposed trinity- is this proof that God must be a trinity?!?!

Summary:
On one hand we have a christian source (C) and Qur'anic source (Q) describing the story of the sleepers.

Mansio's argument can be paraphrased as follows:
Even if we accept the story to be true, (C) establishes that the sleepers were trinitarians, contrary to (Q).

Flaw in argument:
Since mansio has not provided any evidence that the account given in (C) is correct to the exclusion of (Q), his entire argument collapses. Just because (C) says that the sleepers were trinitarian does not make it correct. Mansio needs to bring HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that the story DESCRIBED IN THE QUR'AN is a man-made myth.

Conclusion
Instead of providing evidence for his baseless allegation, mansio seeks to save face by throwing out more unsubstantiated claims and logical fallacies. But once again, his fallacious method of reasoning has been exposed. Someone who refuses to provide evidence for their conclusions and allegations against others has no place in intellectual dialogue.

 

[mansio]

Ansar

The Seven Sleepers are from a CHRISTIAN legend from the 5th century and the Quran is from the first half of the 7th century.

That legend is not the only one that has been incorporated in the Quran from Rabbinical and Christian folklore.

Let us suppose that the Quran has drawn from a unknown non-Christian source. You like so much to ask for proofs, so what and where is that source ?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The Seven Sleepers are from a CHRISTIAN legend from the 5th century and the Quran is from the first half of the 7th century.

So because the christian source predates the Qur'an it means that the Christian source is automatically correct?!

That legend is not the only one that has been incorporated in the Quran from Rabbinical and Christian folklore.

Instead of providing evidence for your previous allegation, you now bring a NEW ONE!

First you have to bring evidence for your claim that the Qur'anic account of the sleepers is man-made. If you can provide no evidence then you must admit such or else this will continue and your fallacies will continue to be exposed.

Let us suppose that the Quran has drawn from a unknown non-Christian source. You like so much to ask for proofs, so what and where is that source ?

God.

As I pointed out before, you are bringing the allegation that the story is man-made so you must support your allegation with proof. If you cannot do so, then you must be honest and admit that you made a baseless claim.

 

[mansio]

Ansar

You do not prove your allegation that the Seven Sleepers legend is from God.

I gave you the following proofs:

1) Historians know it is a legend. See all the links that say it.

2) The Catholic Church knew that it was legendary and has suppressed the worship of the Seven Sleepers in 1969.

3) When two similar stories appear in books in the Middle-East and one book has been written long after the other, every sensible person will assume that the second has copied from the first, keeping in mind that the second book is a compilation of various Middle-Eastern elements.
One must also not forget that the Seven Sleepers legend, as the Alexander the Great legends, were widely popular.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry to interrupt like this, but, Ansar, I don't think you're being entirely fair here.

So because the christian source predates the Qur'an it means that the Christian source is automatically correct?!

As I understand the discussion so far, mansio is not arguing that the story of the Seven Sleepers is actually true, as the Christian sources say.

Earlier on you said:

Prove it was Decius

All the internet sources I've seen say the persecution happened under Decius, as does Yusuf-Ali in his commentary on the Qur'an and Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. However, since the story is unlikely to be true anyway, and was probably placed in that historical time frame because vehement Christian persecutions took place then, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask for proof.

I gave you the following proofs:

1) Historians know it is a legend. See all the links that say it.

True.

2) The Catholic Church knew that it was legendary and has suppressed the worship of the Seven Sleepers in 1969.

True.

3) When two similar stories appear in books in the Middle-East and one book has been written long after the other, every sensible person will assume that the second has copied from the first, keeping in mind that the second book is a compilation of various Middle-Eastern elements.

Absolutely. The Qur'an's version seems to be derived from earlier Christian sources, either directly or indirectly. I would suggest that the same is true of the Virgin Birth and several other stories found in both Christian and Islamic lore.

Peace

 

[mansio]

Czgibson

Thanks a lot for your help. I am 58 and I have been reading and studying all my life and travelled too. It is the first time that I see such simplistic ways of thinking on a forum.
Is that rigid type of reasoning from pre-established patterns the main reason for the downfall of the magnificent Islamic civilization of old ?
We had in Europe a society based on such rigid mental patterns called Communism. It floundered as everything which stifles creativity.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

I am 58 and I have been reading and studying all my life and travelled too. It is the first time that I see such simplistic ways of thinking on a forum.
Is that rigid type of reasoning from pre-established patterns the main reason for the downfall of the magnificent Islamic civilization of old ?

Oh yeah, mansio.
Our demand for proof is really something awful.
We should accept everything everyone claims at this forum.
Thanks for the wake up-call.

 

[Chuck]

The Qur'an's version seems to be derived from earlier Christian sources, either directly or indirectly. I would suggest that the same is true of the Virgin Birth and several other stories found in both Christian and Islamic lore.

If thats is your personal opinion then there is no issue, otherwise, if you are presenting this as a fact then it is fallacies of non-sequitur (specifically affirming the consequent), post hoc ergo propter hoc, and false dilemma, unless you have an irrefutable evidence to support your argument.

Thanks a lot for your help. I am 58 and I have been reading and studying all my life and travelled too. It is the first time that I see such simplistic ways of thinking on a forum.
Is that rigid type of reasoning from pre-established patterns the main reason for the downfall of the magnificent Islamic civilization of old ?
We had in Europe a society based on such rigid mental patterns called Communism. It floundered as everything which stifles creativity.

You have many logical fallacies in the above post of yours, but I'll point out the main one: argumentum ad hominem

 

[Chuck]

Let us suppose that the Quran has drawn from a unknown non-Christian source. You like so much to ask for proofs, so what and where is that source ?

We are not saying that you should believe this story, because hypothesis like existence of God or existence of Adam and Eve can not be falsified by science, in other words, they can't be proved or disproved at present. However, when you make claims like that the story is false because it doesn't have clear-cut proof or copied from bible because similar story exits in Bible then that's wrong because that falls into the fallacies of post hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and false dilemma.

 

[mansio]

Abu Zakariya

I am also asking for proofs ! Are you ready to provide them for me or would it be to awful for you ?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

You do not prove your allegation that the Seven Sleepers legend is from God.

That is not an allegation. It is a belief. An allegation is a negative claim against someone else. Perhaps you could tell me who I am attacking with my belief?

Never have I taken my personal beliefs as proof against others. If you want to belief that the story of the sleepers is man-made, then go ahead, but if you are going to advance these allegations here you have to support them with evidence.

Read what Chuck wrote here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/161897-post30.html

1) Historians know it is a legend.

Which historians? On what basis? On what evidence?

Mansio won't tell us.

2) The Catholic Church knew that it was legendary and has suppressed the worship of the Seven Sleepers in 1969.

I already answered this. The Catholic church suppressed anti-trini9tarians- does that means that the trinity is true?

3) When two similar stories appear in books in the Middle-East and one book has been written long after the other, every sensible person will assume that the second has copied from the first

'Every sensible person'? I think sensible people are those that draw their conclusions upon evidence, not conjecture.

Callum,
There's not much for me to say in response to your post except that you've simply affirmed mansio's fallacious arguments without providing evidence. I am amazed that you would accuse me of being unfair. Perhaps it would be more fair if I allowed mansio to continue in his compaign of attacking Islam without providing evidence to support his allegations?

A forum is a place for discussion. If I go on a Christian forum and start chanting phrases like "Christ isn't God" "the Bible is a compilation of pagan myths" "the biblical prophets are mythical" - is any of that going to bring about any benefit or productive discussion? Of course not, that is simply abusing their forum. If I want to discuss something I have to at least provide some evidence to support my claims.

I have no problem if you and mansio wish to hold these opinions. But when you advance these opinions as fact without substantiating your claims, you are abusing the forum and that will not be tolerated.

Regards

 

[*Hana*]

Salam Alaikum, peace:

I think anyone that has taken the time to look around the forum can see how Mansio chooses to "dialogue". He makes a statement and that's it. He provides nothing more except to say he's educated, reads a lot, has travelled and lives in France. Well, I'm educated, I read a lot, have travelled and live in Canada. And the point would be??? Sorry, but that's not proof of anything.

To ask for and provide proof of statements is only fair and Mansio needs to learn to think or research before he makes accusations and false statements about Islam.

As an example, he made a statement similar to this: Most historians agree the crucifixion took place. That was it....nothing more to show who these historians are. So I responded something like this: Most historians agree the crucifixion did NOT take place.

Both are just statements. One is no more valuable than the other, so now what? The difference is, Mansio will then ask us to prove it whereas he doesn't feel he needs to do that.

You don't come to an Islamic Forum, make accusations with no basis in fact and then expect the Muslims to provide the proof. If you have something to say, say it with the ability and knowledge to back it up or remain silent. It's just that simple.

So before anyone accuses Brother Ansar Al-'Adl of being unfair please make sure you understand the process of debating/discussing with logic and reason. It is not unfair to request proof, but it is definitely unfair to make statements or accusations without them and expect everyone else to just accept them as fact. Brother Ansar Al-'Adl has gone to great lengths to give Mansio the opportunity to respond and provide proofs and he is still waiting. That alone should tell you that he is being more than fair in his efforts to continue dialogue.

Wa'alaikum salam, Peace
Hana

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Chuck,

If thats is your personal opinion then there is no issue, otherwise, if you are presenting this as a fact then it is fallacies of non-sequitur (specifically affirming the consequent), post hoc ergo propter hoc, and false dilemma, unless you have an irrefutable evidence to support your argument.

Yes, this is my opinion, but I don't think I've made the fallacies you accuse me of. Why is it a non-sequitur to say that if the same story appears in two places separated in time by several centuries that the latter appearance is probably derived, either directly or indirectly, from the first? That is a common principle of textual scholarship. If you deny this, I suppose you'd say that Shakespeare actually created the plots of most of his plays himself, rather than deriving them from older works of history and literature, as we know he did.

Also, with regard to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, that applies to causation, and is inapplicable in cases of textual similarity, unless you hold that the similarity between the Qur'an's version of the story and older versions is entirely coincidental.

You have many logical fallacies in the above post of yours, but I'll point out the main one: argumentum ad hominem

I can't see an ad hominem argument in mansio's post - can you point it out to me?

Hello Ansar,

There's not much for me to say in response to your post except that you've simply affirmed mansio's fallacious arguments without providing evidence. I am amazed that you would accuse me of being unfair. Perhaps it would be more fair if I allowed mansio to continue in his compaign of attacking Islam without providing evidence to support his allegations?

Forgive me, but I think mansio has provided evidence. He has referred you to encyclopedias which report the story being a legend or myth; I have referred you to Yusuf-Ali and Gibbon, who do the same. Does all of this not count as evidence for some reason?

Here is a link to Gibbon's account of the story, from chapter 33 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (the last paragraph on the page is the one to look at):

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap33.htm

I have no problem if you and mansio wish to hold these opinions. But when you advance these opinions as fact without substantiating your claims, you are abusing the forum and that will not be tolerated.

I don't want to cause trouble, and I'd certainly like to stay on the forum; let me make that clear.

I am not suggesting that the opinion mansio and I hold on the story of the Seven Sleepers is fact, simply that we have good reasons for having this opinion. I have tried to substantiate this claim by reference to historians and websites, as has mansio, but you do not see these references as evidence. If you explain why they do not count as evidence, then it might be possible to make progress.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Forgive me, but I think mansio has provided evidence. He has referred you to encyclopedias which report the story being a legend or myth;

He has done no such thing. Instead he has told me to "look it up" in various encyclopedias but has yet to bring me specific historical evidence which suggests that the story is man-made.

Even if he does bring a quote of from some historians that say that the story is man-made it still would not substantiate his claim. These historians begin with the assumption that Islam is not true and the Qur'an is not a divine revelation, and on that basis they explain the presence of the Qur'anic stories by suggesting that they were taken from previous works. But this is all constructed upon the assumption that Islam is false, because if it were true then these stories would be explained by process of divine revelation.

The problem with mansio's argument is that he is trying to use this claim that the story is man-made as proof that Islam is false, even though it is constructed upon that assumption. Consequently, this is an example of circular reasoning.

From an Islamic perspective, the story was revealed by God and just posting opinions of some historians does not constitute sufficient evidence to negate that view. Mansio must bring evidence which demonstrates that the story given in the Qur'an COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE FROM GOD. If he cannot do so, then his allegation fails.

He has referred you to encyclopedias which report the story being a legend or myth; I have referred you to Yusuf-Ali and Gibbon, who do the same.

Yusuf Ali says the story is a myth?! I think you are not paying attention here. Yusuf Ali and Gibbon speculate that the emperor in the story may have been Decius - that is all. What you have here is the opinion of two human beings - not nearly enough to prove that the story could not possibly have been from God.

Does all of this not count as evidence for some reason?

How could it possibly be considered evidence that the story is man-made?

 

[czgibson]

Hi Ansar,

I must admit I'm struggling to understand your position, but I suppose that's to be expected in a discussion of this nature. It's kind of you to put up with this sort of questioning of your beliefs, as I know that you take them very seriously. I'm not trying to prove Islam to be false - I'm sure that's not possible - I'm just finding it difficult (and interesting) to try and understand something that would be relatively uncontroversial among Western scholars, yet which seems to have ignited such a heated discussion here.

He has done no such thing. Instead he has told me to "look it up" in various encyclopedias but has yet to bring me specific historical evidence which suggests that the story is man-made.

So are these encyclopedias not to be trusted?

Even if he does bring a quote of from some historians that say that the story is man-made it still would not substantiate his claim. These historians begin with the assumption that Islam is not true and the Qur'an is not a divine revelation, and on that basis they explain the presence of the Qur'anic stories by suggesting that they were taken from previous works. But this is all constructed upon the assumption that Islam is false, because if it were true then these stories would be explained by process of divine revelation.

So what you're saying, basically, is that any historians who oppose the view that the story comes from god are biased and shouldn't be trusted?

From an Islamic perspective, the story was revealed by God and just posting opinions of some historians does not constitute sufficient evidence to negate that view. Mansio must bring evidence which demonstrates that the story given in the Qur'an COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE FROM GOD. If he cannot do so, then his allegation fails.

Not necessarily. It's my view that it is far more likely that the story as it appears in the Qur'an was taken from earlier sources. That's different from saying it "could not possibly be from god". Of course, you know that's what I believe anyway, since I don't believe in god, but let's put that to one side for a moment. Your view seems to be that any similarity between the Qur'anic story and earlier sources, such as Gregory of Tours, is entirely coincidental. For the record, is that what you're saying?

Yusuf Ali says the story is a myth?! I think you are not paying attention here. Yusuf Ali and Gibbon speculate that the emperor in the story may have been Decius - that is all. What you have here is the opinion of two human beings - not nearly enough to prove that the story could not possibly have been from God.

Yusuf-Ali calls it a "floating Christian story". I misunderstood that as implying that he thought it was a myth - my mistake, sorry. Gibbon refers to it as a "fable", which surely implies that he thought it was a myth. Gibbon also says that the story was placed by many tellers as beginning in the reign of Decius. Of course, this detail is irrelevant, since Gibbon, a man of the Enlightenment, did not believe in miracles such as the one in the story.

Ansar, I think it would help if you made your position clearer.

1. Do you believe that the story is actually true? Of course, since it is in the Qur'an I would assume you do; could you clarify how long you believe the sleepers to have slept?

2. How do you explain the similarity between the Qur'anic story and previous versions? Are you suggesting it is impossible that it could have been transmitted to the Prophet (pbuh) by human agency?

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I must admit I'm struggling to understand your position, but I suppose that's to be expected in a discussion of this nature. It's kind of you to put up with this sort of questioning of your beliefs, as I know that you take them very seriously. I'm not trying to prove Islam to be false - I'm sure that's not possible - I'm just finding it difficult (and interesting) to try and understand something that would be relatively uncontroversial among Western scholars, yet which seems to have ignited such a heated discussion here.

To be honest, I'm amazed that you would defend mansio here and even claim that he had provided evidence despite the fact that he initiated his posts on this topic as follows:

If you have proofs that Christianity is more or less man made then OK.

I don't understand why that critic comes from Muslims who believe in the Quran which contains a number of man-made stories.

The legend of the Seven Sleepers from Christian folklore for example.

These kind of comments are completely unproductive. Here mansio has advanced his personal beliefs as though they are universal facts, yet none of these claims can be proven. If I went to a Christian forum and started claiming that the Bible was a collection of pagan myths it would serve no purpose but to provoke, unless I had concrete evidence which seriously put the divine authorship of the Bible into question.

So are these encyclopedias not to be trusted?

So what you're saying, basically, is that any historians who oppose the view that the story comes from god are biased and shouldn't be trusted?

I never said that the encyclopedia or historians should not be trusted, my point was very plain and simple. Mansio can quote a list of non-muslim historians who believe the Qur'an to contain man-made stories. I can quote just as many muslim historians who would disagree. What does this prove? Nothing. I have never attempted to validate this story on the basis of historical evidence alone. The problem with mansio's claim is that there is no way for him to prove it. Do you honestly believe that a couple of non-muslim historian's opinion on this story constitutes complete proof that the story could not have been from God?

If you don't, then perhaps you can see the problem when mansio continues to post these kind of statements on the forum.

Not necessarily. It's my view that it is far more likely that the story as it appears in the Qur'an was taken from earlier sources.

1. Mansio was not speaking about a balance of probability here. That is why your attempt to defend him is fallacious. He was advancing this as evidence that the Qur'an is not the word of God and contains man-made sotries, which is of course circular reasoning as I pointed out.
2. If there is a God, then the probabilites that you speak about vanish completely because there is no way to asses the chance of God revealing a particular story. Therefore, to claim that the story of the sleepers is man-made is built on the assumption that the Qur'an is not the word of God. Thus, if one is to have a productive debate they need to discuss whether God exists and whether the Qur'an is tghe word of God. To simply raise these kind of unsubstantiated allegations is a waste of time.

That's different from saying it "could not possibly be from god". Of course, you know that's what I believe anyway, since I don't believe in god, but let's put that to one side for a moment.

I would indeed find it absurd if an atheist began their debate that the Qur'an is not the word of God by stating that stories such as that of the sleepers are man-made, because that is circular reasoning.

Your view seems to be that any similarity between the Qur'anic story and earlier sources, such as Gregory of Tours, is entirely coincidental. For the record, is that what you're saying?

No. If the story actually happened then it is only logical that it would be spoken about in various historic communities and folklore. This was pointed out by Br. Abu Zakariyya in his second post in this thread.

Yusuf-Ali calls it a "floating Christian story". I misunderstood that as implying that he thought it was a myth - my mistake, sorry. Gibbon refers to it as a "fable", which surely implies that he thought it was a myth. Gibbon also says that the story was placed by many tellers as beginning in the reign of Decius. Of course, this detail is irrelevant, since Gibbon, a man of the Enlightenment, did not believe in miracles such as the one in the story.

Surely you would know that the opinion of a handful of human beings in such a matter does not constitute evidence, either of its veracity or falsity.

1. Do you believe that the story is actually true? Of course, since it is in the Qur'an I would assume you do; could you clarify how long you believe the sleepers to have slept?

18:25. And they stayed in their Cave three hundred (solar) years, and add nine (for lunar years).

Of course this is a miracle and of course I don't expect you to believe it. But there is a difference between you not believing it and between telling Muslims that the Qur'an can't be true because it contains this story which must be man-made.

2. How do you explain the similarity between the Qur'anic story and previous versions? Are you suggesting it is impossible that it could have been transmitted to the Prophet (pbuh) by human agency?

No, on the contrary the Qur'an mentions this story in response to what was being said about it.
18:22. (Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth, guessing at the unseen; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say (O Muhammad ): "My Lord knows best their number; none knows them but a few." So debate not (about their number, etc.) except with the clear proof (which We have revealed to you). And consult not any of them (people of the Scripture, Jews and Christians) about (the affair of) the people of the Cave.

I don't believe in the story simply on the basis of historical evidence; I believe in it because I have first established the Qur'an to be the word of God on the basis of logic and evidence, and consequently I believe in what the Qur'an says.

Regards

 

[mansio]

Ansar

This whole discussion has become senseless because you have started to ask for proofs. How can you ask for proofs if yourself you cannot give proofs of what you say.
I gave you opinions which, once and for all, are not "mine" but are opinions shared by millions of people.
You are allowed not to accept those opinions but you are not allowed to call them lies. What would you think if called you a liar because you say the Quran is true ?
Do you say also that the Book of Mormon is true ? No you do not say that, and one could call you a liar for that and ask you for proofs.
What I am using are arguments from common sense. Common sense says for example that when an opinion is shared by a majority of scientists and scholars from different countries it is most probably true.
I never asked for proofs that the earth rotates around the sun or that Cinderella is a fairy tale. I just accepted it as true.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Ansar,

These kind of comments are completely unproductive. Here mansio has advanced his personal beliefs as though they are universal facts, yet none of these claims can be proven.

Has he really claimed them to be universal facts? I certainly wouldn't claim that.

If I went to a Christian forum and started claiming that the Bible was a collection of pagan myths it would serve no purpose but to provoke, unless I had concrete evidence which seriously put the divine authorship of the Bible into question.

But god didn't write the Bible, did he? It was written by different people over many years. (If god did write the Bible, he frequently contradicts himself, which puts a question mark over his omniscience.)

I never said that the encyclopedia or historians should not be trusted, my point was very plain and simple.

What you say below pretty much amounts to saying that.

I have never attempted to validate this story on the basis of historical evidence alone.

Right, you have the evidence of the Qur'an, which cannot be questioned.

The problem with mansio's claim is that there is no way for him to prove it.

True, just as there is no way for you to prove your belief.

Do you honestly believe that a couple of non-muslim historian's opinion on this story constitutes complete proof that the story could not have been from God?

Of course not. I would not claim that my belief on this matter can be proven, simply that it is far more likely that the story is a myth in the first place, and that the Qur'anic story derives from earlier sources.

1. Mansio was not speaking about a balance of probability here. That is why your attempt to defend him is fallacious. He was advancing this as evidence that the Qur'an is not the word of God and contains man-made sotries, which is of course circular reasoning as I pointed out.

OK, but saying there is evidence to support a particular point of view is not the same as saying that it has been proven. For example, there is evidence to suggest that playing violent computer games can lead someone to become a violent person; there is also evidence that the opposite is true - it has not been proven.

2. If there is a God, then the probabilites that you speak about vanish completely because there is no way to asses the chance of God revealing a particular story. Therefore, to claim that the story of the sleepers is man-made is built on the assumption that the Qur'an is not the word of God. Thus, if one is to have a productive debate they need to discuss whether God exists and whether the Qur'an is tghe word of God. To simply raise these kind of unsubstantiated allegations is a waste of time.

Good point. The existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven, just as the veracity of this story or where it came from cannot be proven.

No. If the story actually happened then it is only logical that it would be spoken about in various historic communities and folklore. This was pointed out by Br. Abu Zakariyya in his second post in this thread.

The same would be true if it did not happen.

Surely you would know that the opinion of a handful of human beings in such a matter does not constitute evidence, either of its veracity or falsity.

Since I don't have any evidence from non-humans, it's the only evidence I can rely on.

18:25. And they stayed in their Cave three hundred (solar) years, and add nine (for lunar years).

Of course this is a miracle and of course I don't expect you to believe it. But there is a difference between you not believing it and between telling Muslims that the Qur'an can't be true because it contains this story which must be man-made.

Right, because I don't believe that people can sleep for 309 years and then wake up.

No, on the contrary the Qur'an mentions this story in response to what was being said about it.
18:22. (Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth, guessing at the unseen; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say (O Muhammad ): "My Lord knows best their number; none knows them but a few." So debate not (about their number, etc.) except with the clear proof (which We have revealed to you). And consult not any of them (people of the Scripture, Jews and Christians) about (the affair of) the people of the Cave.

This really sounds like a human talking, not an omniscient being. Here, it's as if god has looked at various human sources of the story and is unable to give a definitive answer on how many sleepers there were. Why should this be? And what is the "clear proof" referred to here?

I don't believe in the story simply on the basis of historical evidence; I believe in it because I have first established the Qur'an to be the word of God on the basis of logic and evidence, and consequently I believe in what the Qur'an says.

OK, so each side in this discussion relies on evidence which the other side sees as inadmissible, or as proving nothing. The reasoning is circular on both sides, and our beliefs depend, as you rightly say, on one's view of the existence and workings of god.

Peace

 

[mansio]

So let's talk about something else.