Posted by Mike on February 20, 1998 at 17:20:39:
In Reply to: Re: The Burden of Proof posted by Mohamed Ghounem on February 20, 1998 at 04:26:34:
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…
Mohamed: You don't have a single reason in the Universe to be a Christian,
Mike: Mohamed IF you honestly believe that your statement answers the point above then you have lost your mind. Such is ones fate when they reject logic. Therefore I must ask you, do you honestly believe and know for a fact that your statement above answers my point?
Mohamed: You falsely claim that the Gospel is accepted, this is another of many of your false statements, the Gospel is only accepted by Christians…
Mike: How could my statement be false when you concede that Christians accept Christianity so it is accepted. I did not make the gross generalization that everybody accepts Christianity.
Mohamed: …not by Jews, therefore since the Jews were first given revelation, and they do not accept the Gospel, then Jesus is not from God…
Mike: Here Mohamed you have committed the logical fallacy of gross generalization. You have painted Jews with a broad brush by saying that "they" do not accept the Gospel when in fact some do and some do not. Therefore, your point is invalid.
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?
Mohamed: What is your point [?]
Mike: My point is that we are both bound by the rules of logic, as God would have it.
Mohamed: …is your vocabulary limited to 'your right and I'm wrong'…
Mohamed: You are worshipping a false God…
Mike: You are contradicting yourself Mohamed. It is irrational on your part to say on the one hand I am limited to "your right and I'm wrong and then later say I am worshipping a false God which means that I am wrong. You are being irrational. Please come to reason in the same of our God Jesus Christ.
Mohamed: are you above 13 years old?
Mohamed: since you use a liar's reference then that makes you a Non-Christian also.
Mohamed: Wow, besides being a liar, and Non-Christian,
Mike: These are just more examples of the logical fallacy of ad hominim.
Mohamed: you're also a hypocrite.
Mike: How am I being a hypocrite?I have not called you names.
Mohamed: 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.
Mohamed: What are your points, I have yet to see anything written by you I have been repeatingly asking what are your objections to Islam and then you babel about logical fallacy of ad hominim.
Mike: I have been consistent with the rules of logic, and historical precedent in particular in that I have pointed out to you that your defense of Islam is logically invalid. Specifically, I have pointed out to you the following logical fallacies you have committed: Circular reasoning, Ad hominim, composition, red herring, card stacking/suppression of evidence.
Mohamed: the difference between us is that I am not prejudice like you.
Mike: the difference is that your faith is self consciously irrational whereas my faith is reasonable. You do not have good reason to continue to be a Muslim.
Mohamed: Thank you, I needed a good laugh, Christianity=Logic…
Mike: I did not say Christiantiy=logic I wrote that I have been, and Christianity is consistent with the rules of logic.
Mohamed: For Example…
Mike: I am willing to answer question about Christianity but you must first play by the rules of logic.
Mohamed: You tell me you will only answer my questions towards Christianity only if I reject Islam,
Mike: No. It is that the framework for our dialogue that God has given us is such that it will lead you to come to the realization that belief in Islam is self-consciously irrational. It is when you make that personal realization that you will, out of a love of God, release Islam and receive Jesus Christ.
Mohamed: 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.
Mohamed: I have a surprise for you, I have defended Islam logically….
Mike: Your assertion cannot be true since you have yet to answer the following logical objections to your defense of Islam: Circular reasoning, Ad hominim, composition, red herring, card stacking/suppression of evidence. Only by way of massive self-deception can you honestly believe that you have refuted my logical objections. Do you honestly believe you have refuted my logical objections?
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.
Mohamed: You are the phoniest Christian I have ever met and I have met a bunch,
I second that.
Mike: Mohamed IF you honestly believe that your statement answers the point above then you have lost your mind. Such is ones fate when they reject logic. Therefore I must ask you, do you honestly believe and know for a fact that your statement above answers my point?
Mohamed: 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.
Mohamed: According to the teachings of the OT, the first half of the Bible, Muslims using the Qur'an, believe that Jesus is sent from God.
Mike: You are trying to change the subject again thereby you are rejecting logic that God has given us.
Mohamed: Answer these tensions/discrepancies..
Mike: you are changing the subject again. This is logically invalid.
Mohamed: I have answered your questions,
Mike: See point above regarding your logic fallacies
Mohamed: the polite thing to do is take your turn to answer, are you scared,
Mike: No the polite thing for you to do is play by the rules of logic.
Mohamed: admit that you can not answer the tensions and therefore have no reason what so ever to believe Jesus died on the cross. Why would Jesus beg and scream to be saved if Jesus was God.
Mike: You have simply further revealed your lack of understanding of the Holy Trinity and the dual nature of Jesus as the God-man.
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.
Mohamed: Here is your proof that you and your references are phony;
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/resurrect.html
Who was at the tomb when they arrived? Matthew: One angel (28:2-7) Mark: One young man (16:5) Luke: Two men (24:4)\ John: Two angels (20:12)
Mike: It is obviously you have not read the site you paste above for if you did it provides an answer to your question in paragraph 5 and 6. Also I listed three sites that harmonize the resurrections accounts. Did you explore them as well?
Also I would note your source for these contradiction is atheist Dan Barker who does not believe that Islam is true. So the sword cuts both ways. Of course as a Christian I am intellectually consistent in that I do not quote atheist to disprove Islam given there presuppositions (working assumptions) are anti-God. But Mohamed you are being intellectually inconsistent when you quote sources whose working assumptions contradict both of our beliefs.
Mike: You should not call Jochen Katz a liar.
Mohamed: …Christians call Jochen a Liar
Mike: You have committed another gross generalization logical fallacy because only some (Liberal) Christians may have called Jochen a liar not all.
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?
Mohamed: People like you, non-Christians who don't know anything about Islam or Christianity and biost.
I second that too.
Mike: Mohamed IF you honestly believe that your statement answers the point above then you have lost your mind. Such is ones fate when they reject logic. Therefore I must ask you, do you honestly believe and know for a fact that your statement above answers my point?
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: You are wrong according to your own Logic, the NT contradicts the OT the Qur'an does not contradict the OT, therefore the NT is wrong according to historical facts, you have no reason to worship Jesus, a cursed false god.
Mike: All that this would prove is that Allah contradicts himself twice: between the OT and the NT and between the NT and the Qur'an.
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
Mohamed: Those additional lies only reveals more human tampering for example it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed, not Isaac: http://debate.org.uk/weboard/debate/messages/1084.html
Mike: but Mohamed whenever two documents contradict each other the document written closer to the actual historical events is considered more reliable. Also you have failed to answer the many more examples in which the Qur'an contradict the OT.
Mohamed: Now I will show you even more proof that your references are fake and the Qur'an is the word of Allah, the one and only Creator:
In response to: http://www.answering-islam.org/Science/embryo.html
The actual word in question "Alaq" has a dual meaning in Arabic. Depending on the context it can either mean "clump of blood" or "leech."..
Mike: You are not answering my objection that this point is not proof of divine inspiration for the Qur'an because its and example of the fallacy of composition.
Mohamed: You have been answered, micro, macro, mickey mouse and all,..
Mohamed: …I don't give any micro or macro mash potatoes..
Mike: What are your specific arguments you used to refute the macro and micro linkage between the OT and NT? I have not seen any. Therefore they still stand.
Mohamed: If you do not answer my concerns in your next reply.
Mike: Mohamed if you do not follow the rules of logic that God has given us, you will remain separated from God. I know this may seem harsh but remember that I tell you the truth because I love you in the name of Jesus Christ our God.
Peace and Blessings,
Your Brother in Christ- Michael.