Park Jin Hyok @109problems

Sure, most worldviews run on cumulative evidence rather than mathematical proof, that's not unique to Islam, it's true of history, science, and honestly most of what you believe day to day. But that's not the same as saying every probabilistic argument is equally strong. The aorta thing isn't weak because it's probabilistic, it's weak because the connection you're drawing isn't actually there in the text, you added the timeline, you added "eventually," you added the whole bridge between the verse and the hadith. A cumulative case still needs each piece to hold up on its own merit, stacking weak coincidences doesn't make a strong argument, it just makes a longer weak one.

Nice try but that's not common ground, that's you taking my exact critique of your argument and trying to wear it as a badge. The "force into place after the fact" line was about your aorta claim, not some grand entrance into atheism. You started this thread saying the Quran proved itself true, now you're celebrating like you won by agreeing your own argument was weak. That's not a concession from me, that's you conceding to yourself and calling it a win.

Ehm.. Every ideology running on probability instead of certainty is exactly why "too big of a coincidence to ignore" doesn't cut it as an argument. You need it to actually be improbable, not just something you can force into place after the fact. A guy who ate poisoned food once and died years later from unrelated illness isn't a big coincidence, it's just what happens to people, you're the one drawing the line between those two dots, the text itself never does. If "best of planners" covers every outcome no matter what happens, good or bad, quick or slow, related or not, then it's not a prediction anymore, it's just a phrase you can stretch to fit anything.

@Suddthrwasdiner @proudkafirG "maybe coincidence" is you giving up the argument. You spent this whole thread insisting it was proof, now it's just a shrug. Can't have it both ways, either commit to the claim or admit there's nothing there.

Lol so which is it, you making an argument that Islam's own text refutes itself, or you making an argument from atheism that none of this matters anyway. You can't use "there's no Allah" as your personal view and then turn around and use "but Allah delivered" as your debate point, that's arguing both sides depending on what's convenient in the moment. And it wasn't even recorded in his own words, it's Aisha's account decades removed, of him mentioning stomach pain. Nobody in that hadith says "this is the fulfillment of the aorta oath," you're the one connecting those two dots now, centuries later. If your actual position is "there's no God and it was just a lie," then a guy dying of natural causes years after eating bad food isn't proof of anything, it's just what already happens to every human being who's ever lived.

Bruh so now it's not a prophecy at all, it's a "testimony" that just happened to get fulfilled. That's a much weaker claim than what you started with, but let's actually look at it on its own terms. An oath only means something if it's specific and it's tested at the moment it's challenged. This verse isn't Muhammad swearing "if I lie, poison will kill me eventually." It's Allah saying he'd be seized immediately and struck down right then, in the moment of fabricating revelation. Him dying years later from something a woman put in his food isn't "delivering" on that oath, it's just... a guy dying, like literally every human eventually does. You can match up almost any specific death to almost any vague warning if you're willing to stretch the timeline and the mechanism. And "GOD is always listening" doesn't rescue this, that's true of basically any religious framework and it's not evidence for this specific claim being fulfilled. You're not elaborating the argument, you're just softening it every time the last version gets picked apart.

@shadrach_shad @MercifulMessage What is the definition of "Pedophile"? What is the definition of "Woman"?

That's a big jump...😂So... now you've gone from "the Quran predicted his death and it came true" to "actually the Quran doesn't predict anything, it's just Muhammad and Umar making stuff up as they went." Pick one, those two arguments cancel each other out. If it's all just reactive political theater with no real prophecy involved, then the aorta verse isn't a "gotcha" either, it's just a guy writing a threat that happened to loosely rhyme with how he eventually died, which happens with vague threats all the time. And "it's not difficult to pretend to speak for God" cuts both ways lol. Sure, anyone can claim it, that's not new info, but you don't get to use that as a blanket explanation whenever a specific argument you made stops working dummy. First you said the verse is direct evidence of truth, now you're saying nothing in it can be trusted anyway. That's not spelling it out, that's just abandoning your first claim without saying so.

@nikitabier No one likes you,

@nikitabier Finally. Get the fuck outta here lil bitch ass goy.

Nah, that's backwards lmao. Read the verse again, it's Allah speaking in first person the whole way through, "if he had made up sayings about Us, We would have seized him, then We would have cut from him the aorta." That's God describing what God would do, not the Prophet promising it about himself. So your own correction doesn't even help you, doesn't matter who said it if the content itself describes an immediate strike, not a poisoning that happens years later and takes even longer to kill him. And the wives thing is just you deciding what God should've prioritized. Feels a bit off to argue God found time to settle a domestic dispute but couldn't be bothered to mention food poisoning, that's you writing the story you want, not what's actually in the text. Different events get revealed for different reasons, that's true in every prophetic tradition, picking one and going "well this one got mentioned so this other one should've too" isn't an argument, it's just a preference.

@LosSantosLiv @proudkafirG Since when are your priests my prophets? That's a bit weird don't you think?

@LosSantosLiv @proudkafirG Still talking about your priests? Mate... stop insulting them. Not all of your priests are pedo's...

@HaleyforMI Bitch please, you're an israeli whore.

@LosSantosLiv @proudkafirG I think you misspelled priests. Do your priests know you're talking this bad about them?

@kstanner1435 @Alanby2012 @RealShahriqKhan Ok.. leave it there. One thing though.. if the answer to "who wrote Matthew" isn't "the disciple Matthew," then the question of authorship isn't actually settled, which was my whole point from the start. That's not me misunderstanding you, that's just where the thread ends.

@MasterMaliq Maliq is a nigerian yahoo boy pretending to be Muslim. Don't follow this fool.

@kstanner1435 @Alanby2012 @RealShahriqKhan Lol, that's your call. Just for the record.. "not part of his inner circle" and "never said they wrote those scrips" is you conceding the authorship point, not me twisting it. No hard feelings either way. Jesus ain't god.

@LosSantosLiv @proudkafirG I don't follow your priests..

Lol "time to repent" isn't in the verse anywhere, you just added that yourself because the immediate version didn't work. Show me where 69:44-47 says "but first I'll give him decades to think it over." It doesn't. It says "then" like right after, that's what "thumma" means. You're editing the prophecy after the fact to make it fit. And the 66:3 thing doesn't work either, Allah revealing one specific thing to him doesn't mean Allah is contractually obligated to warn him about every poisoned meal for the rest of his life. That's not how prophecy works in literally any religion you'd care to check, prophets get told what they're told, not a live GPS tracker on every threat. You're just moving from "the verse proves it" to "well technically it could still be true if you add a bunch of stuff that isn't there." That's not a gotcha, that's just making it up as you go.