Proofs- Muslim, it's you who has to prove. You are trying to prove a thesis "god does exist", therefore, you must prove all the assumptions that lead up to it. You can't say "If you don't prove god does not exist, then he does" that is a false proof. Absence of Evidence is not the same as Evidence of Absence. I am not trying to disprove the existence of God. Everyone knows that can't be done, because if god is both omnipotent and omniscient, it is certainly within his power to provide absolute proof of his non-existence and then exist anyway. Ergo, logically, no formal proof can disprove the existence of an entity that is itself not bound by formal laws of logic. But that does not prove that god exists, either. No god may exist, or many might. My thesis is "One or more super-natural beings may or may not exist" so I need not prove it- there is no absolute claim to prove. Likewise, "Time may be cyclical" needs no proof. It is a "may". "Is" or "Is not" are statements that need proof. As for copying the style of the Q'uran, it is a simple matter. Just give me a working definition of style and the parameters of it, and I will set it up for you. As I have already shown without even intending to, I can easily use more "L"s in a single passage without toungue-twisters than the Q'uran. What else would you like improved on? Be specific. One thing the Q'uran sadly lacks is translatability. If I were a supreme being writing a holy book I would not have made it so. The Tao Te Ching is far superior in that regard!

>>I am not trying to disprove the existence of God. Everyone knows that can't be done, because if god is both omnipotent and omniscient, it is certainly within his power to provide absolute proof of his non-existence and then exist anyway. Ergo, logically, no formal proof can disprove the existence of an entity that is itself not bound by formal laws of logic. But that does not prove that god exists, either.<< Can God create a rock that is heavier than it can lift? If so, it's not omnipotent. If not, it's not omnipotent. Can God learn? If so, it's not omnipotent *and* omniscient. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it's everywhere it can be to see and stop pain, suffering, and harm from occuring, so it's all-goodness is questionable. You CAN prove God doesn't exist. All you need is definitions of God to refute as contradictory.

"As I have already shown without even intending to, I can easily use more "L"s in a single passage without toungue-twisters than the Q'uran." First regarding, the "L's", the miracle of it isn't that it's not a tounge twister. If you spoke you Arabic, you would understand, the only way you can actually notice there are so many is if you counted them, otherwise some people could go on their entire lives reading that one single verse without noticing the constant repetition of that letter. Now if you say you can do it, then do it, the only rule is that it MUST be in arabic. Because that is the language it was writen in, and that is where the miracle is, if you take that same verse and translate it, it will lose that miraculous aspect. "One thing the Q'uran sadly lacks is translatability. If I were a supreme being writing a holy book I would not have made it so. The Tao Te Ching is far superior in that regard!" The only way the quran could still be miraculous when translated is if God himself revealed the translated version, why? Because the definition of a miracle isn't something a human does that is super-human, no,the definition of a miracle is an intervention from God that contradicts any law in the universe. Because God "wrote" the quran, they are his words, and we as humans with our limited capacity cannot translate the word of God while keeping it's godly aspects, it just doesn'tmake any sense in any context. If I write a book in Arabic, and you translate it to english, is the translation my book? Are the english words mine? No, they are your's you wrote with your knowledge of both languages. That's why the quran isn't a miracle when in a different language, because the words are no longer God's words, they the word's of a translator. "What else would you like improved on? Be specific" The "L's" aren't the only miracle in the quran as you probably know, there are many books out with an explanations to many miracles in the Quran, some are scientific, some are linguistic, it would be much better for me and you if I bring you some from those books. give me a few days. As for time and God, if anyone can prove one outlook to each of these, would you then reject the other possabilities?

"Can God create a rock that is heavier than it can lift?" Boy I wish I keep notes on these things.... I just had a discussion about this with someone else, and he explained to me the flaw in that question, I just cannot remember it. But there is a flaw in that question that makes it impossible for it to be used to disprove the existence of God, the same flaw applies to the second question. I should be able to get this in a day or two. "If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it's everywhere it can be to see and stop pain, suffering, and harm from occuring, so it's all-goodness is questionable." Just because God doesn't do something you expect him to do it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Big flaw in your argument here. And besides, how can God be all-good? Good and evil are creations of God, he is neither good nor evil. A similar question to yours is: If God is all-good, how can he create evil, or evil creatures like satan? You are assuming God is good, and everyone who says God is good is making the same mistake. It places a limitation on an unlimited. If you say God is good, that means there is a criteria that God is judged by, and that is Good and evil. Anyways, all your questions do is question the definition of God, not His existence. Regardless, your questions are flawed, I showed you the flaw in one, the other two will follow soon.

"Can God create a rock that is heavier than it can lift?" >>Boy I wish I keep notes on these things.... I just had a discussion about this with someone else, and he explained to me the flaw in that question, I just cannot remember it.<< Please do. I see no flaw in asking if a entity without limitation on his power can do something that exceeds his power, other than the flaw it reveals in theistic definitions of God being omnipotent. This is also relevant to your argument from "source." If God created the universe yet is outside the universe, then you have one existing thing (God) creating two existing things (God + universe), something you yourself argue correctly is impossible. >>But there is a flaw in that question that makes it impossible for it to be used to disprove the existence of God, the same flaw applies to the second question. I should be able to get this in a day or two.<< Cool. "If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it's everywhere it can be to see and stop pain, suffering, and harm from occuring, so it's all-goodness is questionable." >>Just because God doesn't do something you expect him to do it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Big flaw in your argument here. And besides, how can God be all-good? Good and evil are creations of God, he is neither good nor evil.<< I wasn't aware that the Muslim God was amoral, but tht does make sense. >>A similar question to yours is: If God is all-good, how can he create evil, or evil creatures like satan? You are assuming God is good, and everyone who says God is good is making the same mistake. It places a limitation on an unlimited. If you say God is good, that means there is a criteria that God is judged by, and that is Good and evil.<< It is the Judeo-Christian conception of God. It's not me making the claim that Muslims worship the same God. >>Anyways, all your questions do is question the definition of God, not His existence. Regardless, your questions are flawed, I showed you the flaw in one, the other two will follow soon.<< Perhaps you should define God for your argument.

you yanks have no respect for muslims and you wonder why we cheer at events like sept 11

"Please do. I see no flaw in asking if a entity without limitation on his power can do something that exceeds his power, other than the flaw it reveals in theistic definitions of God being omnipotent. This is also relevant to your argument from "source." If God created the universe yet is outside the universe, then you have one existing thing (God) creating two existing things (God + universe), something you yourself argue correctly is impossible." Just wait, I'll bring it. "I wasn't aware that the Muslim God was amoral, but tht does make sense." From Merriam Webster: the definition of amoral: "1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply" So I guess you are right, Allah is outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply, after all, he created that sphere. "It is the Judeo-Christian conception of God. It's not me making the claim that Muslims worship the same God." This is dealing with the definition of God, not of God Himslef. Everybody worships the same God, wether they are polytheists, or monotheists; just in their own ways. The question does God like the fact that He is worshiped a 1000+ different ways? "Perhaps you should define God for your argument." Well merriam wbster lacks the proper definition, so I'll just state it. God is a being (for lack of a better word), above all limitations, whether physical, spiritual, mental, (don't know what else is there). God is all-knowing, He is the creator, the judge, always was and always will be, the strongest, the life giver, sees all and hears all, the fairest of all, and like a judge, he rewards ALL those who desrve reward and punishes ALL who deserves punishment. I think that pretty much covers it. More will come to me later, we obviously can't cover it all.

"Please do. I see no flaw in asking if a entity without limitation on his power can do something that exceeds his power, other than the flaw it reveals in theistic definitions of God being omnipotent. This is also relevant to your argument from "source." If God created the universe yet is outside the universe, then you have one existing thing (God) creating two existing things (God + universe), something you yourself argue correctly is impossible." >>Just wait, I'll bring it.<< Perhaps we should start over. Present your entire argument, from premises to conclusion. "I wasn't aware that the Muslim God was amoral, but tht does make sense." >>From Merriam Webster: the definition of amoral: "1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply" So I guess you are right, Allah is outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply, after all, he created that sphere.<< Whether there is a God, much less one that created the "sphere of morality" remains to be proven by you. But the Muslim concept of God being independent of morality leaves you with no way whatsoever to judge the actions of your Muslim terrorist co-religionists with morality, nor damn them to hell. Are you saying that the Muslim God is indiscriminate and motiveless when he throws people randomly into Hell? "It is the Judeo-Christian conception of God. It's not me making the claim that Muslims worship the same God." >>This is dealing with the definition of God, not of God Himslef. Everybody worships the same God, wether they are polytheists, or monotheists; just in their own ways. The question does God like the fact that He is worshiped a 1000+ different ways?<< If only Muhammad was as open-minded as you. "Perhaps you should define God for your argument." Well merriam wbster lacks the proper definition, so I'll just state it. >>God is a being (for lack of a better word), above all limitations, whether physical, spiritual, mental, (don't know what else is there). God is all-knowing, He is the creator, the judge, always was and always will be, the strongest, the life giver, sees all and hears all, the fairest of all, and like a judge, he rewards ALL those who desrve reward and punishes ALL who deserves punishment. I think that pretty much covers it. More will come to me later, we obviously can't cover it all.<< Maybe you should use the 99 names.

"Perhaps we should start over. Present your entire argument, from premises to conclusion. " I don't see how that's neccessary. "Whether there is a God, much less one that created the "sphere of morality" remains to be proven by you. But the Muslim concept of God being independent of morality leaves you with no way whatsoever to judge the actions of your Muslim terrorist co-religionists with morality, nor damn them to hell. Are you saying that the Muslim God is indiscriminate and motiveless when he throws people randomly into Hell?" There is another aspect I forgot to mention about God, and that is that he is completly objective. He doesn't put anyone in hell unless they deserve it, and He doesn't put anyone in heaven unles they earned it or are excused in different ways (like children, the mentally retarted, the one who was never introduced to the truth, and so on). Anyways, this is starting to slowly move to why we as humans need messengers and religions, and why God created us, we can't get into that until we finish the discussion about God himself. ">>This is dealing with the definition of God, not of God Himslef. Everybody worships the same God, wether they are polytheists, or monotheists; just in their own ways. The question does God like the fact that He is worshiped a 1000+ different ways?<<" AK: "If only Muhammad was as open-minded as you." What's so open-minded about what I said? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind being called open-minded, but I don't think you would've said that if you understood what I just said. Just because everyone prays to the same God, whether they admit it or not, it doesn't mean that we can worship God anyway we want to. We woeship God the way God wants to be worshiped, otherwise, I can just eat a carrot and claim to be worshiping God. So the fact of the matter is just because there are a 1000+ ways to believe in God, it doesn't mean that all those ways are correct. There is only one God, and only one way to look at Him, I say God says Islam is the way, christians say God says Jesus is the way, and Jews say judaism is the way, plus whatever the rest claim. For now, there is nothing we can do about all of these differences, we can try to prove our side to the others, but not with a sword or a nuke. In the day of judgement, God will grant heaven to those who deserved it. BTW, just because someone is muslim it doesn't gurantee him a front row seat to enter heaven, he is still accountable for ALL his actions, just like the rest of humanity. "Maybe you should use the 99 names." I was thinking the same thing, but since you already know of them, there is no real need for me to post them. Go read them, and you will have Islam's definition of God.

"Perhaps we should start over. Present your entire argument, from premises to conclusion. " >>I don't see how that's neccessary.<< I thought it would be helpful to us if everything "in your hand" was on the table. You know my disagreements and caveats to agreeing with your premises, so you (should) know why the existence of God doesn't logically follow from your stated premises. "Whether there is a God, much less one that created the "sphere of morality" remains to be proven by you. But the Muslim concept of God being independent of morality leaves you with no way whatsoever to judge the actions of your Muslim terrorist co-religionists with morality, nor damn them to hell. Are you saying that the Muslim God is indiscriminate and motiveless when he throws people randomly into Hell?" >>There is another aspect I forgot to mention about God, and that is that he is completly objective. He doesn't put anyone in hell unless they deserve it, and He doesn't put anyone in heaven unles they earned it or are excused in different ways (like children, the mentally retarted, the one who was never introduced to the truth, and so on).<< Perhaps it would be helpful here if you could explain how the Muslim God is "objectively" above notions of "good" and "evil" (or "right" and "wrong," if you prefer) but extremely subjective towards those it selects to throw into Hell for "deserving" it. Especially if you credit the Muslim God as the origin of both "good" and "evil." Objectively speaking, if Muslim God is responsible for the options set before men to choose, and Muslim God itself is amoral, by what standard does it judge what men "deserve," if not a random, indiscriminate one that by definition cannot include good, evil, right, or wrong in it's "checklist?" >>Anyways, this is starting to slowly move to why we as humans need messengers and religions, and why God created us, we can't get into that until we finish the discussion about God himself.<< Well, we've established that the universe functions quite nicely without a God's intevention and clearly has everything in its makeup to explain why it doesn't require a God for its origin (especially if we're in an oscillating universe). And by stating Muslim God is *amoral,* we've established that God can never be righteous and good or malicious and evil in its whimsical decisions to exercise its alleged power, so, at this point in the discussion, we've got a God who does nothing, for no reason. Not exactly what you're trying to prove, is it? ">>This is dealing with the definition of God, not of God Himslef. Everybody worships the same God, wether they are polytheists, or monotheists; just in their own ways. The question does God like the fact that He is worshiped a 1000+ different ways?<<" AK: "If only Muhammad was as open-minded as you." >>What's so open-minded about what I said? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind being called open-minded, but I don't think you would've said that if you understood what I just said. Just because everyone prays to the same God, whether they admit it or not, it doesn't mean that we can worship God anyway we want to. We woeship God the way God wants to be worshiped, otherwise, I can just eat a carrot and claim to be worshiping God. So the fact of the matter is just because there are a 1000+ ways to believe in God, it doesn't mean that all those ways are correct. There is only one God, and only one way to look at Him, I say God says Islam is the way, christians say God says Jesus is the way, and Jews say judaism is the way, plus whatever the rest claim. For now, there is nothing we can do about all of these differences, we can try to prove our side to the others, but not with a sword or a nuke. In the day of judgement, God will grant heaven to those who deserved it.<< There's the catch. If God is *amoral* there is no right or wrong, good or evil way to worship or not worship it, nor does it possess any equitable means of determining who deserves what. God, much like the religions who claim to correctly point to him, seems rather useless. You have to pretend there's a God, then you have to pretend there's a heaven and hell after death, then you have to pretend there's a reason men go either way. Lots of pretending, still nothing about reality. >>BTW, just because someone is muslim it doesn't gurantee him a front row seat to enter heaven, he is still accountable for ALL his actions, just like the rest of humanity.<< And if God is neither good nor evil, he can't judge the actions of men, much less author laws to determine who broke them. What are you going to do, if and when you get to your idea of heaven, and you see me there, still laughing at the idea of God's existence? (Don't worry, this is just a hypothetical, I'm actively trying everything thing I can to stay in my grave when I die, and "God" will get a dessicated thumb in its eye if he dares ressurect me...) "Maybe you should use the 99 names." >>I