Greatest Objections to Christianity?

[Scimitar]

lol... Okay...


Oh so God can not create ex nihilo? Contradicting the laws of the universe... perhaps you ought to revisit what your Quran has to say about this!!!

I didn't imply CANNOT - I implied DOES NOT!!! You really are dense aren't you? I knew it! Sheesh. It's like i'm teaching a child lol. And you claim to be a teacher, lol rich!!! The irony is strong here! You've embarrassed yourself more times than I can count tonight... do you get off on self humiliation?

How bout basic physics Einstein. Energy is neither created or destroyed... lets go to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics... how did this happen without a contradiction of the physical rules/laws - barriers... lol... or however else you want to describe them...

Are you now taking atheist science over the theology which both Judeo-Christianity and Islam share alike? You really are a compromised cupcake aren't ya?

Energy - all energy is created by God. We humans cannot create nor destroy it. We don't even have all the tools required to measure it - so assuming that it cannot be created nor destroyed is not an axiom, but a theoretical play. A scientific fairytale.

Theology101 coming back to bite your backside lol

Really, stop embarrassing yourself!

 

[Thekafir]

I didn't imply CANNOT - I implied DOES NOT!!!

Thank you for the equivocation... lol...

You really are dense aren't you?

??? Of course I am --- I am a Christian and don't unerstand my faith - don't know what the Bible says - teaches - etc... I am completely dependent upon what Muslims (who follow the teachings of a man who didn't know the name of God) tell me... :facepalm:

Are you now taking atheist science over the theology which both Judeo-Christianity and Islam share alike? You really are a compromised cupcake aren't ya?

No --- cupcake... I teach basic principles of science... You are trying to hide from your comment... lol... please explain how the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is not violated using purley naturalistic processes...

I am stopping right help to demonstrate how foolish of a man you are...

Explain this if you are daring to question my credentials!!!!!

Come on big man --- you got this... even in large letters!!!

 

[Ümit]

I am afraid you don't exactly understand science here.

definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

"knowledge gained through observation and experimentation" means we experimentated observed and concluded that energy cannot be created nor destroyed...however, this does not mean God can not create or destroy energy...the laws of physics applies to us, the created...not to God the creator.

besides, if science is knowledge gained through observation and experimentation, this also means that science is not atheistic. you are observing and documenting only the created...and your conclusion should also be free of what your religion is. facts are just facts...they can not be religious nor atheistic.

 

[Futuwwa]

No --- its a contradiction. You are saying that since God cannot contradict Himself - He is therefore not God. This is a silly argument.. akin to saying God cannot make a square circle...

Wherein exactly lies the contradiction? It is you who are committing a contradiction by simultaneously asserting that God is omnipotent (has the power to do anything whatsoever) and that he cannot do one particular thing (forgive sins without payment).

Or do you wish to assert that God is not omnipotent in your theology?

What exactly is a "square circle", and what is it supposed to prove?

 

[Thekafir]

I am afraid you don't exactly understand science here.

lol..

definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

I never knew that... thank you for sharing...

"knowledge gained through observation and experimentation" means we experimentated observed and concluded that energy cannot be created nor destroyed...however, this does not mean God can not create or destroy energy...the laws of physics applies to us, the created...not to God the creator.

Perhaps you should let Scimitar know this. He is the one claiming science is atheistic.. not me.

- - - Updated - - -

Wherein exactly lies the contradiction? It is you who are committing a contradiction by simultaneously asserting that God is omnipotent (has the power to do anything whatsoever) and that he cannot do one particular thing (forgive sins without payment).

Here --- your understanding of the word omnipotence is myopic at best.
Omnipotence does not mean the inability to do that which is logically impossible.

Or do you wish to assert that God is not omnipotent in your theology?

Perhaps I should also wish that God could not be God... if He could do that, He would therefore meet your criteria for omnipotence, however, since He wasn't God anymore, He would no longer be omnipotent and again fail to meet your ridiculously myopic view of omnipotence.

What exactly is a "square circle", and what is it supposed to prove?

By definition, using the rules of logic and language it is impossible and something even God cannot do. Squares do not have rounded edges - by definition it is impossible. God cannot violate His perfect sinless character - as if He did - He would no longer be God. Your problem isn't if God is omnipotent He can not forgive sins... God cannot violate His own character by lying and forgive sins without a payment for them.
Hope this helps...

 

[Futuwwa]

By definition, using the rules of logic and language it is impossible and something even God cannot do. Squares do not have rounded edges - by definition it is impossible. God cannot violate His perfect sinless character - as if He did - He would no longer be God. Your problem isn't if God is omnipotent He can not forgive sins... God cannot violate His own character by lying and forgive sins without a payment for them.

Incorrect. It is incorrect to assert that God cannot draw a square circle. It's a statement that has no truth value because "square circle" isn't a well-defined thing to begin with, thus the statement means nothing. It's word salad. Like asking whether an omniscient being would know the last decimal of pi.

So God is constrained by his own nature, a "perfect sinless character" that he cannot violate. From where does this constraint come? Is it not the will of God that determines what constitutes sin in the first place?

 

[Thekafir]

Incorrect. It is incorrect to assert that God cannot draw a square circle. It's a statement that has no truth value because "square circle" isn't a well-defined thing to begin with, thus the statement means nothing. It's word salad.

Exactly... just as your insistence that since God cannot violate His own nature He there fore is not omnipotent... is logically salad..

So God is constrained by his own nature, a "perfect sinless character" that he cannot violate. From where does this constraint come?

The Bible tells us He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2). Also, since God is eternal by nature (Psalm 90:2), He cannot stop being God. He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone with evil (James 1:13).
So yes, He is indeed omnipotent...
https://carm.org/questions/about-god/can-god-do-everything-including-sin

 

[Scimitar]

lol..

I never knew that... thank you for sharing...

Perhaps you should let Scimitar know this. He is the one claiming science is atheistic.. not me.

Ibn Al Haythm - a Muslim, formulated the scientific method we use today, it is atheists who abuse that method by theorizing their fairy tales to fit their non belief. And you tried to work their mischief to your end as well. I honestly do not believe you are a teacher, you're just too green around the ears to be a teacher.

As for the large font... simmer down homeslice you need to up your polemic! Not your font size.

 

[Thekafir]

Ibn Al Haythm - a Muslim, formulated the scientific method we use today, it is atheists who abuse that method by theorizing their fairy tales to fit their non belief.

You and I have more in common then you could possibly imagine concerning this topic.

And you tried to work their mischief to your end as well. I honestly do not believe you are a teacher, you're just too green around the ears to be a teacher.

No --- you would actually enjoy my classes... in this part of Kafiristan we are actually allowed to teach differing views concerning origins... both stellar and biological... I let Darwin and his ilk get their butts kicked on a daily basis!

As for the large font... simmer down homeslice you need to up your polemic! Not your font size.

"Homeslice"... I am belly laughing over that one... great point!!! Up the polemic not font... great advice!

 

[Thekafir]

Ibn Al Haythm - a Muslim, formulated the scientific method we use today

Just going back through your post here.... um... I am calling BS... so go ahead and cite your evidence for this because I have read Aristotle... which predates Muhammad by about 1000 YEARS... and know who Francis Bacon is... lol...

 

[Futuwwa]

Exactly... just as your insistence that since God cannot violate His own nature He there fore is not omnipotent... is logically salad..

No, it isn't. A "square circle" is a nonsense term that doesn't describe any actual, hypothetical thing. For God to do what you call sinning, however, is a hypothetical occurrence with a real meaning. For instance, if God were to send St Paul to Hell. That's a statement with an actual, well-defined meaning, we both know what it means, regardless if whether that's something that actually could happen. Like a perpetual motion machine. That's a hypothetical thing with an actual well-defined meaning, even if such a thing isn't possible according to current understanding of physics.

So if you can't do something because your own nature constrains you, that isn't non-omnipotence? If so, I'm omnipotent too. I can do everything except that which my nature constrains me from doing. For example, my nature constrains me from shooting laser beams out of my eyes. If that cop-out is valid, then everyone is omnipotent and tautologically so, and the entire concept meaningless.

The Bible tells us He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2). Also, since God is eternal by nature (Psalm 90:2), He cannot stop being God. He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone with evil (James 1:13).
So yes, He is indeed omnipotent...

https://carm.org/questions/about-god/can-god-do-everything-including-sin

That's just restating the original assertion with Bible citations. That doesn't answer the question, nor resolve any of the apparent contradictions or philosophical problems I pointed out.

I'm not going to read through any links that supposedly answer the question. This isn't a one-way lecture premised on you being right, my disagreement being due to me not getting it, and the purpose being for me to understand how you're right. This is a two-way discussion. You wanted to discuss and debate, we are doing that now. Put up or shut up.

 

[Thekafir]

I'm not going to read through any links that supposedly answer the question.

I posted a refutation of your ridiculous assertion and backed it up with a citation... if you are not going to engage then... oh wait... you write...

You wanted to discuss and debate, we are doing that now. Put up or shut up.

I did but you won't read... sorry... it must suck to be stuck in the 7th century... let me know when you are ready to come into the 21st...

- - - Updated - - -

Amen --- got a new avatar to finally work here!!! The light shines through the darkness

 

[MidnightRose]

...The light shines through the darkness

Greetings,

What light would that be?

 

[Futuwwa]

I posted a refutation of your ridiculous assertion and backed it up with a citation... if you are not going to engage then... oh wait... you write...

I did but you won't read... sorry... it must suck to be stuck in the 7th century... let me know when you are ready to come into the 21st...

Not as much as it must suck to be unable to make an argument of your own and hide behind copypasta. This isn't the world of scientific publication where a citation of a peer-reviewed result is considered evidence. That's just a website with text on it, its existence doesn't prove that any assertion it makes is true. If it makes arguments that are valid, you can make the same arguments yourself.

You refuted nothing, you simply made a bunch of just-so statements of dogma, ignoring every question I asked, as well as my rebuttals.

You're complaining about how you get shown the door on Islamic forums when you try to engage in discussion. I'm offering you exactly that right now. Actual, symmetric, two-way discussion. Not to sit down for a one-way lecture premised on you being right, or being spoon-fed material that's supposed to teach me. If you don't understand the difference, I'm sorry, I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

 

[Scimitar]

Just going back through your post here.... um... I am calling BS... so go ahead and cite your evidence for this because I have read Aristotle... which predates Muhammad by about 1000 YEARS... and know who Francis Bacon is... lol...

Lolwut?

You didn't know that Ibn Al Haythm (AlHazen) formulated the modern scientific method? Really??? thought you was a teacher... now it's my turn to call BS! You aint a teacher, you're a liar for Christ, is what!

Amazing... guilty fingers should never point. Let this be a lesson for ya.

Francis Bacon was a Freemason who ordered the KJV to be written, that's who he was. The irony is that the KJV is that you didn't know this! Fail for you eh?


Aristotle said "the sign of an intelligent person is one who can entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it." You accepting the bible without knowing its historicity while claiming "francis bacon" is hubris and absolutely discredits you here on this forum, what are you? a Jester? You accepted a well scripted lie, and that is not intelligent... Aristotle must be doing facepalms in his grave lol.

As for Al Haythm and his formulating the modern scientific method, here you go green ears, The origins of the scientific method hearken back to the Islamic World, not the Western one. Around 250 years before Roger Bacon (not Francis Bacon) expounded on the need for experimental confirmation of his findings, an Arab scientist named Ibn al-Haytham was saying the exact same thing. I think you confused Sir Francis Bacon with Roger Bacon - no such thing as accident.

You should learn about Francis Bacon as he absolutely destroyed the Christian creed in Europe with his KJV bible, but Francis Bacon had nothing to do with science lol. As for Aristotle, his method was defunct and the world was using Ptolemy's method for centuries which had elements of superstition attached - non scientific superstition - which Al Haythm removed and replaced with the INDUCTIVE method which is in use today. Ibn Al Haythm is the father of the modern scientific method. Period. And you're not too bright. Evidently

Now, naughty step. You been a silly little penguin, no milk for you!

 

[AabiruSabeel]

Three things are essential for the production of an effect:-


The (Efficient Cause) Maker, such as the potter in the case of the pot.
The Material Cause, such as clay.
The instruments where with to make an object like a pot.

Now just as the potter, clay and the necessary instruments must exist before the pot can be manufactured, likewise, Allah (arabic name for god), and prakrati - (Nature) the material cause of the Universe - with their inherent attributes and characteristics must have existed before this Universe came into being. Hence what the quran says on Creation sounds absurd.

What an absurd example. A pagan who worships man-made idols can never fully understand the attributes and characteristics of God.

Allah :swt: is Al-Mubdi' (The Originator). He is the founder of creation. Not only that, He :swt: is also Al-Badee', Al-Baari, Al-Khaaliq, and Al-Musawwir.

Al-Mubdi' is the One who initiates, starts or begins the production or creation of all things.

Al-Badee' is the One who creates in awesome, wonderful, amazingly original ways that have no precedent whatsoever.

Al-Mu'eed is the One who repeats, restores and revives that which had been previously invented.

Al-Baari' is the way the One works with substances, often creating from existing matter, making and evolving that which is free and clear of imperfections, free and clear of any other thing.

Al-Khāliq is the One who continues to plan, measure out and create and who has the power to change things from one state to another, in and out of existence.

Al-Musawwir is the One who arranges forms and colors, and who is the shaper of beauty.
​

 

[Futuwwa]

Awwww, I was hoping for an interesting discussion on the theology of omnipotence and soteriology.

Oh well, at least this thread reminded me of why I quit Christianity in the first place ;D

 

[fromelsewhere]

Just going back through your post here.... um... I am calling BS... so go ahead and cite your evidence for this because I have read Aristotle... which predates Muhammad by about 1000 YEARS... and know who Francis Bacon is... lol...

I am tired of the arrogance of some people on this forum who always appropriate anything and everything that was ever good as coming from Muslims.

 

[truthseeker63]

The Greatest Objections to Christianity is the Trinity.

 

[Futuwwa]

I am tired of the arrogance of some people on this forum who always appropriate anything and everything that was ever good as coming from Muslims.

Perhaps that wouldn't happen if not for the arrogance of certain other people who like to pontificate on the difference between the West and the Islamic world in recent scientific and technological achievement, and use it to draw all kinds of self-serving conclusions about Islam and Muslims.