(January 15, 2015 at 9:35 am)pocaracas Wrote: The thing is, Rayaan, if the man didn't exist, how can anyone prove that he didn't exist? Shouldn't it be far easier to prove that he did exist?
Yes ... and that's precisely because there is a far stronger evidence that he did exist.
(January 15, 2015 at 9:35 am)pocaracas Wrote: If he did exist, why is his holiness only acknowledged in writing and coinage over 60 years after his death?
Arabs knew how to write, they knew how to do math and astronomy... why didn't they write anything on the subject for such a long time?
I've already refuted that argument in my response to Min's question. Here it is, once again:
(January 15, 2015 at 5:46 am)Rayaan Wrote: The evidence is a massive oral tradition of Muhammad that is perfectly consistent with the Quran, the hadiths, and the earliest references to him as documented by both Muslims and non-Muslims dated from 634 CE. Furthermore, how is it even reasonably possible that different authors, in several different languages, hundreds of miles apart, could have all coincidentally concocted the same Muhammad? You might say that all of this "could be" an astonishing coincidence, huh? And if it was a forgery, how did it manage to be accepted as true by countless scholars and believers for more than 1,400 years without a shadow of doubt and then all of a sudden, by the outrageous knowledge of a single man, the whole history is ready to rooted out from its place entirely? Sorry to say this but I'm thinking that 'wishful thinking' comes pretty close to home for you, Min.
See the link I posted.
(January 15, 2015 at 10:08 am)robvalue Wrote: Is it scholarly do you think to believe that stuff actually happened just because one book says so?
Certain things are limited to Islamic scholarship (i.e. the hadiths and the Quran). Regarding the miracles, for example, there is some debate about them outside of Islamic scholarship.
The existence of Muhammad, however, is something that is incontrovertibly accepted as a scholarly position.
