Posted by Mike on February 20, 1998 at 00:58:09:
In Reply to: Re: The Burden of Proof posted by Mohamed Ghounem on February 19, 1998 at 20:30:32:
Mike: In logic, as well as in law historical precedent means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been accepted. That which is already recognized as truth judges any and all new claims to truth. Since Islam follows Christianity, the burden of proof rests upon the Muslim to first prove, to the Christian, the truth claims of Islam such as Allah is God, the Qur'an is the Word of God etc…
M: well, you use "answering Islam" to make false claims against Islam, which is not an act of a Christian, so I guess that makes you too, a Non-Christian, are liars Christians?
Mike: Mohamed please explain to me how what you have written above correctly address my point regarding historical precedence and the burden of proof in establishing the appropriate framework for Christian-Muslim dialogues?
M: since you use a liar's reference then that makes you a Non-Christian also.
Mike: This is just another example of the logical fallacy of ad hominim.
M: if you want your answers then explore "answering Christianity"
Mike: As I have mentioned before, you do not have to go to a website to answering my points of logic against your defense of Islam.
M: the difference between us is that I am not prejudice like you.
Mike: I am not a bigot. We are both bound by the rules of logic that God has given us. The difference is that Christianity is consistent with logic whereas you have demonstrated Islam is not. Therefore you have no good reason to continue to be a Muslim.
M: I am willing to answer questions of a Christian, but you are also not a Christian because you are biost.
Mike: No I am willing to answer question about Christianity but you must first play by the rules of logic.
M: You tell me you will only answer my questions towards Christianity only if I reject Islam, you only discuss Christianity with non-Muslims?
Mike: No it is not that I only discuss Christianity with non-Muslims, it just that the rules of logic, as God would have it, places the burden of proof on you and since you cannot defend Islam you have no reason to continue to be a Muslim.
M: I really did go through your sites, believe it or not, as I have shown you that I speak to the author, yet maybe you don't believe me because I am Muslim?
Mike: No it is not that I do not believe you because you profess Islam, I am only asking that you provide evidence that directly address my objections. For example I cut and paste portions of your references and I spelled out for you the argument used by one of your sites.
Mike: Mohamed do you accept the burden of proof? If not why not? Until you answer the above contention all of your attempts to change the subject to the Bible only serves to demonstrate the utter absence of truth behind the claims of Islam. Once you open your mind and accept the reality that Islam is not true, I will do all I can to answer your questions and concerns about the Bible and Christianity.
M: You are the phoniest Christian I have ever met and I have met a bunch,
Mike: Mohamed you stop these irrational ad hominims (personal attacks)
M: if you do not want to answer my questions than don't because Priests can't answer them either nor your sites which I visited, and obviously neither can you.
Mike: Mohamed if you do not want to follow the rules of logic then it only shows that your belief is Islam is based on self conscious irrational grounds.
M: I am a Muslim…
Mike: Why? Since you cannot provide any good reason to continue to believe.
M:… since you clearly show that you Are Not a Christian, or are simply portraying Christians to be prejudice people. ..will you answer questions of Muslims? Have you been raised this way, do you think your kind is better than others?
Mike: Mohamed please understand my culture. In my culture, if you really love someone, you tell them the truth and that is why I will stand firm in obedience to God's will as expressed in historical precedence and the burden of proof as God would have it in Christian-Muslim dialogues.
Mohamed: Answer these tensions/discrepancies..
Mike: you are changing the subject again. This is logically invalid.
Mike: I will not believe your assertions that you have in fact explored the cites I listed until you provide proof like I have when I explored your references. For example, I cut and paste portions of your cite locations and I have directly addressed and even spelled out to you the arguments your reference uses.
M: believe what you want, its your free choice…just as proof that I have visited your references, I even quote them, here: http://debate.org.uk/weboard/debate/messages/966.html the above is written even before I responded to your initial post,
Mike: but did you quote them is direct answer to my points of logic.
M: I wonder if you are so prejudice that you will still think that I am not telling the Truth,
Mike: I do not think you are lying. I think you are mistaken.
M: ...thererfore only believing the liars over those who tell you the Truth.
Mike: You should not call Jochen Katz a liar.
Mike: If you approached this with an open mind you would no longer consider yourself a Muslim. I ask you, what good reasons do you have to continue to believe that Islam is true?
M: People like you, non-Christians who don't know anything about Islam or Christianity and biost.
Mike: You are not directly answering my point and the reason is that you know now that you have no good reason to continue to believe that Islam is true.
Mike: I challenge you again to answer the Islamic dilemma: Since Muslim claim that Allah is the same God as the Christian God whose word cannot be corrupted and since the Qur'an and the NT contradict each other on the historical fact of Jesus' crucifixion, Allah contradicts himself. Therefore, Allah cannot be God.
Mohamed: a wonderful new poster here has answered this very nicely, the Qur'an does not contradict the Old Testament:
http://debate.org.uk/weboard/debate/messages/1053.html
Mike: Mohamed you have committed another logical fallacy called the red herring. You are bringing into the discussion issues that are not relevant to the dilemma I posted above. The "tension" for you is that the Qur'an contradicts the Bible (which it immediately follows) thus Allah contradicts himself. Therefore He cannot be God. The issue of the relationship between the Qur'an and the Old Testament is irrelevant.
Mohamed responds:
1.You have proven you have not read the suggested site, therefore you are a liar/non-Christian, Fore if you read the site, you would see it quotes the NT and the OT together, not Just the OT as you falsely guess.
Mike: I did not argue that the author only quotes the Old Testament, but that to show commonality between the Qur'an and the Old Testament and so-called contradictions between the OT and the NT does not answer the above dilemma. If any thing it makes it worst because we have God contradicting himself twice.
M: 2. You have proven that you do not know Religion because the OT came before the NT and therefore the Qur'an is confirming the OT and Jesus.
Mike: All that this would prove is that God contradicts himself twice: between the OT and the NT and between the NT and the Qur'an.
M: If the Qur'an confirms the OT according to your burden of proof theory, then the Gospel/NT is fake, because the NT came after the OT, followed the OT.
Mike: According to the burden of proof the Qur'an cannot confirm the OT but vice-versa. Also, you have yet to address the macro and micro linkages I noted in a previous post.
M: The Qur'an is compatible to the OT,
Mike: you are committing the fallacy carding stacking. You cannot point to those areas where the Qur'an agree while ignoring those area were they contradict. For example Isaac not Ismail was taken to be sacrifice. Noah's son did not stay behind and drown in the flood etc. See: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/#bible
M:what is the Gospel compatible to?
Mike: See previous post spelling out macro and micro linkages between NT and OT
M:… have not shown me a single shred of evidence as to why you should even consider being a Christian..
Mike: That's because the burden of proof is on you.
M; the Gospel is tampered with.
Mike: Your assertion that the Gospel is tampered with contradicts the Qur'an. See Surahs 6:115; 6:34; 10:65
M: According to your claims, the NT and the OT have a different messages therefore the Christian God is a False God,
Mike: I have never claimed that the NT and OT have different messages. See previous post regarding macro and micro linkages.
M: The OT in case you don't know, is half of the Bible, read it, act as a Christian before discussing your fake God with me.
Mike: Yes the OT is part of the Bible but it is the old covenant and the NT is the new covenant. Same book different covenants.
M: In summary, The Qur'an does not contradict the Bible:
Mike: Yes it does. See: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/#bible
M: and your questions are answered at "answering Christianity"
Mike: You do not need a website to answering my logical arguments against your points.
Mike: Let us not forget that have yet to answer any of my logical objections against your defense of what you still believe. Mohamed it is clear beyond all-reasonable doubt that you do not have any good reason to continue to believe that Allah is God or that the Qur'an is the Word of God. I pray that you will come to reason and open your heart and mind to the loving truth that Jesus is God :-)
Peace and Blessings,
Your Brother in Christ- Michael