[sigh] No, that's not it at all, but I can see how this documentary might give you that mistaken impression.

The Viking mission was designed to look for positive signs of life "as we know it", i.e. water-based life.  If the experiment had been successful, we would have had sufficient evidence to say that there was life on Mars.  Unfortunately, Viking failed to find such evidence; and in the process we learned just how difficult that is to do.

It was around the same time that science came to realize the amazing diversity of life "as we know it", in the deep ocean, deserts, etc.  We learned that on Earth at least, where there is water, there is probably life.  In fact, it's hard to find a place on our planet where there is water and there isn't life.

The failure of Viking, coupled with our new knowledge of just how adaptive life "as we know it" can be, convinced NASA scientists to change their approach.  Instead of looking for sufficient evidence, they decided to settle for finding the necessary conditions for life.  Finding those conditions would not prove that there is life on Mars, but at least it would give us reason to hope, and help us to know where to look for positive signs.

It wasn't that it never occurred to scientists to look for water.  In fact, the BBC documentary mentions Percival Lowell, whose interest over a hundred years ago in the supposed "canals" on Mars was because "he understood the importance of water, H2O, to living things."

It was rather that after Viking failed to answer the more ambitious question, "Does life exist on Mars?", NASA decided to ask the easier question, "Could life exist on Mars?"; and the easiest way to ask this second question was to look for water.

It is even more ludicrous to suppose that a desert-dwelling tribe (of all people!) would need divine inspiration to understand that water is essential to life.  For them this isn't even science -- it's basic survival.

Muslim point out that the Quran states that God created lifefrom water, and that this is knowledge that was unknown at the time ofMuhammad, 1400 years ago.

The disbelievers in Islam criticize this assertion of theMuslims by trying to say that it was indeed obvious that life was mostly madeof water at the time of Muhammad.

As part of debunking the claim of the disbelievers, I willpoint out several arguments, as I have done in the past. Even in modern timeswhen the knowledge of life arising from water is known, it is still not obviousto scientists and not always fresh on their minds even when it is known as afact.

This particular argument came to my mind as I was watching ascience documentary on cable television’s Science channel.

That television show was part of a series called “ThePlanets” that came out in the year 2004. The episode I was watching was aboutlife on other planets and was titled, “Life.”

It can be found here:

http://www.cornel1801.com/bbc/PLANETS/7-Life.html#

About between 15 to 20 minutes into it, the documentarystated that the tests that NASA had used in the Viking explorers to find lifeon Mars had failed, and it later occurred to the NASA scientists that to lookfor life, one should look for water.

This is an amazing confirmation of the Quran’s significancein mentioning water as the source of life.

Even though it was known to scientists in the 1970’s thatliving things were composed mostly of water, that knowledge hadn’t sunk in deepenough (no pun intended) to look for water on Mars when trying to find signs oflife. That realization only came after the Mars’ Viking missions.

The 1976 Mars explorers, according to the sciencedocumentary, looked for gasses like the ones that bacteria would give off onearth, and for signs of microbes in the soil.

The show said that after the failure of the Mars’ Viking explorationsto find proof of life, scientists started to look for life on earth in moreextreme environments to help them understand how to look for it in Mars orother planets.

The show stated that a NASA scientist named Chris McCay,started to look for life in California’sDeath Valley, and found blue-green algae about amillimeter under the soil where it was deep enough under the surface to getmoisture from the earth, but close enough to the surface to get sunlight forphotosynthesis.

I tried my best to write down exactly what the sciencedocumentary said.

The NASA scientist, Chris McCay stated:

“What we found, looking at life on earth in very harshenvironments, dry, cold, hot, environments, is that wherever there is water,wherever there is some mechanism for trapping water, life can flourish.

And that's the key.

If an aliencivilization called and asked us what kind of life do you have on your planet,my answer would be, water based life, what kind to you have?”

The narrator of the science documentary then stated, “Ifwater was the key to life, the search for life in the solar system suddenlybecame a search for water.”

Allow me to repeat this for emphasis. After the 1976 Vikingprobes to Mars, NASA scientists discovered, in their own words, “. . . whereverthere is water . . .  life can flourish.”

Discovering that water was the “key to life” came after theMars’ Viking mission.

Although some of the importance of water to life was knownbefore the 1976 mission, it hadn’t sunk in enough for NASA scientists to lookfor water. It only struck them to do so after the Viking missions, according tothis show.

I did some further research into this and found this:

“The primary mission of the Vikingprobes of the mid-1970s was to carry out experiments designed to detectmicroorganisms in Martian soil . . . .”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars

But it was after the 1976 probes that it occurred to them to look for water. So, if it wasn't obvious to those scientists in the early 1970's that life came from water even though they had the scientifically proven knowledge, then it was not at all obvious to people in the time of Muhammad when the knowledge was not known.

So much for the excuses of the disbelievers?

How weMuslims can know that we have preserved the wording of the original Quran

Myprevious promise to talk about this topic:

 Previously,I had written about how a Bible scholar had discovered that the original testsof the New Testament are so fragmented and different that there is no way toreproduce the original. That scholar had written that there were “… not many evangelicals among the (secular) highly educatedscholars ….” of the Bible, and sohis view is probably in the majority of the top Bible scholars (unlike topQuran scholars). I had mentioned that I would, God willing, demonstrate how weMuslims can reconstruct the original Quran since we have preserved its originalwording:

{

Ehrman’sexplanation begins on the previous page where he writes:

“It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but thereality is that we don’t have the originals – so saying they were inspireddoesn’t help me much, unless I can reconstructthe originals.”

 I had tostop and emphasize, “…unless I can reconstructthe originals,” because while we Muslims don’t have the originals either, weare able to reconstruct them, as Iwill show in a future post, God willing.

}

 And thenI had gone on to write:

{

Ehrman’snext line, however, shows that Muslims don’t have anything to worry about.Ehrman continues to write about the New Testament:

“In some places, as we will see, we simply can not be sure that wehave reconstructed the original test accurately.”

 That isthe second place, then, that Ehrman implies that the problem can be solved ifthe original can be reconstructed,which is not a problem for us Muslims.

 AndEhrman writes on:

“It’s a bit hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if wedon’t even know what the words are!

    “This became a problemfor my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been nomore difficult for God to preserve the words of scripturethan it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place.

}

 I’veemphasized the words “reconstruct” and “preserve” because we Muslims have theability to reconstruct the Quran since we have preserved the original wordingof the Quran.

 So, as Ipromised, I will write about how we Muslims can know that we have preserved thewording of the original Quran.

 Memorization

 The Quranis of such a high quality of poetic eloquence, that it is not rare for 10 or 11children to memorize it, even among non-native Arab speaking children. Theseare not specially gifted children, but usually just regular kids.

 Forexample, this following link discusses an HBO documentary about Muslim childrenin a Muslim memorization contest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/koran-by-heart_n_911454.html

It isabout 3 of the 100 children who memorized “…every word of the Quran -- even though they do not speak or understandArabic,….”

 Theymemorized every word of the Quran.

There areabout 77,500 words in the Quran, depending on what gets counted as a word.

There areonly about 32,250 words in Hamlet, considered to be one of the most poeticallyeloquent pieces of literature in the English language.

 So, theQuran is over twice as long as Shakespeare’s Hamlet, but there are non-Arabspeaking children who can memorize every word of it.

At onlyless than half the length of the Quran., how many native-English speakingadults can memorize all of Hamlet?

Eventhose native-English speaking adults who are seasoned actors and have practicedmemorization since high-school and who only have to memorize the lines of oneof the main characters in the play have a difficult time.

So,Hamlet, one of the most poetically eloquent pieces of literature in the Englishlanguage, still gives difficulty in the memorization of the lines of just oneof the main characters to educated adults who are practiced in memorization forthe theater.

Think howmuch more difficult it would be for those seasoned actors to memorize the wholeplay.

Think howmuch more difficult it would be for a native English speaking adult who was notpracticed in theatrical memorization.

Think howmuch more difficult than that it would be for a non-native English speaker.

Thinkthen how much more difficult it would be for a total non-English speakingadult.

Thinkthen how much more difficult than that it would be for a non-English speakingchild!

 But theQuran, which is at more than twice the length, is not uncommonly memorized bynon-Arab speaking children, and more frequently memorized by Arab speakingchildren.

Here is alink to a video showing a three year old child reciting the Quran:

 Three year old child memorized Quran,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-UbSnjvUGA

When we Muslims say that the Quran is extremelyeloquent, the disbelievers think that we’re just kidding around. I remember onemocked our statement by saying that if the Quran can be said to be from Godbecause of its eloquence, then so can the Iliad. So little did he understand.

When we Muslims talk about the poetic quality of theQuran, we’re not talking about normal, human, poetic quality like the Iliad orHamlet.

We’re talkingabout a poetic quality of such a high nature that humans are incapable of it.As just one evidence, can non-English speaking children frequently memorizeHamlet? Think about the vast difference between what Hamlet is to English andthe Quran is to Arabic. English just doesn’t have something of such a highpoetically eloquent quality to compare it to, so we Muslims can only giveexamples to try to get them to understand such as the relative ease with whicheven children can memorize it.

Quran, 7:204

{

…

This book is evidences from your lord.

…

}

Of course,the disbelievers will dismiss such evidence with some glib, contrived, excuses.

Quran, 6:39

{

Thosethat deny Our evidences are deaf and dumb in the darkness.

}

Quran, 7:186

{

Nonecan guide those whom God confounds. He leaves them blundering about in theirsinful ways.

}

Quran, 7:179 –180

{

…

Theyhave hearts they cannot comprehend with; they have eyes they cannot see with;and they have ears they cannot hear with. They are like beasts – indeed, theyare more astray. Such are the heedless.

}

But even ifthey can not understand that no mortals and jinn combined could createsomething like the Quran, then let them at least think this:

Because ofthe extreme ease with which the Quran can be memorized, it was easy to preserveits original wording, especially when many were together to help each otherremember. So, if among say ten Muslims, if one made a mistake as they practicedreciting, the other nine could set him straight.

In addition,it was written down as the blessed prophet Muhammad recited it.

After Muhammaddied, the earliest Muslim government created an official written Quran andburned all the earlier ones so that no one could complain that somedisorganized, unofficial groups had put it together and there could then be nodoubt that the Quran had been written correctly.

Because ofsuch things, we Muslims can reconstruct the original since we have preservedthe exact wording.

For theChristians however, their earliest manuscripts are mostly written in a languagethat Jesus did not teach in, so right there it is impossible to recreate theoriginal. Those manuscripts are also from fragments that were written longafter Jesus by people who had probably never met Jesus, and those fragmentsdiffer widely. Then, competing factions altered the teachings to match theirideology, and the later Christian church of Rome in the fourth century pick andchose which manuscripts it liked.

The Bible wascanonized 325 AD in the council of Nicea.

The Quran wascollected by those who lived and knew Muhammad.

The Bible wasprobably written by people who had not known Jesus.

The Quran waswritten and memorized by people who knew Muhammad.

The Bible’searliest writings are in a language that Jesus did not teach in.

The Quran waswritten and preserved in the same language that Muhammad spoke.

Thedifferences go on an on, but it is noteworthy to remember what Ehrman wroteabout this:

“It’s a bit hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if wedon’t even know what the words are!

    “This became a problemfor my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been nomore difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would havebeen for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people tohave his words, surely he would have given them to them (and possibly evengiven them the words in a language they could understand, rather than Greek andHebrew).”

I hadpromised to write, if God willed, how we Muslims can know that we canreconstruct the original Quran.

This issomething that Ehrman said would have been a miracle for the Bible:

“The fact that we don’t have the words surely must show, Ireasoned, that he [God] did not preserve them for us. And if he didn’t performthat miracle, there seemed to be noreason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring thosewords.”

So, inaddition to the miracle of the Quran’s super-human eloquence, its perfectpredictions of scientific discoveries, future events, the behavior of thedisbelievers, etc, and many other miracles, we also have the miracle of itsperfect preservation, which even according to the disbelievers is a miracle foran ancient manuscript to have been so preserved.

Those whohave rejected the Quran will be blinded to its miracles; but those who aresincere of heart and searching for the truth with self-honesty will be able tosee the miracles and know that it is the actual words of God Almighty Himself..

Even ourhadith our better preserved than the Bible where we not only kept track of thepeople who transmitted it, but also their lives are studied and their reputationsscrutinized such that if one was known to have given questionable testimony,the status of the hadith is downgraded as a result.

But that is adiscussion for another time, God willing.

Next, Ineed to briefly talk about a related topic: How one can judge the quality ofliterature or any other thing?

 Judgingthe Quality of a thing:

 Humans dohave the ability to differentiate between a Stradivarius violin and a cheapone. The majority of film scholars can agree that Citizen Kane is the bestAmerican movie ever made, and lists of the top 100 English novels show a greatdeal of overlap.

To say thatwe can not know that one thing is better than another because no scientificstandard exists is to deceptively use the wrong standard to the thing beingjudged.

The standardfor judging quality is based on the knowledge of the experts, and the expertsof Arabic are in agreement as to the superior standing of the Quran.

The Arabs ofMuhammad’s time were the top generation of poets in Arabic history, and theycould not even come close to it.

Those whoread it with honesty will know that human hands are incapable of it.

The Quran predicts the deceptivementality of the disbelievers and why they reject truth.

Disbelievers’ Demand Ever MoreRigorous Proofs Because They Just Don’t Want to Believe.

 Bunter’sinsincerity is typical of the insincerity we see frequently in those who refuseto accept the obvious truth that Islam is the true religion of God. Buntermakes for a good case study to understand and see examples of what the Quranpredicts in their mentality and behavior because of the extremely large numberof deceptive arguments he makes that, while time consuming to expose, areobvious in their insincerity and deception.

Previously,I showed how he kept changing the criteria for belief. First he had demandedthat the hadith show that others saw the angels also. Then when it was shownthat Muslims and non-Muslims had also seen the angels, he then changed hiscriteria and stated that something had to be in the Bible for him to believeit. Then later when we showed him things in his own Bible, he pretended thatthose things weren’t there.

So, when the disbelievers likeBunter complain that there isn’t proof for something, it isn’t because thereisn’t really proof for it (and doesn’t even really know what proof is sinceI’ve shown repeatedly that he doesn’t understand logic or the scientificmethod), rather they only make that complaint because they are just looking forexcuses to not believe.

The rhetoric and verbiage from thedisbelievers demanding proof is empty and insincere. They have already beenshown sufficient evidence, and they denied it.

We have exposed their insincerityin these many pages by pointing out their contradictions and fallacies.

The Quran even says that thebelievers will, believe in none of God’s signs, even if they see the signs, oneand all. (6,26).

The Quran goes on to explain thateven if the disbelievers were given an outlandish miracle such as being liftedup to the heavens, the disbelievers who just look for excuses to not believewould say something like they must have just hallucinated:

{

If We open for theunbelievers a gate in heaven and they ascended through it higher and higher,still they would say, “our eyes were only dazzled; surely we must have beenbewitched.

}(Quran,  15:17) 

So,no matter what proofs you show them, they will eternally ask for more rigorousproofs because they are not sincerely looking for the truth. Rather, they arejust looking for excuses to disbelieve. This is similar to how the Pharoah wasshown the miracles of Moses, but just claimed that Moses’ staff was just sometechnology rather than believe that it was from God.

Now, inaddition to changing criteria, let’s also look at the multiple levels ofdeception.

MultipleLayers of Deception from disbelievers:

 The Qurandiscusses the multiple levels of darkness in disbelief.

Honetohad quoted from their Bible:

{

Acts 7:41 That was the time they made anidol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and reveled in whattheir own hands had made. 42 But God turned away from them and gave them over tothe worship of the sun, moon and stars.

}

 Now,let’s look at the multiple levels of deception in Bunter’s response:

1.Changing the subject

2.Falsely claiming that Honeto can’t think for himself.

3.Denying that the verse proves Honeto’s point. By claiming that we reject theBible when in fact, he has rejected it even more by denying verses such as theone above.

4.Illogically claiming that because the verse refers to those who have rejectedGod, and since Honeto has rejected the Bible, therefore the verse refers toHoneto.

5.Ignoring the fact that the verse refers to those like himself since just as thepeople in the verse had committed the sin of worshipping an idol (in the formof a calf), Bunter has also committed the sin of worshipping an idol (in the formof the prophet Jesus).

6.Implies that he can read Honeto’s mind.

7. Contradictswhether or not Honeto can think for himself.

Here wasBunter’s response: { Do youknow what these verses refer too? Your problem is you think you and only youare right so automatically everyone else is wrong. You simply cannot think foryourself and neither can you see that the event that these verses recount isabout those who rejected God and went their own way - since you reject theBible, they refer to you not me. }

1.Changing the subject:

Honetopresented the verse to point out that the Bible also shows how God causeddisbelievers to go even further astray (from the worship of just a calf to alsostellar objects). Discussing to whom the verse changed the subject.

2.Falsely claiming that Honeto can’t think for himself.

That’s just an ad hominemfallacy and an insult. Also, it contradicts Bunter’s earlier assertion thatHoneto thinks that only he is right. Obviously Honeto can think for himself.(although Bunter’s tortured logic in #4 casts serious doubts on Bunter’sthinking).

3.Denying that the verse proves Honeto’s point.

The verseproved Honeto’s point (and mine). But Bunter denied that the verse said what itsaid (even though everyone can clearly see it). As such, Bunter also ended uprejecting his own Bible, and then claimed that we had rejected it. Actually,since we Muslims have the Quran, we can see what parts of the Bible match it,and thus be able to make a good determination as to what parts of the Bible areprobably close to what God originally revealed to Moses and Jesus (peace beupon them).

4.Illogical claim:

a. “ . . . about those who rejected God . . . .”

b. “ . . . - since you reject the Bible, they refer to you. . . .” 

Bunter’s first premise is that the verse refers to thosewho refer reject God. Then Bunter claims that therefore, it refers to those whoreject the Bible.

But, we can forgive deception # 4 since it looks like itwas an accident. Bunter has shown that he has trouble understanding logic, sological fallacies like this were probably not done intentionally.

Ironically, based on Bunter’s own reasoning, since Bunterhas rejected the Bible, the verse refers to him also.

5. Ignoring that the verse refers to those like him

Even without Bunter’s twisted and contorted reasoning thatthe verse refers to those who reject the Bible, the verse still refers to himsince Bunter has resorted to idol worship (he has imagined Jesus as a god inhis mind, and that concept in his imagination is his idol).

Since we Muslims have the Quran, we can see that Godprobably did reveal something similar to the verse above. Those who rebel andworship idols do get sent further astray. Not only does the verse refer tothose like Bunter who worship idols instead of worshipping God, but Bunter’sfurther diversion from the truth and going even further astray shows the pointto be true.

6. Implying he can read Honeto’s mind:

When Bunter states, “Your problemis you think . . . ,” Bunter is implying that he can read minds. He isasserting a claim about Honeto’s inner cognitions. Bunter makes the sameimplication in the next statement, lest someone object that Bunter had onlymade a one time mistake there which did not really reflect his actual views.

7. Contradicts whether or not Honeto can think forhimself.

First Bunter states to Honeto, “Your problem is you thinkyou and only you are right  . . . .”

Next Bunter states to Honeto, “You simply cannot think foryourself . . . .”

Bunter first says to Honeto, “Your problem is you think….”

Then he says to Honeto, “You simply cannot think….”

So, Bunter is first claiming that Honeto has thought forhimself that only Honeto is correct. After all, who else is thinking forHoneto, if not himself?

Then, Bunter says, “You simply cannot think for yourself .. . .”

That’s a clear contradiction.

 Those are only someof the layers of darkness (deception) in Bunter’s response, and that’s only oneof his responses.

The Quran predicts multiple levels of darkness in thebehavior of the disbelievers:

{

As for the unbelievers, their works are like .. . .

. . .

Or like the darkness on a bottomless oceanspread with clashing billows and overcast with clouds: darkness upon darkness. If he stretches out his hand he canscarcely see it. Indeed the man from whom God withholds His light shall find nolight at all.

} Quran, chapter 24 (chapter of Light), verses 39-40.

TheQuran says that after the disbelievers arrogantly chose to disbelieve, and thenGod casts veils over their hearts and make them unreceptive to reason, you willsee how they will deceive themselves over and over again. (6:24 to 6:26)

Amazingly,even though the Quran predicts their deceptiveness, and even though theirdeceptions get caught, they continue on by adding new deceptions on top of theold ones. Even though they know that they are proving the Quran to be true,they can’t help it. That is the power of the predictions of the Quran: Eventhough the disbelievers can see that their behavior is proving the Quran to betrue, they can’t help but to do it.

The Quranpredicts the deception to expect from the disbelievers:

{

The Devils will teach their followers to argue with you.

} Quran(chapter of cattle), 6:121.

It isjust as the Quran fortells.

The disbeliever, Bunter,says that if we Muslims don’t have access to the original Injeel (therevelation originally given to the prophet Jesus, peace be upon him), then weMuslims, he claims, can’t say with any proof that the current Gospels differfrom the original.

Well, I will show later(God willing) that actually, we can make that determination accurately.

Before I demonstrate that,however, I will first point out that Bunter’s claim works against him: if hedoesn’t have the originals, he can’t say that the current Gospels are the sameas the originals.

In other words, if Bunterinsists that we Muslims can’t make a claim about the current Gospels beingcorruptions since we don’t have the originals to compare them to, he also can’tclaim that the current Gospels are preserved correctly.

Actually, this dilemmaexists for Bunter even if he doesn’t make his claim against the Muslimassertion about the corruption of the Gospels because other former-Christianscholars of the Bible have made the realization that without the originals (orthe ability to reconstruct the originals), there is no way to have confidencein the current texts of the Gospels.

Here are the words of BartD. Ehrman, chair of the department of religious studies at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill in his book, “Misquoting Jesus: the story behindwho changed the Bible and why.” This is a companion book to another of hisbooks, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the effect of earlyChristological controversies on the text of the New Testament.” Ehrman isconsidered a “leading authority on the early church and the life of Jesus….”

In “Misquoting Jesus” hewrites on page 11:

“In short, my study of the Greek NewTestament, and my investigations into the manuscripts that contain it, led to aradical rethinking of my understanding of what the Bible is. This was a seismicchange for me. Before this – starting with my born-again experience in highschool, through my fundamentalist days at Moody, and on through my evangelicaldays at Wheaton – my faith had been based completely on a certain view of theBible as the fully inspired, inerrant word of God. Now I no longer saw theBible that way.”

So what was it aboutstudying the texts in the original Greek manuscripts that caused such a“radical rethinking” and “seismic change” for him?

Ehrman’s explanationbegins on the previous page where he writes:

“It is onething to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don’thave the originals – so saying they were inspired doesn’t help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals.”

I had to stop andemphasize, “…unless I can reconstruct the originals,” because while we Muslimsdon’t have the originals either, we are able to reconstruct them, as I willshow in a future post, God willing.

Ehrman goes on to write:

“Moreover, thevast majority of Christians for the entire history of the church have not hadaccess to the oringals, making their inspiration something of a moot point. Notonly do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of theoriginals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals. What wehave are copies made later – much later. In most instances, they are copiesmade many centuries later. And these copies differ from one another in so manyplaces that we don’t even know how many differences there are. Possibly it iseasiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among ourmanuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

    “Most of these differences are completelyimmaterial and insignificant. A good portion of them simply show us thatscribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today (and theydidn’t even have dictionaries, let alone spell check). Even so, what is one tomake of all these differences?”

Now, what Ehrman writesnext is what Bunter opens himself up to when he claims that Muslims must havethe originals in order to claim that the current Gospels are corruptions.Ehrman writes:

“If one wantsto insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be thepoint if we don’t have the very words of scripture?”

Ehrman’s next line,however, shows that Muslims don’t have anything to worry about. Ehrmancontinues to write about the New Testament:

“In someplaces, as we will see, we simply can not be sure that we have reconstructedthe original test accurately.”

That is the second place,then, that Ehrman implies that the problem can be solved if the original can bereconstructed, which is not a problem for us Muslims.

And Ehrman writes on:

“It’s a bithard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we don’t even know what thewords are!

    “This became a problem for my view ofinspiration, for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficultfor God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him toinspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words,surely he would have given them to them (and possibly even given them the wordsin a language they could understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew).”

Again, this is not aproblem for us Muslims because we have been able to preserve the originalwording, and we have it in a live and growing language that anyone can learnfrom many teachers, Arabic.

The original language ofthe New Testament, Koine Greek, on the other hand, is a dead language.

What’s worse for theChristians, is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and could probably read and writeHebrew.

What Ehrman leaves out isthat even if the original Koine Greek version of the New Testament could bereconstructed, it still would not be the original Aramaic or Hebrew.

Anyways, on with quotingEhrman:

“The fact thatwe don’t have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he [God] did notpreserve them for us. And if he didn’t perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to thinkthat he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.”

Amazing!

Do you all see that?Ehrman admits that preserving the originals is a . . . MIRACLE !

And what do we have withthe Quran? We have the ability to reconstruct the original because we havepreserved the original wording.

There are many ways toknow that the current Gospels are corruptions of the original Injeel, but themany discrepancies that Ehrman points out is one of them. The fact that Jesusspoke Aramaic is another way of knowing that the original wording does notexist because the oldest large manuscripts are in a dead version of Greek. Onlya few small fragments might be found in Aramaic.

There are many other waysof knowing that the current Gospels are corruptions.

I’ll write more on this,God willing, in future posts.

Suffice it for now,however, that when Bunter insists in his usual illogical manner that Muslimsmust have the original Injeel to claim that the current version is corrupted(which is a false claim on Bunter’s part because we don’t need the original),Bunter then opens himself up to an actual and real problem for him, which isthat he needs the original (or the ability to reconstruct it) in order to beable to claim that the current version is authentic.

Abu Loren said to Bunter:
"What you say most of the time is just hot air."

From me to Abu Loren now:
What Bunter posts does qualify as spam and sabotage.

After someone disproves an assertion of his in clear, simple, honest, anddirect means, he just repeats his same original assertion that got disproved.

Maybe his aim is to exhaust the other people by repeating the same thing overand over again.

It appears like his tactic is that when he can’t standagainst logic and reason, to then just hammer and pound the same assertionsover and over again, no matter how many times those are shown to be wrong, inthe hopes that dull repetition will overcome detailed reason and thought.

It is a technique of brainwashing to overcome logic throughdull repetition, which he appears to be employing.

The only benefit I see of tolerating his presence here is toexpose the dishonest tactics of the disbelievers which the Quran so accurately explains.

But since that has been done ad nauseum, his tactics(whether intentionally or inadvertently), do prevent progress and meaningfullearning.

Predictably, he may respond by unabashedly accusing us of doingwhat he is actually doing, but the evidence speaks for itself.

Dear brother Abu Loren, maybe it is time to protect thissite by banning one who causes harm to it.

How theQuran perfectly predicts the behavior of the disbelievers.

Introduction

Bunter offers us withmountains of deception (too many to point them all out).

Then, when we do pointthem out, he adds new deceptions on top of his older ones faster than can beexposed.

We predict that he will dothat, and yet he still does it.

But, it is a good deed forus to do continue exposing Satan’s deceptions; and it further provides evidencefor the Quran’s points about the hardness of heart of the disbelivers.

Part 1, Summaryof the discussion so far

Bunter had complained thathis disbelief was not his fault, as such:

Bunter: “… at Q2:26-27 we are told that Allah MAKES many goastray - so if I don't believe its not my fault its Allah's “

Notehow Bunter leaves out where the same verses say that God only confounds(misleads) the evil-doers:

{ … By suchcomparisons God misleads (Yuzillu)many and enlightens many, but He misleads none except the rebellious (Fasiqun). } Quran,2:26.

Fasiqun,means rebellious, disobedient, evil-doers. It refers to those who have alreadycommitted the evil by rebelling and disobeying the command to believe.

Noticehow Bunter misrepresents the Quran by complaining about God misleading many,but Bunter leaves out the very next part of the verse where the Quran explainsthat God misleads those who have already disobeyed and rebelled against Him.

TheQuran clearly explains in the verse above that the very same signs of God thatshould have brought the disbelievers back to truth instead cause thedisbelievers to go further astray because of their own evil.

Thisshould have been obvious to Bunter considering that the Quran had, a few versesearlier, elaborated and explained this concept:

{ In their heartsthere is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. … } Quran, 2:10

So,Bunter had no excuse to blame God for his disbelief since the Quran had alreadyexplained the concept in verse 10 which was later discussed in verse 26.

TheQuran later elaborates in many verses how the signs God revealed to increasethe good faith in the hearts of people cause the hearts of the disbelievers toget even more hardened. For example:

{ Asfor those whose hearts are tainted, it will add uncleanness totheir uncleanness, so that they shall die while still in unbelief. } (Quran, 9:124)

Whatis very interesting to notice is how Bunter’s deceptiveness adds evidence thatthe Quran is right: In excluding from his reference to the Quran how God only further misleads thosewho have already gone astray because of corruption already in their hearts whenGod reveals signs that should have guided them to the truth, Bunter actuallydemonstrates that the corruption in the hearts of disbelievers the Qurandescribes is real.

Inother words, the deceptiveness in Bunter’s argument provides further evidencethat the Quran speaks the truth.

So, yes, Bunter’sdisbelief is his fault.

 Now, look at his response:

“ . . . whatnow puzzles me is how can God lead astray someone who has already gone astray?“

 I had just explained andstated, “then God punishes him by leading him further astray”

So, I had just elaboratedthat God leads FURTHER astray as a punishment on those who had already goneastray.

But, look at what hisresponse was:

“ . . . whatnow puzzles me is how can God lead astray someone who has already gone astray?“

Isn’t that amazing?

He can’t understand howsomeone lost can become more lost and further from the correct destination?

Such is the confusion in the minds of thedisbelievers that the Quran predicts, and that we can see plainly before oureyes to better believe that the Quran is indeed true.

The Quran predicts theirconfusion (incapable of understanding):

{ … Canyou make the deaf to hear you, incapable as they are of understanding ? }Quran, 10:42.

 Bunter says that thisbehavior makes God malevolent.

He says,“But you here turn God into a malevolentindividual” (page 21)

and later:

I canunderstand Satan leading you astray but having Allah endorse it seems to makeAllah vindictive (page 21).

 God miraculouslyanticipated this argument 1400 years ago and stated:

{ … God did not wrongthem, but they wronged themselves: the evil which they did recoiled uponthemselves …. } Quran, 16:34.

and

{ Truly, in no waydoes God wrong mankind, but men wrong themselves. } (Quran, 10:44)

Part 2,Honeto tries to explain it to Bunter:

 Honeto then came in andpointed out that even according to Bunter’s own Bible, God does indeed turnpeople over into disbelief:

Honeto says (page 22):

Let me help youwith this bunter, . . . :

Acts 7:41 That was the time they made an idol inthe form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and reveled in what their ownhands had made. 42 But God turned away from them and gave them over to the worship of the sun, moon and stars.

 What does it mean to “givesomething over” to something else?

For example, when a guardgives a prisoner over to a jailer, the guard is taking an action upon thatprisoner. The guard is causing something to happen to the prisoner (being givenover to the jailer).

So, when God “gave them over to” the worship of the sun and moon, God was causingsomething to happen to them.

 How does Bunter respond?

Deceptively, as usual,Bunter changes the subject and claims that the Biblical verse is actuallyreferring to Honeto.

 He insults Honeto’sthinking skills and says to Honeto that the Biblical verses, “refer to you not me.”

 That’s not the point. Thepoint is that the Bible is showing that God takes action that gives some peopleover further toworse disbelief.

The disbelievingIsraelites started off with just the worship of an idol of a calf, and Godextended it into the worship of the sun, moon, and stars.

 We see this again startingin the Bible’s Romans 1:18:

{

The Wrath of God is beingrevealed . . . .

. . .

. . . and exchanged theglory of the immortal God for images

. . .

Therefore God gave themover in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity . . . .

}

 So, the wrath of God wassuch to punish the disbelievers’ idol worship by making them into sexualperverts also.

 But Bunter did not respondto the actual point Honeto was making.

Instead of acknowledgingHoneto’s point that the Bible had God doing similar things as God’s action inthe Quran that Bunter had complained about, Bunter insults Honeto and thenchanges the subject and talks about something different.

That is a deceptivetactic, indeed, which the Quran predicts:

{ . . .And so the devils teach their followers to argue with you . . . . }(Quran, 7:121) and,

{ . . .Those who disbelieve dispute with false arguments in order to confute the truth. . . . } Quran, 18:56

 And just as the Quranpredicted, when Honeto showed Bunter that the Bible contained the samethingthat the Quran criticized, Bunter responded with false arguments.

Part 3,then I added some Biblical verses to further Honeto’s point.

 I said (page 22), here isanother bit from the Bible that also shows  God barring knowledge fromdisbelievers in order to punish them:

Mark, 4:11 { . . . But to those on the outside, everything issaid in parables so that they may see but not perceive, hear but never understand,otherwise they might convert and be forgiven. }

 God’s prophet, Jesus, istaking measures to prevent thedisbelievers from understanding and converting to be forgiven.

 Then I pointed out,
There, Jesus is paraphrasing Isiah 6, 10-11 where it also adds
{ Make the heartsof the people calloused. . . otherwise they might understand and convert.}

 But it is interesting toview how if the Quran says something, then the Christians say it is terrible,even when it confirms that part of their own scriptures. Thus do we see how thehearts of the disbelievers are corrupted.

 The proofs above wouldhave humbled the hearts of all but the most extremely hard hearted, deceptive,disbelievers; but Bunter was not in the least deterred.

As his custom, he tried tocover his previous deception by adding new deception on top of it.

Instead of apologizing forhis previous deception which we had exposed, Buntershamelessly says, “There is a world of difference between God hiding somethingthat only he knows in scripture and a Scripture you can understand but notaccept.”

Theverse I quoted stated that Jesus spoke in parables so that the disbelieverswould, “neverunderstand,” so that they will never“convert and be forgiven.”

Thisis not a communication that was understood but not accept as Bunter claims; itis one that, as the Bible states, the disbelievers will “never understand.” 

Ialso quoted another verse from Isaiah explaining that God would make the heartsof the disbelievers callous so that they would not understand. 

Buntertwists “not understand” into “you can understand but not accept.”

TheQuran predicts the Christian disbelievers twisting their own books:

{ Andthere are some among them (Jews and Christians) who twist their tongues when quoting the scriptures, so that you maythink it is from the scriptures, whereas it is not from the scriptures.

They say, “this is from God,” whereas it isnot from God. Thus they knowingly ascribe falsehood to God. } Quran, 3:78

TheQuran commands the Muslims to ask the Christians:

{ . . . why do barbelievers from the path of God and seek to make it crooked when you havewitnessed it . . . } Quran, 3:99.

So,when the Bible discusses God hardening hearts, preventing disbelievers fromunderstanding, leading into temptation, giving ambiguous communications, thenthe disbelievers pretend that it is not there (or that it is okay for theBible). But for the Quran, it is terrible.

Part 4, Bunter just repeats the same arguments we previouslyhad proved to be false and deceptive:

Sothen what is Bunter’s response to the fact that his own Bible states that Jesusdid things so that the disbelievers would not understand?

Bunter says in response that the parables, “. . . convey a clearmessage but some refuse to accept it.” (page 25)

So,he just repeated the same argument we just refuted, even though I had pointedout in detail.

 So, here is a summarizedversion of the discussion:

Beebok: the Bible says inMark 4:11, “neverunderstand.”

Bunter: No,it says, “you can understand but notaccept.”

Beebok: it’s right therein plain sight: “never understand.”

Bunter: Theparables “conveya clear message but some refuse to accept it.”

 So,even when the Bible is quoted directly and repeatedly, he refuses toacknowledge it and repeats the same argument that everyone saw was refuted.

That level of audacity isincredible!

 He knows we can see theverses right there in front of us, yet he has the audacity to pretend that theyare not there.

 It is as if thedisbelievers like Bunter are pointing to a mountain that they know that we cansee, and they are telling us, “nope, there is no mountain there.”

Part 5, Bunterrejects his own Bible:

 So, although in the BibleJesus clearly says, and I quote:

 Mark, 4:11 { . . . But to those on the outside, everything issaid in parables so that they may see but not perceive, hear but never understand,otherwise they might convert and be forgiven. }

and  Isiah 6, 10-11 where it also adds
{ Make the heartsof the people calloused. . . otherwise they might understand and convert.}

And Acts 7:14 where God gives the disbelievers over to furtherand worse disbelief, and Romans 1:18 where God punishes disbelievers by alsomaking them into sexual perverts and the Lords Prayer where they pray to not beled into temptation.

 Bunter says that the Biblesays that the people can understand, but won’t accept it.

 So, his Bible is clearlysaying one thing, and he is saying the opposite. He has not only rejected theQuran, he has even rejected his own Bible.

Yet he has the nerve toaccuse me of being hard hearted:

 Bunter saysto me, “…the more I speak to you about them the harder your heart becomes….”

 Wow! How hard-hearted isthe disbeliever, Bunter, that the verses of the Bible can be put in front ofhis own eyes, and yet he can say that the opposite is there, and then accuse meof being hard-hearted?

After so muchhard-heartedness that he rejects what is directly in front of him, he is evenmore hard-hearted and accuses me of doing the very thing that everyone canplainly see that he is doing.

 This is much like themiracles of the Quran that are right there in front of their eyes, but theypretend that they are not there, as if we can’t see them there right in frontof us.

 So, they deny the versesin their own book that we point out, and they deny the verses in our own bookthat we point out.

 What does the Quran sayabout such people:

{…We have castveils over their hearts lest they understand Our words . . . . }

Part 6, Godpunishes the Biblical Paul into worse disbelief.

 Bunter says,“God never turns anyone away and we have examples such as the apostle Paul whowas viciously anti Christian, with no faith yet God still called him.”

Actually, Paul is a greatexample of God leading someone astray. God was a monotheist Jew who sinfullymurdered Christians and rejected the true prophet Jesus.

So, as a punishment, Godconfused Paul into a polytheist worshipping Jesus as an idol, and so, Paul wenteven further astray into worse disbelief.

Paul went from murder andrejecting a prophet to full blown pagan idol worship by elevating a prophet tothe status of a god.

So, the example thatBunter gives of God guiding a hardened sinner is actually an example of Godpunishing someone with worse disbelief.

 Bunter says,“otherwise surely he would try again to help somone towards belief not make itprogressively worse.” (page 21).

He is assuming that Goddoes no such thing. Actually, God does make many signs to the disbelievers tobring them back.

Look at for example all ofthe miracles of the Quran which we are showing them; and so many of theirdeceptions that we are pointing out.

These are all means forthem to realize their error and see that Islam is the truth. But look how theyrespond with even more audacious deceptions. Thus do we see the verses of theQuran come true before our very eyes.

 Bunter hadsaid, “otherwisesurely he would try again to help somone towards belief not make itprogressively worse.”

And as the Quran explains,God does send repeated signs to guide the disbelieving rebels back. Over andover again He sends them signs and warnings.

But when the disbelievingrebels twist the meanings of the signs into excuses for further rebellion, thenat some point the punishment must descend upon them.

 The disbelieving rebelsthen have the nerve to say that they were wronged. God gives them thisresponse:

{ Truly, in no waydoes God wrong mankind, but men wrong themselves. } (Quran, 10:44)

and

{ … God did not wrongthem, but they wronged themselves: the evil which they did recoiled uponthemselves …. } Quran, 16:34.

 Bunter saysthat God surely “would try again to help someone towards belief.”

As if Bunter knows whatGod would do !

 The Quran goes on to explain that even if thedisbelievers were given an outlandish miracle such as being lifted up to theheavens, the disbelievers who just look for excuses to not believe would saysomething like they must have just hallucinated:

{ If We open for the unbelievers a gate in heaven and theyascended through it higher and higher, still they would say, “our eyes wereonly dazzled; surely we must have been bewitched.} Quran,  15:17 

So, no matter what proofs God shows them, thecorruption and hardness in the hearts of the disbelievers will twist themeaning of those proofs into further excuses to go FURTHER astray, as the Quranalready described.

But Bunter thinks that heknows what God would do: surely God, “would tryagain to . . . .”

 Bunter says,“Bible teaches that God seeks after us and we can seek after him - we can evenstart from total unbelief but we are taught that if we seek God he will befound.” (page 21)

As if the Quran doesn’tteach that also !

What deception.

Of course, the Quranteaches that also. But the Quran and the Bible also teach that those whodisbelieve can be turned further away.

When we point out such versesin the Bible, Bunter pretends that such verses say something other than theyclearly state.

 “Buntersays, “God never turns anyone away,”

Note the deception in hisargument.

The Quran does not saythat God turns someone away the way the Bunter claims.

The Quran says that Godsends FURTHER astray those who already rebelled.

Bunter twists and confusessending someone who has already gone away being pushed further away withturning someone away who has come looking for God.

What deception !

 but then when we point outin his own Bible that has prayers to, “lead us not into temptation,” and Isiahwhich says that God hardens the hearts of the unbelievers, and Jesus puttingthings in parables so that the unbelievers will never believe, he pretends thatsuch verses are not there, as if we can’t see them.

Part 7, Satan’sinitial disbelief is like Bunter’s disbelief.

 The Quran provides atemplate on how disbelief starts with the example of Satan:

 When God commands all inheaven to bow respectfully before Adam, Satan pridefully refuses, and Godbanishes Satan.

 Satan defiantly says toGod,  { Becauseyou have sent me astray, I will ambush your servants as they walk on thestraight path. } Quran, 7:16

 Thus does the Quran saythat Satan became an unbeliever, Quran, 2:34.

 How does that relate toBunter?

 Just as Satan falsely claimsthat God had wronged him, Bunter also states that God’s misleading the arrogantand prideful disbelievers into worse disbelief can be “malevolent,” and “vindictive.” They both claim that God has done wrong.

 Then, like Satan who setsout to ambush true believers with false arguments, so does Bunter.

Part 8,Finally, the incredible miracles of the Quran just in this discussion:

This particular discussionstarted with Bunter complaining about this verse of the Quran:

 { … By suchcomparisons God misleads many and enlightens many, but He misleads none exceptthe rebellious . } Quran, 2:26.

 Bunter complains that thismakes God “malevolent,” and “vindicative.”

 Here are some of themiracles covered in this post:

1. The very verse of theQuran that states that some verses of the Quran will cause the rebellious to gofurther astray, causes the rebellious Bunter to go further astray, right beforeour eyes

2. The template that theQuran shows for disbelief with the example of Satan is the same blueprint forBunter’s disbelief. Thus did the Quran understand the disbelievers better thanthey understand themselves.

3. The Quran predicts thatthe disbelieving Christians will alter their own scriptures in order to deceivethe Muslims, and indeed we see that when the Bible says, “not understand,” thedisbeliever Bunter claims that it says that it says, understand but not accept.

4. The Quran predicts thatthe disbelievers will argue with deception, and indeed, when we point out tothem what is in their own book, they repeatedly deny it.

5. The Quran’s pattern offurther disbelief is seen by Paul.

 Indeed, even if I had seeMoses’ staff eat the snakes of the Pharoah’s magicians, or if I had seen Jesusturn a clay bird into a real bird, it would not have been as impressive asseeing the verses of the Quran written 1400 years ago, predicting the behaviorof the disbelievers exactly, and showing a better understanding of their mindsthan they understand of themselves.

Just as I predicted,Bunter adds new deceptions to try to cover up his old deceptions, and repeatsthe same arguments which I’ve already refuted.

I’ll address his newdeceptions, God willing, sometime in the future; but I still have not finished exposing his olddeceptions.

How Idemonstrated that Bunter was faking understanding and following the scientificmethod.

Part 1,Bunter faking his understanding.

HowBunter did not understand what was meant by the term “falsifiability.”

Bunter claimed to followthe scientific method.

Bunter hadsaid, “What you may not understand is that in science we ….” (page 21)

Place 1 where Bunter was shown to not understandfalsifiability:

Then, after he claimed tofollow the scientific method, I showed he didn’t really understand thescientific method:

I pointed out that he hadstated,

“ . . . wedon't set out to find a test that will show something to be true but a testthat will show it to be false if it is false.“

And I responded with,

Bunter’sexplanation demonstrates an incorrect understanding of the scientific method.

According tothe scientific method, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, but that is differentthan going out to prove that it is false.

In other words, Bunterthought that falsifiability meant a test that will show something to be false.

I pointed out thatactually, according to the scientific method, falsifiability refers to aHYPOTHESIS must be stated in a way such that it CAN POTENTIALLY be shown to befalse through empirical testing, not what he said, which is a TEST that it WILLshow something to be false.

So, that was the firstplace that I showed that he did not understand falsifiability.

Place 2, where Bunter was shown to not understandfalsifiability:

I had pointed out:

Bunter said, “I cannot think of anytest that will prove or even indicate that Islam's message is perfect.“

Then I responded with:

First of all, that contradicts hisother statement that he is looking for a test of falsifiability, not for a testof provability.

Remember, he had at one point said, “.. . we don't set out to find a test that will show something to be true but atest that will show it to be false if it is false.”

But here he says that he wants to“think of any test that will prove” it to be true.

So, in one place he says he wants atest of falsifiability, not provability; but then he says he wants a test ofprovability.

That is the second place where I showed that he wasconfused about falsifiability.

Bunter’s response after I showedthat he did not understand what falsifiability meant, and then explained to himhow it works:

After I explained to Bunter how his explanation ofthe scientific method and falsifiability were wrong, and then explained to himhow it actually works, he responded with this:

But you do notor cannot explain what it means to be 'falsifiable?

That’s absolutely amazing!

What audacity !

After I showed that hedidn’t really understand it, I guess he got desperate and tried to cover up hislost credibility by making the absurd assertion that I don’t understand it. Howwould anyone fall for that trick when everyone could see that it was I whoexplained it to him?

Then he goes on to try toexplain what falsifiability means, as if I hadn’t just exposed him to everyoneas someone who doesn’t really actually understand it.

Bunterresponding to one of the Quran’s challenges of falsifiability:

Place 3, where Bunter was shown to not understandfalsifiability:

Bunter had himself givenan example of a test of falsifiability to the assertion that “all swans arewhite.”

He admits that such anassertion is falsifiable because all someone has to do is to find one swan thatis not white.

Although his statement iscorrect, for once, apparently, he does not understand the meaning of his ownstatement.

Note that it doesn’tmatter if someone finds a black swan in the future. Whether or not someone canor will find a non-white swan in the future has nothing to do with theassertion being falsifiable or not.

Bunter said,

“Of course wealso know the human authorship has not come to an end so who knows if there is not something better in the future. You don’t really understandfalsifiability do you? “

Bunter says above that theQuran’s eloquence test of is not falsifiable because someone might make somethingbetter “inthe future.”

Just as in the case of theswans, just because a non-white swan might be born in the future, or anon-white swan has not been found yet, that possibility does not make theassertion a non-falsifiable assertion. The assertion qualifies as falsifiabledespite the fact that someone might find a non-white swan in the future.Likewise the possibility that someone might create a similarly eloquent Quranin the future does not make the assertion non-falsifiable.

But Bunter apparently didnot understand the explanation he himself presented on falsifiability becausewhen it came to the Quran, he could not apply it. It looks like he justparaphrased an explanation he found somewhere else without understanding it inorder to trick us into believing that he understands the scientific methodafter I had shown that he did not actually understand it.

Yet, he had the audacityto state, “You don’t really understand falsifiabilitydo you? “

Bunter repeatedly claimedthat I don’t understand what falsifiability means, but it turns out that it ishe who does not understand it.

Doesn’t it occur to Bunterthat when he is talking to someone who actually does understand logic andscience, Bunter is going to just keep getting exposed, over and over again?

Assumptionsare scientific, according to Bunter.

Bunter stated on page 21,
“There is nothing unscientific about makingassumptions: every theory is an assumption.”

Actually, makingassumptions is the opposite of the scientific method.

So, Einstein’s theory ofrelativity would be just an assumption, just a guess, just a shot in the dark,according to Bunter

A theory is based onmassive amounts of observation and experimentation, or mathematical reasoning.

An assumption, on theother hand, is just a conjecture taken for granted without proof.

A hypothesis becomes atheory after repeated testing produces the same conclusion, or after carefullyexamined mathematical formulas based on prior observations are carefully andcritically examined by the scientific community.

But according to Bunter,

“Thereis nothing unscientific about making assumptions: every theory is anassumption.”

An assumption is used inthe scientific method only in the case of using a null-hypothesis whileempirical testing ensues; but that is not the context in which Bunter was usingit, and explaining it to him will be too difficult.

But even a hypothesis,which in fact precedes a theory, is not an assumption.

 So, Bunter exposes that he does not understand what the scientific method is, and that he does not understand what a theory is. Assuming things to be true is not scientific, and a theory is not just an assumption as he wrongly claimed.

Summaryof part 1

On the one hand Bunterrejects the test of falsifiability that the Quran presents.

Bunter says that somebodyin the future might come along and create a text as eloquent as the Quran andif he believed in it now, then he would have been wrong.

In other words, he isshowing that he thinks that a test of falsifiability proves something to betrue (a test of provability). So, he does not understand what a test offalsifiability does. It proves something false; but being unable to prove itfalse doesn’t prove it to be true.

So, Bunter repeatedlyclaimed that I don’t understand what falsifiability means, but it turns outthat it is he who does not understand it.

Hmmm. typical.

He had claimed that hewanted a test of falsifiability for the Quran. When I showed him one, heclaimed that what I showed him demonstrated my lack of understanding what thetest means, even though I had explained the meaning before and I had correctedhim on similar things before.

Then, the objection hemakes shows that he does not understand it.

So, in summary of part 1,the disbeliever claimed he wanted a test of falsifiability for the Quran.

When he got one, herejected it.

What does that show us?

It shows us the truth ofwhat the Quran says: that when you give evidences or reasonable arguments tothe disbelievers, they will reject it because they just don’t want to believein the first place. It shows that all their excuses for more and more evidenceare just that, excuses.

Part 2,Bunter faking his adherence to the scientific method:

The disbeliever Buntersays that he wants Muslims to follow the scientific method in proving that theQuran is true, and that the criteria should apply for all books.

Bunter,“What you may not understand is that in science we ….” (page 21).

But for Christians likehim, it is enough for him that they just “know,” and the Holy Spirit guidesthem.

Bunter says,“…when I read the Bible, even in translation I know that it is the wholecouncil of God …” on page 21.

In other words, he justknows it.

And then he says that theHoly Spririt guides the Christians.

Bunter says,

“Christianswould say it is the Holy Spirit that brings these words to life when a personlets him, when a person is open to His prompting. “ (page 23)

But if we Muslims believethat God has guided us, he complains:

“The mistakeyou are making is that you believe the Quran is supernatural and so go huntingabout for things you regard prove that . . . .”

Bunter concluded that webelieve that we start off with the belief that the Quran is supernatural.

And he just jumped to thatconclusion.

He didn’t even attempt ascientific method there.

Yet he had claimed earlierthat he was a man of science.

Bunter,“What you may not understand is that in science we ….” (page 21).

Thus, clearly identifyinghimself with science and the scientific method, and complains that we Muslimsdon’t follow that.

In other words, he doesnot require the scientific method for himself, but later does claim to use thescientific method, and requires it of others.

And then even deigned toattempt (wrongly) to explain it to us, as if he were indeed a man of science.Thus he had boasted that he is a man of science and believes things because ofscience. Ironically, he tried to explain the scientific method, he got itwrong, despite repeated attempts on my part to explain it to him.

So, when we Muslims saythat God guides us to see the miracles of the Quran, the disbeliever complainsthat this is not good enough. Muslims must follow the scientific method ofproof.

When we give himreasonable arguments, he rejects them out of demonstratable insincerity. Butfor his own Bible, it is good enough to say that the Holy Spirit has guidedthem despite the frequent contradictions and errors therein.

So, for us Muslims, it isa mistake to just believe in the Quran, and he claims that he is a scientistwho would do no such thing. But then elsewhere he admits, for him, he can justread it and know, and that’s fine.

This is similar to howthey complain that the Quran says that guides punishes disbelievers byhardening their hearts, and when we point out that the Bible says the samething, they deny it.

That is also similar tothe denial they show when we point out that their own Bible admits that theirscriptures have been corrupted.

I predict that Bunter’sresponse will be his usual, make straw-man fallacies, try to redefinescientific terms as if he really did understand them all along, try to coverhis embarrassment by trying to make it seem like I’m the one who didn’tunderstand science even though I’ve been the one correcting his errorsrepeatedly, change the point of the discussion, or some other similardeceptions as he has done so far.

The insincere andhypocritical behavior of the disbelievers shows that there is indeed corruption in the hearts ofthose who deny Islam, and that the Quran’s explanation of the characteristicsof the disbelievers is indeed true.

Formal Fallacies – these are fallacies that arise when we use the most common forms of argument. These forms of argument are listed below but we summarise the fallacies here.

Informal Fallacies – these are fallacies that arise in all sorts of debates and arguments and you would do well to familiarise yourself with them so you can make sure you don’t commit them and you can see when others use them as forms of argument.

Ad Populum - arguing that something is true because many believe it to be so.
Ad Ignorantiam - arguing that lack of proof proves something.
Ad Verecundian - arguing by relaying on an inappropriate authority.
Red Herring – avoiding the argument by changing the subject
Ad Baculum – appealing to force of threats to convince
Ad Misericordiam – appealing to pity or forcing guilt on you
Ad Hominem – appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason) commonly seen when supposed arguments are personal attacks and this may take the forms.

Circumstantial - by claiming your opponent is biased because of who they are or what they believe.
Poisoning or Spite - connecting the opponent with something undesirable (ie you’re a racist, uneducated, etc)
Tu Quoque - accusing the opponent of being guilty of something, typically, hypocrisy or lack of knowledge.

Hasty Generalisations - arguing from some to all rather than all to some.
Circular Reasoning - going around in circles so that conclusions also become premises for the same argument.
False dilemma – reducing a variety of legitimate options to just two; usually equally unfavourable ones.
Post Hoc – assuming that temporal succession implies a causal relationship (AB because A came before B).
Straw Man – tending to oversimplify so creating a weak or sham argument so as to make it easier to refute.

Is Ought – arguing for prescription from a statement of fact or description
Amphiboly – ambiguous grammatical constructions by creating two meaning by faulty sentence structures
Distribution – inferring from the whole to a part or vice versa
Equivocation – using statements that are not false but cleverly avoid the truth; commonly by using the same word but in two or more ways or meaning.

Bunter had claimed that ambiguity in a communicationindicate that it is not perfect.

That’s not a logical thought on his part.

For example, if a general sends a codedcommunication to his officers, that coded message is intended to enlighten hisofficers and confuse the enemy. If it accomplishes that, then the communicationwas ambiguous and correct.

I pointed out that his assertion was not logical andI explained why. But even after I explained why his assertion was not logical,he accused me of being illogical !

In other words, not only was he unable to figure outby himself that his assertion was illogical, he couldn’t understand it evenafter it was explained to him, and on top of that, he accused me of beingillogical.

Amazing !

Let’s look at it in detail in chronological order.

1. 1400 years ago, the Quran says that some of itsverses are intentionally ambiguous and the reason why they are there and howthey are part of the Quran’s strategy.

( The Bible also says that some statements ofprophets are in ambiguous parables in order to confuse the disbelievers).

2. Bunter complains that ambiguous verses in theQuran prevent it from being perfect.

3. I point out that the Quran already mentionshaving ambiguous verses, and that the reason is to confuse the disbelievers.

4. Bunter then accuses me of making up a claim onthe spot about the reason for the Quran’s ambiguous verses even though I hadjust pointed out that the Quran already explained the reason.

Amazing !

His statements simply amaze me in their lack ofcoherence.

And yet he says to Honeto, “You simply cannot thinkfor yourself . . . .”

Here is what I had said:

Let’s look at just the logic of the assertion thatan ambiguous verse prevents a scripture from being perfect.

The Quran answers Bunter’s objection here:{Some ofits verses are precise in meaning (they are the foundation of the Book) andothers are ambiguous. Those whose hearts are infected with disbelief observethe ambiguous part, so as to create dissension by seeking to explain it. But noone knows its meaning except God.} Quran, 3:7 

In other words, the ambiguous verses are presentintentionally as part of the perfection of Quran. The Quran serves manypurposes. One of those is to guide the believers. Another is to give proofs tostrengthen the believers. And yet another of the many purposes is to cause thecorrupt of heart to go further astray.

So, Bunter illogically and incorrectly assumed that anambiguous verse must necessarily mean, a priori, that a scripture is imperfect.He did not imagine the possibility that an ambiguous verse is part of theperfection of a scripture by furthering the scripture’s strategy to punish thedisbelievers:

And then here is how Bunter responded:

You have committed here a logical fallacy called Ad HocRescue; you know there are ambiguous verses, which cannot be denied. You alsoknow that ambiguities cannot really be regarded as demonstrating perfection ofcommunication so you introduce a quite impossible idea that ambiguity is partof perfection. You are saying that if one can find ambiguity then that is asign of perfection, a quite absurd idea and obviously false.

Let’s break down his statements one by one.

1. “You have committed here a logical fallacy called Ad HocRescue; “

My response: That’s absolutely laughable. He is accusing meof improvising an argument at that moment for that situation after I hadpreviously explained that the argument already existed in the Quran. After Icorrectly pointed out that his statement was illogical, he incorrectly accusesme of being illogical, and once again incorrectly uses a term that doesn’tapply.

Maybe he is trying to hide his own error by attributing oneto me and hoping that people won’t notice.

2. “you know there are ambiguous verses, which cannot bedenied. “

My response: Well obviously there are. The Quran alreadystated that, and I had already stated that the Quran already stated that. Is hetrying to sound like he is introducing new information?

3. “You also know that ambiguities cannot really be regardedas demonstrating perfection of communication” 

My response: Even after I explained to him how he is notlogical to claim that an ambiguous expression does not necessarily indicate alack of perfection, he still makes the same assertion I refuted.

4. “so you introduce a quite impossible idea that ambiguityis part of perfection.”

My response: False! First, I could not introduce somethingalready explained in the Quran 1400 years earlier. Second, it is not impossibleas I have repeatedly demonstrated.

He really needs to stop trying to use logical terms. Henever gets them right, even after I explain the terms to him. It is as if hepicks out the terms from an article that he has not understood.

Here is a real example of an Ad Hoc Rescue fallacy.

After I pointed out Bunter’s error of when he argued:

The verses refer tothose who reject God.

Honeto rejected theBible

Therefore,

Conclusion:  The verses refer to Honeto.

Bunter then tries to defend his argument by stating, “May Iask you if it is possible to reject God and not reject his word?”

Now that’s an Ad Hoc Rescue, an argument improvised at thattime to rescue that particular fallacy.

So, a message can be purposely ambiguous and still be partof a perfect plan as exemplified by a general giving a coded message designedto inform his officers, but mislead the enemy.

The Quran already stated the reason for the ambiguousverses.

The Bible also has an example of ambiguous communicationsbeing giving in confusing parables in order to misguide the disbelievers. Butfor the Christians, the Bible is still perfect.

It is only bad, according to the Christians, when it happensin the Quran. And so we see the hypocrisy and the insincerity of thedisbelieving Christians.

So, when the Quran states that God punishes disbelievers bymisleading them, then that is bad, according to the Christians. But when theBible states to Isaiah that God will harden the hearts of the disbelievers sothat they will not convert to the truth, then the Christians pretend that theBible doesn’t really say that.

In their own Lords Prayer, the Christians pray to God, “leadus not into temptation,” implying that it is something that God does do(otherwise why pray for it not to happen?).

When the Quran says that it has ambiguous verses so that thedisbelievers will not understand, then the Christians say that it is bad; butwhen the Bible states that Jesus gives parables so that the disbelievers willbe prevented from understanding and being saved.

So, when the Bible discusses God hardening hearts,preventing disbelievers from understanding, leading into temptation, givingambiguous communications, then the disbelievers pretend that it is not there(or that it is okay for the Bible). But for the Quran, it is terrible.

For the Christians, ambiguous statements from Jesus don’ttake away from his perfection, but for the Quran, it is a different set ofstandards.

Bunter says, “For example, Muslims argue that the Quran iseloquent and then jump to the conclusion that it must be from God because Godwould be eloquent.”

That fallacy above is known as a strawman fallacy because itis not at all what we Muslims are really arguing, as I will show later, Godwilling.

In a strawman fallacy, the rebuttal to an argument isagainst a false representation of the argument.

In other words, Bunter sets up a strawman (a falserepresentation of the real argument) and knocks down the strawman instead ofthe real argument.

Bunter also says, “the Bible or Quran contains no errors andcomes from God therefore what is says is true.”

Again, that is not what we are arguing.

--------

Here is another example of attempted deception from Bunter.

He says, “There is a world of difference between God hidingsomething that only he knows in scripture and a Scripture you can understand butnot accept.”

The verse I quoted stated that Jesus spoke in parables sothat the disbelievers would, “never understand,” so that they will never“convert and be forgiven.”

This is not a communication that you can understand but notaccept as Bunter claims; it is one that, as the Bible states, the disbelieverswill “never understand.”

I also quoted another verse from Isaiah explaining that Godwould make the hearts of the disbelievers callous so that they would notunderstand.

Bunter twists that into verses that “you can understand butnot accept.”

That’s amazing.

But the Quran does warn us that the Christian disbelieverswill twist their own scriptures. We’ve already seen Caring Heart do that whenwe pointed out that Jeremiah admits that their scriptures are corrupted.

The verse in Mark quoting Jesus is saying that Jesus wantedthe disbelievers to “never understand” and Bunter twists that intounderstanding but not accepting.

There is clear deception there.

That deception shows insincerity.

Note how I first showed the deception then pointed out theinsincerity; but Bunter had accused me of claiming insincerity without showingthe deception.

The Quran predicts the Christian disbelievers twisting theirown books:

{

And there are some among them (Jews and Christians) whotwist their tongues when quoting the scriptures, so that you may think it isfrom the scriptures, whereas it is not from the scriptures.

They say, “this is from God,” whereas it is not from God.Thus they knowingly ascribe falsehood to God.

} (Quran: 3,78)

There are so many deceptions in Bunter’s words that havebeen so repeatedly exposed, I wonder how he has the ability to continuespeaking here. It is just amazing.

----------

Bunter says, “Where is this original Bible you speak of?”

It is with God.

----------

Bunter says, “Textual scholar tell us there are only 3 tinysections of the Greek text still in doubt and they are of no doctrinalsignificance. “

Let’s see what a scholar actually says:

Bart D. Ehrman, associate professor of Religious Studies atthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillwrites in his book, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,” pages 28 to 29:

“The evidence suggests that during the earliest period ofits transmission the New Testament was in a state of flux, that it came to bemore or less standardized in some regions by the fourth century, and subject tofairly rigid control (by comparison) only in the Byzantine period.”

and

“The vast majority of textual variants originated during theperiod of our concern, the second and third centuries.”

and

“Scribes sometimes changed their manuscripts to render them morepatently orthodox, either by importing their Christology into a text thatotherwise lacked it or by modifying a text that could be taken to supportcontrary views.”

There own book of Jeremiah in their Bible states that thescribes wrote the scriptures falsely. But then, Caring Heart tried to give atwisted translation of Jeremiah to try to cover it up.

Here is a note for the Muslims to give some background.

When I was in university and studied Logic and CriticalThinking, I not only aced the class, but I was the top student; and then I wenton to study the subject and other similar areas of philosophical study further.

This is a topic that I am knowledgeable in. Trust me when Ilet you all know that Bunter’s attempts to sound like he knows what he istalking about have actually shown him to be abysmally confused in the topic.

Not only has he gotten just about every phrase and termwrong, but even after I correct him on the topic, he continues to get it wrong.

In other words, he can’t understand it even after it isexplained to him.

Even after I explained what circular reasoning is and how itdiffers from correct deand gave him an example of correct deductive reasoning,he asks:

After I gave an example of something that is not circularreasoning, he asked, “Are you saying here that the example you have given arecircular?”

That shows me that he would have done poorly if he had takenthe rigorous Logic class that I took.

After I gave an example of the premises containing theconclusion, he asks for the opposite. He asks, “where in the conclusion the twopremises occur?”

That’s right after I said the premises contain theconclusion.

That again shows me that he would have done poorly if he hadtaken the rigorous Logic class that I took.

At this point, I can see clearly that it will be too much ofa task to explain logic to him.

It is not my job to fill in the gaps in his education.

The answer to his question is explained with Venn diagramsand algebraic reasoning in basic Logic text books.

I don’t need to exhaust myself trying to explain a topic toa student who doesn’t recognize my authority, who is rebellious, and who wouldhave trouble understanding it in the type of class where I learned it.

Suffice it to say, he doesn’t understand the subjects hetries to talk about. I’ve already demonstrated that repeatedly.

If any Muslims are interested, I’ll be happy to explain.

In the mean time, keep in mind, the disbelievers have theadvantage of being able to make fallacies far faster than I can respond tothem.

They can make fallacies quickly and in few sentences,whereas it will take me many sentences to deconstruct their statements anduntwist them.

It is faster to make a knotted argument than to unknot it,and so the disbelievers will have that advantage.

So, Muslim brethren, keep in mind that the fallacies of thedisbelievers that I unknot are only a fraction of all the ones they make.

Keep in mind also that they will make new fallacies to tryto cover previous ones.

Besides the logical errors, there are also the hypocriticalstatements that the disbelievers make such as when Matt Browne or Bunter claimthat they are against being insulted, but then throw their own insults such aswhen Bunter told Honeto that Honeto just didn’t know how to think for himself.

---------------------

I had said, “Even after the previous times that I hadcorrected his mistakes about circular reasoning and the scientific method,Bunter still had the audacity to pretend and act as if he understands thoseideas and needs to instruct me on those topics. This further shows theinsincerity of the disbelievers that the Quran accurately warns us about andpresents further evidence of the Quran’s veracity.”

Then he says, “I am insincere because you say I made amistake in logic?”

That’s amazing!

After I declared his insincerity because of pretenses andacting to understand a topic which he doesn’t, he asks if I’m declaring hisinsincerity because of a mistake he made.

He twists insincerity because of pretenses into because of amistake.

The Quran does say, “The devils will teach their votaries toargue with you.” (6:121)

----------

Let’s look at another trick that he attempts.

Bunter claims that I am:

“That is he (Beebok) is trying to undermine any argument orstatements I have made not by dealing with them but by insulting me.”

False !

I did exactly the opposite of that, repeatedly.

After dealing with his arguments and showing the obviousdeceptions and fallacies in them, I pointed out the obvious insincerity inthem.

If anyone reads what I wrote, they will see that I debunkedhis arguments, showed the obvious deception in them, and then pointed out thatan insincere person makes such comments. But he ignores the fallacies I pointedout and says that I am doing the opposite of what I’m actually doing.

Is he hoping that no one read what has been written so far?Doesn’t he realize that all someone has to do is go back and read what I wroteto see that he is not telling the truth.

Again, we see the insincerity the disbeliever displays.

And just for clarity, I first pointed out his fallacy here,and then pointed out how that shows his lack of sincerity.

Bunter says to Honeto:

“

Do you know what these verses refer too? Your problem is youthink you and only you are right so automatically everyone else is wrong. Yousimply cannot think for yourself and neither can you see that the event thatthese verses recount is about those who rejected God and went their own way -since you reject the Bible, they refer to you not me.

“

Let’s deconstruct what he said down into their parts.

1. Bunter says that the verses refer to those who rejectedGod.

2. Bunter says that because Honeto rejects the Bible, theverses refer to Honeto.

I hope everyone can see the obvious contradiction thatBunter makes there.

On the one hand he says that the verses refer to those whorejected God; then in the very next breath he says that it refers to those whoreject the Bible.

In case anyone missed that, let me make it very obvious:

Bunter says:

1. “ . . . about those who rejected God . . . .”

2. “ . . . - since you reject the Bible, they refer to you .. . .”

So, first he is asserting that the verses are about thosewho rejected God, then changing it to the verse being about those who rejectthe Bible.

Here is Bunter’s reasoning above,

Major Premise: The verses refer to those who reject God.

Minor Premise: Honeto rejected the Bible

Therefore,

Conclusion:  Theverses refer to Honeto.

Wow !

What an amazing display of a tortured and twisted failure oflogic.

No wonder Bunter keeps making mistakes about the meaning ofconcepts in logic such as his attempt to explain the fallacy of circularreasoning, and inadvertently giving the exact reverse wording of the correctexplanation.

Note also that Bunter’s remarkable absurdity comes rightafter Bunter had said to Honeto, “You simply cannot think for yourself .”

So, right after he says to Honeto that Honeto cannot thinkfor himself, Bunter immediately states the verses refer to those who rejectedGod, and that since the verses refer to those who rejected God, ergo (thereforeby logical deduction) the verses refer to Honeto because Honeto had rejectedthe Bible.

Here is an analogy of comparable absurdity to what Buntersaid:

“Because this is for people who drove to Houston,then this is for you because you drove to Dallas.”

On a different point, note that when Bunter states, “Yourproblem is you think . . . ,” Bunter is implying that he can read minds. He isasserting a claim about Honeto’s inner cognitions. Bunter makes the sameimplication in the next statement, lest someone object that Bunter had onlymade a one time mistake there which did not really reflect his actual views.

On a third point, notice how Bunter says to Honeto,

1. Your problem is you think

2. You simply cannot think

So first Bunter states to Honeto, “Your problem is you thinkyou and only you are right  . . . .”

Next Bunter states to Honeto, “You simply cannot think foryourself . . . .”

In other words, Bunter is first claiming that Honeto hasthought for himself that only Honeto is correct. After all, who else is thinkingfor Honeto, if not himself?

Then, Bunter says, “You simply cannot think for yourself . .. .”

So, when Bunter says, “You simply cannot think for yourself. . . ,” then to whom should he be addressing the “you?” Maybe the “you” shouldbe an instance of him referring to himself.

On a fourth point, the discussion wasn’t even about tp whomthe verses refer.

The point of dissension was about God misleading people intodisbelief. Since the verse stated that God, "gave them over" to idol worship and disbelief, then Honeto is correct in mentioning the verse.

Bunter’s tirade about to whom the verses is non-sequitur anda red herring.

So, in that one little screech, Bunter managed to

1. Make an absurd fallacy of logic about what conclusionfollows from the premises.

2. Implies that he can read Honeto’s mind.

3. Contradicts whether or not Honeto can think for himself.

4. Can’t even understand what the point of the discussion isto begin with.

All that in just a short space.

That requires applause and talent.

My point is, this further demonstrates the insincirty and confusion of those who reject the Quran.

Considering that Bunter made so many errors in such a short space, just imagine how long it is going to take for me to get to even half of them.

Suffice it to say, I plan to expose more of his previous fallacies. That is, with the full expectation that he will bring new fallacies to try to hide his previous ones.

I've only gotten to a few of the many fallacies he has made so far. I intend to get to as many as I can. In either case, it adds evidence to the Quran's description of the disbeliever's insincerity and confusion. That's how his arguments aid me.

Bunter attempts to define circular reasoning, as if heunderstands it, and ends up giving an incorrect definition. In fact, not onlyis his explanation wrong, his explanation is even worded as the exact reverseof the correct explanation.

Bunter said, “Circular reasoning occurs when the premisesimplicitly or explicitly contain the conclusion.”

That is wrong.

It is the other way around. It is the reverse of what hesaid.

Circular reasoning is when the conclusion contains thepremise.

If the premises contain the conclusion, then that is correctand valid logical deduction such as:

All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, ergo Socrates ismortal.

There, the conclusion must follow from the premises.

So, the correct explanation is the exact reverse of whatBunter said.

I had even given him the correct understanding of circularreasoning in my previous post.

I had stated earlier.

“In order for there to be actual circular reasoning, therehas to be a premise and a conclusion that supports the premise;”

Even after the previous times that I had corrected hismistakes about circular reasoning and the scientific method, Bunter still hadthe audacity to pretend and act as if he understands those ideas and needs toinstruct me on those topics.

This further shows the insincerity of the disbelievers thatthe Quran accurately warns us about and presents further evidence of the Quran’sveracity.

Bunter defined the fallacy of circular reasoning as thepremises supporting the conclusion, but the correct definition is the reverseof what he said: fallacious circular reasoning is when the conclusion supportsthe premise.

Even after I had explained it, he still made his error.

To make it worse for Bunter, the explanation he gives ofcircular reasoning is actually an explanation for correct and valid deductivelogic.

That’s an amazing level of confusion he is experiencing.

The rest of his rhetoric is also filled with numerousdeceptions and fallacies and errors.

I’ll point them out as I find time.

For now, it demonstrates the Quran’s point about theinsincerity of the disbelievers.

And no matter how many times you demonstrate their errorsand fallacies, they shameless keep coming back with more.

Likewise, no matter how many evidences of the Quran’s truthyou show them, they will keep denying it.

He makes a great many other errors. It will take a long timeto untangle them all because he makes such a large number of errors, as usual,errors and fallacies on top of his previous errors and fallacies.

In other words, he is using new errors and fallacies to tryto cover up his previous ones; and in the future will probably use new errorsand fallacies to cover up his current ones.

It is amazing that after having been exposed as insincereand lacking in sufficient knowledge to be making the assertions that he makes, hestill continues to make them to the very person who had exposed his errors.

I’ll untangle his arguments as I find time, God willing.

While I know it is a waste of time to try to convince him,it lends credence to my point about the shameless insincerity of thedisbelievers which will strengthen the faith of the believers.

We shall see a parallel in the insincerity and confusion oftheir arguments with their insincerity and confusion in denying the Quran.

The Explanationof the Scientific Method Corrected

Bunter said, “ we don't set out tofind a test that will show something to be true but a test that will show it tobe false if it is false.“

Bunter’s explanation demonstrates anincorrect understanding of the scientific method.

According to the scientific method,a hypothesis must be falsifiable, but that is different than going out to provethat it is false.

I’m not here to educate people onhow the scientific method works; though I did write a little about it on page11 of this thread. If anyone would like to learn more about it, they can goback a few pages and read what I wrote.

-----------

ATest to Prove Islam’s Message

Bunter said, “I cannot think of anytest that will prove or even indicate that Islam's message is perfect.“

First of all, that contradicts hisother statement that he is looking for a test of falsifiability, not for a testof provability.

Remember, he had at one point said,“. . . we don't set out to find a test that will show something to be true buta test that will show it to be false if it is false.”

But here he says that he wants to“think of any test that will prove” it to be true.

So, in one place he says he wants atest of falsifiability, not provability; but then he says he wants a test ofprovability.

But we’ll let that go.

Here is one of tests forprovability. Wait, and when the Quran’s warnings about the Day of Judgment cometrue and it is too late to believe. Then you will have your proof that themessage is perfect.

Quran, 10:39

{

Indeed, they disbelieve what theycan not grasp for they have not yet seen its prophecy fulfilled.

}

That test above is the same Isuggested for Matt Browne.

-----------

WhoIs Really Making the Assumptions ?

Bunter said, “The mistake you aremaking is that you believe the Quran is supernatural and so go hunting aboutfor things you regard prove that . . . .”

My response:

1. Bunter has assumed that I firstbelieved that the Quran was true, then went to find proofs. Bunter is makingassumptions about what I’m doing. That’s quite unscientific. So, he argues thatthe scientific method is necessary for others to use, but he doesn’t have toabide by it. There again we see some of the insincerity that also leads todenying Islam’s truth.

2. I did not start off believingthat the Quran is supernatural. I approached it without presuppositions and itsGodly origins were obvious.

3. It is easy to turn his ownassumption around on him and assert, “If someone reads the Quran with theassumption that it is the mundane writing of a human, they will likely miss themiracles found within.”

4. Here is another logical error ofBunter’s. Here he is assuming that just because someone believes that somethingis true in the beginning, then the assumer will not find any errors after that.That is a false assumption of Bunter’s because it is not at all uncommon for someoneto begin assuming that something is true, and then later find errors in it.

For example, once I was studying amath proof in a text book which I assumed to be correct, but then found a typo.I showed it to the professor and she confirmed that the text book wasincorrect.

But I have found no errors in theQuran, though I have been open to such occurances.

5. Bunter is mistaken to asset thatit is an example of circular reasoning to assume that something is true, andthen to go looking for proofs of that because, as I indicated above, it isentirely possible that an initial assumption of veracity will lead to anincongruent discovery.

In order for there to be actualcircular reasoning, there has to be a premise and a conclusion that supportsthe premise; but here there is only a premise with a subsequent act to findevidence for the premise rather than an actual conclusion.

So, first, Bunter is wrong to assumethat I began with the belief that the Quran is true, and he is further wrongthat it is an example of circular reasoning, and the is thirdly incorrect toassume that beginning with the assumption that something is true will alwayslead to interpreting it as true.

If someone reads the Quran with anopen mind and a sincere heart, then God will guide them to see that it is thetruth. Those who have here denied the Quran have epxosed sufficient insincerityto demonstrate a correlation between disbelief and insincerity of such closeproximity as to naturally imply a causality, and so evince the Quran’s assertionthereof.

So far, Bunter has made thefollowing errors:

1. He has made incorrect assumptionsabout the process that I take.

2. He has incorrectly asserted thatthe process is circular reasoning.

3. He has confused thefalsifiability of a test with the goal of a test.

4. He demanded the scientific methodfor others, but not for himself.

Improvable assumptions?

Bunter claims that my points 2through 5 are improvable assumptions.

Let’s start with number two of thepoints I made:

2. The eloquence of the Quran thatis beyond the ability of human authorship.

Bunter says he wants, “ . . .  a test that will show it to be false . . . “

The Quran is prepared for that andway ahead of him.

It says, if you doubt that the Quranis the word of God, produce another book like it in quality.

That challenge has been open for1400 years, and no one has been able to create in Arabic something of equalquality in eloquence or as miraculous in nature.

{

If you doubt what we have revealedto Our servant, produce one chapter comparable to it. Call upon your idols toassist you. But if you fail (as you are sure to fail), then guard yourselfagainst the fire whose fuel is men and stones prepared for the disbelievers.

} Quran 2:23

and that if the disbelievers assertthat the Quran is written by humans, then say to the disbelievers:

{

say, “Bring me one chapter similarto it. Call on whom you may besides God to help you, if what you say be true.

} Quran 10:38.

Bunter had said, “ . . . that is, Icannot think of any test that will prove or even indicate that Islam's messageis perfect.”

There is the challenge the Qurangives you.

There the Quran gives you a test tofalsify it.

In His compassion, God has evengiven the disbelievers a test. They don’t have to think of one themselves sinceas Bunter says, they can’t think of one themselves. (“I cannot think of anytest that will . . . . “)

Go ahead. Falsify it.

Now, I anticipate that thedisbelievers might respond arguing that eloquence is a matter of personaltaste, and not something measurable like length or heat.

If they do take that position, I amprepared with a response.

Now, if the disbelievers find itimpossible to create another book like the Quran, and they will find itimpossible, then God, in His compassion, has presented another test offalsifiability in the Quran.

The Quran challenges them to findcontradictions in it.

{

Will they not ponder the Quran? Ifit had not come from God, they could have surely found in it manycontradictions.\

} (Quran, 4:82)

Now, since that is an easier test offalsifiability, the disbelievers have made many attempts to bring examples ofwhat they thought were inner contradictions in the Quran. For example, earlierin this thread they complained that the Quran in some places talks about humanity’screation from water, and in another place a creation from dust. That complainthas been addressed and answered here, and other alleged examples ofcontradictions have been answered elsewhere.

But there you have it, a second testof falsifiability which the disbelievers have never been able to correctlyaddress despite many, many attempts.

Then let’s look at the third pointon my list:

3. The miracles recorded in themeticulously and systematically scrutinized hadith.

The methodology of collecting andvalidating hadith with scrutiny is an extremely rigorous methodology which isrecorded and objectively executed in a process known as “ulum al-hadith.” Thosehadith do record events that qualify as miracles in both the vernacular andformal definitions.

Number four is also recorded in thehadith, and so is not based on conjecture.

4. The truthfulness of Muhammad andthe excellence of his personality and character.
Number five is demonstrated in many places.

5. The perfection of the message herepeated and conveyed.

So, are they improvable assumptions,mere conjectures?

----------

AmbiguousVerses Are Part of the Perfection

Here, Bunter offers one of the mostconfusing examples of verbiage that I have ever seen.

“The point is that if these arevalid tests, and how can we decide they are, then we can apply them to any bookand if - that is instead of truthfulness of Mohammed we have the truthfulnesson any relevant person, then that book also must be believed. “

I have no idea what he’s talkingabout there.

The comical irony of that amazinglyconfusing rhetoric is that if comes right before he complains about ambiguityin the Quran. He states, “ . . . there are many ambiguos verses therfore it isnot perfect.”

Okay, let’s get past the humorousirony of complaining about ambiguity directly after making an ambiguousstatement.

Let’s look at just the logic of theassertion that an ambiguous verse prevents a scripture from being perfect.

The Quran answers Bunter’s objectionhere:

{

Some of its verses are precise inmeaning (they are the foundation of the Book) and others are ambiguous. Thosewhose hearts are infected with disbelief observe the ambiguous part, so as tocreate dissension by seeking to explain it. But no one knows its meaning exceptGod.

} Quran, 3:7

In other words, the ambiguous versesare present intentionally as part of the perfection of Quran. The Quran servesmany purposes. One of those is to guide the believers. Another is to giveproofs to strengthen the believers. And yet another of the many purposes is tocause the corrupt of heart to go further astray.

So, Bunter illogically andincorrectly assumed that an ambiguous verse must necessarily mean, a priori,that a scripture is imperfect. He did not imagine the possibility that anambiguous verse is part of the perfection of a scripture by furthering thescripture’s strategy to punish the disbelievers:

{

Whenever a Chapter is revealed, someof them ask, “whose faith will this increase?”

It will surely increase thebelievers’ faith and give them joy.

As for those whose hearts are tainted,it will add uncleanness to their uncleanness, so that they shall die whilestill in unbelief.

} Quran, 9:124

And it says, that which has beenrevealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the rebelliousness anddisbelief of many of the disbelievers. (5:68)

--------------

WhatDo You Mean, “Miracles in the Quran?”

Bunter said, “1. What do you mean bymiracles in the Quran? “

My response, “That sounds likeBunter has not read this thread from the beginning. That’s what this thread isessentially about are the category of miracles in the Quran where it describedphenomenon in nature which scientists only discovered many centuries later tobe true.

This point was debated heavily frompages 1 through about 15 or later.

I hope someone will read the debateso that they don’t repeat parts of it that have already been started.

----------

DisbelieversWill Constantly Demand Ever More Rigorous Proofs Because They Just Don’t Wantto Believe.

In conclusion, all the rhetoric andverbiage from the disbelievers demanding proof is empty and insincere.

They have already been shownsufficient evidence, and they denied it.

We have exposed their insincerity inthese many pages by pointing out their contradictions and fallacies.

The Quran even says that thebelievers will, believe in none of God’s signs, even if they see the signs, oneand all. (6,26).

The Quran goes on to explain thateven if the disbelievers were given an outlandish miracle such as being liftedup to the heavens, the disbelievers who just look for excuses to not believewould say something like they must have just hallucinated:

{

If We open for the unbelievers agate in heaven and they ascended through it higher and higher, still they wouldsay, “our eyes were only dazzled; surely we must have been bewitched.

} (Quran,  15:17)

So, no matter what proofs you showthem, they will eternally ask for more rigorous proofs because they are notsincerely looking for the truth. Rather, they are just looking for excuses todisbelieve.

The Quran says that after thedisbelievers arrogantly chose to disbelieve, and then God casts veils overtheir hearts and make them unreceptive to reason, you will see how they willdeceive themselves over and over again. (6:24 to 6:26)

Bunter said,

“But I think you are justmissing the point that your reasoning is circular here. That is you think theQuran is true and why? Because it says so and does it not strike you as just alittle odd that you have a book that talks about itself? “

He shows that he does notknow what circular reasoning is.

If someone said, “God isreal.”

Someone else says, “How doyou know?”

“Because the Bible/Quransays so.”

else: “How do you know theBible/Quran is correct?”

“Because God wrote it.”

That would be circularreasoning; but that is not what we are saying.

I believe because,

1. The miracles in theQuran,

2. The eloquence of theQuran that is beyond the ability of human authorship.

3. The miracles recordedin the meticulously and systematically scrutinized hadith.

4. The truthfulness ofMuhammad and the excellence of his personality and character.

5. The perfection of themessage he repeated and conveyed.

And other reasons as well.

But the disbelievers cannot see those points above or any others because God has punished them withconfusion and blindness after their decision to disbelieve.

Bunter said,

“Referring to you commentif one looks at Q2:26-27 we are told that Allah MAKES many go astray - so if Idon't believe its not my fault its Allah's “

WRONG !!

It is completely yourfault.

After a person withcorruption in his heart first disbelieves, then God punishes him by leading himfurther astray and putting blinders on him so that obvious miracles and reasonableproofs do not make sense to him.

God only leads astraythose who are insincere and disbelieve to begin with.

The passage Buntermentioned states about God

{

And He misleads only thosewho are rebellious (to begin with).

}

The Arabic word is “Al-Fasiqun”which is translated into rebellious, or evil-doer, or disobedient.

Another translation ofthat same verse is,

{

 God confounds none except the evil doers.

}

(Rejecting Islam is also anevil act of rebellion against the Lord).

In previous pages, I gavemany examples of how God punishes those who disbelieve by increasing the wickednessand corruption in them.

I won’t repeat all thosehere. A person can simply flip back a few pages and see what I wrote.

Satan disobeyed God’scommand to bow respectfully to Adam because of an arrogance and pridefulness inSatan’s heart.

But then Satan blamed Godfor tricking him.

It is common fordisbelievers to blame God.

The Quran states in 2:10

{

There is a sickness intheir hearts which God has aggravated.

}

and another translation ofthe same verse states,

{

In their hearts there is adisease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease.

}

And we can see from the deceptiveness and deviousness that I've exposed in their arguments, many, many times, that the Quran is truthful when it says that there is an insincerity and corruption in their hearts.

So, it is completely thefault of the disbelievers that God leads them astray and prevents them fromseeing the truth.

-----------

CaringHeart said,

“What matters is; Is themessage good?”

The disbelievers argueeven among themselves as to what qualifies as something good, and whatqualifies as something bad.

For example, some of themsay that abortion is bad, while some say that it is acceptable.

I’ve even heard Christiansclaim that it is bad for the government to get involved and try to stop a fetusbaby from being murdered in an abortion.

What qualifies as good orbad is not clear to the disbelievers.

Once, when I was in acollege English Literature classroom, we had been studying some parts of theBible, and the professor asked which students thought God was cruel and wrongto order Abraham to sacrifice his son.

All the students raisedtheir hands, except me.

Christians, agnostics,etc, all raised their hands. Only the Muslim student (me) had the sense tounderstand that God’s command to Abraham was a blessing for Abraham to proveand increase his faith and earn a reward.

The professor also askedwhich students thought that God was wrong to afflict Job.

Again, they all raisedtheir hands.

I’ve heard people say thatGod is cruel and evil for putting people in hellfire. They think they knowbetter than God.

Modern secular humanistsmight say that God was cruel for ordering Moses to pour gold into those Hebrewswho worshipped the golden calf.

I’ve seen Christians andJews claim that usury, wine, and pork are acceptable. I’ve heard them say thatstoning adulterers or cutting off the hands of thieves is wrong; so they thinkthey know better than God.

What is good and bad is madeclear from guidance from God.

Arguing what is good orbad to those who don’t understand good from bad is not a good basis for adebate.

Goodness is made known tothose who receive guidance from God.

Quran, 2:11

{

When they are told, “donot commit evil in the land,” they reply, “we only do good.” But it is they whoare the evil-doers, though they do not perceive it.

}

So, the disbelievers whohave rejected guidance are not able to understand what is good and what is bad.

There is an insincerity and corruption in their hearts which I have exposed many times over by unraveling the knotts and twists in their arguments.

So, trying to reason withthem on that basis of good and bad won’t work either.

Caring Heart stated, “Noneof this matters which you posted.”

It matters to us believersbecause it increases our faith.

Nothing which we post willmatter to the disbelievers because no amount of proof and miracles will makesense to them because God has led them astray, and it is indeed their own faultfor having received that punishment.

Matt Browne had said, “Islamis a false religion, because in the cave of Hira the angel Jibreel never visited Muhammad.”

Matt Browne’s statementindicates that he does accept the historical aspect of the hadith as a validbasis for the debate.

Here is why:

The hadith are notrevelations. Hadith are narrations of people reporting what they saw and heardfrom and around Muhammad.

That statement of MattBrowne’s implies that he does agree that Muhammad was indeed in the cave of Hira and that Muhammad made the claim that he saw an angel.

The hadith is the basis ofthe history of Muhammad was in the cave and that he claimed to see an angel.The hadith state that Muhammad went in the cave, came out, and then later Muhammadclaimed that he saw the angel in the cave.

Matt Browne is implyingthat he accepts the historical part of the hadith that Muhammad went in thecave, and then later made the claim, but he does not accept Muhammad’s claimitself.

That demonstrates that hedoes accept the historical aspect of the hadith.

Then Matt Browne said, “Whoelse saw the angel?”

So, Matt Browne isimplying, in the context of his other statements, that if the hadithdemonstrates other people who saw the angels, then he will accept that Muhammaddid indeed see an angel.

I showed other hadith thedemonstrated that other Muslims and even non-Muslims did indeed see the angelsthat aided Muhammad. Then I went on to give other examples of evidence also notjust based on vision.

In other words, based onthe very premises that Matt Browne accepted as valid, I showed that Muhammad’sclaims to seeing angels was true.

The debate was won by theMuslims at that point. The infidels lost.

------------

Then Bunter joins in thediscussion (after obviously not having read my reply very carefully at all) andrepeats Matt Browne’s premises.

Bunter says, “For me thequestion is not did Mohammed see an angel but instead it is did anyone else seethe angel. . . . because the prophet is the sole witness. “

Here, Bunter is acceptingMatt Browne’s premises that if anyone else saw the angels, that Muhammad didindeed see the angels. Note that I had made it clear that my post was a direct response to Matt Browne's challenge.

Also, by joining in thediscussion, he is implying that he accepts the premise of the debate, which isthat the hadith are a valid recording of history for the terms of acceptabilityas evidence into the debate.

Now, here is the part thatI really like:

Then, I pointed out toBunter that the hadith (narrations of people reporting what they saw and heardfrom and around Muhammad), do indeed record people (both Muslim and non-Muslim)seeing the angels, and other evidences besides just seeing.

Then Bunter (realizingthat he hadn’t read very carefully) states, “I could present here now a list ofBiblical events and Miracles which one supposes you would mostly reject then Icould say you are not reading properly, your heart is hard and so on so youstick with your false religeon - do you see the point? “

In other words, he is now sayingthat the hadith are no longer a valid entry as acceptable evidence.

By joining the debate thatMatt Browne started, Bunter had implied that he had accepted the premises thatMatt Browne had laid out as valid for evidence.

Then when he sees that thehistorical hadith do indeed record other people seeing the angels also, he saysthat just as I (Beebok) would not accept the Bible, so too then he will notaccept the hadith.

Just lookat the obvious deception and deviousness in his argument.  When he doesn’t realizethat the history recorded in the hadith do retell of others seeing the angelsalso, he accepts Matt Browne’s premises that hadith do qualify for acceptableevidence.

Then, later when herealize that the rules for evidence work against him, he implies that he does notaccept the rules of evidence.

Here is a point for theMuslims.

If you go back and readwhat I wrote going about 10 or 15 pages back, you will note many examples ofthe deception and deviousness and insincerity in the arguments of thedisbelievers that I meticulously pointed out.

When God states in theQuran that he leads the disbelievers astray because of the corruption andinsincerity in their hearts, here we can see that the disbelievers do indeedhave the insincerity and corruption that the Quran claims.

God does increase ourfaith by allowing us to objectively calculate the deception and deviousness intheir arguments which shows the connection between insincerity and disbeliefwhich the Quran describes.

Hence, the faith of theMuslims is increased by the attempted deception in the arguments of thedisbelievers.

Bunter stated,

“For me the question is not did Mohammed see anangel but instead it is did anyone else see the angel. “

My response,

I will quote again what Iwrote,

“But the Muslims later reported varioussightings. Some said that they saw unknown horsemen whose horses’ hoofs did nottouch the ground.”

I had also mentioned thatangel that told Muhammad about the gold that Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib hadsecretly given to his wife, and that Abbas also reported being captured by oneinvisible to others. That was a case where a disbeliever saw an angel, but aMuslim standing next to him didn’t see it.

Muhammad’s knowledge ofAbbas’s secret gold was not the only example of Muhammad having knowledgeunknown to others. The king of Persia, Khosroe, once ordered the governor Yaman, a mannamed Bazan, to arrest Muhammad. Bazan sent to agents to arrest Muhammad. Whenthey arrived in Medinah, Muhammad informed them that Khosroe was dead. They returnedto Yaman empty handed and later word arrived that king Khosroe had beenmurdered by his son the very night of the agents’ meeting with Muhammad.

Bazan, the governer ofYaman, converted to Islam upon learning this and succeeded from Persia.

I had also mentioned thereport of a Muslim named Hazuim who reported seeing the head of a disbelieverget cut off by no means that he could see while at the same time he heard adetached voice encouraged him on.

I had written:

Some Muslimsdid not see the angels directly, but saw the effects of the angels such as oneMuslim named Hazuim who reported seeing the head of a fleeing pagan getmysteriously cut off before he could reach him. Hazuim had been giving chaseand he heard a swashing of a horse whip and then a detached voice say, “forwardHazuim!”

When hereported the incident to Muhammad, he said to Hazuim, “You have said the truth.This was help from the third heaven.”

So, I had mentioned that Muslims andnon-Muslims had seen the angels, but Bunter asked, “. . . did anyone else see the angel.”

It looks to me like he only lightlyskimmed and grazed what I wrote, and commented after a careless reading.

Maybe Bunter was afraid ofreading carefully because it would cause him to discover things that wouldcompel him to believe. Only Allah knows what was in his heart.

To add more to that eventfrom the history of Badr that I had not mentioned, I will quote Martin Lings’biography of Muhammad,

“Others had brief glimpses of the Angels ridingon horses whose hooves never touched the ground, led by Gabriel wearing ayellow turban, whereas the turbans of the other angels were white, with one endleft streaming behind them.”

page 152.

Here is another example ofa non-Muslim disbeliever reporting the angels.

One of the defeatednon-Muslim survivors named Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith fled back to Mecca. He narrated the events of the defeat to anotherdisbeliever named Abu Lahab who had not been present at the battle.

Abu Sufyan’s accountemphasized the angels as being the cause of the defeat.

When a poor Muslim namedAbu Rafi over heard the discussion, he began to repeat the event with themiraculous role of the angels, and Abu Lahab became so angry that he beganbeating up the destitute Abu Rafi.

--------------------------------------

Ron Web stated,

“Beebok, the history of warfare is filled withexamples of battles won against vastly superior forces.  If that is yourstandard for miracles . . . .”

That’s not even close towhat I said. It is amazing how he takes all the detail that I wrote and reducesit to such an oversimplified statement that it doesn’t even resemble what Idescribed.

Ron Web stated,

“. . . it is even thoughtthat Hannibalarranged matters so thatthe wind blew dust into the facesof the advancing Romans”

There is a huge differencebetween Hannibal “arranging matters” so that a wind will blow dust in the facesof the enemy, and what happened in the valley of Badr, where as I had statedpreviously,

1. The Badr valley is surrounded by mountains on all sides. There are only three narrow ways in and out of the valley.
2. The night before the battle, there had been a substantial rain and the ground was damp on the day of the battle.

So, the ground was dampfrom a rain the night before, and the valley was surrounded by mountains suchthat a sand storm could not blow in. Muhammad could not have “arranged matters”for things to fall into place under such circumstances.

On top of that, the sandstorm came just as Muhammad threw the gravel and made the prayer.

On top of that still,there was the reports of the angels from both the Muslims and the non-Muslimdisbelievers.

So, clearly my descriptionwas not at all merely that of inferior forces beating a vastly superior force.

I should add to mydescription the following which I should have added earlier.

In the Valley of Badr, the Muslims were based on the South West part of valley. The Qurayshdisbelievers were based on the North East part of the valley.

The Muslims had theirbacks to the Al-Asfal Mountains, which is the lower mountain chain to Makkah.

So, the wind, if it wasfrom natural causes, would have had to blow through a mountain chain when theground was damp from the rain and had no loose dust to pick up, and would havehad to appear just moments after Muhammad predicted it while no one else couldsee it, and just as Muhammad through the gravel at the Quraysh with his prayer.

Since the Muslims had themountains just behind them, the sand storm would have had to appear through awall of wet rock, go just in the right direction, and just at the right time.Then there would have had to have been reports of seeing or noticing theeffects of angels from both sides.

The appropriate responseto what I had written earlier would have been to have thought something like,“this is amazing and lends evidence to Muhammad’s help from God.”

Instead, there wereresponses which showed a careless reading and insincere thinking about it.

But then again, if someonelike Abu Sufyan could be so hard hearted to reject Islam even after he saw theangels, it is not surprising then that others like Abu Lahab and the criticshere would reject Islam upon hearing of the events.

 "i was wondering how did adam and eve's children have children if they were the only ones?",

Beebok, the history of warfare is filled with examples of battles won against vastly superior forces.  If that is your standard for miracles, then you must see miracles everywhere.

Actually, your description bears a curious resemblance to Hannibal's attack on Cannae:

"So, at Cannae, Hannibal led an army of something in the region of 30,000 men, perhaps, against something in the region of 100,000 Romans, or ten legions and their support. There are many stories told about Cannae and it is even thought that Hannibal arranged matters so that the wind blew dust into the faces of the advancing Romans, to give himself every single advantage possible."
http://phoenicia.org/hannibal.html

I was curious about this motif of the wind blowing dust into the faces of one's enemies, so I did a bit of surfing and found that it was a frequent military tactic in ancient warfare. (http://www.historynet.com/military-technology-using-a-cloud-of-dust-in-ancient-warfare.htm) I have to wonder if this actually happened at Basr, or if it was simply added to the story as a routine embellishment to show Allah's support.  (I also have to wonder why Allah would support an unprovoked attack on a commercial caravan in the first place, but that's another topic.)

Matt Browne asked how we can know that Muhammad really sawthe angel Gabriel.

Matt Browne was so sad about not debating, I’ll give onepiece of the puzzle of how we can know that Muhammad’s sight of Gabriel wasreal.

Here follows an event from another time in Muhammad’s life toillustrate his veracity from which we can add to other events to form afoundation for determining Muhammad’s reliability.

The event of the battle inBadr valley:

Just the facts,

1. The army of the Quraysh pagans was about 1000 strong.
2. The Muslim army had about 300 to 315 fighters.
3. As the Quraysh pagan army was winning, they suddenly turned around and fled in chaos.
4. The Badr valley is surrounded by mountains on all sides. There are only three narrow ways in and out of the valley.
5. The night before the battle, there had been a substantial rain and the ground was damp on the day of the battle.

The Battle of Badr, a quicksummary,

After losing some man to man duels against the Muslims, thepagan Quraysh descended on the Muslims with a fury and the Muslims were hardpressed to defend their line.

Muhammad was commanding from behind the Muslims, and thefollowing verse of the Quran was then revealed from God to Muhammad,

{

I will help you with a thousand angels in succession, onefollowing behind the other.

}

(Quran: 8,9)

Muhammad then said to his friend, Abu Bakr, “. . . I can seethe angel Gabriel on his mare in the thick of a sand storm.”

But there was no sand storm that anyone else could see, . .. yet.

Then the following verse of the Quran was revealed,

{

Their (the pagan’s) multitude will be put to flight, andthey will show their backs.”

}

(Quran: 54:45)

Then Muhammad picked up a handful of gravel and threw it inthe direction of the pagans and said, “confusion seize their faces!”

Just as he threw the gravel, a violent sandstorm blew intothe faces of the enemies.

This was very strange since it was difficult for any strong windto blow into the valley, and the ground was wet from the rain the night before.

As the pagans were blinded by the sand storm, the Muslims immediatelyregained the upper hand and the pagans were thrown into confusion. They turnedaround and fled in disorder and panic asthe Muslim army gave pursuit.

After the battle was over, the following verse was revealedby God to Muhammad,

{

And you (Muhammad) did not throw when you threw, but it wasGod who threw.

}

(Quran: 8:17)

Before the pagans fled, the Muslims were busy fighting andhad not heard Muhammad say that he saw Gabriel, nor had the Muslims heard theverse in which God promised the help of angels.

But the Muslims later reported various sightings. Some said thatthey saw unknown horsemen whose horses’ hoofs did not touch the ground.

Some Muslims did not see the angels directly, but saw theeffects of the angels such as one Muslim named Hazuim who reported seeing thehead of a fleeing pagan get mysteriously cut off before he could reach him.Hazuim had been giving chase and he heard a swashing of a horse whip and then adetached voice say, “forward Hazuim!”

When he reported the incident to Muhammad, he said toHazuim, “You have said the truth. This was help from the third heaven.”

Even one of the captured pagan disbelievers named Abbas binAbdul-Muttalib reported, “this man did not capture me. I was captured by adifferent man who was bald and handsome and who was riding a piebald horse. Ido not see him here among the people.” The Muslim holding Abbas captive theninterrupted Abbas and proclaimed to Muhammad, “I captured him, O Messenger ofAllah.”

Muhammad then said to him, “Be quiet, God the All-Mightystrengthened you with the help of a noble angel.”

Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib had brought 100 gold coins withhim, and had left a secret savings with his wife in Mecca.

When the time for ransom came, Abbas said that he had noother wealth than what he had brought, and then Muhammad asked Abbas about the goldthat he had left with his wife. Abbas was stunned and asked Muhammad how heknew about that, and Muhammad responded that the angel Gabriel had told him.

The above is only one event from the life of Muhammad. Therewere others. The combination of such incidents along with the miracles of theQuran, the excellence of the personality of Muhammad, and many other thingsattest that Muhammad was indeed telling the truth when he spoke of having seenthe angel Gabriel in the night of the first revelation, as Matt Browne has asked about.

"If you mean religious supremicism then remember that Jesus called the Pharisees vipers, devils, etc."

"Besides, if a religion does turn out to be the only correct one, then it will not have been prejudiced to have noted the others as wrong."

"If God commands you to kill for His sake or hate for His sake, or do something else for His sake which you do not like, will you say that you have better ethics and wisdom than God?"

18 Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.
19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it?

"If you think that you know which direction to take as well as God knows, and your conjecture will match His Wisdom, then you might want to remember your limitations as a human, and His Omnipotence."

"Why does Christianity allow the oppressors to have their way and not be challenged and fought?"

"Christians have had crusades into the holy lands for loot and power, but not for justice."

CaringHeart:

‘The "simplicity that is inChrist", is that the message of Jesus was Love.  Plain and simple,Love... Love God above all else . . . .’ 

My response:

And yet the Christians who declare to loveGod above all else, have worshipped their mental image of Jesus as equal toGod.

God is not “above all else” for theChristians, because they have associated other gods, besides God.

Jesus commanded them to love God, butinstead they loved Jesus.

{

(On the Day of Judgment) God will say, “Jesus, son of Mary,did you ever say to mankind: ‘worship me and my mother as gods besides God?’”

“Glory be to You,” he will answer, “Icould never have claimed what I have no right to. . . . I said, ‘Serve God, myLord and your Lord.” . . . .

}

(Quran: 5,115-116)

You say, if you love God, you will obey.

I say, if you do not obey God, you do notreally love God. 

And so the Christians disobeyed God byassociating other gods with Him, by permitting what God had forbidden, and byforbidding what God had permitted, and by rejecting God’s final prophet,Muhammad.

So the Christians say, love, love, love,but it is similar as the love of the pagan idol worshippers: 

{

Abraham said: ‘You have chosen idolsinstead of God, but your love of them will last only in this lower life. On the Dayof Resurrection, you shall disown one another, and you shall curse one another.The fire shall be your home and none shall help you.

}

(Quran: 29,25) 

Similar is the misplaced love of theidolatrous Christians who worship the idol that is their mental image of Jesusalongside with God.

Their love will last only in this earthlylife, and has no place in heaven which is reserved for those who truly showtheir love of the One real God by obeying the command to accept Muhammad andthe Quran. 

----------

CaringHeart:

“As for genealogies I have no aptitudefor genealogies.  I leave that work to others, but I will not take oneword over the other on the matter.  Who is to say which is correct?   “

My response:

It doesn’t matter which one is correct.  The point is that they contradict, which showsthe New Testament’s unreliability. 

I’m surprised that you didn’t give the typical Christianresponse, which is that one is a maternal genealogy and the other paternal;which wouldn’t make sense anyways because of the context. Many of the namesmatch, and they say, son of, son of, etc. 

---------

CaringHeart:

“I see him (Muhammad) as self serving, “

 My response:

The Quaryish offered him leadership and vast wealth to endhis message.

He responded that even if the sun and moon were given tohim, he would not end his message.

He had the opportunity for wealth and power, and he turnedit down and suffered assassination attempts (at least 3 I can think of off thetop of my head), ridicule, insults, physical abuse, starvation, and all sortsof persecution and hardship. He gave away most of his wealth and lived inhumble conditions even when the Muslims were victorious.

If you see him as self serving despite the reality, thenperhaps it is a devil that has deceived you. 

---------- 

CaringHeart:

“I can not say for certain that Muhammadis entirely false either, though I fear that he is.  I can only say thatI, personally, do not find him believable as prophet of God.  “

My response: 

He stood on top of the wall around thecity, and asked the people, if I told you that there was an approaching army,would you believe me?

That was incredibly unlikely considering Mecca’s location and history.

The people unanimously responded, “yes”because his reputation for honesty.

Even enemies of his tribe would sometimesleave their possessions with him because of his trustworthiness. He wasreferred to as the “Amin,” the trustworthy. 

So what do you base your incredulity ofthis most excellent of humans? On the twisted and contorted propaganda of theOrientalists? 

When Muhammad arrived at Medina, one of the top Rabbi of the Jews, if notthe top Rabbi, named Abdullah ibn Salam, went to question Muhammad. AfterMuhammad answered, Abdullah ibn Salam converted to Islam. He said, “When theProphet arrived in Madinah, I went to see him and I immediately recognizedthrough his countenance that he would never be a liar.”

(narrated by Tirmizi, ibn Majah, andDarimi) 

---------------

CaringHeart: 

He left too much confusion behind even among his own closestfollowers when he left this world.  It seems that without him all othersbecame lost with no clear understandable teaching to follow.  Everyoneseemed to have a different idea about what was taught.

My response:

I’ve already responded to this in aprevious post with the following:

The confusion among Muslims ismicroscopic compared to the confusion among the early Christians, the Gnostics,the Arian heresy, Athunasius, and so many others.

Muslims may have disagreed onpolitics or minor ritual, but Christians couldn’t even agree on the oneness ofGod. Even among the trinitarians, there were many interpretations of what thetrinity was, and is. Will you blame that on Jesus?

When Moses left for a few days,the Jews made a gold idol. Will you blame that on Moses?

The disagreement among Muslimswas miniscule compared to the confusion left by prophets before him.

It seems that CaringHeart doesn’tcare to read my responses.  I’ll addthis. Muslims agree on the basics and fundamentals. We agree on the unity ofGod. The Christians can’t even agree on that most basic of points as I’ve demonstratedabove. The Muslims only disagree on minor points of some of the rituals,leadership after Muhammad, and application of some laws. Your point is mute.

--------------

CaringHeart:

“I find Jesus and Paul believablebecause there were outside witnesses in both cases.  Those with noinvestiture in supporting false stories.” 

My response:

Paul was an oppressor. He was outmurdering the followers of Jesus until he claimed to have had a vision. Hisbackground eliminates his reliability. 

Obviously Jesus is reliable. The Quranconfirms his authenticity.

But the synoptic gospels of the NewTestament were probably not recorded by the people to whom they are attributed.

Even the book of John states,

“Now this was John’s testimonywhen the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.” (1,19)

So, someone elseis writing about John.

Also, the rigor the Muslims used inauthenticating hadith of Muhammad were not used in authenticating hadith ofJesus.

As RememberAllah pointed out, they contradict,such as the genealogies in Mathew and Luke. 

----- 

CaringHeart:

The scripture that you quoted is animproper translation of Jeremiah 8:8
Here is the proper translation of Jeremiah 8:8 from KJV

 My response:

You’re putting the King James Version ashigher than the New International Version?

You’re putting the stylized 16xx and 17xxtranslations as higher. Very strange.

Here it is from the Complete Jewish Bibletranslation, 

“‘How can you say, “We are wise;
Adonai’s Torah is with us,”
when in fact the lying pen of the scribes
has turned it into falsehood?