Islam Is The True Religion

Propositions Under (1) Refutation of "Part One'I have warned the opponent of the future usage of circular logic and ignoratio elenchi, but since this has gone on, I shall address it.1.1 The worship of idols, whether the idol be a person who claims divinity or not, is often times based on rational reasoning; but a growing trend is presenting itself to be quite the contradictory. People are starting to use faith rather than rational reasoning; basing everything upon a set of self-proving propositions. For example, many Christians have used the Bible to justify a belief/faith of Christianity. We call these people faithful followers. Faithful followers must be distinctive from rational followers, who base their belief upon reason. 1.2 The opponent has also committed argumentum ad ignoratum; everything is objectifiable in these religions, henceforth Islam is the true religion; but that conclusion was not even reached. 1.3 But I shall beg the question as well, as it is completely neccesary to deduce from these questions the truth; why are there two different religions within one religion? Sunni and Shia'a; which one out of these are the true religion of Allah? How can you know for sure? How can you know that the Quran is the true book, when the words of the Quran has urged men to do acts of insane babarosity? 1.4 These questions shall remained unanswered, as it is a good demonstration of how Islam can be falsifiable.Propositions Under (2) Refutation of Part Two2.1 The opponent ignores the definitions given here; the qualities of a "true religion" must be an axiom developed from the definitions "true" which was defined, in round one, as "wholly true" But in refutation of these qualities, I shall provide alternatve rational qualities to provide a religion with a reasonable truth-factor.2.2 Quite simply, for a religion to be true, all of its saying has to be scientificially valid, empirically provable, and sensible. For any normal man can claim that God has touched him, and has told him the truth, but not all can make that a legitimate proposition.2.21 This arises as an axiom from the definition of true, as true has been defined as wholly. 2.3 These qualities are more reasonable than that of the opponent's, as not all religion teaches one to have a God; for a religion to be true, all three of these qualities must be satisfied definitely. For a religion to be false, only one of the five qualities of these must be satisfied.2.4 (On the Method of God of the Opponent) But I shall recognize the arguments of the opponent, briefly; opp. has outlined the "method of God" which seems to prove Islam true; but before doing so, the circular logic employed here is quite absurd, and I shall urge the opponent again to check the premises. 2.41 The methods of God are listed in the following; (1) consistent, (2) close to basic human nature, (3) clear belief-sprituality setting, (4) tackle all issues of life (and the afterlife), and (5) has to protect the value of the people. 2.411 But accordingly to the definitions of true, only quality 1 and 2 is relevant to this debate; and through this, it would be suffice to show that Islam lacks these two qualities. This shall be done so through through a threefold dialectical method; thesis-antithesis-synthesis.2.42 On Consistency (1): Consistency here has to be one with reality, as a true religion is true in reality, not fantasy. The thesis here is that Islam is consistent with reality; the antithesis presents itself with the opposite. The negation of the thesis will be proven empirically; as in round one, under propositions listed 3, there are many scientific fallacies in Islam. Fallacies on the generation of man, on geology, and of astronomy. Islam is inconsistent with reality; that is the only possible synthesis on consistency.2.43 On Human Nature (2): Human nature here is the study of humans and the nature of their actions; the study of the qualities that men are originally born with. The thesis of this is that human nature is described accurately in Islam. The antithesis is "Islam does not accurately describe the true nature of the human being" Firstly, Islam denies, more or less, of the doctrine of original sin. Under Islamic Philosophy, Humans are born into the world presupposed knowledge of a greator creator; "God" has given him innate ideas of himself. However, it would be suffice here to deny that any of this is true; childrens were born atheists. This is due to the fact that they have the abilities to use reasoning to deny the existence of God. Apart from this, if God were an innate idea, then all humans would have one concept of him; however, this is not the case, due ot the fact of the existence of pantheistic convictions/religions. 2.431 Apart from this, we can assent to showing that God is not an innate idea; for if God were an innate idea, then why does one need to come to a conclusion that He exists through many logical reasonings; if he is an innate idea, then there must be a universal assent to prove that God exists. For sexuality is an innate idea; so is alcoholism, and many other things. We cannot deny that sexuality exists, nor can we deny that alcoholism or many other innate ideas exist; but we can deny, with huge evidence, that God exists. With this, one may easily conclude that God cannot be an innate idea, as its existence is not "a shining sun to us"2.432 However, Islam also concludes that human are innately good; this is a false proposition. Humans are by nature egoistic; this is due to the fact that the process of natural selection is often ruthless, which makes man egoistic. For if humans were originally alturistic, then personal property would not be needed, as alturism urges man to share. However, this is false; it would also suffice to more or less say that the selfish nature of human beings would lead to the need of government, of regulation, and of law, for humans cannot be alturistic once given property. Corollary/Synthesis: With this say, it would be suffice to conclude that Islam's relationship with the true nature of man is false. 2.5 (Appendix on the Results of Not Following Islam) In concluding this, we must also find it suffice to conclude much of the oppositions prophecies false; for the many societies that were developed upon other values developed into great societies. That of the United States of America, founded on secular values, and of Ming China, founded on Confucian values are only some; if the opp. prophecies are true, then countries without Islam must be in a state of chaos and disorder. However, this is not the case, as proven in the previous sentences.Proposition on (3) Refutation of Part Three3.1 The Human does not know the truth about his spirit and being; another false statement based on false premises. For what if a man does not have a spirit; what if a man exists on earth, and only on earth. I shall suffice in refuting two fundamental facts about the spirit and the nature of being, as this will prove to be sufficient in denying the Islamic way of life legislation, or the Islamic Belief in an objective nature of existence. The fact that man exists can already be affirmed; but on the existence of an afterlife, I shall suffice in denying.3.11 P1. All states of existence can be empirically provenP2. The afterlife cannot be empirically provenC. Henceforth the afterlife does not exist3.2 The human being does not know that his spirit, his soul, exists; but through several functions, the human can induce into believing that the soul does not exist. For how can an immaterial object control a material object without the material object's full consent; how can consciousness be transferred from a man, to another, without the help of many physical apparatus(es). They cannot; but their is a more pressing issue. For if the spirit does not exist, then what does Islam ought to legislate? And how are these legislatures true in a sense?3.3 The human being knows that he exists, but he does not know the fundamental questions of the nature of his existence; and if there is an objective value for this, then why are there many philosophical movements that ought to answer them? If the Islamic God knows the nature of existence, and the idea of His existence is innate, then there should be an objective answer to the questions of the meaning of life et all. The human does not know the truth of the nature of his being; the human does not know the truth about the nature of the fundamental questions of life. But he can answer this question without the help of religion; there are secular metaphysical theories as well. 3.4 Islams does not conform to anything; if anything, it provides momentarily, temporary relief to pain and suffering. Let us make the analogy of a man who tries to cure a disease without knowing the cause of it; he may do all sorts of absurd things, but as long as he remains ignorance of the true causes of it, he may not come close to curing it. Human suffering is like a river that needs to be eradicated; we may build many dams, many dykes, but these may act only as a deterrance to the river. If the river is to be eradicated, then the causes of that river, whether it be the see, or the mountains, must be eradicated or deterred. Islam does not provide this; it provides the dams to deter suffering, it provides dykes to stop suffering. But it does not stop the flame of suffering; it does not stop the river of pain.Corollary: The true religion does one thing, but it also assumes another. The true religion's teachings are all infallible; yet the true religion also provides eradication of the flames of pain, suffering and envy. It enlightens man with the truth, but as proven, Islam does not do this.Henceforth, Islam is a false religion.