However the Muslims and Christians got together to debate the subject and as usual do a great job in pointing out why the other religion is flawed. If both of them were to accept the arguments of the opposition they would end up being Agnostic, the only real honest position.
Without further or do here is the debate:
Sam Shamoun a friend and Christian author has made some excellent responses to Mr Kundi made available here:
- http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/kunde/impotent.html
- http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/kunde/distortions1.html
- http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/kunde/trinity1.html
If you carefully note the first link Shamoun points out that Islam suffers from the same problem that Kundi attacks Christianity as having. Meaning God is bound and obligated to let believers into heaven, meaning he is impotent (not all powerful).
But the objection itself now applies to both religions. If we say that God is bound to granting believers into paradise, then God is forced to fulfill his promise and God is not free to change his mind. However if we say God is not bound to any promises or words, then God can be the greatest deceiver imaginable.
Either way God is either impotent or capricious deceptive God.
Clearly such a God (either way) is not worthy of worship.
One final problem, Sam Shamoun carefully (in the same link above) clearly documents that all these objections that Kundi levels at Christianity also apply to Islam, including the problem of original sin. Unfortunately for Mr Kundi Islam suffers from the same dilemma.
Hence we have two religions that are "illogical" (according to Kundi's words)
“Why do I say these things? Well, as I said, first of all the method of salvation is illogical, absolutely illogical. How’s it logical that somebody should be punished for something that, a) they didn’t do, because we assume that God wasn’t part of the whole original sin thing with Adam; that b) I should be punished for something I didn’t do because I didn’t eat in the garden. And that c) it’s the punishment of an individual who didn’t even commit the sin at all, who created the system in the first place and that sets it all back in motion. If you are kind of lost in what I am saying there, it’s because it doesn’t make sense.”Amen to that dear brother, amen to that!
Finally Kundi has also been recorded in the debate as saying:
“We also need to accept that it implies a limited God, a God that cannot hold the attributes of eternalness, being all-powerful, and also a unified God. Why? When we say that God is one in opposition to the Trinity, we don’t mean one in terms of the numerical one, that zero can come before it and two can come after it. We mean it in an absolute unity that is not describable in mathematical terms. And when we consider the Trinity, that actually applies a created aspect to God. You’re saying three; the number three in that two comes before it and four comes after it. There’s no way around this, it’s not a complex number. For those of you doing mathematics or science you’ll know it’s even been in the real number system, three. So you’re applying a created aspect to God, and there can absolutely be no such divine unity in that concept. Even if somebody came to you and said that God is one in the sense of the number one, that zero can come before it and two can come after it, that in itself is not even a proper unity, in terms of a godly unity. It’s very important to understand that point.” (Saviour of the World: Jesus or the Quran?)Sam Shamoun after pointing out Mr Kundi has blatantly misunderstood his own Islamic sources (indeed Allah is numerically one) has this to say:
It is once again evident that Muhammad was thinking in terms of the actual numerical system. There is simply no way of denying this fact. Muhammad obviously believed that Allah’s attributes could be numbered since he listed them as ninety-nine, and that these could be further divided much like in the case of mercy which Allah broke down into one hundred parts.(1)
Thus, Muhammad actually thought that Allah’s attributes are numerically ninety-nine in the sense that ninety-eight can come before it and one hundred can come right after it. Since this is what Muhammad clearly believed then, according to Kunde’s logic, there must be a created aspect to the Islamic deity since he is a being composed of real numerical limitations. As such, Allah is neither eternal nor is he omnipotent.
Now even though it's clear Shamoun rejects Kundi's conclusions. I find Kundi's argument to be plausible. Except Shamoun as pointed out, it applies to both Yahweh and Allah.
Hence we have another argument undermining the existence of Yahweh and Allah since they contain a created aspect and they have numerical properties rather than absolute singularity as you would expect an eternal being to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment