[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[R00tKiT]

I didn’t ask you how to know god; I asked you if you had evidence. Your book is a book of claims. It cannot also be the evidence.

If you mean by evidence the standard empirical type required by the modern scientific method, then no, there is none, God is by definition immaterial. The key thing to understand that this kind of evidence is not the only way to get truths, there is pure reason and prophetic claims also. And there is the problem of what  your a prioris are, if you think the world is inherently orderly and requires a lawgiver then it shouldn't be difficult to come to the conclusion of the existence of a creator.

In the case of Islam, the book is also the evidence, that's what we were discussing for like 10 pages of the thread. There is a literary challenge made at the time of Muhammad that went unanswerable.

Why is a god with less than absolute properties "unknowable?" What are absolute properties? And how do you know these things?

Since you're asking this kind of questions, I think we should agree first on a definition of the word of the god we're trying to prove.

The false assumptions you're talking about are simply a logical disjunction : you either assume God exists or you don't, there is no third way

The third way is to simply admit that you do not know.

You don't know is the same as you don't assume God exists .. eh?

Well, I'm not sure what this has to do with taking people's word for it when they claim to communicate with god, but alright.

I don't think you really take the time to understand my replies. You asked why would I take the prophet's word for communicating with God, I answered the prophet did more than just claim. He made miracles happen, and since we didn't witness them, the only way to check whether he is a fake or not, is to investigate how reliable are the people who reported the event, thus the theory of Isnad.

Well, you say, "I mean come on," as if it's so obvious, but it is? Is a physical indicator like "fat right hand" in any way, shape, or form the same thing as calling oneself a Buddhist, or Christian, or Muslim? I'd say it certainly isn't. Furthermore, if someone holds 99% of their views to be in line with the Muslim faith, but holds the view that Mohammed doesn't exist, and never existed, and is only a symbol for Muslim faith, does that mean they aren't a Muslim? Even if your answer is yes, we have to ask, is that nearly the same thing as someone who hold 99% of their views to be in line with Buddhist teachings, but then chooses to pray to a divine creator? I'd say it isn't.

You seem to be getting strangely hung up on this point, and I'm not sure why. My only point was that some Buddhists believe in gods and some Buddhists choose to pray to one, divine creator.

It's more than just a point, you're trying to depict religious belief as something too vague to understand. If I believe in 99% of the Buddhist teachings and believe an additional christian creator, then no, I'm not a Buddhist, I am believing in pure salad, and me identifying as such is just nonsense coming out of my mouth. Beliefs should also be coherent and internally consistent, they're not a shopping cart.
And I am still waiting for the name of the Buddhist sect that believes in god.