Proof of the guidance of Mohammad and Ali.

[Jesster]

[pocaracas]

It seems you're wanting to say that the ultimate super being is incapable of properly showing each and every one of us that it exists...so it convinces a select few, who he then entrusts with the task of spreading his message.
First problem: how does a regular human distinguish a real "messenger" from and a pretend one?

Second problem: (looking a bit ahead) why is the messenger of choice always so imbued with cultural practices, instead of being an objectively outstanding good person? (Pedophile, war mongering... Just to name the usual two from your favorite messenger)

[Homeless Nutter]

What we will not be doing in this thread: We will not be discussing proofs of God. I have presented over the years many proofs and reminders that point to God and prove his existence. 

No, you haven't. All you presented over the years was the sound of one hand clapping. I imagine your other hand was usually busy around your naughty bits... I'm sure you had fun, but you failed to prove a thing.

What we will be taking for granted: We will take for granted God exists. I'm not going to argue how we know God is All-Great or All-Beautiful or All-Good. 

Oh, so basically - we're fantasizing. Neat. Can we also take for granted, that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and that gnomes wear tiny red hats?

What we will be arguing for:   1. The existence of Messengers and reasoning that affirms them. 2. The truth of Islam in particular. 3. The Leadership of the 12 Guides and Successors of Mohammad.

Yeah, good luck with that... Islam is horse-sh*t, just like all religions. Muhammad and his "guides and successors" were warring frauds.

/thread

[chimp3]

OK. Shall "we" establish a definition of proof vs. claim? Evidence is what is needed not proof , but "we" can communicate in the local idiom.

Claim : Water boils at 212 degrees F at sea level.
Proof(Evidence) : Repeated measurements of boiling water at sea level with a accurate thermometers.

[Doubting Thomas]

We will take for granted God exists.

OK, I'm out.  No use discussing anything with someone who's starting from an assumption.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have presented over the years many proofs and reminders that point to God and prove his existence.

No you haven't.

The not following the truth and being guided towards the truth, should not be fault of God, but a fault of ourselves. It should be due to our own injustice.

This does not logically follow from the premise "a god exists".

Now this has two options. God doesn't send revelation or miracles to prove the leaders he wants us to follow, but rather,  the leaders that guide to the truth are expected to guide us without revelation from God and people will follow them.  Now in reality, with simple observation, we can tell there is no such thing in reality.

Nor does any of this.

If we can just determine the truth from listening to various opinions, we would not need leaders.

Leaders don't determine truth. Reality determines truth and evidence and an understanding of logic determines knowledge.

In this case, God system of giving us intellect would be sufficient to guide us. Reality shows that humans are not all following the truth, and hence, even if intellect is sufficient to follow the truth,  we are need of being reminded and shown our errors.

None of this follows logically from the premise "a god exists" either.

That said if God guides to the truth, would he not be most worthiest of being followed? But we know we aren't talked to by God, and we know God can manifest people who do the guide to the truth by means of miracles.

Then it follows he should manifest those who guide by the truth if his system is that of guidance. 

Nor does any of this.

Furthermore, as there is no physical miracles,

Nor does this.

it follows that in this day and age, there is a different type of miracle.

No it doesn't.

This is necessary

How?

since guidance and leaders who guide to the truth have to have manifest proof and clear evidence. 

In order to what?

What that sign and proof should be declared by God, and that evidence should hold to scrutiny.  Not only that, but if it is a miracle and above the capability of humanity,  it is expected that God emphasizes on that, and challenges all mortals to imitate his miracle.

None of this follows from your premise of a god existing.

This is rational,

No it isn't. Jumping to conclusions like this is not rational.

because, the case for the religion must be made.

How come?

 It must emphasized, that this is a miracle,

What is 'it'? How is 'it' a miracle? How does 'it' exist?

and this your proof to the people so that people acknowledge the religion on truth. 

No it isn't. You started assuming a god's existence and then all your conclusions didn't follow logically from that at all: instead, you jumped to those conclusions.

And according to the same reasoning,

What reasoning?

due to the need of guidance,

How is there a need for guidance? What is guidance needed for if and only if there is a need?

the book must emphasize not to follow what we have no knowledge of and warn us against following men blindly and replacing the mastery of God with that of humans.

How come?

That is to say, religious leadership is something that belongs to God,

How?

it's his authority,

(My bold)

How is the god we assumed a he?

and hence, only those who God attributes purity to and manifests their chosen status can hold it.

This does not follow either.

A structure of society that follows revelation and the leaders he has appointed must also be explained,

What structure of society? What revelation? Revelation does not follow from the premise that a god exists.

Who says any leaders necessarily must be explained?

Furthermore outward marks are outward marks, and inward light and way, is the reason for all rituals and outward teachings,  if we are to follow God and guidance, it must not simply be at an outward level, but inwardly, we have to be shown the states to follow, and this only by the guidance of holy guides who have walked the way and have the power by virtue of their light, to guide people to the straight path.

None of this follows from a premise that a god exists.

This shows there is a guide in this day and age, and the manifest sign of his authority  and proof is either hidden or manifest. In this day and age we know it's hidden, but this cannot be the state forever, because obviously, manifestation of truth and this leader is a purpose humanity is meant for. That is to say humanity is meant to follow guidance.

None of this follows either.

Therefore there is a reason for the sign being hidden, and we all acknowledge that there are no physical miracles proving a guide and leader in this day and age, and hence, the true religion must have an explanation to why, and why we are going through this period.

Nor does any of this.

And regarding leaders after a founding Prophet, whether those leaders are Prophets or not Prophets, it's expect God manifests the true sect that follows the truth in bygone generations till now. That is to say,  if take for example, say Mohammad was sent by God, just as his successors would need proof of their number, so that later generations know which sect is right, the same is true of the past.

Nor does any of this.

And it's rational that there is a consistent number of how many successors to each founding Prophet of a nation. The opposite being irrational, that God picks various numbers at random, and that God would not emphasize on one number, as if he doesn't know which number is best, and as if he doesn't know what to pick.

Nor does any of this.

Now so far I have shown skeleton proof of religion.

No you haven't. And religion doesn't need proof religion already exists. God doesn't exist. We assumed a god exists for sake of argument in your premise but none of your conclusions followed from that premise.

There is more to it. And I will continue to show essential requirements for skeleton. 

You haven't got past step 1 "a god exists".

Then we will look if there is any religion out there but one that meets all criteria.

Looking at any of that would be a waste of time because you still haven't got past step 1.

None of your conclusions follow from your premise.

[Alex K]

So this thread isn't about Muhammad Ali at all, is it?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah. It isn't. Not at all. It isn't about the great legend Ali at all. I was majorly disappointed.

[Cato]

Most Muslims don't accept this, but you think a forum full of atheists will be convinced.

[Mystic]

I will begin to say, given God exists, we would expect his system that he has established such that it guides to the truth, because it doesn't befit a being worthy of worship to misguide as oppose to guide to the truth.  

Alasdair, I think this is the premise that I began with and you disagree with. The negation of it would be to say it can be that a being worthy of worship creates a system that doesn't guide them to the truth or manifest it.  Is this what you are arguing for?