[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[EgoDeath]

I think you bring up a relevant argument for sure. “the book” must refer to the Christian bible. That isn’t really a book and has been mischaracterized as a book, but is necessarily a collection of manuscripts, letters, and historical data. The fact that, for the most part, the data found in “the book” is corroborated with other writings gives credence to it I think. I’m not saying the reasonable people should take the writings on faith alone but there is a record in biblical scripture that is corroborated outside itself.

Except, most of the events in the Bible, which is a book, regardless of whether or not you want to call it that, are not corroborated by any other sources.

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.

Well if you somehow have a way to define what god is, I'd be ecstatic to hear it - you'd be the first person in human history who is able to do so.

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

The two aren't exactly mutually exclusive, are they? No, they are not. I can say that I do not assume or believe god exists and also say that I'm unsure, meaning that, at some point, my view can change, based on new evidence being presented.

edit: And no, they are not the same thing.

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.

And how do you know that the prophet "did more than just claim?" Did you read it in the Quran, by any chance?

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.

I'm not saying that religious belief is "something too vague to understand," I'm saying it can often be more vague than we'd like it to be. You and I seem to fundamentally disagree on this point, so I'm not sure that there's much reason to continue to go back and forth on this particular point. You say blue, I say red, and I'm not changing my opinion because you've given me no good reason to. We can leave it where it is.