News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Quest for Truth

Started by Absolute_Agent, June 16, 2019, 09:02:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 11:08:32 PM
A revelation to one is a revelation to all.  Would you insist that the Wright brothers personally informed you of their invention before you believed that man could fly?  No, you'd have to read about it in the "paper".  Likewise, you read about divine revelations in the scriptures.  To get to talk to the Wright brothers you'd have to be another inventor or a government official.  But everyday Joes?  Read about it.  Maybe if you're extra devout you'll have a visit from a prophet in your dreams.  Otherwise, I can't help you there, sorry.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

You are assuming objectivity (universality).  In comparison, we see that is similar and what is different between two things.  To only look at one aspect is typically narrow minded.  There are as many revelations as instants in a human experience times the number of humans.  That is the sum total of human revelation.  Care to write that all down?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Absolute_Agent

#61
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 17, 2019, 07:47:06 PM
Well of course I'm going to use that essay whenever this subject comes up. I've yet to encounter anyone who could actually debunk it. Observe.
Your premises are flawed. They assert God's existence without attempting to prove he exists. You mention scripture, but these are texts written by human authors, and God's existence would still need to be independently proven in order to say that these authors were writing on his behalf. Your conclusions are invalid since they follow from flawed premises, and your argument needs a complete rework.

On the subject of scripture, I have only this to say:

Any text written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so valuable that no right-minded individual would be able to deny the correctness of its statements. These texts would not be open to interpretation, as any interpretation would only serve to detract from the meaning of the original material. There is no text on Earth that meets this description, and therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that no scripture claiming to be the word of a supreme being is indeed such.
According to premise 3 the universe is constructed in such a way that belief in God can't be forced upon anyone.  Therefore it would be self-contradictory for me to argue for the existence of God. It can only be a premise, which is either accepted or rejected.   Indeed if you examine my argument you will see that I am not attempting to prove the existence of God, only that belief in God does not violate free thought.  Your conclusion in bold is rejected since it would violate free will, as explained in premise 3.  Therefore the God that you think must exist if any would not allow for free will.  Since we do have free will it is impossible that such a God exists.  The more rational assumption is that if a God exists, it would be a God who allows free will.  Finally, your assertion that my premises are flawed because they assume the existence of God is unsupported.  The only way you could establish that I have flawed premises is by proving God does not exist, and you cannot do that--you can only prove that it is possible to not believe in a God, which I already affirmed in premise 3.  The fact that you do not believe does not in itself prove anything other than that your choice demonstrates the validity of premise 3.  The very nature of the scriptures is such that those who wish to believe will have ample supporting evidence while those who don't wish to believe will be free to do so.  You assume that any God would and must negate free will but this premise is not supported by any scriptures.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:39:32 PM
Yes, we are all mundanes.  Or are you from Planet X (Duck Dodgers cartoon)?

I don't claim to be special, or more unique than you. Or anyone else.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 10:02:34 PM
Typo ... "can't be read properly except in the original languages also" ... fixed it for you.  Knew a fundie Christian once, who insisted that the English of the King James Bible is the original language, not Hebrew etc.  He was arguing this with an Israeli!!  Gentile minds ...
The oldest manuscripts available are in Greek, which is not the original language of the Old Testament, nor the language spoken by Christ or the disciples (Aramaic).  The current Hebrew version of the O.T. is a translation of the Greek Septuagint.  There is an Aramaic N.T., but this is a translation of the earlier Greek.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Baruch

#64
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on June 18, 2019, 12:47:01 AM
I don't claim to be special, or more unique than you. Or anyone else.

Your choice.  Embrace your mediocrity and homogeneity.  We are all identical clone sterile female drones now.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#65
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 02:31:31 AM
The oldest manuscripts available are in Greek, which is not the original language of the Old Testament, nor the language spoken by Christ or the disciples (Aramaic).  The current Hebrew version of the O.T. is a translation of the Greek Septuagint.  There is an Aramaic N.T., but this is a translation of the earlier Greek.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Almost correct.  The Muslim scholarship on the Jewish OT and Christian NT is prejudiced by age old apologetics.  I am willing to concede that the Bible is man-made ... as are all other writings, new or old.  The original intent of the writers is unknown ... it could be saintly or diabolical.

The oldest canonical manuscripts of the OT are in Hebrew, with short sections in Aramaic.  AKA Semitic languages.  The oldest canonical manuscripts of the NT are in Greek.  This is not counting non-canonical writings like the Gospel of Barabbas, Gospel of Thomas etc.  The Septuagint was an early translation of Hebrew/Aramaic books of the OT (done in Alexandria), which is useful for scholarly comparisons.  Early translations of the Greek NT to Aramaic in particular, as well as other evangelical languages is also useful.  Aramaic translations are useful in studying Hebrew words whose definition has become unclear (Targums and Peshitta).

Islamic criticism of Christianity is frequently based on the Gospel of Barnabas ... which is non-canonical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

Aside from mentions of Isa in the Quran of course.

The existence of anyone like the Moses or Jesus described in the Bible is indeterminate.  The Bible is best treated as an inspired fable.  That Muslim criticism is correct.  The conventional religious interpretation of miracle stories is false.  Everything that happens is natural/supernatural.  Not just Jonah swallowed by a whale ;-)  I strongly differ from both atheist and theist definitions of miracle or deity.  I see all this thru the lenses of psychology and anthropology.  The "Truth" of particular cultural shibboleths is irrelevant to me.  On scripture ... fact is, good fictional stories are more inspired than insipid oracles by drugged out prophets.  One should never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The fictional Moses would have spoken both Canaanite and Middle Egyptian.  Hebrew didn't exist until the reign of King David (as shown by detailed etymology of words in the Bible).  The adoption of Aramaic by Assyria and later by Persia, greatly popularized it, impacting the final additions to the OT.  The fictional Jesus would have spoken both Aramaic and Hebrew.  The fact that the original NT (denied by the Aramaic Church of course in their claims for the Peshitta) is in Greek, is a tell.  The NT is a selection of original and edited works by Hellenistic Jews living primarily in Alexandria and Antioch (with additions from Hellenizers in Damascus and Jerusalem).

The original OT of the Christian Church, was the Septuagint.  The OT in Hebrew/Aramaic wasn't fully canonized until 200 CE.  The NT in Greek wasn't fully canonized until 400 CE.  Before and after canonization, much apocryphal writing occurred in both Jewish and Christian communities.  It is problematic if canonization is even important in evaluating these early faith communities.  Apocrypha commonly circulated in the synagogues and churches.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Absolute_Agent

#66
Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 04:00:09 AM
Almost correct.  The Muslim scholarship on the Jewish OT and Christian NT is prejudiced by age old apologetics.  I am willing to concede that the Bible is man-made ... as are all other writings, new or old.  The original intent of the writers is unknown ... it could be saintly or diabolical.

The oldest canonical manuscripts of the OT are in Hebrew, with short sections in Aramaic.  AKA Semitic languages.  The oldest canonical manuscripts of the NT are in Greek.  This is not counting non-canonical writings like the Gospel of Barabbas, Gospel of Thomas etc.  The Septuagint was an early translation of Hebrew/Aramaic books of the OT (done in Alexandria), which is useful for scholarly comparisons.  Early translations of the Greek NT to Aramaic in particular, as well as other evangelical languages is also useful.  Aramaic translations are useful in studying Hebrew words whose definition has become unclear (Targums and Peshitta).

Islamic criticism of Christianity is frequently based on the Gospel of Barnabas ... which is non-canonical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas

Aside from mentions of Isa in the Quran of course.

The existence of anyone like the Moses or Jesus described in the Bible is indeterminate.  The Bible is best treated as an inspired fable.  That Muslim criticism is correct.  The conventional religious interpretation of miracle stories is false.  Everything that happens is natural/supernatural.  Not just Jonah swallowed by a whale ;-)  I strongly differ from both atheist and theist definitions of miracle or deity.  I see all this thru the lenses of psychology and anthropology.  The "Truth" of particular cultural shibboleths is irrelevant to me.  On scripture ... fact is, good fictional stories are more inspired than insipid oracles by drugged out prophets.  One should never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The fictional Moses would have spoken both Canaanite and Middle Egyptian.  Hebrew didn't exist until the reign of King David (as shown by detailed etymology of words in the Bible).  The adoption of Aramaic by Assyria and later by Persia, greatly popularized it, impacting the final additions to the OT.  The fictional Jesus would have spoken both Aramaic and Hebrew.  The fact that the original NT (denied by the Aramaic Church of course in their claims for the Peshitta) is in Greek, is a tell.  The NT is a selection of original and edited works by Hellenistic Jews living primarily in Alexandria and Antioch (with additions from Hellenizers in Damascus and Jerusalem).

The original OT of the Christian Church, was the Septuagint.  The OT in Hebrew/Aramaic wasn't fully canonized until 200 CE.  The NT in Greek wasn't fully canonized until 400 CE.  Before and after canonization, much apocryphal writing occurred in both Jewish and Christian communities.  It is problematic if canonization is even important in evaluating these early faith communities.  Apocrypha commonly circulated in the synagogues and churches.
Yes your attitude is particularly Jewish.  There is some relevancy to using mythology to get across a moral truth, and I do agree that reality favors the creative approach... This approach doesn't sit well with the scientific mentality of this age, as I'm sure you would agree.  Lol... You do add spice to the conversation no doubt.

Regarding texts I beg to differ.  The Hebrew/Aramaic OT (Masoretic Text) is 9th and 10th century, about 1000 years later than the earliest Septuagint manuscripts.  The original text (Urtext) from which both are derived, is not available. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Baruch

#67
Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 04:29:23 AM
Yes your attitude is particularly Jewish.  There is some relevancy to using mythology to get across a moral truth, and I do agree that reality favors the creative approach... This approach doesn't sit well with the scientific mentality of this age, as I'm sure you would agree.  Lol... You do add spice to the conversation no doubt.

Regarding texts I beg to differ.  The Hebrew/Aramaic OT (Masoretic Text) is 9th and 10th century, about 1000 years later than the earliest Septuagint manuscripts.  The original text (Urtext) from which both are derived, is not available. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

All urtext's are unavailable.  Including Muhammad's Quran written with his Arab BIC.  Though the earliest copy of the canonical Quran wasn't too far off from the date of origination ... 24-60 years later (Uthman) to (Abd al-Malik).  Better than the NT which is closer to 150 years to earliest complete manuscripts.  As mentioned, it took about 1000 years for the pieces of the OT to come together (Exodus to Daniel).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran ... current complete copy of canonical version is 9th century CE.  Earliest surviving quote is Dome of the Rock 692 CE.

Great Scroll of Isaiah ... 125 BCE

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Though like I said, rabbis were still debating the official list/text until 200 CE.  Linguistic evidence puts bits and pieces of the OT (Tanakh) back to 1200 BCE

Are you sure you aren't just a conventional Muslim apologist?  There are cracks showing in your argument, that demonstrate closed mindedness to some existing evidence.  Polemnical Method = earliest possible date for fragment or legendary composition for Islam (Christians do the same), latest possible date for surviving complete Tanakh (Leningrad Codex 1008 CE).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 18, 2019, 12:27:09 AMAccording to premise 3 the universe is constructed in such a way that belief in God can't be forced upon anyone.  Therefore it would be self-contradictory for me to argue for the existence of God. It can only be a premise, which is either accepted or rejected.   Indeed if you examine my argument you will see that I am not attempting to prove the existence of God, only that belief in God does not violate free thought.  Your conclusion in bold is rejected since it would violate free will, as explained in premise 3.  Therefore the God that you think must exist if any would not allow for free will.  Since we do have free will it is impossible that such a God exists.  The more rational assumption is that if a God exists, it would be a God who allows free will.  Finally, your assertion that my premises are flawed because they assume the existence of God is unsupported.  The only way you could establish that I have flawed premises is by proving God does not exist, and you cannot do that--you can only prove that it is possible to not believe in a God, which I already affirmed in premise 3.  The fact that you do not believe does not in itself prove anything other than that your choice demonstrates the validity of premise 3.  The very nature of the scriptures is such that those who wish to believe will have ample supporting evidence while those who don't wish to believe will be free to do so.  You assume that any God would and must negate free will but this premise is not supported by any scriptures.
The only thing this "proves" is that if a god exists, it is not in contact with us, which does not contradict any point I have made. You have still not demonstrated that one does exist, though, only laid out parameters that a hypothetical god abides by.

Except your parameters contradict themselves, because they rely on scriptures you believe were handed down by God, and said scriptures contain instructions on how to live your life which, by definition, is a violation of free will. So you are, in fact, asserting the existence of an interventionist god rather than the hands-off one that you keep insisting about, and I have already deconstructed this idea.

A truly hands-off god wouldn't contradict any of my posts, because I do not consider such a being to be a god (refer back to my post about knowing that gods do not exist). However, it's also clear that such a being is not actually in contact with us, so arguing about its existence is pointless unless and until proof surfaces.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Blackleaf

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on June 17, 2019, 04:11:47 PM
You have made a variety of inaccurate assertions about Islam without demonstrating that my assertion was false.  However one can not demonstrate the inaccuracy of the claims of someone if they are unwilling to examine the evidence one offers.

Fine. If you're just going to ignore what I have to say, perhaps you'll listen to someone who grew up Muslim, and knows its texts and interpretations inside out. If you are really on a quest for truth, and aren't a brainwashed sheep, then I suggest giving The Masked Arab a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2019, 08:13:07 AM
All urtext's are unavailable.  Including Muhammad's Quran written with his Arab BIC.  Though the earliest copy of the canonical Quran wasn't too far off from the date of origination ... 24-60 years later (Uthman) to (Abd al-Malik).  Better than the NT which is closer to 150 years to earliest complete manuscripts.  As mentioned, it took about 1000 years for the pieces of the OT to come together (Exodus to Daniel).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran ... current complete copy of canonical version is 9th century CE.  Earliest surviving quote is Dome of the Rock 692 CE.

Great Scroll of Isaiah ... 125 BCE

http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Though like I said, rabbis were still debating the official list/text until 200 CE.  Linguistic evidence puts bits and pieces of the OT (Tanakh) back to 1200 BCE

Are you sure you aren't just a conventional Muslim apologist?  There are cracks showing in your argument, that demonstrate closed mindedness to some existing evidence.  Polemnical Method = earliest possible date for fragment or legendary composition for Islam (Christians do the same), latest possible date for surviving complete Tanakh (Leningrad Codex 1008 CE).
I don't see myself falling into any particular category, except pragmatist.  I believe, I practice, and argue based on that which achieves a useful and beneficial function.  Islam is extremely pragmatic, and this is one of the reasons it suits me well, I find. Truth is an ideal to strive for yet we cannot expect to really know or understand anything absolutely, living in a world of illusion; all knowledge is approximate.  The best use of time is to constantly strive for beneficial knowledge and to do the maximum good for all, beginning with self and radiating outwards.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Unbeliever

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:38:18 PM
Lazy bum.  I do read the Quran, a little, in the original language.  Get to work, or you get to muck out the camel stall.

Can I divert a river, the way Hercules did?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Unbeliever

Quote from: Baruch on June 17, 2019, 09:49:55 PM
What if everyone in town became a milkman, and they all knocked twice ... what would the naughty housewives do?

Drink a lot of milk? Or become cat ladies?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Absolute_Agent

#73
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 18, 2019, 08:42:51 AM

Except your parameters contradict themselves, because they rely on scriptures you believe were handed down by God, and said scriptures contain instructions on how to live your life which, by definition, is a violation of free will. So you are, in fact, asserting the existence of an interventionist god rather than the hands-off one that you keep insisting about, and I have already deconstructed this idea.


So then, every time a car manufacturer sends an operators' manual with a new vehicle, they are violating free will?  And the signs on the highway telling which road goes where--that violates free will?  From what I understand, you think anytime instructions are given, this is interventionist and violates free will?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 18, 2019, 12:07:53 PM
Fine. If you're just going to ignore what I have to say, perhaps you'll listen to someone who grew up Muslim, and knows its texts and interpretations inside out. If you are really on a quest for truth, and aren't a brainwashed sheep, then I suggest giving The Masked Arab a listen.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA
Thanks but I'm not interested in pursuing this line of research.  I've seen a variety of Islamophobic pieces and they are inevitably two-dimensional and use silly logic.  I have studied a wide variety of authentic sources on Islam, and am able to see through these ploys.  If you want to learn about it from an American Sheik I recommend Hamza Yusuf:

Hamza Yusuf: The Science of the Shariah https://muslimcentral.com/hamza-yusuf-science-shariah/

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk