Why logical arguments for Messengers don't work.

[Mystic]

Maybe not clear enough to me as of yet. An example may help. The Torah relates many apparently historical events in which God commands the ancient Israelites to commit actions that today seem morally repugnant. Are these the kinds of teachings to which you refer? There is also a problem with setting up a circular argument. If the book serves as our moral guide, then how can we judge the goodness of its teachings without referencing the book itself.

I will give on example. A person might see Hijaab as unfair treatment to women.  However, does he have objective knowledge of the issue that he knows there can't be good and wisdom in it, that would justify the command?

Rejecting a book simply from our ignorance to understand some laws doesn't make sense. However, if the book taught to kill people who leave the faith for example, to me that latter perhaps can be proven objectively to be evil and that it's impossible God would command such a command.

Perhaps I think differently. If I say that all that is good comes from God, then when someone does something good they are, whether they know it or not, representing God. 

I meant by representative as one who must be obeyed in totality because he represents God's will and has proven to be such. 

There is a riddle goes like this: Can God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it? The best answer given (by Pascal, I think) is yes. That stone is the human heart.  The proofs and demonstrations are there for all to see. You have presented many of these proofs and demonstrations yourself. The problem is that no one, God, can compel love. Diffidence and obedience can be forced upon someone, but love cannot. 
As for me, I do not come to you with mysterious feelings. All I am saying is that there are deep intellectual traditions within both Christianity and Islam. We cannot be experts in both and, as for me, I’ve only scratched the surface of the Patristic literature and consider myself a far cry from being an expert in it. And yet I can recognize sound reasoning, as you clearly can. 

I agree with what you said. But before someone ought to seriously study a religion, shouldn't that religion claim to have overwhelming evidence it is true? Given that God can write a book that is well in itself beyond human capability, can't he write it in a way that has amazing qualities and be recognized as such?

These qualities would not simply be manifest to those have the holy spirit guiding them, but to people in general. That which is manifested to the heart through the holy spirit is important component.

But if we are going to tell people, only if you are guided by the holy spirit can you see my book to be truth, God is not giving his religion much of a discussion.

I believe miracles still happen. They serve as testimony for those who experience them, but I agree that they cannot be authoritative beyond those witnesses.

I agree, but what I meant was the type that proves a specific guide's authority in this day and age, to the masses.

That’s a bit harsh. Do you not agree that in order to attain knowledge of any kind a seeker must be adequately prepared to receive it? Why should God respond to arrogant demands from His Creations? Is it not fitting and proper that He would only reveal Himself to those who approach Him with humility?

Humbleness is needed to accept truth of God and the path of submission to him, but if all God is leaving us with is preaching "be humble, seek God, and then you will find out his true religion"...he isn't leaving us with anything really in terms of discussion of religion.

Also a general argument for the need of religion is not sufficient, if there isn't proof of the specific religion. That said I do agree we ought to ask God, seek God, and knock on God's door, but that should hardly be brought up in a dialogue as it makes the conversation rather heading no where, and comes off as preaching with no substance.

Respectfully, how is this different from the mysterious feelings that you consider a joke?

Because it is manifested to everyone, not only those who have the holy spirit. For example, even the Arabs of of those who worshiped Jinn, etc, had their own philosophy, were in awe of the eloquence and style and speech of the Quran. 

It's important we recognize God's teachings by the holy spirit, that is next level of faith, however, all you give is to dialogue is that picture will become a masterpiece when you are guided by the holy spirit leaves nothing in room of dialogue to humanity to proving the right religion.  It's all about witnessing it personally. And that is not something that ought to unite humanity.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Let me preface by saying that in the early Christian thought, the traditional canon were not considered revealed texts (with perhaps the exception of the Apocalypse and parts of Genesis); but rather, testimonies to the revelation. God revealed Himself through historical events and his interactions with His people throughout the ages. I think this is very different from how Muslims (as I see it) revere the Koran as an actual revealed text, a direct transcription of God’s message.
If I am mistaken on this please correct me.

I will give on example. A person might see Hijaab as unfair treatment to women. However, does he have objective knowledge of the issue that he knows there can't be good and wisdom in it, that would justify the command…However, if the book taught to kill people who leave the faith for example, to me that latter perhaps can be proven objectively to be evil and that it's impossible God would command such a command.?[/quote}
God may give paradoxical and seemingly arbitrary commands that upon deeper reflection prove to be wise. Maybe the Hijaab is one such admonition. At the same time, I think you are putting people in a double bind. People must accept some teachings they believe unwise, presumably based on their own rational evaluation. Yet people must reject teachings that reason suggests are unwise, if not actually evil. If people can determine the wisdom and value of certain behavior based on reason (the same reason they use to evaluate the truth of a text) then why do they need the book in the first place.
[quote='MysticKnight' pid='1162116' dateline='1452006555']Rejecting a book simply from our ignorance to understand some laws doesn't make sense.

Acceptance and rejection are not the only options. Someone may not care to invest the time and effort to investigate it. For example, I do not fault anyone for not embracing Scholastic philosophy like I have but I feel that it is very wrong for them to disparage and condemn it without at least some understanding of it. I do not know enough about the Quran to condemn it any more than I could review a movie I never saw. Then there is the question of the degree to which it is accepted. Even in my ignorance, I can accept, based on your testimony and those of other Muslims I know, that the Quran may have much wisdom in it.

I meant by representative as one who must be obeyed in totality because he represents God's will and has proven to be such.

Where then does Jesus of Nazareth fit into this definition? Christians most certainly believe He fully conformed to the will of the Father and that for this reason must be obeyed. My guess is that you would dispute the history of Jesus’s death and resurrection.

…before someone ought to seriously study a religion, shouldn't that religion claim to have overwhelming evidence it is true?

That puts the cart before the horse. Knowledge of the truth is the result of study. If you already know something is true because of overwhelming proof why investigate? Why would you need learn about something you already know?

Given that God can write a book that is well in itself beyond human capability, can't he write it in a way that has amazing qualities and be recognized as such? [snip]… it is manifested to everyone, not only those who have the holy spirit. For example, even the Arabs of those who worshiped Jinn, etc, had their own philosophy, were in awe of the eloquence and style and speech of the Quran.

The point isn’t whether God could write the most eloquent and beautiful book ever written. He could. The first question is whether He actually has. The second question is whether the Quran is just such a book. I do not feel that awe and eloquence are sufficient to justify calling something Divine. Like many, I am awed by the music of Mozart and Bach. The beauty of their music seems beyond human capacity and yet they were just men. Maybe I would feel differently if I could read Arabic.

Also a general argument for the need of religion is not sufficient, if there isn't proof of the specific religion. That said I do agree we ought to ask God, seek God, and knock on God's door, but that should hardly be brought up in a dialogue as it makes the conversation rather heading nowhere, and comes off as preaching with no substance.

This raises the question of substance, yes? What is the nature of the content under consideration? What is the purpose of the revelation? Big questions, not enough time.

[Whateverist]

Happy for you both to be able to have a satisfying exchange of word walls here at AF.

[Mystic]

Let me preface by saying that in the early Christian thought, the traditional canon were not considered revealed texts (with perhaps the exception of the Apocalypse and parts of Genesis); but rather, testimonies to the revelation. God revealed Himself through historical events and his interactions with His people throughout the ages. I think this is very different from how Muslims (as I see it) revere the Koran as an actual revealed text, a direct transcription of God’s message.
If I am mistaken on this please correct me.

I hear different things about this from Christians. Some people believe the inspirations were like revelations, others more like inspirations but not so much like revelations. I'm not sure what the official stance is. But in my belief, Prophets come with clear proofs, the book (God's Name), and scriptures that reveal his book (God's Name), as well as a path, a code/law, and some of them get an extra quality of coming with guiding companionship role in the journey.
At the end, not everyone in the world always has access to scripture, but there were always effects of the sacred, that people can think, surely there is a Guide who God can guide me to in my journey. This specially if you believe the journey is of unseen road.

God may give paradoxical and seemingly arbitrary commands that upon deeper reflection prove to be wise. Maybe the Hijaab is one such admonition. At the same time, I think you are putting people in a double bind. People must accept some teachings they believe unwise, presumably based on their own rational evaluation. Yet people must reject teachings that reason suggests are unwise, if not actually evil. If people can determine the wisdom and value of certain behavior based on reason (the same reason they use to evaluate the truth of a text) then why do they need the book in the first place.

I think there is categories: 
That which we can see clearly to be evil or good.
That which we need insight from God to see good or evil.
That which we need guidance in the unseen to see the reality of to see if good or evil.
That which we can't determine no matter how much we try but yet God knows the law is best for us.

Acceptance and rejection are not the only options. Someone may not care to invest the time and effort to investigate it. For example, I do not fault anyone for not embracing Scholastic philosophy like I have but I feel that it is very wrong for them to disparage and condemn it without at least some understanding of it. I do not know enough about the Quran to condemn it any more than I could review a movie I never saw. Then there is the question of the degree to which it is accepted. Even in my ignorance, I can accept, based on your testimony and those of other Muslims I know, that the Quran may have much wisdom in it.

This is fair.

Where then does Jesus of Nazareth fit into this definition? Christians most certainly believe He fully conformed to the will of the Father and that for this reason must be obeyed. My guess is that you would dispute the history of Jesus’s death and resurrection. 

It's about there being conclusive proof from God that "this and this" is all the teachings of God. I don't believe any religion has that way once the Guide on earth goes into hiding except by you getting guide by the Guide of time, directly.  I believe Jesus once had a revelation in a form of a book, that was similarly beyond human capability. I believe such a book was lost over time.
I believe the Mahdi and Messiah Jesus returning, ancient revealed books will be brought to humanity, then we can see the true quality of all of God's revelations as they were revealed, were well beyond human and were written in eloquent way beyond human capability.

That puts the cart before the horse. Knowledge of the truth is the result of study. If you already know something is true because of overwhelming proof why investigate? Why would you need learn about something you already know?

Knowledge of the truth is the result of the study. But out of so many religions out there, why should I take a religion seriously that doesn't claim to have this overwhelming evidence and signs and proofs in it's favor. Sure I can study it, but it should have it's followers claiming there is a manifest miracle for it.

The point isn’t whether God could write the most eloquent and beautiful book ever written. He could. The first question is whether He actually has. The second question is whether the Quran is just such a book. I do not feel that awe and eloquence are sufficient to justify calling something Divine. Like many, I am awed by the music of Mozart and Bach. The beauty of their music seems beyond human capacity and yet they were just men. Maybe I would feel differently if I could read Arabic.

The point is if God can do miracles, but provides none, why? For example, in the past, if a Prophet came and people demanded a clear proof for his claim. Would God give him a miracle or leave him empty handed? The answer is a miracle.

Today we claim this religion is the religion of a Prophet of God that is true. Why does God leave us empty handed? No proof in form miracle today, why not when he can?
 

This raises the question of substance, yes? What is the nature of the content under consideration? What is the purpose of the revelation? Big questions, not enough time.

There is plenty of time.

Substance is important of course, and is vital aspect of it.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The arguments for God sending Messengers would be legitimate unless there was a better reason as to why God would not send Messengers.

Now one of these reasons potentially can be that after the Messenger passes away, the miracles over time cease to be proofs, and that people will no longer have proofs to believe in. It also can be that the religion can be corrupted by humans, so that the message, is no longer the message of God.

Now the Quran argument that it's unique form proves it to be divine and the arguments that it's been protected by numerous transmission, would counter argue those arguments, but it would make the arguments for Messengers irrelevant.  This no human can bring the like of it argument would have to be true of revelations of the past as well.

But essentially, the independent arguments for Messengers would not be true.  The same can be said about Christianity. If there is no way to know the Bible is true via the holy spirit, all arguments of why God would send Messengers, do the sacrifice, etc, would be irrelevant.

Here's why your god doesn't really send messengers: it's because he doesn't really exist - that is probable!

If your god is in fact both all-powerful, omnipresent, and perfect, then why would he waste the resources sending anyone else to get his message across? Especially with being perfect and all, he would know more than anyone else if you want it done right...what better reasons do you need for god not to rely on some mortal shithead with his messages, knowing he will only fuck it up?

[robvalue]

He either doesn't want the message to be clear, or he can't make it clear.

If we are incapable of understanding his message directly from him, then that's a design flaw. He should have made us so we could. Why does he love setting things up to fail?

A supreme being really shouldn't need excuses made on his behalf for why the results look like either an incompetent being, or him not even existing.