The debate "The quran has zero mistakes or contradictions" was started by
August 8, 2019, 5:21 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 36 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Edmqnd posted 34 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 38 arguments, jrardin12 posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, Allirix posted 11 arguments to the disagreers part.
Edmqnd and 12 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, jrardin12, Jane, Allirix, Atratuscythe, Eurah, itzmeboi, whackamole1, codyray16, Delta_Force01 and 26 visitors disagree.
Allah is the absolute truth and for example if you were to say Allah can lie then a lie which is a weakness would be attributed to Allah but allah has no weaknesses and they can't be applied to Allah. we believe Allah is too great and too powerful for him to have that imperfection so No.
I do agree with that.
Idk. My only point is the sentence is as nonsensical as changing a large fjdkbdbs into a fjicjsnanisn.
So, Edmqnd, can Allah lie?
Yes, I agree. So, which one can God do? Because he must be able to do at least one of them, right?
I want to point out the analogy again:
1. Being true is logical (Being able to move anything is logical)
2. Being false is logical (Being able to create an immovable object is logical.)
3. True and false are mutually exclusive (the existence of an immovable object and a person who can move any object are mutually exclusive)
It's combining them that creates the logical inconsistency that makes the statement nonsense:
4. Being both true and false is illogical (a being that can move anything moving an immovable object is illogical)
Yes. The point of the dilemma is that he can either create an unliftable object OR he can lift anything. Those two are mutually exclusive, but either way it's a limit on his a abilities. Being able to move anything is, in theory, logical. Being able to create an unmovable is again, in theory, logical. But, he can't do both. So, the question is: which can he do? It's obvious that he can't do both, but that's a limitation on his power, even in the realm of logical possibilities
Yes. And being lifted is not a part of the definition of being unliftable. That's why it's nonsense.
so have we moved on from the all the omni things and if we did what conclusion did we reach because I want to do one thing at a time, I have no problem with trying to prove God's existence but I want to cover all ground first so have we reached a conclusion
My bad, I misread your argument. I thought you just said "can a being that can lift anything..."
However, not being able to lift something is contradictory to the definition of omnipotence
If he exists, maybe. Now you have to prove that he exists.
do you believe Allah fits in that definition?
I'm not sure what you mean. I just invoked different parts of omnipotence to make it clearer where the self-contradiction was coming from.
Could you go through the logic of how you not being able to lift something is actually a logical contradiction?
The second one was to Allirix, the first one was to you.
I would define it as being able to do anything. However, a reasonable definition, I think, would be "a being that is able to completely create, destroy, and manipulate matter and energy on arbitrary whims"
I never said it wasn't. I want you to define omnipotent.
Why is lifting anything part of omnipotence but not creating anything? Or, at least creating an unmovable object?
Except everything that I cant do, by definition, contradicts my powers. that's why I cant do it.
I already told you difference and why you're not omnipotent but god is but you evaded that. Allah can do everything except for the things that contradict with his powers but you can't do everything nor the things that contradict with your powers. Can Allah create something out of nothing: Yes. Can you do so: No. You're just being dishonest here.
I'm not sure why you think that statement is logically consistent for an omnipotent being. Maybe because it's not self-contradictory because there are hidden premises inside the definition of the being that is making and lifting the rock (not sure why it's changed to a pile, single or multiple objects don't matter)? The fully formed version of the question that contains all the premises shows why it's self-contradictory:
"Can a being that can make and lift anything create an object it cannot lift?"
Let's show more nonsense:
"Can a being that can make anything make an object it cannot make?"
"Can a being that can destroy anything destroy and object it cannot destroy?"
I hope this spells out how nonsensical the question is. It's just an analogy for making p true and false at the same time.
I am omnipotent because I can do ever uh thing except what I cannot do. If you ask me to do anything that I cant do, I can say that that's nonsensical because that would violate my essential nature. I am omnipotent.
That's exactly my argument.
Essential omnipotence - Can do everything that does not contradict the being's essential nature (can do everything except what he can't do)
Your argument - Allah can do everything that he can do and it's more than what I can do (can do everything except what he can't do)
I fail to see any relevant difference between the two.
It's not my argument it's more of an explanation of that you claimed it to be intellectually dishonest with saying god can do everything except for the things that he cannot do and I believe that you implied that if that means all powerful that could also be applied to you. But again Allah can do A(everything) he can't do B(everything that contradicts his own powers) Now you can't do A nor B, and can thereofr not be compared to God when it comes to this and it is therefore not a contradiction nor intellectual dishonesty.
The nuanced comments were to me, the accusing in bad faith was to you
Essential omnipotence is where the theist would say that omnipotence is that god can not go against his essential nature. So, for example, the Holy Bible says that God cannot lie. The reason he cannot lie is because that would go against his essential nature of honesty. However, he is still omnipotent.
So, your argument, if I understand it properly, is that God can do everything except what he cannot do because that would contradict himself. That sounds a lot like essential omnipotence
Allirix who was that reply to? Me or him?
I know, that's why I'm willing to grant the second definition. But, can the omnipotent being create a finite pile of rocks that is unliftable by its creator? That is a logically possible scenario as I, myself, can do it.
Allah can do everything but the things he cannot do are those things that contradict his own powers now the difference is that you can't do everything only somethings and you also can't do things that contradict your own powers. Allah can do A not B, You can do A nor B. I dont really think I can get more clearer then that.
Dont get the last question, can you summarize it or phrase it more clearly.
The thing "he can't do" is something nonsensical, that's the nunace we're trying to talk about. Can God turn djhdhsbjabd into kaosnjfksk? That means absolutely nothing. It's absolute nonsense. That's the same as making p both true and false at the same time.
I'm not sure what an absolute power is, but I assume it just means unchanging? If so, then, firstly he has no freewill. Fairly irrelevant, but still worth pointing out. Secondly, it doesnt matter if my powers change or not, they are still my powers. Also, i will NEVER be able to lift 1000 lbs which is why i worded it that way, so doing so still would contradict my powers.
Also, it seems like you are more a d more arguing with the "essentialism" definition of omnipotence, am I correct in saying that?
No, I meant the intellectual dishonesty was in saying that an god can do everything except what he cant do and still calling him omnipotent.
Also, I don't think it's within the power of the abrahamic god, and I am willing to say that he is the most powerful. But, I do stick to absolutism in my definition of omnipotence because it means all powerful, can do everything. Not most things, not more than everyone else: everything. I am often willing to (begrudgingly) grant that it means all logically possibly things, even though that is still a limit. But, even then most of the same issues can be phrased in such a way where they still apply.
In my opinion, the bible does say the first definition is true, and I know that you said that most theologians believe definition 2, but in my experience it is actually absolute omnipotence that people believe. That aside, it is just a definitional problem. However, do you believe that essence precedes existence? Because there is no such thing as "essence of truth". God can make "true=false" because it's all definitional and he can just change the definitions.
It's bad manners to accuse others of debating in bad faith. No one does it on this platform and it's a disgusting precedent to try and set. Please stop
Again you're limits cannot be applied to Gods because you are an imperfect being.
And I'll answer you again as I have done several times. Allah has power over all things. Allah cannot do things that are contradictory to his own powers.
Now you brought up this weight thing. If you can lif 200 pounds as of right now and can't lift 300 pounds do you believe that makes you "All powerful" you'll say yes because you cannot do something that's contradictory to your powers/ abilities but lets say in 6 months you've trained a bit more and now you can lift 300 pounds does that mean you have exceeded your all powerfullness? See the flaw and why you can't be compared with Allah and why your circumstances can't be applied to Allah since Allah is absolute while you're, imperfect, not absolute and always changing. So I'll rephrase myself to make it more clear Allah can't do things that contradicts his ABSOLUTE powers while you can't do things that contradict your powers, notice how your powers aren't absolute and can't be compared with Allahs
There's a funny resolution to the rock question using omnipresence (Circular God Counter-Paradox), but it can't be generalised easily (if at all) and that's why I wanted to stick to the point of the question: "if p is true then can God make p also false?" Or, put as simply as I can, can God make True = False? Not the words, but can he make the actual mutually exclusive meanings simultaneously equal themselves and each other perfectly? It's a nonsense question but you believe it should be within the power of the Abrahamic God for some reason. Why?
If the bible hadn't explicitly given examples of God's limitations, and if the main theologian belief was in absolute omnipotence, I might be on your side arguing about why God's nature is a logical contradiction, but there's far far more evidence they spoke of definition 2, not definition 1, so it's just a strawman that is dishonest to use as an example of a contradiction in the religions
And I'm not sure you realise it but you're calling nuance intellectual dishonesty. What's ironic about that is rejecting nunace is one of the most common forms of intellectual dishonesty. I used to believe theologians believed in absolute omnipotence too so I think I know where you're coming from though.
I will admit defeat when I am convinced as you can see that I have done so before on this platform. You have not yet convinced me.
Lifting 1000 lbs. is contradictory to my powers of only lifting 300 as I cannot do what I cannot do.
Also, you cant say that God is unlimited except for his limits, that is so intellectually dishonest and just as contradictory.
I'm perfectly okay saying that God is the most powerful being (granted his existence) but he cannot be all powerful.
Allirix I believe I see no problem with definition 2.
JDAWG9693 it's not the same thing because you are limited and can therefore not lift that much weight but Allah is unlimited but can't do those things because its self contradictory to his powers. And I'm showing you how you asking these questions to Allah the all powerful makes no sense and are paradoxical, they can't even be applied to Allah the same as they are applied to you.
the reason I'm calling you ignorant is because you are, you're evasive, wont admit fault and couldn't even admit that the question about the rock was a paradoxical, contradictory, non sensical question and that just shows you're intellectually dishonest
I've heard of 3 definitions:
1. Absolute omnipotence: Y can do anything, even if it is self-contradictory (believed by few religious people, but an easy strawman to dismantle)
2. Omnipotence: Y can do X, only if X is logically consistent (the one accepted by most theologians)
3. Almighty: nothing can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully (another idea proposed by theologians but not as accepted or clear as (2))
"Has power over all things" is not a definition. Define "power over all things". Also, saying that he can't do something he can't do is axiomatic. That's like saying that I'm omnipotent and you saying but I can't lift 1000 lbs and me saying, "well that's asking me to do something that I can't do, so that doesn't even make sense!" All you're doing is a special pleading fallacy.
And, to continue to call me ignorant is just an a** thing to do. Don't tell me I'm ignorant, show me better. That's the whole point of why we're here
Allah Can't become a human*
But it is Ignorance and you see, you just keep on ignoring the fact that it is a contradictory question and a paradoxical question!
And I've already given you the definitions and answers of all the things you brought up (Except for all good) what's so difficult about it? I told you Allah has power over all things, Allah can do anything as long as it does not contradict with his powers. Allah can become a human for example because that then means he loses all his powers, becomes mortal, not eternal, can become God again and etc. Allah can't cease to exist because that would contradict with him being eternal, and Allah can't create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it and I've answered this multiple times. so instead of evading the primary arguments confront the primary arguments. You originally came here claiming there's a contradiction but you have proven nothing, rather you have been disproved multiple times but you keep on repeating the same flawed arguments because you're to proud to admit fault.
I'll answer this rock nonsense again to show you how ignorant you are. "Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it" Answer: No. I believe Nemiroff displayed this quite clearly but you're to proud to admit fault.
The question is flawed. For example if you say my statement is true and I say your statement is false who's statement is true and false? It's called the "Liar Paradox" and can be applied to this very question, it's like saying "Can God do something he Cannot do?" And the answer is obviously "No". It's also like asking the foolish question "How does God know what he
knows is best?" The question in itself is flawed and contradictory and again expecting an answer from a contradictory, flawed and paradoxical question is ignorance of the highest degree.
And this Topic was to show me a mistake or contradiction in the quran but you have failed to do so, rather what you have succeeded to do is proudly show your ignorance and evasive tactics.
"ignorance of the highest degree" is definitely ad hominem, but that aside.
Could you define omnipotence for us, then?
That's not what I'm trying to say, I'm saying your question is flawed and expecting an answer from a question that's contradictory is ignorance of the highest degree.
JDAWG9693 I wont repeat my self when you just keep on evading, and claiming it's not a paradox just shows your ignorance.
Job 42:2 says that God can do all things. Again, not the Quran, but it is in the Bible
It's not logically possible for someone who is unlimited to create a scenario that limits him. Unlimited =/= Limited. How can you say that's logical?
I think talking about weight misses the point. He could add another attribute to make it immobile. The question just shows unlimited omnipotence is contradictory and nonsensical. You can use that definition but it's not necessarily relevant to the Abrahamic God.
The Bible never defines omnipotence, idk about the Quran though. The closest the bible comes is by saying "God can do anything" but then adds "through you" so it's almost certainly not saying God can break the laws of logic. When the word "omnipotence" itself is used it's always just to praise God.
I think there's few reasons to believe they used the nonsensical version of omnipotence. I'd go as far to say it's a strawman to assert the Bible describes God to have the nonsensical version of omnipotence. It's definitely where doctrine has taken him, but it's not a universal belief amongst believers in the Abrahamic God because it's not clearly stated in the texts that talk about him (although I know little about what the quran says about him, I assume it's the same stuff since both Christianity and Muslims accept the Jewish Torah).
as for the arm wrestling. the other omnipotent being would be of equal strength. infinity = infinity. it would obviously be a tie. to expect for infinity to =/= infinity would be like saying A =/= A which i believe is a direct violation of one of the laws of logic, i believe the law of identity.
although the law of identity isnt usually used for physical comparisons, mostly because people of perfectly equal strength and endurance dont exist... but omnistrength has zero advantage over omnistrength so expecting one to triumph would be to expect that omnipotence not equal omnipotence, which is illogical.
but any finite amount would fall well within what he can lift, so how is he supposed to not lift it? your spinning the qualities of his strength into sounding like a weakness. im sorry but i must accuse you of fake news. (given the topic, this is just a weak attempt at a joke, no offense)
its like asking a champion weightlifter if there is a piece of regular string he cant lift. he can lift any finite amount, and infinite is not a weight, so how exactly is he supposed to not lift something so light?
If he can create omnipotence, then winning that arm wrestle is something he can't do. Also, I phrased it specifically to be finite
im assuming both beings are the creator.
if you change the phrasing you are asking a pile of rocks heavier then infinity tons....
infinity is not a number, and there is nothing greater then infinity... so it is the creation part where you forming nonsense.
im not sure if he can create omnipotence, but they would be tied if he could.
Can he make another omnipotent being? If so, who would win in an arm wrestle
Or, can he truthfully say that there are no omnipotent beings?
No, my scenario was that a being can create a finite pile of rocks so heavy that the creator (the being) cannot lift it. That is a logically possible scenario, and therefore must go on the list of what an omnipotent being can do.
the reason you can make a pile of rocks so heavy you cant lift it is because you are weak. if god could create a pile of rocks he couldnt lift, that would be a flaw in omnipotence.
you are make a play of words combining 2 tasks. can god make something of ANY weight? yes. can god lift any weight? yes. your combining 2 actions to create a logical contradiction.
This is a really good video on the issue of omnipotence.
Okay. Something that is logically possible: eat a taco. I can do that. Can God do that? Probably.
Another logically possible scenario: a being creating a finite pile of rocks so heavy that its maker cannot lift it. I can do that. Can God do that?
can do anything that is physically possible. logically impossible things are still above omnipotence.
Alright. Then, might you define "omnipotence' for us?
the rock question breaks all laws of logic. its a play on words.
if you break it down: god can make a rock of any weight. he can lift a weight of any number. weight must be a number.
seeing as weight must be a number, and god can lift any number, a number he cannot lift is not a sensical thing. you may as well ask if god can create a rock that weighs orange, or a rock that weighs hfkslwn. its nonsense.
But, that still means that I can do something that the omnipotent being cannot do, meaning that no matter what definition of omnipotence one uses, God cannot be it. Also, that means that I can do something that God cannot do, making me more capable than God in, at minimum, one aspect. My weakness compared to God gives me strength in the sense that I can do something he can't
Defining omnipotence as the ability to do anything, then asking if the ability to do anything includes creating a scenario that you cannot do something definitely requires a logical contradiction to be correct.
Your ability to make something you cannot lift isn't relevant because your ability isn't absolute so of course you can.
Yes, but the rock question does not break any laws of logic, which is what it seems Edmqnd is trying to say, or something to that effect. I know it is a logical question because I can do it myself. And, if I can do it and God cant do it, why would I bother worshipping him?
1. Unlimited Omnipotence is nonsensical, it's limited by logic. That's all the rock question tries to show. He also can't make a married bachelor, an entity with both free will and not free will, infinity a number, or breach any of the other laws of logic. If you say he can break logic "just coz" or "we just don't understand how" then there's no possible way to talk to you about this. This isn't an issue with God though. A limit to omnipotence makes the problem of evil vs free will far more easier to digest.
1) Because your argument is false; it's not a paradox. I can do something that God cannot do. Not something that he will not do, something he CANnot do.
1a) Define perfection, please
2) That is not the definition of freewill. The most accepted definition is "to be able to have done otherwise," meaning if you went back in time, you could have chosen something else. God, if he is omniscient, cannot choose otherwise.
3) I was asking because that's part of being an omnigod, so it was relevant. However, now I'm asking the Euthyphro dilemma which is related, but you have not answered.
3a) That was not an answer. You have two options: either there is an objective morality that even Allah has to follow, meaning he is more akin to a messenger or teacher, telling us what the objective morality is. Or, he is telling us what he thinks morality is, meaning that it is subjective but the only reason that you follow it is because he is stronger than you and will punish you if you don't listen.
4) I agree that necessary existence is a separate topic and have read the discussion as it has been unfolding. I do not agree and have not been convinced, but we don't need to delve deeper into that on this thread.
5) No, you have to prove that there is an "outside of this universe". Then you have to prove that a deity exists. THEN you have to prove that it's your specific deity, none of which you have even supported, much less proven. All you've done in this regard is making claims, which again, Hitchen's Razor.
1: Didn't respond to my main arguments, you cannot judge or define God based on you an imperfect human being. The question in itself is the "liar paradox" why do you keep ignoring my main arguments?
2: I've already answered, he can't change his mind because that would be contradictory to him being all knowing, and if he can't change his mind that does not mean he doesnt have free will, you dont know the definition of free will. free will is being able to chose the choice which you want to choose without being effected by others. And Allah already knows what he's going to do in the future and can't therefore change his mind nor is he effected by others to make his choice but he knowing which choice he's going to make doesnt eliminate his free will.
3: If you dont believe that there is an inherent good and can't give me the definition for it why are you asking me the question?
3a: First of all Allah is never wrong and trying to imply that Allah could in any way have subjective morality is nonsense because you can't get more objective then Allah, he is the absolute truth and he knows what's good and bad, moral and immoral. If good commands me to drink a glass of milk, is that moral or immoral, or does it fall in any of those categories? And things are moral and immoral because Allah knows so because he's all knowing and he told us so.
4: Read the discussion I had with Nemiroff on this topic and maybe you'll change your mind, I wont get into a neccessary existence because that's a different topic I believe. and again didn't respond to my main point which is that almost all your questions are paradoxical and contradictory!
5: Well I'll let you decide if that's another topic, I believe it is because to prove Allah is outside of this universe you have to prove Islam is the right religion, that God exists and etc. So I really do think that's a much larger discussion and not necessarily in the capacity of this topic.
1) That means that I can do something that Allah cannot do. I definitely can create an object that I cannot lift and have done so before. If God cannot do that, then I, in at least one aspect, am more powerful/capable than God.
2) I'm not asking whether God will change his mind or not, that doesn't really matter to me. My question is CAN He? I can kick a boulder but I will not. Can God change his mind? If he can, then he doesn't know everything because it wouldn't have changed if he knew so. If he can't change his mind, then he does not have freewill and is powerless to decide what he does.
3) This is interesting because it is usually the theist who has the definition. That definition is almost always, however, fallacious. Being that I am a nihilist, I don't believe that there is an inherent "good," and therefore no one can be "all-good" because there is no "good" to be all of.
3a) However, I might pose here the Euthyphro dilemma: When God gives us a commandment, is He telling us this because it is good (morality comes from above God) or is it "good" because God said so (His subjective opinion, making it no better than mine)?
4) "Existence of a thing" is automatically in the definition of everything. I can't say that something is what it is without implying that that thing exists. You are a human that exists. However, I have never been shown any evidence that anything is necessarily existing. As far as I can tell, everything is a contingent existence.
5) I understand your answer, but my point is that you're just making a claim with no possible way to prove it. I'm not th talking about omnipresence anymore as you have answered that, and thank you for the answer. I'm now talking about your answer and moving forward with it. We don't know that there is an "outside" to our universe, so for you to claim that Allah lives "outside of the universe" is literally a claim with no support, in which case I can simply apply Hitchen's Razor: any claim given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
1: I've already told you no he can't but I'll explain a bit more so that you'll understand. This is what you call a liar paradox, if you say my statement is true and I say your statement is false which statement is true and false? It is like you're saying can God do something he cannot do. The question is a paradox within itself and wanting answers from a contradictory, paradoxical question is ignorance of highest degree.
2: Allah knows all things as I previously stated. Allah does never change his mind, never. Now for example if I pray for the forgiveness of Allah and he chooses to forgive me that does not mean he changed his mind because he already knew what he was going to do, he originally knew he was going to forgive me so it's not a change of mind nor a contradiction.
3: Define all good and maybe we can get somewhere.
4: Allah can't cease to exist because he's eternal and that would be contradictory to his own existence, powers and attributes so again the liar paradox.
5: But we believe Allah is outside of this universe and you were asking the question concerning if Allah is omni present and I told you he's not but then you go on to say I have to prove my answer and I'm telling you no, that's what we believe and that's the answer to your question.
So tell me again where's the contradiction/mistake?
1) Can Allah create an object so heavy that he cannot lift it? Because I can do that. Can I do something that god cannot? It doesn't have to be infinite, Nemiroff, just too heavy for him to lift.
2) If he knows all things, does he know exactly what he is gonna do/how he is gonna act in the future? Because if he knows what he's gonna do, then if he changes his mind he didn't know, otherwise he can't change and therefore has no freewill.
3) So he's not all good? I don't really understand your answer/how it even answers the question.
4) If Allah can't cease existing, then he does not have power over all things, as you described. At the very least, he does not have power over his own existence.
5) We don't even know if there is an "outside of the universe" so everyone you say that you immediately can't support that claim.
So you agree that God cannot create a stone he cannot lift, thank you now I can use that argument when people bring up the stone.
infinity is not a number. thus you cannot create a stone with infinity pounds. he can create a stone with any number of tons. and he can lift any number of tons. a number he cannot lift doesn't exist.
that creating a stone he cannot lift stuff is nonsense. i can disprove it mathematically.
Nemiroff I have searched for this that's why I was certain.
JDAWG9693 First of all Allah can't do all things, in the Quran it says Allah has power over all things and that to us is all powerful, Allah can't for example create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it.
He is all knowing yes, knows all things, present, past and future.
And now all good. If we do good we get good in return either in this life or the hereafter, if we do bad we get "bad" in return. He can choose how and when to Express his goodness.
And we dont believe Allah is everywhere at all times, we believe he's above his throne but there's some debates about that, allah is outside of this universe not inside.
And yes Allah is eternal, the beginning with no beginning and the end with no end. And this comes back to the first point that even if Allah wanted to cease to exist he wouldn't be able to do that.
why dont you look up definitions. I had googled the term Allah before I posted, and after you asked, I simply googled "Arab word for god" and got Allah. so it worked in both directions. if you don't believe you are wrong, why dont you go look it up for yourself?
An omni-God is a deity who is omnipotent (can do all things), omniscience (knows all things), omnibenevolent (is all good), omnipresent (is everywhere), and omni-temporal (is eternal)
Strange, perhaps I'm wrong but I'm not convinced that I'm wrong.
i just did. it seems that all sources agree with me.
Nemiroff if you dont believe me, translate the word God into arabic and it wont be Allah.
Well, I'm not that familiar with Islam, but I assume he's an omni-God? If so, that is inherently contradictory.
However, i was just pointing out the linguistics
I highly doubt Allah is the name of God as you would be using it in vain. the name of God in all 3 religions is sacred and not used. Christian's often say lord, while Jews say Adonai which also means lord.
the name of God is YHWH, and thanks to the old testament not using any vowels, pronouncing it is anyone's guess.
How is Allah a contradiction?
"al-ilah"* but there's a line above the second "a". The app doesn't recognize that character
Allah is a contraction ("al-il?h") meaning "the God"
Nemiroff Allah is actually the name of God, the word God in arabic is Illah not Allah. and as for your question we as muslims believe Allah is complex but there are some things we could understand and comprehend but that comprehension has indeed its limits, so I believe you can know Allah but it indeed has limits and you can comprehend Allah and it indeed has limits, what's the question/claim?
I just wanted to add that Allah is not the name of the Muslim God, but the Muslim word for God.
it is my understanding that the Muslim Allah is just as personal, transcendent, and unknowable as the Christian Allah, or the Jewish Allah.
Can you know who He is. Is He personal where you can have a relationship with Him. Are you really a Muslim?
No, you didn't define it and define knowable, you're using these terms which is not normally used in debates.
Is Allah knowable?
I gave my definition in my last point.
define utterly transcendent, and I believe Allah is complex and hard to understand but some things like many things in the quran are easy to understand for example no muslim will deny that Allah is one and Muhammed (SAW) Is his final messenger those things are clear.
Ok, so Quran 112:1-4 states that Allah is utterly transcendent. In other words, He is not just monotheistic but a wholly distinct, unique, indivisible, and completely separate (impersonal) being who is unknowable by "personal" beings like us. Do you agree?
Tawhid and oneness are the same thing and I dont understand your first comment.
In other words the doctrine of tawhid or oneness?
Do you believe that Allah is utterly transcendent, that He is unknowable by "personal" beings like us?
Brother wise words but if that's the case then people shouldn't "Disagree" without showing me a mistake or contradiction but maybe you're familiar or curious to give me a so to say contradiction or mistake from the quran and we'll discuss it, I'm 13 years old and planning to ask my teacher (Atheist) to a debate because he seems very intelligent and I want some challenge so to prepare myself i want people to question islam as much as possible so I'll be ready for everything.
I think most people here are not familiar enough with the Quran enough to point out contradictions.
That's a matter of opinion so how is that a mistake of the quran?
The Quran claims that God/Allah exists, yes? That is a mistake, being that it is likely not true
show me the chapter and verse with the mistake because that's what I asked a single mistake from the quran
it's mistake us closing the existence of God