[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[The Architect Of Fate]

Buddhism and Jainism reject any supernatural creator, therefore they won't be a significant upgrade over nonbelief

But they do have a number of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs .And the presence or lack of a creator does not make them better or worst 

I already gave two sufficient reasons to reject christianity and judaism. The first claims three gods in one, the second has absolutely no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil.

1. Plenty of Christians have successfully defended the trinity by the same standard you have defended your nonsense .

2.Yours doesn't either .Simply chanting freewill over an over isn't an answer

---

It's well defined and yes it happened if you stories are true

---

Nah i'll stick o the fact that i have a sound case and all you have is evasion and empty rhetoric

---

Logic proves it and again for refutation you are a lazy apologist most at least try and defend this one

How old are you kid ? If you want to increase your messages counter try that elsewhere please.

Buddy i'm far older then you .And note you have yet to say anything of substance just empty chest thumping .Lazy, lazy, lazy apologetics .

You are free to leave at any time

[R00tKiT]

But they do have a number of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs .And the presence or lack of a creator does not make them better or worst

Creators are what matters, if you want to join a bunch a metaphysical bric-a-brac with no answer to the big questions be my guest.

1. Plenty of Christians have successfully defended the trinity

The trinity is unsuccessful, it's utter logical impossibility. Defending it successfully isn't possible. Attempting clever (but ultimately stupid) answers against me isn't either

2.Yours doesn't either .Simply chanting freewill over an over isn't an answer

I already explained how it does. Go read the other 20 pages before things get too much for you to handle.

Buddy i'm far older then you .

Makes sense. It appears you lost your touch a while ago.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Creators are what matters, if you want to join a bunch a metaphysical bric-a-brac with no answer to the big questions be my guest.

Funny that sounds like your religion and nothing you offer is any better  and no creators don't matter .

The trinity is unsuccessful, it's utter logical impossibility. Defending it successfully isn't possible. Attempting clever (but ultimately stupid) answers against me isn't either 

Well thousands of Christian  philosophers with PHD 's  have written whole books on the matter disagree kindly take it up with  them .Nah all my answers have been spot so just keep pretending your the ultra apologist.

I already explained how it does. Go read the other 20 pages before things get too much for you to handle.

Actually i have read this whole thread and just like ever other proponent of the free will defense you didn't explain anything so what's there to handle boy

Makes sense. It appears you lost your touch a while ago.

Nope never been more sound of mind sonny and on my worst day i can run rings around you child

[R00tKiT]

Funny that sounds like your religion and nothing you offer is any better  and no creators don't matter .

Okay, become a buddhist then. I won't do your homework for you, specifically you should look for the truth yourself instead of downgrading every line of my answer by some stupid comment.

Well thousands of Christian  philosophers with PHD 's  have written whole books on the matter  disagree kindly take it up with  them .Nah all my answers have been spot so just keep pretending your the ultra apologist.

Fair enough. Leave then and let the christian philosophers with PhDs reply in your place and defend the undefendable. They would even make less sense than your answers.

Actually i have read this whole thread and just like ever other proponent of the free will defense you didn't explain anything

First of all, there's no shred of sound case against free will made in this thread. Second, you're the ones claiming a contradiction between omnipotence and free will, not me. Third, there were some good points discussed here regarding the Qur'an challenge and the very high implausibility of Muhammad being a fake prophet, so you might want to address that to occupy yourself.

[EgoDeath]

Buddhism and Jainism reject any supernatural creator, therefore they won't be a significant upgrade over nonbelief.

Okay, there's a couple of problems here. First, some forms of Buddhism do accept the concept of having one divine creator, and many forms of Buddhism believe in a host of different mortal gods, spirits and other entities. Prayers and incantations are abundant in many forms of Buddhism. So, while god is not a central idea in most Buddhist traditions, some sects of Buddhism do believe in a god.

In Jainism, there is no personal god, but they do believe in five types of supreme beings that they pray to and consider to be authorities in their religion.

So, why is Islam superior to these two?

Why should I consider the belief in a supernatural creator to be the desirable component when choosing a religion?

I already gave two sufficient reasons to reject christianity and judaism. The first claims three gods in one, the second has absolutely no satisfactory answer to the problem of evil.

And how does Islam solve the problem of evil?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Okay, become a buddhist then. I won't do your homework for you, specifically you should look for the truth yourself instead of downgrading every line of my answer by some stupid comment.

Nah i'm fine were i am so no need for a change simply defending them from the charge their religion is inferior to yours when their is little difference were it matters  .I have found plenty of truths which downgrade every line of your non answers .

Fair enough. Leave then and let the christian philosophers with PhDs reply in your place and defend the undefendable. They would even make less sense than your answers.

Yes i will leave he fact that the Trinity has been defended (assuming such a thing is real) to defend it .Who better? .As for me why would i defend something i find just as made up as your nonsense. Nah my comments make perfect sense as does theirs when speaking of the Trinity .The only difference is i'm not defending make believe .    

First of all, there's no shred of sound case against free will made in this thread. Second, you're the ones claiming a contradiction between omnipotence and free will, not me. Third, there were some good points discussed here regarding the Qur'an challenge and the very high implausibility of Muhammad being a fake prophet, so you might want to address that to occupy yourself.

Actually your case of using free will to get your god off the hook has failed miserably .Second were claiming it because it's so .Third there was no challenge simply apologetic s babble that was easily and rationally rejected. Thus there is nothing to address nor  would i waste another brain cell on it . You have failed here as all have before you .

[R00tKiT]

Okay, there's a couple of problems here. First, some forms of Buddhism do accept the concept of having one divine creator, and many forms of Buddhism believe in a host of different mortal gods, spirits and other entities. Prayers and incantations are abundant in many forms of Buddhism. So, while god is not a central idea in most Buddhist traditions, some sects of Buddhism do believe in a god.

First, I wouldn't call mortals gods, if they are mortal they're not gods, and our inquiry about such a belief stops here. Second, I don't think there is any sect in Buddhism who explicity warrants a creator. From what I could find in popular articles about Buddhism from Wiki and such, the closest idea to God is that of 'Sunyata' which means emptiness from which all things emerge, however any concept of god is by definition the absolute opposite to emptiness.

In Jainism, there is no personal god, but they do believe in five types of supreme beings that they pray to and consider to be authorities in their religion.

Any belief in more than one supreme (omnipotent) being can be proved to be impossible logically, if more than one god exist, then they cannot exceed each other's will, therefore none of them is god.
Also a non personal god cannot be just, because he chose not to guide humanity by any kind of connexion, leaving them in complete existential loss.

[EgoDeath]

First, I wouldn't call mortals gods, if they are mortal they're not gods, and our inquiry about such a belief stops here.

So, you know that these gods don't exist? How can you prove that? Also, how do you know that god is supposed to be immortal? How do you know there's only one god?

Second, I don't think there is any sect in Buddhism who explicity warrants a creator. From what I could find in popular articles about Buddhism from Wiki and such, the closest idea to God is that of 'Sunyata' which means emptiness from which all things emerge, however any concept of god is by definition the absolute opposite to emptiness.

To be fair, it was inaccurate of me to use the words "divine creator." Rather, there are many sects of Buddhism that adhere to the concept of an "adibuddha," or a 'primordial Buddha,' that came before humans, and represents the entirety of the universe. So, I suppose I should've worded it a bit differently - that's my mistake. The 14th (current) Dalai Lama has even talked about this concept in the Mahayana tradition. So, while this may not satisfy what your definition of god is, I still ask, Who cares? Who says I should take your word for what god is supposed to be, as opposed to taking the Dalai Lamas word? Certainly he's a lot more credible than you, no?

Also, that you reject the many tantric deities of the Vajrayana tradition, or the amitabha Budda of the Mahayana tradition means very little to me. What do you know that they don't?

Not to mention, a belief in a personal god doesn't necessarily disqualify one from being a buddhist. A quick search through the Buddhism subreddit will show you there are plenty of Buddhists who still believe in the Christian god and pray to that god, while practicing their Buddhist traditions.

Any belief in more than one supreme (omnipotent) being can be proved to be impossible logically, if more than one god exist, then they cannot exceed each other's will, therefore none of them is god.
Also a non personal god cannot be just, because he chose not to guide humanity by any kind of connexion, leaving them in complete existential loss.

Says who? How do you know this? How is more than one god logically impossible? Who says they all have to be omnipotent? Also, an impersonal god sounds a lot more just to me. At least the impersonal god doesn't give a flying fuck if humans die, and is honest about that. The personal god cares about humans (supposedly) and still lets five year old kids get bone cancer. Way to go, god. What a joke.

Also, you never answered my question: How does Islam solve the problem of evil?

[WinterHold]

Okay, there's a couple of problems here. First, some forms of Buddhism do accept the concept of having one divine creator, and many forms of Buddhism believe in a host of different mortal gods, spirits and other entities. Prayers and incantations are abundant in many forms of Buddhism. So, while god is not a central idea in most Buddhist traditions, some sects of Buddhism do believe in a god.

First, I wouldn't call mortals gods, if they are mortal they're not gods, and our inquiry about such a belief stops here. Second, I don't think there is any sect in Buddhism who explicity warrants a creator. From what I could find in popular articles about Buddhism from Wiki and such, the closest idea to God is that of 'Sunyata' which means emptiness from which all things emerge, however any concept of god is by definition the absolute opposite to emptiness.

But most heathen religions present immortal Gods; even the ancient Greek religion..Zues is immortal according to their belief:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus

(although he was mortal Zeus granted him eternal youth and immortality).

He can even grant immortality so...does that make him exist?

I have to question your sources because Buddhism does indeed allow for the belief in God; but it should remain personal and never destroy the main goals of a Buddhist or AKA: 

The path to Enlightenment is through the practice and development of morality, meditation and wisdom.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions...ance.shtml

? so what were you reading; exactly?
As for Śūnyatā:

Śūnyatā – pronounced in English as, translated most often as emptiness and sometimes voidness – is a Buddhist concept which has multiple meanings depending on its doctrinal context. It is either an ontological feature of reality, a meditative state, or a phenomenological analysis of experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

How did you understand that the quote above points to God? It's a meditative state, or a phenomenological analysis of experience. So please stick to the definition.

EgoDeath Wrote: In Jainism, there is no personal god, but they do believe in five types of supreme beings that they pray to and consider to be authorities in their religion.

Any belief in more than one supreme (omnipotent) being can be proved to be impossible logically, if more than one god exist, then they cannot exceed each other's will, therefore none of them is god.
Also a non personal god cannot be just, because he chose not to guide humanity by any kind of connexion, leaving them in complete existential loss.

But most heathen religions "do" say that there is a powerful father-God -like Zeus- and there are lesser Gods under him -like Apollo-.

[R00tKiT]

First, I wouldn't call mortals gods, if they are mortal they're not gods, and our inquiry about such a belief stops here. Second, I don't think there is any sect in Buddhism who explicity warrants a creator. From what I could find in popular articles about Buddhism from Wiki and such, the closest idea to God is that of 'Sunyata' which means emptiness from which all things emerge, however any concept of god is by definition the absolute opposite to emptiness.

But most heathen religions present immortal Gods; even the ancient Greek religion..Zues is immortal according to their belief:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus

Are you a Muslim ? I expect you to be on my side and drop the challenging tone.
Greek religions are not our subject here, please avoid bringing up all kinds of beliefs just to write an answer.

I have to question your sources because Buddhism does indeed allow for the belief in God; but it should remain personal and never destroy the main goals of a Buddhist or AKA:

I am not the one claiming Buddhism allows belief in God, read my replies carefully please.

How did you understand that the quote above points to God? It's a meditative state, or a phenomenological analysis of experience. So please stick to the definition.

It's made more explicit here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism