Scientific proof of god's existence

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by dbnp48, Jan 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    True, Skeptical, that there can even be more refutations if we are told even more specifics about the God being imagined and fabricated. There are even those who tell us what God is not, instead of what He is, such as “God is not definable”, and so they have said nothing—so, there is no definition and thus nothing to refute. The word ‘undefinable’ even means that there is no definition.

    These ill-defined notions further include “God is nature”, which restricts the Guy to being able to do only what natures does, which would be a limitation; “God made Himself”, which is a contradiction and just word play; “God is consciousness”, but consciousness is a brain process, which even comes last, not first; “God works in mysterious ways”, which is a catchall that permits God to do anything, whether unreasonable, crazy, or even against his own Ten Commandments; “God is outside of time”—then how was there a beginning of our universe and a sequence of further creations? “God is known by faith” but faith is a belief in the unknown, not the known, so there is nothing ‘known’; “God might exist” ‘means God’ is still undefined; what is it that might exist?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Chi, you have to do better than just making things up.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SciWriter Valued Senior Member



    We’re not worried about finding parts of the cross of Jesus since he was not divine, as many who were even there at the time didn’t think so, such as the Jewish, of which he was one. History then converted Him to Christianity, centuries later.

    Here, on my desk in the boiler room, I indeed have a sliver of the true cross, a small vial containing a drop of the Virgin Mary’s milk, a pebble from a moon rock, a smart thinking and talking cricket named Crick, the tip of the spear that pierced the side of the Saviour, a few molecules of immortal air from a pyramid in Egypt, some secret papers retrieved from the shaft of the bottomless CIA trash pit (of events that "never happened”), a thriving rose bush that was begun from Omar Khayyàm’s 11th century garden, ‘Flamberge’—Prince Valiant’s ‘Singing sword’ (twin to ‘Excalibur’), Thomas Jefferson’s briefcase, an original and intact Ming dynasty vase, the third [missing] tablet of the Ten Commandments, and, on the wall, hanging, the Devil’s epitaph, written by himself and now emblazoned on his tombstone: This Block of Ice in the Center of Hell is Really Fricken Cold.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    this is nullified if one factors in free will and the notion that the living entity is eternal beyond mere appearances of "innocence".
    and due to poor specificity, it becomes a classic type I error
    Not sure what you are specifically calling upon to suggest that the world is cruel or uncaring .... although being conditioned by material desire (ie absorbed in the false ego afforded by the body : ie viewing the world solely in terms of "I" and "mine") certainly does make a person cruel and uncaring.

    Because we have a desire for an (illusory) existence separate from god - IOW in order to act on our malignant desires , we require a world where god's existence is merely optional (even if its only one that functions like a virtual world - ie everyone gets fitted out with a generated avatar of functional yet minuscule proportions). You might suggest a better god wouldn't give the living entity such an option, but such a god would automatically be lesser since he wouldn't have given the facility for free will.
  8. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    'Free will' is a tough thing to figure as possible, for then actions would have no basis whatsoever, as they would be like miniature first causes, making us (or atoms) like air-heads, but, well… I guess that happens.

    I could see, though, how the fixed and will of the instant would have more options to draw on, due to wider learning having happened, but then still 'choosing' based on what we have become up to that time from our memories and associations, etc. (but, of course, not really willing the will to do something, as that happens subconsciously, it even taking 200-300 milliseconds to finish its analysis and producing a result that maybe we think was not 'freely' based on anything deterministic, although its seems it would have to be and even that we would want it to be)

    To me, 'undetermined' would be the opposite of 'determined', and could not an alternative that would have gone anywhere. Maybe there is a 'free will' thread going on somewhere. My will told me to say all this.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2011
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    It has a basis in the self, which I guess is a difficult term to factor in if one insists to exclusively use the language of atoms etc.

    according to their will people act in favour or against their previous experiences all the time.

    In fact you could say that intelligence, or a lack of it, is the ability to act according to one's previous experience (hence some people smoke cigarettes even after a tracheotomy)

    I think free will is about it being determined by the self (or a consequence of previous decisions determined by the self)
  10. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Free will is never absolute. To say we have free will is, of course, silly. What we have is a degree of free will. If my brother got AIDS, I would not have the free will to remove it. My free will in terms of behaviour is limited also. If I chose to commit murder, I would be punished.

    The argument put up by LG, I choose to compare to the acts of a loving parent towards his/her child. We limit the free will our children have, for their own good. I would not permit a child to have access to a poison cupboard.

    In exactly the same way, an omnipotent and loving deity would not permit its children (humanity) the free will to damn themselves. Nor would a loving and omnipotent deity permit innocent children to suffer needlessly. Yet we see that all the time, and free will is a pretty pathetic argument to rationalise it.
  11. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Believers have free will because their religion told them so; however, if it disagrees with God’s will, it’s burn, baby, burn!
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Having the resources to implement one's will is something else enitrely, but talking of having partial free will is like talking of being partially pregnant

    I don't think you understand what free will is.

    The term doesn't have much to do with physical constraints, since even a person tied up in a closet can still be possessed of the will to do otherwise ... in fact its common experience, the more you restrain them, the stronger their will gets

    BTW the child example is good since to really get them to understand the situation you would have to get them to absorb the knowledge of poisons in their value system to effectively teach them (and hence they wouldn't will to drink it in the first place)

    and he hasn't, since he has relegated all off the wall activity to a virtual world where the eternal living entity adopts a virtual identity to make an either (quite literally) an ass of himself or make the grade for real existence
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    gross materialists also have free will but unfortunately it doesn't amount to much more than a mouth full of rotting molars
  14. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    I once wondered if we even had a modicum of “free won’t”, for many thoughts do arise from simpleton or limited areas of the brain, like, “Kill that bad driver!”, but then this becomes global to the brain and so other brain areas may chime in, hopefully in a good way, but for impulsive-reactive-angry people; however, either way, the final result is what the self has amounted to in its total information of what to do. So I guess “free won’t” still has to go by who we are at the time, and fixed as, the neural votes getting counted, instead of having no basis. At least it’s democratic, expressing the express will of the self, with nothing else rigging the elected selection, it but still a foregone conclusion.

    ‘We’, I suppose, are just brains having thoughts, which must come from what’s gotten in there, which is a fine way to have it, compared to ‘random’ or no causal connection.
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    if you ever get done for road rage lets hope your lawyer comes up with something better ....
  16. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    'Temporary insanity' always seems to work, or having been abused as a child.
  17. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    There is still no general, all purpose plea "That my brain made me do it", but, if so, then we would still incarcerate in order to protect society from evil wills, not really just as punishment, yet still hoping that the prisoners would graduate with a different, better, fixed will, such as one towards goodness instead.
  18. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Also, people changing their behaviors would be because they have new info that now directs their choices to be otherwise. And even if we are employers, regents, gods, or parents who can coerce the will of our subjects, they still had the results of their own wills, but just couldn’t carry them out.

    We might not order a hamburger for dinner because we just had one for lunch, and it could even be that the conscious ‘I’ cannot even be aware of all the subconscious inclinations sitting in the self (brain), and, so when we have a thought we sometimes somehow think that it just came out of the blue, and, now and then, thoughts really do seem like that, which only shows that the ‘we’ (‘I’) didn’t will the will, but that it initiated itself, ruminating around in the vault, and only thereafter did ‘we’ hear about it.

    In writing or speaking, too, we might even have to read what we wrote or hear what we spoke to perhaps surprisingly note what we thought or knew,and, say, “Hey, that makes good sense! I didn’t even know I knew that.”
  19. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Plus, what is really meant by that “I talked to myself.”?

    Must be either our higher self saying to our lower self “What the hell were you thinking” or something like the ‘I’ of consciousness witnessing the results of the self (all that we are, and its leanings) as somehow being separate, “Have to stop driving and eat food right now!”, followed by “There are no exits for 30 miles. Be quiet.”
  20. GiantRob Registered Member

    Takes a DEEEEP breath...

    My thoughts on the subject:

    Religions are a construct of man for the control of man. As you will see in these brief histories of the "Big 3".. most religions.. and even the icons they revere.. were created by a vote.... or were assembled MANY years after the death of the person they tout as their symbol.



    Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism. In most Buddhist traditions, he is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (P. sammāsambuddha, S. samyaksaṃbuddha) of our age, "Buddha" meaning "awakened one" or "the enlightened one." The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE, but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.
    Gautama, also known as Śākyamuni ("Sage of the Śākyas"), is the primary figure in Buddhism, and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later

    He is also regarded as a god or prophet in other world religions, including Hinduism, Ahmadiyya and the Bahá'í faith.



    In 1985 Robert Funk convened the "Jesus Seminar" to investigate the "historical" Jesus. (The "historicity" of Jesus is a long-running debate over how much of what we know about Jesus qualifies as fact.) One of the first items on the agenda was to read through the gospels and decide which words that the gospels put in Jesus' mouth were things he actually said. The participants did this by discussing and then voting on them. An outcry was heard from conservative Christians who declared such decisions were too important to be put to something as prosaic as popular vote. But for the most part, that was exactly the way the modern Bible was assembled.

    Here's the story of how the various versions of the Bible came to be, insofar as we've been able to piece it together.


    The Pentateuch or Torah was accepted as Law very early--according to tradition, since the time of Moses, around 1250 BC, give or take a few decades. Most documentary scholars say bits and pieces were accepted as Law from early times, but that the books did not take final form until around 400 BC. Most traditionalist scholars say the whole Law dates to Moses, but agree that Ezra did some "editing" or clarification of minor discrepancies that had arisen, thus would also agree (roughly) on the date for final form. Whenever it was finalized--or possibly even before it was finalized--the Torah was accepted as canonical. For Judaism, it is the foundation.

    The other Old Testament books were all generally accepted as sacred by Jews from the time of their writing, but for a long time there was no formal determination of which books were essential (canonical), which were simply pious (though still sacred), and which were not sacred or divinely inspired at all.

    In 70 AD, as a result of continuing tension between the Jews and their Roman overlords, Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed along with the Temple. The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was a turning point in Jewish history. It remade Judaism. Where before Jewish life revolved around the Temple, sacrifice, and the priests, it now became more fragmented, centering on local communities and prayer, led by rabbis. Fragmentation meant that there was no longer any central authority to which Jewish leaders could refer.

    Around the time that Jerusalem was under siege, Rabbi Johannon ben Zakkai asked and received permission from the Romans to withdraw from Jerusalem and establish a place for Jewish study in a town near Jaffa that in Greek was called Jamnia (Jabneh in English, Yavneh in Hebrew--the current town of Yebna in Israel is built on the ruins). After Jerusalem fell, the academy became the center of Jewish learning. Scholars came there both to escape the destruction of Jerusalem and to debate how Judaism was to survive the loss of centrality. Naturally, a major point of discussion was what parts of Jewish literature were to be considered the word of God.

    The Torah was accepted as the writings of Moses, and hence the basis of Jewish life. For the other books, the issue was primarily whether each agreed with Jewish law and history as found in the Torah. Each book had to be meticulously read and dissected and any anomalies resolved before it could be accepted as having the authority of Scripture. For some books, like Joshua, Judges, Kings, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, the discussion was brief. For other books, like Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, the discussion was lengthy.

    One inevitable result of such critical investigation of existing material was the establishment of an officially recognized text, even if there weren't one before.

    Finally, around 90 AD, after much debate, 39 books were declared to comprise the Hebrew Bible, known to Christians as the "Old Testament." To Jews, of course, it's just the Bible. In one of the greatest successes of Jewish tradition, the list of canonical books has remained constant to this day. There are three large sections: Law (Torah or Pentateuch), Prophets (books telling the history of Israel, both histories and prophetic works) and Writings (psalms, proverbs, and wisdom literature).

    Today, there is considerable disagreement about the importance of the rabbinic school at Jamnia in the canonization of the Hebrew Bible. The process certainly began long before, and there is no doubt that some sections (like most of Prophets) were closed and accepted as canonical by the second century BC--the writings of the grandson of Ben Sirah, around 130 BC, clearly mention the Law, Prophets, and other writings as the divisions of sacred text. The school at Jamnia may have done little more than formalize decisions made long before, rejecting "newer" books such as the Book of Maccabees, despite the popularity of the holiday of Hanukkah that it commemorated.

    Jamnia didn't settle matters once and for all. It's known that texts with slight variations persisted until the second century AD, such as the Septuagint and the Samaritan versions. Furthermore, long after 90 AD, there were still debates about the canonicity of some of the sacred writings (again, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon). Even today, Ethiopian Jews include some books in their canon that mainstream Judaism excludes as apocrypha, such as Jubilees and Enoch.

    We don't know much about how the debate over canonization progressed. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance, dated from 100 BC to 70 AD, include all the books of the Hebrew Bible except Esther. Is that coincidence? Does that mean that the Qumran sect rejected the book of Esther? We will probably never know, but it's interesting that all other Biblical books (plus some others) were stored in the caves, long before Jamnia.

    At one time scholars thought there were two Jewish canons, one from Jerusalem and one from Alexandria in Egypt. However, it's now clear there was never a rival canon--an indication of how little we know about the canon's history.

    All we can say is that many scholars look to Jamnia and 90 AD as the point at which the Hebrew Bible was fixed. Others point to dates anywhere from 200 to 400 years earlier. We can only assert, with a fair degree of confidence, that the Hebrew Bible was certainly fixed by 90 AD and probably before that.


    The first part of the Christian Bible is called the Old Testament, and is largely the Hebrew Bible. However, knowledge of Hebrew was rare among the early Gentile Christians. Rather than attempt to create their own version of the Hebrew canon, they seem to have adopted what is called the Septuagint translation--a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible plus some other books, dating from around 250 BC. The Septuagint apparently was the Greek version most commonly available (it was the basis for the earliest Latin translations as well).

    Manuscripts of the Septuagint include texts in Greek for which no Hebrew versions exist. These are now called the Apocrypha.

    Origen was one of the very few early Christian scholars capable of working with Hebrew texts. He recognized that there were minor differences between the Septuagint text familiar to Christians and the Hebrew text used by Jews. He created the Hexapla, a massive "parallel columns" document comparing the Septuagint, other Greek translations, and the Hebrew versions.

    Jerome, when he came to work on his translation (known as the Vulgate or "common tongue" translation), denied that any text other than the Hebrew canon was an authoritative basis for the Old Testament. But his view did not prevail.

    The road to canonization of the New Testament was quite a bit rockier and quite the reverse of the Old. What ended in orthodoxy actually had its roots in heresy. While the Jews examined books to see if they were consistent with the main religious text (the Torah), the early Christians engaged in a more fundamental argument about what constituted Christianity and especially about the nature of Christ. Judaism was a centuries-old ancient religion with clear traditions. Christianity was new, had no tradition, and was torn with disagreement about what it was and what it should be.

    The chief competitor to what would become mainstream Christianity was Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that one did not need the intermediary of the church to experience God; that one could and should experience him firsthand if one knew the "secret tradition." One can easily see how this would threaten the orthodox church.

    But the Gnostics did give one important idea to the church. A second century Gnostic named Marcion gave us the first list of books he felt appropriate for a New Testament. It was very short, including only an edited Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's letters. Marcion was also extremely anti-semitic and thought that Christianity should be completely divorced from Judaism, going so far as to say that Jesus was not born of Jewish parents but sprang full-grown from the mind of God.

    None of Marcion's writings survived, having been expunged by the orthodox church. The only record we have of his activities are the church's attacks on him. But in setting out a canon he had planted an important seed. A literary fragment known as the Muratorian canon (named after Lodovico Muratori, who first recognized its importance) gave a list of possibly four Gospels and a major part of the rest of the New Testament. Other early Christian writers compiled other lists. Eventually church councils were held to determine a single set of books.

    The first officially sanctioned canon of the New Testament was attempted by Irenaeus of Lyon. Irenaeus saw the effect Gnosticism was having on Christianity and feared that the church was splintering into factions. Formalizing doctrinal authority seemed to be the answer. He felt there were two sources of authority: Scripture and the apostles. A work could be accepted as canonical if the early church fathers used it. He never really compiled a list of books, but he did establish the basis for subsequent determinations of orthodoxy.

    The work of Irenaeus was solidified by Bishop Eusebius some 150 years later, early in the 4th century AD. Eusebius was a prolific church historian who gave us most of what we know of early church history. He also gave us the first surviving list of New Testament books that matches what we have today, putting them in thematic order as well. Relying on the tradition of the church, Eusebius created what was probably the first Christian Bible as we know it today.

    In 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria under Constantine the Great, set forth what proved to be the final canon of New Testament books in a letter listing 27 works. In 382 AD, at a synod held at Rome under Pope Damasus, church leaders influenced by Jerome adopted this list. The list was affirmed in councils at Hippo in 393 and 419 AD under Augustine and was officially ratified at a council in Rome around 473 AD. However, that council added no books that had not already been included in most earlier lists, and excluded no books that had not already been excluded by most lists.

    The Greek Orthodox Church did not finalize its canon until the tenth century (primarily in doubt was inclusion of the book of Revelation). The Syrian Church had an even more complicated debate, and today recognizes only 22 books in its New Testament (excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The Copts and Ethiopians have a few additional books included in their New Testament.


    At the time of the Reformation, one of the main struggles between reformers and conservatives centered on the question of authority. To the reformers, the authority that had for centuries been held by the Church more properly rested with the Bible.

    Early Christians regarded several Jewish religious books as the Word of God even though they had been denied a place in the Jewish canon--Maccabees, for example. The early Christian church accepted these books as Scripture, ignoring the pronouncements from Jamnia as irrelevant. Since they were Old Testament books (pre-dating Jesus), part of the Christian canon but not part of the Jewish canon, the Edicts of Trent in 1546 called them the Second or Deutero canon.

    When Martin Luther reviewed Scripture during his break from Catholicism, he judged the contents of the Bible in the light of his convictions. He found a number of books difficult to reconcile with what he understood of the Gospel--specifically, II Maccabees, Esther, James, Hebrews, and Revelation. As the Cambridge History of the Bible puts it, "The test was whether a book proclaimed Christ. 'That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic, though it be the work of Peter or Paul; and conversely, that which does teach Christ is apostolic even though it be written by Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod.'" Thus the differences between the Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox bibles.

    Some English Protestants--specifically, the Presbyterians and Puritans--took matters a step further and rejected the Apocrypha. Article VI of the Anglican "Articles of Religion" says of the Apocrypha that "the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." The Westminster Confession, on the other hand, says the Apocrypha shall be "of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be otherwise approved, or made use of, than any other human writings."

    Consequently, Protestant bibles in English are most often printed without the Apocrypha. As a result, most Protestants in the U.S. are unfamiliar with the Apocrypha and consider it part of the Catholic Bible.

    It should be noted that there are other canons as well. The Mormon Church, for instance, has additional books in its canon and believes that the canon is NOT closed, but remains open.

    The Council Of Trent:
    The Council of Trent (Latin: Concilium Tridentinum) was the 16th-century Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. It is considered to be one of the Church's most important councils. It convened in Trent (then capital of the Prince-Bishopric of Trent, in the Holy Roman Empire, now in modern Italy) between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563 in twenty-five sessions for three periods. Council fathers met for the first through eighth sessions in Trent (1545–7), and for the ninth through eleventh sessions in Bologna (1547) during the pontificate of Pope Paul III. Under Pope Julius III, the council met in Trent (1551–2) for the twelfth through sixteenth sessions. Under Pope Pius IV, the seventeenth through twenty-fifth sessions took place in Trent (1559–63).
    The council issued condemnations on what it defined as Protestant heresies and defined Church teachings in the areas of Scripture and Tradition, Original Sin, Justification, Sacraments, the Eucharist in Holy Mass and the veneration of saints. It issued numerous reform decrees. By specifying Catholic doctrine on salvation, the sacraments, and the Biblical canon, the Council was answering Protestant disputes. The Council entrusted to the Pope the implementation of its work; as a result, Pope Pius V issued in 1566 the Roman Catechism, in 1568 a revised Roman Breviary, and in 1570 a revised Roman Missal, thus initiating what since the 20th century has been called the Tridentine Mass (from the city's Latin name Tridentum), and Pope Clement VIII issued in 1592 a revised edition of the Vulgate.
    The Council of Trent, delayed and interrupted several times because of political or religious disagreements, was a major reform council and the most impressive embodiment of the ideals of the Counter-Reformation. It would be over 300 years until the next Ecumenical Council. When announcing Vatican II, Pope John XXIII stated that the precepts of the Council of Trent continue to the modern day, a position that was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI.



    Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh (Arabic:; Transliteration: Muḥammad;[n 1] pronounced [mʊˈħæmmæd] ( listen); also spelled Muhammed or Mohammed)[ (ca. 570/571 – June 8, 632), (Monday, 12th Rabi' al-Awwal, Year 11 A.H.) was the founder of the religion of Islam, and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets, and, by most Muslims, the last prophet of Islam as taught by the Qur'an. Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action.
    Born in 570 in the Arabian city of Mecca, he was orphaned at an early age and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib. He later worked mostly as a merchant, as well as a shepherd, and was first married by age 25. Discontented with life in Mecca, he retreated to a cave in the surrounding mountains for meditation and reflection. According to Islamic beliefs it was here, at age 40, in the month of Ramadan, where he received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" to Him (lit. islām) is the only way acceptable to God, and that he himself was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as other Islamic prophets.
    Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly. To escape persecution, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Abyssinia before he and his remaining followers in Mecca migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, which is also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the conflicting tribes, and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to 10,000, conquered Mecca. In 632, a few months after returning to Medina from his Farewell pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and died. By the time of his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam; and he had united the tribes of Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.
    The revelations (or Ayat, lit. "Signs of God")–which Muhammad reported receiving until his death–form the verses of the Qur'an, regarded by Muslims as the “Word of God” and around which the religion is based. Besides the Qur'an, Muhammad’s life (sira) and traditions (sunnah) are also upheld by Muslims. They discuss Muhammad and other prophets of Islam with reverence, adding the phrase peace be upon him whenever their names are mentioned. While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and premodern times were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far less so. His life and deeds have been debated and criticized by followers and opponents over the centuries. He is revered as a true prophet and Manifestation of God in the Baha'i Faith.
  21. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned


    If you quickly do some searches on "the Prophet Isa" It will give you a better historical Look at the real Jesus. Numerous accounts of Isa from asian Temples exist. The missing years Of Isa's life are a so called mystery but his routes through asia and the middle east can be traced.

    The Holy Quran Also Confirms Isa as the real Jesus

    and corrects the Biblical mistakes of his god-hood and death on the cross, Judas is also hugely miss-represented in the bible as a betrayer of christ, when In the Quran it states judas wass most loyal and close to Isa and sacrificed his life in place so jesus can escape. The real sacrifice was of Judas for the sake of the Son of Man.

  22. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for the history of the Bible, Rob. Somebody (somebodies) wrote a best seller. Next, to be modern, He may come out with an original movie, or at least an inspired one, although it might be hard to beat 'The Dark Knight'.

    AT THE VATICAN IN THE PRESENT: The Pope drank a lot of wine when he heard about 'time', that the basis of All had no creation, it being an eternal consternation. Then, upon finding that the basis was but ‘nothing’, he brought even more wine out for the drinking. As he staggered up the steps to the frieze, he noted that bad things ever come in threes. Then it hit him, he sinking to his knees: the non-statistical universe of the precise balance of nil meant that there could be no free will. After a while, he rose, somewhat gladdened, realizing that at least everything must eventually happen.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page