Apr 17, 2011 -- 8:31PM, Al-Fatihah wrote:

...no one can make up a prophet that does not exist and use this non- existing person to gather the same passionate following as prophet Muhammad. 

LOL

Joseph Smith seems on the way to doing something similar with the invention of the non-existent Moroni. 

And L Ron Hubbard’s “Church of Scientology” seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

Of course none of these is as old as Islam. We’ll need to wait a few centuries to see how they pan out.

Mind you a polytheist religion called Hinduism seems to be going strong. It’s older than Islam, has many passionate followers and worships what you would call non-existent gods.

I might also point out that the pseudo-science called astrology seems to have a passionate following despite the fact that astronomers demonstrated it was claptrap centuries ago.

So maybe it is possible to get people passionate for long periods over something that does not exist.

You would argue that Islam is bigger than any of these. But one belief in a non-existent God or prophet has to be the biggest and maybe Islam just lucked out.

In many countries atheism is growing rapidly so maybe believers in no prophets will one day outnumber believers in any prophet. Personally I think that's unlikey but you never know.

can such a questioner be serious?  when there never existed more evidence for the historical life of a person then the prophet Muhammad [saw]?

I think rather than waste time on the obvious, we should discuss wether he [saw] was really a messenger of God or not, and the answer to that is, an unequivical YES!

WHERE IS THE PROOF I HEAR YOU SAY?

just check out the scientific miracles of the Quran for starters! :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUPYs0gElU

Peace

Apr 18, 2011 -- 8:00AM, Abdullah. wrote:

can such a questioner be serious?  when there never existed more evidence for the historical life of a person then the prophet Muhammad [saw]?

Well cite the evidence - other than the Quran which I do not regard as a reliable source and which probably was only assembed in its final form decades after Muhammad's supposed death.

Are there any documents that can be reliably dated from around the time Muhammad supposedly lived that tell us something about him? if so, what are they and where can they be found?

Apr 18, 2011 -- 3:22PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>> State the names of your "Reliable books/documents" first. I'll go from there. Without knowing much about the Qur'an, you have dismissed it. What are the reliable sources? Will Bible do?

BDboy

In my opening post I state quite bluntly that there is no reliable extra-biblical documentary evidence for the existence of Jesus. In other words, there is no independent corroboration of the Gospels.

I take the historicity of Gospels on faith. That means I believe what the Gospels have to say about Jesus without corroborating evidence. 

If you tell me you do not believe the Gospels are reliable for reasons that seem good to you then I would not argue with you.

I would not claim I could prove that the Gospels were true.

And I certainly would not claim there were any “scientific miracles” in the Gospels or any other part of the Bible.

But this is not the position of Abdullah. He writes:

…can such a questioner be serious?  when there never existed more evidence for the historical life of a person then the prophet Muhammad [saw]?

Well I am serious and I am not prepared to believe what the Quran has to say without corroboration. So where is the corroborating evidence?

Abdullah then writes:

just check out the scientific miracles of the Quran for starters! :

I have explained my position on this many times but I’ll recapitulate one more time for your benefit.

I have never seen anything in the Quran that looks remotely like a “scientific miracle.” Everything I have seen of a scientific nature seems to me to be a reflection of what was understood about science in the seventh and eighth centuries.

However I do not claim to be an expert in every aspect of science. In this I differ from the Muslims who put forward the claims of “scientific miracles” and who seem confident in their mastery of every field of science from embryology to geology. Not only do Muslims who propound the claims of “scientific miracles” seem confident of their mastery of diverse scientific fields, they also claim to know the history of these fields and when various discoveries were made.

As a mere ignorant Christian, albeit one with many years of scientific training, I confess I am unable to match this Muslim brilliance. Like most Christian and atheist scientists I require the help of peer review.

And yet nobody seems willing to submit these astounding claims of scientific miracles in a 14 century old document to peer review. You’d think Muslim scientists would want to submit these amazing claims to peer review if only out of pity for us poor deluded Christians. It would help us see the light.

And yet I can find nothing in the peer reviewed scientific literature about “scientific miracles” in the Quran.

So what can I conclude?

The way I see it there are only two possibilities:

--You Muslims have it in your power to help us poor deluded Christians, not to mention atheists, see the truth by submitting these amazing claims about the Quran to peer review but you refuse to do so out of sheer malice. You are content to see us wallow in our ignorance. This is cruel. Is this what “Allah the merciful” wants of you?

OR

--The claims have no substance and would not survive the peer review process.

Which is it BDboy?

--Callousness on the part of Muslims who are content to see us poor deluded Christians remain ignorant?

--Or is it the case that the claims would not survive peer review?

Apr 17, 2011 -- 9:39PM, Kinky.christian wrote:

Apr 17, 2011 -- 8:31PM, Al-Fatihah wrote:

...no one can make up a prophet that does not exist and use this non- existing person to gather the same passionate following as prophet Muhammad. 

LOL

Joseph Smith seems on the way to doing something similar with the invention of the non-existent Moroni. 

And L Ron Hubbard’s “Church of Scientology” seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

Of course none of these is as old as Islam. We’ll need to wait a few centuries to see how they pan out.

Mind you a polytheist religion called Hinduism seems to be going strong. It’s older than Islam, has many passionate followers and worships what you would call non-existent gods.

I might also point out that the pseudo-science called astrology seems to have a passionate following despite the fact that astronomers demonstrated it was claptrap centuries ago.

So maybe it is possible to get people passionate for long periods over something that does not exist.

You would argue that Islam is bigger than any of these. But one belief in a non-existent God or prophet has to be the biggest and maybe Islam just lucked out.

In many countries atheism is growing rapidly so maybe believers in no prophets will one day outnumber believers in any prophet. Personally I think that's unlikey but you never know.

 

Response: Everything in which you just named actually exists, thus you've done nothing but actually confirm my point that Muhammad did exist.