Talking About God

There is nothing more wondrous to say to a Muslim than saying that God does not exist. One can reject religion and make all kinds of claims about how terrible it is or how manmade it is and why it should be done away with, and a Muslim might entertain the conversation about that. But the proposition that God does not exist will probably earn the atheist the most surprised look.

Before entering into any discussion, it’s crucial to define the terms used. Without an initial agreement on what the words mean, you and I might find ourselves talking about different things without realizing it. I hope you can appreciate how wasteful such a dialogue would be.

When it comes to the issue of God, I’ve now come to understand that if we define what we mean by “God” when we contemplate His existence or lack thereof, most conversations would take a very different direction. It’s not about a Supreme Being per se. It’s not about a Deity that is greater than us per se. Such an approach to the term is overly simplistic.

Being in the West, it’s quite expected that whenever God is brought up, an anthropomorphic image comes to one’s mind. How can it not when we’re dealing with a Christian background and culture, which constantly forces the mind to think of God as an “old white man with a long white beard and wearing a white robe that is looking over His creation”. Statements referring to the verses from the Old Testament about man being created in God’s image, and the Doctrine of the Son that talks about Jesus Christ peace be upon him being the Son of God “begotten not made” are all in the back of one’s mind if the subject of “God” is to be addressed.

While I can appreciate where this type of understanding about God, I’d have to respectfully reject this notion as a Muslim. I do not mean to offend my Christian brethren by pointing this out, but from my personal experience and observation, most atheists that I know of come from a Christian background. When they talk about God, that’s the understanding they have in their minds. Unfortunately, the few ex-Muslim atheists I know about rejected the existence of God being influenced by the writings and arguments of ex-Christian atheists, thereby indirectly adopting the anthropomorphic understanding of God before becoming atheists themselves.

The problem with an anthropomorphic God is in the floodgates of inquiry such a proposition opens. To explain what I mean I’ll need to pre-empt you with a very brief explanation about the Law of Non-Contradiction in logic. It simply means that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. For example, if I say that something is black and it’s not black, I would not be making very much sense. The two propositions here are mutually exclusive; it’s either black or it’s not.

Where this matters with the “God” conversation is in the propositions put forth according to Christianity. On the one hand, God is the Alpha and Omega without a beginning or an end. He was not created and He does not die. He’s transcendent beyond His creation. Yet on the other hand man is made in His image. There is also the unwavering emphasis on the “begotten not made” bit about Jesus Christ peace be upon him as God’s son. Not to mention the mystery of the Trinity that requires one to believe that God is 3 in 1 and 1 in 3. He’s the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is neither. To top it all off, the entertainment industry has solidified the anthropomorphic qualities with all the portrayals of God on screen and many think that God sounds like Morgan Freeman!

Basically, if I were a Christian I would have to hold some contradicting beliefs at the same time. Most importantly here, that God is transcendent and not like the Creation, but He has a son and humans look like him. Aside from their grievances about suffering and trouble in the world and apparent “randomness” of events, it seems that this is a major point of departure from Christianity for those who eventually become atheists; their intellects could not accommodate the contradictions.

Despite the increasing number of atheists that were not raised as Christians, the very culture they come from is quite filled with Christian theology when it comes to speaking about God. Hence, to be specific about what an atheist in the West rejects, in most cases it seems to be the Christian theology on God than God Himself. For anyone to make the general bold statement of “I don’t believe God exists”, they should first make the effort to study what “God” means from different perspectives before coming to such a conclusion. It might just be a problem of theology more than anything else.

Although Muslims and Christians are speaking of the same God whenever we have our interfaith dialogues, we’re not necessarily  talking about the same thing. Muslims can be considered as extreme and radical monotheists. This belief entails not simply believing in only one God without partners. It goes much further than that. God is not only one in His essence, but also one in His qualities, one in His actions, one in uniqueness. The verse in the Quran says:

There is nothing like a likeness of Him – Ash’Shoora 42:11

ليس كمثله شيء – الشورى ١١

Anything that comes to your mind, anything that you can comprehend, anything that you can picture – God is other than that. There is absolutely nothing that can be imagined that can be likened to God. In fact, the only reason “Him” is used is a shortcoming in language, because God is not a He and not a She. Muslims do not refer to God as “the Father” (or “the Mother” for those who have a problem with patriarchy). The closest companion of the Prophet peace be upon him Abu Bakr As’Sidiq may God be pleased with him said in beautiful Arabic poetry what translates to:

Your inability to comprehend God is your comprehension of God

And delving into the nature of God is a type of polytheism

عجزك عن إدراكه إدراك

والخوض في كنه الإله إشراك

From a Muslim perspective, there a principle to be upheld whenever one speaks about God, and it’s the abovementioned verse. The very first question an atheist must answer before asking his or her question about God is whether the question rests on a premise that applies qualities that are unbefitting to God, which are based on human comprehension and intellect. If that is the case, then the God the atheist is asking about is not the same God the Muslim is speaking of.

Muslims speak of a God that is infinitely greater than anything or any mind can come close to grasping. One of the most ridiculous ideas being perpetuated by scientilous atheists is that science can answer the question of whether God exists. As if God is some being that can be measured using lab equipment or seen using some telescope. Take this back to the abovementioned verse and see how this notion measures up against the precondition of having no likeness to God.

The response I typically get when I request that any question asked about God must be put through this test of whether the question is resting on a premise that violates the principle of “there is nothing like a likeness of him” before I can answer is: I guess I can’t ask anything! I’ve usually found this to be the very first time for whomever I’m speaking with to be faced with the limits of their intellectual capacities. To be told that while you might be a smart individual, getting all the academic awards and scholarships, reading all these philosophy books and delving into the arguments on the existence of God, you still don’t even have the intellectual capacity to formulate and ask a question, let alone speculate the answer. Yet, you’re still filled with all this unjustified ego and arrogance. Sadly, that’s the state of man when it comes to God.

According to the Muslim tradition, Ibn Ata’illah As’Sakandari mentions three types of believers. The first type is ones who in their hearts believe in God out of their own nature and inclination without delving much into any proofs or evidences. The second type refers to students of knowledge who investigate the matter and believe in God out of having worked out the rational arguments and proofs. The third type of believers is on the highest level of belief in God, in that they have passed through the rational arguments stage and have experienced their own unveilings. People of the last type see the need of the created to its Creator and wonder how can such a lacking and needy thing be given innate power to lead to the One upholding it from perishing. To them the question of whether God exists is as ludicrous as asking for evidence that the sun exists when one is standing outside at noon and has perfect eyesight.

What’s bewildering is that the arrogance of man has made him forget his place and what he can handle. He can’t even handle sustaining his gaze at the sun, a magnificent albeit created object, for longer than a couple of seconds. Yet he audaciously asks about the Creator of it as if he’ll be able to deal with Him. How fascinating indeed!

Mohamed Ghilan

15 thoughts on “Talking About God

  1. I have made a response to the above from a Christian perspective. With all due respect (and I truly do mean this without trying to be offensive), the errors in logic contained within this post are numerous and it is my hope that you would at least take the time to see if this claim of mine is at all true. Here is my reply to the above: http://godomnipotent.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/talking-about-logic/

    Talking About Logic

    Reason, is quite the wonderful thing and used properly, it is one of the most potent gifts that God has bestowed on us. Now reason is directed towards, and finds its end (i.e. its telos) in, truth. Hence why, man being a rational animal, ought to use this faculty above all else to guide his life choices. For if the end of reason is truth, then the end of truth must be God, for God is truth (John 14:6). So it is always with great pleasure that I tend to read works of the religious sort which place a stringent emphasis on logical thinking. Whether these works favour a Christian viewpoint or not, I must say that I quite enjoy the intellectual stimulation.

    This then is how I found myself reading the blog post entitled, Talking About God, by one Mohamed Ghilan. The article, as one would expect, discusses the subject of God from an Islamic perspective and in the course of the work, touches on many things—one being Christianity and its alleged incompatibility with logic. Now, longtime readers of this blog will know that I have already shown how this is not the case and refuted the various examples that Muslims (and other non-Christians) will invariably bring up here (I would certainly recommend this article to Muslims seeing as it features a discussion between myself and Muslims on a Muslim forum), here, here, and here. I intend to make reference to the aforementioned posts and more throughout this article. It goes without saying that reading each post on its own would certainly prove beneficial as well.

    The blogger, Mohamed Ghilan, seeks to pit Christianity against logical thinking and by such a manner attempt to prove how vastly superior Islam is. The fact of the matter is that it is precisely Islam that is contrary to reason and the general Muslim position that is unschooled in the proper use of thought. Granted these words can be deemed hurtful and for this fact I must apologize. We will go nowhere if our intent is to willfully denigrate the beliefs of others and this is sincerely not my intention. I say the things I say not because I want to anger Muslims, but rather because I honestly think them to be wrong and their beliefs false. At this time, let us examine the claims of Mohamed Ghilan and see who actually misconstrues logic—whether the Christian or the Muslim.

    The problem with an anthropomorphic God is in the floodgates of inquiry such a proposition opens. To explain what I mean I’ll need to pre-empt you with a very brief explanation about the Law of Non-Contradiction in logic. It simply means that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. For example, if I say that something is black and it’s not black, I would not be making very much sense. The two propositions here are mutually exclusive; it’s either black or it’s not. — Mohamed Ghilan

    The concept of an anthropomorphic God is indeed troublesome. As a Christian, I join Muslims and Jews in stating emphatically that God, as he is in himself, is not anthropomorphic at all. Furthermore, that it is impossible for the divine nature to change and finally, that God is not a god of contradictions. With that out of the way, we should turn to the author’s words; particularly his definition of the law of non-contradiction. This is one of the three fundamental laws of thought and already we see that this individual has not formulated it completely and as such has paved the way for his first error. The complete rendition of the law is as follows: “two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time, in the same sense or way.” The section which Mr. Ghilan failed to include (i.e. the part which I have underlined) is in fact quite crucial for the simple fact that two contradictory facts can be true of an object as long as these are not to be understood in the same sense. Let us take the example that the author provides: that of a piece of paper. Assuming that the sheet of paper is divided wherein half of the sheet is black and half of it is white, it would in fact be entirely correct to say that this thing is “black and it’s not black” at the same time. For it all depends on what ‘black’ and ‘not black’ are referring to. It is here that we begin to see the great error with Islamic thought—a misformulation and misunderstanding of the law of non-contradiction.

    Where this matters with the “God” conversation is in the propositions put forth according to Christianity. On the one hand, God is the Alpha and Omega without a beginning or an end. He was not created and He does not die. He’s transcendent beyond His creation. Yet on the other hand man is made in His image. — Ibid.

    Once again we are introduced with a string of alleged contradictions as proof for why Christianity is a blight to the human mind and yet the irony of the matter is that the very individuals who accuse Christians of violating a fundamental rule of logic are themselves the ones who should be studying logic at our knee! First off, the author wishes to drive a wedge between God being eternal, infinite, omnipotent and man having been created in his image according to the Holy Bible (Genesis 1:27). Such a thing could only be problematic if we understood the phrase “in his image” as meaning “exactly like God” and this is not the case. It merely means that man possesses qualities which, albeit infinitely removed from God’s majesty, are nevertheless similar to God’s own. If the matter is understood in such a fashion, then there is absolutely no contradiction present. Of course the unbiased individual would quite easily have understand the text in question in this manner for the Bible is emphatic that there is no one like God (Jeremiah 10:6, Isaiah 46:9). If this weren’t enough, it would seem that Mr. Mohamed Ghilan is not well-versed in the teachings of his own religion for Islam actually does teach that mankind was created in the image of God!

    “When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face for Allah created Adam in his [or His own] image.” — Sahih Muslim, Hadith 4731

    “Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said: ‘Allah created Adam in His Image.’” — Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 8, Hadith no. 246

    Here is how a Muslim source explains the above hadith. Notice that one of the resolutions to the problem is that which I (and indeed all of orthodox Christianity for over 1, 000 years) have proposed? If then both Islam and Christianity supposedly teach the same thing, and both make use of a similar response to resolve an alleged contradiction, why then are Muslims so quick to overlook this fact and accuse Christians? It is either through ignorance or sheer deception.

    Yet still Mr. Ghilan might disagree. He may maintain that the above answer to this supposed problem is faulty for how could anything be like God? In assuming this position, he would have to deny that there is any sort of resemblance—however vague—between man and God. Such a position is intellectual suicide for it would reduce one to being unable to know anything about God at all. Such that when one might say that Allah is merciful, the truth of the matter would be that this phrase would become completely unintelligible. If nothing indeed is similar to God (even in the vaguest sense), then so then too will the words we use to express certain concepts lose all meaning when referring to God (seeing as there can exist no similarity whatsoever). This would net out to Mr. Ghilan’s holy book, the Qur’an, being a useless book seeing as it couldn’t possibly tell us anything worthwhile about the divine. The Muslim couldn’t possible understand what the phrase, “God is merciful” is supposed to mean seeing as his understanding of mercy could have no relation whatsoever with whatever the sentence,”Allah is Merciful” is supposed to mean. Whatever option that the author, to whom this response is directed at, chooses, the end result will still be one in which he is in error and his reasoning faulty.

    Not to mention the mystery of the Trinity that requires one to believe that God is 3 in 1 and 1 in 3. He’s the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is neither. […] Basically, if I were a Christian I would have to hold some contradicting beliefs at the same time. — Mohamed Ghilan

    In the above, the author wants to imply that a contradiction immediately implies a falsehood and as in the matter of our paper example, this is not the case. Seeing as the author had wished to argue his point by way of logic, we cannot let his misuse of logic go uncontested. It is in fact quite easy to disprove the Islamic argument (for it never functioned on logic in the first place) and so here is a portion of my, Of Gods and Men, post (as always, I would encourage a full reading of the text to see how badly Muslims misconstrue logic) which deals with the Hypostatic Union:

    In laymen’s terms, this is the doctrine which stipulates that the eternal second person of the Trinity, in entering his creation and being born a man, took on a second nature he did not previously possess—that of a human. It must be noted that the divine nature did not become finite. Absolutely not, God as he is in himself did not become finite, rather he added onto himself the nature of humanity (and everything that comes with this nature) without divesting himself of divinity (that itself being impossible) so that within the one Christ there exist simultaneously two natures without the dilution of one into the other. […] The question then becomes, whether it is logical for a person to be both God and man at the same time seeing as to be God means to be infinite and to be man is to be finite. While in truth, this question has already been answered by the verbiage above, I suppose that it wouldn’t hurt to go over it again in far simpler terms.

    Keeping in line with my wish for simplicity, let us imagine a triangle. Now we all know the nature of a triangle i.e. it’s attributes, the things that make a triangle a triangle as opposed to a rectangle or circle. Good. Now let us at this point imagine a box. Once more we know what is the nature of a box and furthermore, we are also aware that the nature of a box is in direct contradiction to the nature of a triangle. Now suppose that we were to place the triangle within the box, would we then have a confusion, a mixing, an intermingling of the two essences/natures? No, we would possess one unit (the Triangle-Box if you would like) with the essences of both objects intact. The triangle would not cease to be a triangle and neither would the box cease to be a box—on the contrary we would now have a unit that possesses in its being the very attributes of both in that it is not half a box and half a triangle but rather a full (perfect) triangle and a full (perfect) box. A veritable Triangle-Box, wherein the unit is one but the essences are two. In just the same manner does the Christian speak of God becoming man. God did not cease being God, he did not convert the divine essence into a human essence; instead he took on a second nature aside from his divine nature. As such in the unit that is the individual, Christ Jesus, there are two natures with contradicting attributes simultaneously present. As with the Triangle-Box, Jesus can claim the otherwise mutually exclusive prerogatives that come with each nature because of them being simultaneously existent in his being. Such that he can increase in knowledge as man, but always have known all things as God. Such that he can pray to the Father as man, yet have no need to do so as God. Such that should he will it, he is able to give his life unto death as man, and yet death never having any power or hold over him as God. He does everything as the God-Man—mystery upon mystery. In short, He is both three-sided and four-sided at the same time.

    The gripe that Muslims have with the doctrine of the hypostatic union is that it supposedly teaches that God (that is, as he is in himself/inherently) underwent change and yet this is impossible, for God is supposed to be unchanging. What the Muslim however fails to understand is that Christians do not teach such blasphemy. Just as in the example above, in adding the triangle into the box, we did not change the nature of the triangle nor the box. Whatever was true of each essence before the joining together into one unit, is still true after the event (i.e. placing the triangle inside the box). As such the unit that is the Traingle-Box, would retain all the attributes of both natures without such violating the law of non-contradiction. This really is basic logic.

    As the above readily displays, the divinity of Christ is not an illogical doctrine. Muslims are simply unaware of the teachings of Christianity and the little that they do know is horrible caricature. I understand that I am speaking rather boldly, yet I do so in the hope that these words will lead even one Muslim to think of the matter seriously. I have never met a single Muslim who did not believe the Christian conception of God to be a violation of the law of non-contradiction and yet the truth is that this is not the case at all. So in reality, the overwhelming majority of Muslims—if not all Muslims altogether—simply are incapable of possessing a mastery of logic. So hopefully, the Muslim can begin to understand the Christian’s frustration when it is claimed that what we pander is base sophistry.

    Dear Muslim, and I certainly do not mean this to be offensive, but please ask yourself why it is the case that you have been unable to see how erroneous your understanding of reason has been? How is it that such an entire demographic can commit such an error wholesale? If then I cannot trust Islam concerning truth that I can know through simple reason, how then could I ever trust the religion of Muhammad when it comes to truth that I could not possibly know short of a revelation from God (e.g. how to establish a relationship with him)? Once again, if I cannot trust Islam with my intellect, why then should I trust it with my eternal soul? Islam truly does darken the mind and if one need see specific proof of this claim, one simply ought to read the various discussions I have had with Muslims—particularly on the issue of whether the Bible teaches the divinity of Christ. Please don’t take my word for it, simply read through the conversation and judge for yourself, dear reader.

    I have not made a logical defense of the Holy Trinity within this article for the simple reason that I have done so elsewhere (please follow the links) and at the moment can’t really be bothered to repeat myself once again. If one thought that the above article was an excellent exposition concerning the matter of the Muslim and logic, one really needs to see what happens when Muslims are actually taken to task on the subject of the Trinity and the oneness of God. It is my hope that Muslims, and Mr. Ghilan in particular, will have the intellectual fortitude to at least listen to the Christian understanding of these doctrines.

    • Hi Methodus,

      As you’ve noticed, in order to keep the overall direction I’m taking in my writings, I’ve posted your full response as a comment here because I’m not interested in getting into a back and forth with you over actual articles. I have a theme I’d like to maintain on this website.

      I have a quick tip before I get into my reply after having read your response, as well as a couple of your posts. Putting in brackets that you don’t mean to be offensive while being offensive is even more offensive. In fact it’s not only offensive, but also condescending and patronizing. So stop doing that. You’d be much better off to just say what you want to say without adding that little statement. To give you a more blunt example of what you’re doing with that: I really do mean what I’m saying without trying to be offensive, but you’re a child and an idiot!

      Unfortunately for you I find myself forced to be very blunt in my reply because I really don’t like this type of tone in discussion.

      Now, onto your superfluous response. It seems that you didn’t understand who the post was directed at nor did you understand what was intended by some of the ideas that I alluded to. So I’ll clarify a couple of things for you since you’re a little confused. The post was directed at atheists, not Christians. However, I did mention Christian influence as a consequence of being in the West. Hence, my alluding to a curious observation that it seems that most atheists come from Christian backgrounds.

      While I did touch on a couple of issues with Christian theology, hardly touched that is, I admit that I did it very superficially. Had you understood who the target audience was, you wouldn’t have had too much of an issue. In the interest of keeping my post short, I took the risk of looking like I didn’t really have enough in depth understanding of Christianity. Unfortunately, this was believed to be the case by you and possibly others.

      With this out of the way, let’s deal with your illogical and incoherent commentary. For the benefit of the readers, I’ll deal with each paragraph you wrote separately:

      “This then is how I found myself reading the blog post entitled, Talking About God, by one Mohamed Ghilan. The article, as one would expect, discusses the subject of God from an Islamic perspective and in the course of the work, touches on many things—one being Christianity and its alleged incompatibility with logic. Now, longtime readers of this blog will know that I have already shown how this is not the case and refuted the various examples that Muslims (and other non-Christians) will invariably bring up here (I would certainly recommend this article to Muslims seeing as it features a discussion between myself and Muslims on a Muslim forum), here, here, and here. I intend to make reference to the aforementioned posts and more throughout this article. It goes without saying that reading each post on its own would certainly prove beneficial as well.”

      To begin with, and after having read your other posts, I feel the need to point something out since it seems that you’re quite an amateur whose been self-deluded into thinking that you’re a philosophy and logic guru. In philosophy, much the same as in science, you don’t speak of “refuting” anything, because that gives the impression that you’ve completely negated the other position. Rather, you speak of having provided a stronger argument, given stronger evidence, shown how weak the other position is, etc. Strong language use, such as saying you “refuted”, will only show you to be a fool when someone more skilled in philosophy shows how you didn’t actually refute anything.

      “The blogger, Mohamed Ghilan, seeks to pit Christianity against logical thinking and by such a manner attempt to prove how vastly superior Islam is. The fact of the matter is that it is precisely Islam that is contrary to reason and the general Muslim position that is unschooled in the proper use of thought. Granted these words can be deemed hurtful and for this fact I must apologize. We will go nowhere if our intent is to willfully denigrate the beliefs of others and this is sincerely not my intention. I say the things I say not because I want to anger Muslims, but rather because I honestly think them to be wrong and their beliefs false. At this time, let us examine the claims of Mohamed Ghilan and see who actually misconstrues logic—whether the Christian or the Muslim.”

      To say that the general Muslim position is unschooled in the proper use of thought is an assertion of an illiterate. Go review your history of Christian theology. Your very own St. Thomas Aquinas uses some of the greatest Muslim scholars such as Imam Al Ghazali and Averroes (Ibn Rushd) as references in his works, especially on the proofs for the existence of God. Now if you know anything about writing scholarly works, you would know that using others as citations and references in support of your work means that you’re giving credit to them for what you’re presenting. This is obviously if you haven’t brought them up to refute them, which was not the case here.

      “The concept of an anthropomorphic God is indeed troublesome. As a Christian, I join Muslims and Jews in stating emphatically that God, as he is in himself, is not anthropomorphic at all. Furthermore, that it is impossible for the divine nature to change and finally, that God is not a god of contradictions. With that out of the way, we should turn to the author’s words; particularly his definition of the law of non-contradiction. This is one of the three fundamental laws of thought and already we see that this individual has not formulated it completely and as such has paved the way for his first error. The complete rendition of the law is as follows: “two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time, in the same sense or way.” The section which Mr. Ghilan failed to include (i.e. the part which I have underlined) is in fact quite crucial for the simple fact that two contradictory facts can be true of an object as long as these are not to be understood in the same sense. Let us take the example that the author provides: that of a piece of paper. Assuming that the sheet of paper is divided wherein half of the sheet is black and half of it is white, it would in fact be entirely correct to say that this thing is “black and it’s not black” at the same time. For it all depends on what ‘black’ and ‘not black’ are referring to. It is here that we begin to see the great error with Islamic thought—a misformulation and misunderstanding of the law of non-contradiction.”

      Your blatantly obvious Straw Man attack in addition to your twisting of statements to seem logical is shocking. To begin with, the last addition you’ve included in the definition of the Law of Non-Contradiction is inherently understood within the definition that I’ve provided. In fact, it seems that you’ve included the last addition in order to set up your “black and it’s not black” example so as to make it seem logical. Here is the problem with your example of the divided paper: you wouldn’t say that it’s black and not black at the same time when you’re referring to the paper as a whole. Instead, you would say it’s a black AND WHITE paper, which is different than saying it’s black and not black. The former would add a second property to the paper, while the latter negates the very quality it affirms. If you’re going to speak about each side, you would have to indicate whether the side is black OR white. This is in fact where we see the great error with YOUR thinking.

      “Once again we are introduced with a string of alleged contradictions as proof for why Christianity is a blight to the human mind and yet the irony of the matter is that the very individuals who accuse Christians of violating a fundamental rule of logic are themselves the ones who should be studying logic at our knee!”

      This is quite the assertion on your part, which further shows your level of illiteracy when it comes to history. Logic is generally attributed to the Greeks, whose works were brought back to life through the Muslims who translated, studied, and commented on them deeply while Christians were in complete darkness and ignorance. In fact, it was the Christians who sat and studied logic at our knees, and many of them, including one of your greatest theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas, gives credit to Muslim scholars for the influence they had on him.

      “First off, the author wishes to drive a wedge between God being eternal, infinite, omnipotent and man having been created in his image according to the Holy Bible (Genesis 1:27). Such a thing could only be problematic if we understood the phrase “in his image” as meaning “exactly like God” and this is not the case. It merely means that man possesses qualities which, albeit infinitely removed from God’s majesty, are nevertheless similar to God’s own. If the matter is understood in such a fashion, then there is absolutely no contradiction present. Of course the unbiased individual would quite easily have understand the text in question in this manner for the Bible is emphatic that there is no one like God (Jeremiah 10:6, Isaiah 46:9). If this weren’t enough, it would seem that Mr. Mohamed Ghilan is not well-versed in the teachings of his own religion for Islam actually does teach that mankind was created in the image of God!
      “When any one of you fights with his brother, he should avoid his face for Allah created Adam in his [or His own] image.” — Sahih Muslim, Hadith 4731
      “Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said: ‘Allah created Adam in His Image.’” — Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 8, Hadith no. 246
      Here is how a Muslim source explains the above hadith. Notice that one of the resolutions to the problem is that which I (and indeed all of orthodox Christianity for over 1, 000 years) have proposed? If then both Islam and Christianity supposedly teach the same thing, and both make use of a similar response to resolve an alleged contradiction, why then are Muslims so quick to overlook this fact and accuse Christians? It is either through ignorance or sheer deception.”

      While I can agree that both Christianity and Islam do share in the teaching that man was created with qualities that are removed from God’s majesty, but similar to God’s own, I will disagree that it’s presented or dealt with similarly by both religions. The distinction between God and His creation is very unambiguous in Islam. Christianity on the other hand does throw one for a loop with this whole business of God’s Son “begotten not made”. My contention was that on the one hand Christians state what you had just mentioned about the unique nature of God, but on the other hand this “unique” God is not really 100% unique in His essence. If you have an in-depth conversation with those who reject God, you’ll see why this becomes a problem for many people.

      In regards to the Hadiths you mentioned, you’ve now exposed your illiteracy of the Islamic Tradition. I’m sure you’re aware that Hadith is originally in Arabic, which is not a lost language. So one can easily pull up the original version. Furthermore, I’m sure you’re aware that there are multiple Hadith texts that narrate different Hadiths. What I’m sure you don’t know is that you’re quoting parts of a longer Hadith, and you most definitely don’t understand Arabic. So here is your short impromptu Hadith and Arabic lesson: the second Hadith is not a second Hadith at all, but part of the first one you mentioned. Finding them in different resources doesn’t make them two different Hadiths. The English translation “His” is actually a possessive letter at the end of the word meaning “face” in Arabic, and it actually refers to Adam peace be upon him, not God.

      What you’ve shown here is the problem with English speaking Christians who don’t understand the original languages of sacred texts and scriptures. What you think the Bible is saying about God is most of the time only one English interpretation, not translation, of Hebrew or Greek. In case you didn’t know, when you go back to the original language you find that how it’s written in English misrepresents what it actually means. But that’s a whole other topic.

      “Yet still Mr. Ghilan might disagree. He may maintain that the above answer to this supposed problem is faulty for how could anything be like God? In assuming this position, he would have to deny that there is any sort of resemblance—however vague—between man and God. Such a position is intellectual suicide for it would reduce one to being unable to know anything about God at all. Such that when one might say that Allah is merciful, the truth of the matter would be that this phrase would become completely unintelligible. If nothing indeed is similar to God (even in the vaguest sense), then so then too will the words we use to express certain concepts lose all meaning when referring to God (seeing as there can exist no similarity whatsoever). This would net out to Mr. Ghilan’s holy book, the Qur’an, being a useless book seeing as it couldn’t possibly tell us anything worthwhile about the divine. The Muslim couldn’t possible understand what the phrase, “God is merciful” is supposed to mean seeing as his understanding of mercy could have no relation whatsoever with whatever the sentence,”Allah is Merciful” is supposed to mean. Whatever option that the author, to whom this response is directed at, chooses, the end result will still be one in which he is in error and his reasoning faulty.”

      You’re conflating God’s essence and His attributes, and in doing so are attempting to show that my position is flawed. Rather than responding to this part, which believe me I can, I’ll let you and my readers see why this paragraph of yours is problematic.

      “In the above, the author wants to imply that a contradiction immediately implies a falsehood and as in the matter of our paper example, this is not the case. Seeing as the author had wished to argue his point by way of logic, we cannot let his misuse of logic go uncontested. It is in fact quite easy to disprove the Islamic argument (for it never functioned on logic in the first place) and so here is a portion of my, Of Gods and Men, post (as always, I would encourage a full reading of the text to see how badly Muslims misconstrue logic) which deals with the Hypostatic Union:”

      I’ve already addressed your silly paper example and confusion between the words “or” and “and”, which resulted in a your fallacious conclusion regarding the Law of Non-Contradiction.

      “In laymen’s terms, this is the doctrine which stipulates that the eternal second person of the Trinity, in entering his creation and being born a man, took on a second nature he did not previously possess—that of a human. It must be noted that the divine nature did not become finite. Absolutely not, God as he is in himself did not become finite, rather he added onto himself the nature of humanity (and everything that comes with this nature) without divesting himself of divinity (that itself being impossible) so that within the one Christ there exist simultaneously two natures without the dilution of one into the other. […] The question then becomes, whether it is logical for a person to be both God and man at the same time seeing as to be God means to be infinite and to be man is to be finite. While in truth, this question has already been answered by the verbiage above, I suppose that it wouldn’t hurt to go over it again in far simpler terms.”

      Seriously? I almost feel bad for what I’m about to do here. So on the one hand you’re speaking about a God that is unchanging and has no likeness (Jeremiah 10:6, Isaiah 46:9). Then later you talk about the divine nature, which is infinite and unchanging, adopting the nature of humanity, and thus the divine nature having at some point an end to its old nature without humanity and therefore can’t really be called infinite and unchanging anymore. Then you assert that in taking up the nature of humanity, it included everything that comes with it including being finite, all the while having the divine nature maintaining its infinity.

      You can read that a couple more times if you like. I realize how incoherent and self-refuting that sounds, but that’s what you just said.

      “Keeping in line with my wish for simplicity, let us imagine a triangle. Now we all know the nature of a triangle i.e. it’s attributes, the things that make a triangle a triangle as opposed to a rectangle or circle. Good. Now let us at this point imagine a box. Once more we know what is the nature of a box and furthermore, we are also aware that the nature of a box is in direct contradiction to the nature of a triangle. Now suppose that we were to place the triangle within the box, would we then have a confusion, a mixing, an intermingling of the two essences/natures? No, we would possess one unit (the Triangle-Box if you would like) with the essences of both objects intact. The triangle would not cease to be a triangle and neither would the box cease to be a box—on the contrary we would now have a unit that possesses in its being the very attributes of both in that it is not half a box and half a triangle but rather a full (perfect) triangle and a full (perfect) box. A veritable Triangle-Box, wherein the unit is one but the essences are two. In just the same manner does the Christian speak of God becoming man. God did not cease being God, he did not convert the divine essence into a human essence; instead he took on a second nature aside from his divine nature. As such in the unit that is the individual, Christ Jesus, there are two natures with contradicting attributes simultaneously present. As with the Triangle-Box, Jesus can claim the otherwise mutually exclusive prerogatives that come with each nature because of them being simultaneously existent in his being. Such that he can increase in knowledge as man, but always have known all things as God. Such that he can pray to the Father as man, yet have no need to do so as God. Such that should he will it, he is able to give his life unto death as man, and yet death never having any power or hold over him as God. He does everything as the God-Man—mystery upon mystery. In short, He is both three-sided and four-sided at the same time.”

      Did you just use a box and triangle to explain God? Indeed, it is as God says in the Quran “And they do not assign to Allah the attributes due to Him” (Al An’am 6:91). So let me get this straight, having two things, whole in nature, but inside each other without a mixing/intermingling of the two essences/natures is what God is. How is your box/triangle example any different from the example of a lady who is 8-months pregnant? There is a whole being inside of her that is part of her that aside from genetic resemblance is not taking all her qualities on. They’re 2 in 1. You’re still finding yourself forced to make silly analogies to explain an illogical and incoherent theology. Moreover, you’re violating your assertion from your Bible that there is no one like God. I’d stop making these comparisons if I were you and just do what Christian theologians have already said about the Trinity: take it upon faith!

      “The gripe that Muslims have with the doctrine of the hypostatic union is that it supposedly teaches that God (that is, as he is in himself/inherently) underwent change and yet this is impossible, for God is supposed to be unchanging. What the Muslim however fails to understand is that Christians do not teach such blasphemy. Just as in the example above, in adding the triangle into the box, we did not change the nature of the triangle nor the box. Whatever was true of each essence before the joining together into one unit, is still true after the event (i.e. placing the triangle inside the box). As such the unit that is the Traingle-Box, would retain all the attributes of both natures without such violating the law of non-contradiction. This really is basic logic.”

      This is more like incoherent ramblings than basic logic. I’ve already dealt with your ILlogic enough to allow everyone else to see the problems in this paragraph without having to spell it out. You can refer to what I wrote above that says in a nutshell what you were saying.

      “As the above readily displays, the divinity of Christ is not an illogical doctrine. Muslims are simply unaware of the teachings of Christianity and the little that they do know is horrible caricature. I understand that I am speaking rather boldly, yet I do so in the hope that these words will lead even one Muslim to think of the matter seriously. I have never met a single Muslim who did not believe the Christian conception of God to be a violation of the law of non-contradiction and yet the truth is that this is not the case at all. So in reality, the overwhelming majority of Muslims—if not all Muslims altogether—simply are incapable of possessing a mastery of logic. So hopefully, the Muslim can begin to understand the Christian’s frustration when it is claimed that what we pander is base sophistry.”

      Actually, the above displayed your lack of logic in the matter and blatantly incoherent reasoning. Muslims are aware of the theological teachings of Christianity and the Quran speaks enough about it to show how unreasonable they are. This of course aside from the countless writings of Muslim scholars on this matter and the great number of debates that have been had. The fact is, your very own theologians understand the problematic nature of the Christian Doctrine, and despite their very best efforts and attempts at logically showing its coherence, they eventually admit that it is as they call it a “Divine Mystery”, and that Christians should just take it upon faith. So what you can do is simply follow in their footsteps and just take it in faith. If you’re really passionate about logic and want a coherent theology, you can start by rejecting the Divinity of Christ, accept Jesus peace be upon him as a special human creation of God, sent as the Messiah/Christ/Anointed One, born miraculously of a Virgin (Mary peace be upon her), and sent in specific to the Children of Israel, not mankind, to remind them of what they had deviated away from in God’s commandments and Prophetic teachings. Also, stop trying to use your logic to understand God’s essence and stop making silly analogies to explain a much too complex and incoherent doctrine about God. He is infinite and your mind is finite. He can reach you but you can’t reach Him for He is higher.

      “Dear Muslim, and I certainly do not mean this to be offensive, but please ask yourself why it is the case that you have been unable to see how erroneous your understanding of reason has been? How is it that such an entire demographic can commit such an error wholesale? If then I cannot trust Islam concerning truth that I can know through simple reason, how then could I ever trust the religion of Muhammad when it comes to truth that I could not possibly know short of a revelation from God (e.g. how to establish a relationship with him)? Once again, if I cannot trust Islam with my intellect, why then should I trust it with my eternal soul? Islam truly does darken the mind and if one need see specific proof of this claim, one simply ought to read the various discussions I have had with Muslims—particularly on the issue of whether the Bible teaches the divinity of Christ. Please don’t take my word for it, simply read through the conversation and judge for yourself, dear reader.”

      The Muslim understanding is far from erroneous my friend. The question is more directed at you: how is it that your entire demographic can commit such an error wholesale? I believe it’s because most of your demographic have not examined Christian theology, and most of those who do and ask question so their faith is based on reason, end up leaving Christianity.

      Contrary to your claim, Islam does not darken the mind. It was those faithful Muslims who came to a darkened Christian Europe and brought light to it. It was when Europe abandoned Christianity that they’ve advanced intellectually,

      Your seeking of establishing a relationship with God is commendable. But please don’t kid yourself, for you’re not basing it on reason if you’re attempting to do it through Christianity. Your overall premise that you must know the essence of God to establish a relationship with him is a big problem that if you considered deeply will see its impossibility. By the way, intellect and cognition are two different things and they’re located in different parts of the body as far as Muslims are concerned. You can read my other post on this matter: https://mohamedghilan.com/2012/02/10/intelligence-is-it-in-the-brain-or-the-heart/

      How can you trust Islam? Go dig into it and study it deeply enough with actual Muslims who have studied it and read up on your own history to see what Islam has done for you. The whole Western intellectual civilization would be nothing if it weren’t for the Muslims. It was us that taught you about baths and soap. If I were to get into Muslim contributions, it would turn to another book among all the books having addressed this subject. So please keep your condescending and patronizing remarks to yourself.

      “I have not made a logical defense of the Holy Trinity within this article for the simple reason that I have done so elsewhere (please follow the links) and at the moment can’t really be bothered to repeat myself once again. If one thought that the above article was an excellent exposition concerning the matter of the Muslim and logic, one really needs to see what happens when Muslims are actually taken to task on the subject of the Trinity and the oneness of God. It is my hope that Muslims, and Mr. Ghilan in particular, will have the intellectual fortitude to at least listen to the Christian understanding of these doctrines.”

      You certainly have not made a logical defense of the Holy Trinity, and nor did anyone else for that matter. It is a matter of faith for the Christian. Any logical attempt at reasoning it out has failed. It is in fact MY hope that you have the intellectual fortitude to see why Islam is logically coherent whereas Christian theology is not.

      The final thing I would like to say, which is brotherly advice more than anything, is for you to stop doing mental gymnastics. You’re conflating different topics and are jumping from one premise to unrelated conclusions and most certainly you’re making quite the number of self-refuting statements. This form of gymnastics always ends with the person falling and hurting themselves, as you did here.

      I ask God to guide us all to his straight path.

      That and God is more exalted and more knowledgeable and knows best!

      • Now I’ll try to make this quick and focus only on the important things seeing as it matters very little what you think of me:

        So I’ll clarify a couple of things for you since you’re a little confused. The post was directed at atheists, not Christians. However, I did mention Christian influence as a consequence of being in the West. Hence, my alluding to a curious observation that it seems that most atheists come from Christian backgrounds.

        I didn’t misunderstand the target audience at all, rather I chose to pick apart those points of yours which are particularly relevant to Christians (for these consist of the same trite arguments that Muslims and other non-Christians are prone to using).

        Your blatantly obvious Straw Man attack in addition to your twisting of statements to seem logical is shocking. To begin with, the last addition you’ve included in the definition of the Law of Non-Contradiction is inherently understood within the definition that I’ve provided. In fact, it seems that you’ve included the last addition in order to set up your “black and it’s not black” example so as to make it seem logical. Here is the problem with your example of the divided paper: you wouldn’t say that it’s black and not black at the same time when you’re referring to the paper as a whole. Instead, you would say it’s a black AND WHITE paper. But if you’re going to speak about each side, you would have to indicate whether the side is black OR white. This is in fact where we see the great error with YOUR thinking.

        Let’s take this slowly seeing as once again you fail to understand how a proper argument is made. You say that my definition of the law of non-contradiction is inherently understood within the one which you have given and yet this matters little for it goes without saying that you have given an incomplete rendition of this law. What you have given simply isn’t the whole law at all and is in fact wrong if taken as such. For two contradictory things can in fact be true of the same object. Yet I suppose that you’ll decry this as mere semantics and this is all fine and good–it really doesn’t matter. The important thing is that we recognize that the inclusion of a referent is crucial to finding out whether opposite statements are a violation of the aforementioned law of thought or not. Can we agree then that such is the case?

        You’re conflating God’s essence and His attributes, and in doing so are attempting to show that my position is flawed.

        If Allah’s attributes are not reducible to his essence then there exists a real distinction within Allah and as such he possesses parts and there goes your absolute unity doctrine (for more on this, you might want to look into the concept of divine simplicity and how this might be applied to problems such as the distinction between essence and existence etc.). If the distinction isn’t real and only a means for us to speak of Allah then your objection is superfluous seeing as his attributes truly do comprise/are his essence. Pick one.

        Seriously? I almost feel bad for what I’m about to do here. So on the one hand you’re speaking about a God that is unchanging and has no likeness (Jeremiah 10:6, Isaiah 46:9). Then later you talk about the divine nature, which is infinite and unchanging, adopting the nature of humanity, and thus the divine nature having at some point an end to its old nature without humanity and therefore can’t really be called infinite and unchanging anymore. Then you assert that in taking up the nature of humanity, it included everything that comes with it including being finite, all the while having the divine nature maintaining its infinity.

        Please learn what change is, in particular the difference between an inherent change and an extraneous change (or cambridge change). I did specifically say that God as he is in himself (that is, the divine nature) is unchanging. Yet you make the claim that what I’m really saying is that the divine nature really did undergo an inherent change. Evidently, you do not understand what change is. As in my example of the triangle-box, did either of the natures change? No they didn’t and so on what basis can you say that if another nature is assumed, an inherent change to the essences of one (or both) must have happened? The real problem is that you certainly claim this but you never show us why. Further down, you make light of my analogy and call it ridiculous yet you take care never to actually show how it is illogical. Why is that I might ask? I understand that ridicule is perhaps the best means of hiding the fact that you have no argument but please, I would hope that we were above that. I’m not interested in unsubstantiated claims. Please do yourself a favour and at least back up what you say. To deny me, you would have to show how what I speak of is an actual change in the divine nature or how even a cambridge change is illogical in reference to God. I’ll be waiting but I certainly won’t hold my breath.

        blockquote>You certainly have not made a logical defense of the Holy Trinity, and nor did anyone else for that matter. It is a matter of faith for the Christian. Any logical attempt at reasoning it out has failed. It is in fact MY hope that you have the intellectual fortitude to see why Islam is logically coherent whereas Christian theology is not.

        There we go again with making unsupported statements. Faith is not opposed to logic. We are not dealing with blind faith here so let’s not even bring up that strawman. In any case, from the above we can gather that there has not been a logical defense of the Trinity simply because you claim so and furthermore feel no need to even prove. What’s even more astounding is that you haven’t even bothered to follow the link to the article concerning the trinity and yet you can immediately say that I haven’t made a logical case for it. How sad. Notice that I have consistently pointed to proofs in support of my argument while you have done little other than simply claiming that you are right. A logical argument, if this can even be called that, simply does not work that way.

        Now, what will now most likely happen is that you’ll claim yourself to be too busy to actually back up your points and that we should end here (and I honestly do hope that you prove me wrong on this count). I really only ask for two things: show how the hypostatic union and the trinity are illogical doctrines. You did make such claims in your comment yet the actual argument for your position was nowhere to be found, why is that?

      • My opinion of you as a person is really irrelevant. I don’t know who you are and I’m not into judging people anyways. But it seems like I got under your skin somehow, since I’m now dealing with a diatribe. So this will be it for this topic after I deal with your so-called important things.

        I didn’t misunderstand the target audience at all, rather I chose to pick apart those points of yours which are particularly relevant to Christians (for these consist of the same trite arguments that Muslims and other non-Christians are prone to using).

        Good thing you didn’t misunderstand whom the target audience was. Just had to make sure that you knew that I wasn’t necessarily going after Christian theology, as much as I was going after proper definitions when speaking with atheists.

        Let’s take this slowly seeing as once again you fail to understand how a proper argument is made. You say that my definition of the law of non-contradiction is inherently understood within the one which you have given and yet this matters little for it goes without saying that you have given an incomplete rendition of this law. What you have given simply isn’t the whole law at all and is in fact wrong if taken as such. For two contradictory things can in fact be true of the same object. Yet I suppose that you’ll decry this as mere semantics and this is all fine and good–it really doesn’t matter. The important thing is that we recognize that the inclusion of a referent is crucial to finding out whether opposite statements are a violation of the aforementioned law of thought or not. Can we agree then that such is the case?

        I’ll concede to you the point about the definition of the Law of Non-Contradiction. It’s not mere semantics and words are important in any definition given that they’ll give rise to different implications depending on their use.

        If Allah’s attributes are not reducible to his essence then there exists a real distinction within Allah and as such he possesses parts and there goes your absolute unity doctrine (for more on this, you might want to look into the concept of divine simplicity and how this might be applied to problems such as the distinction between essence and existence etc.). If the distinction isn’t real and only a means for us to speak of Allah then your objection is superfluous seeing as his attributes truly do comprise/are his essence. Pick one.

        Regarding your issue with Allah’s attributes and whether they can be reduced to His essence or not, this has to do with a bit of distinction and a lengthier discussion. Suffice to say for now, that in Islam the names of God (Allah) are innumerable. However, they all can be categorized into 4 types: Names of Essence, Names of Attributes, Names of Exaltation, and Names of Actions. You’d first need to distinguish which category you’re speaking about before going any further. Having multiple Name does not equate to multiple parts, so I’m not sure how you got that idea. May be you’re too involved in your square/triangle analogy!

        Please learn what change is, in particular the difference between an inherent change and an extraneous change (or cambridge change). I did specifically say that God as he is in himself (that is, the divine nature) is unchanging. Yet you make the claim that what I’m really saying is that the divine nature really did undergo an inherent change. Evidently, you do not understand what change is. As in my example of the triangle-box, did either of the natures change? No they didn’t and so on what basis can you say that if another nature is assumed, an inherent change to the essences of one (or both) must have happened? The real problem is that you certainly claim this but you never show us why. Further down, you make light of my analogy and call it ridiculous yet you take care never to actually show how it is illogical. Why is that I might ask? I understand that ridicule is perhaps the best means of hiding the fact that you have no argument but please, I would hope that we were above that. I’m not interested in unsubstantiated claims. Please do yourself a favour and at least back up what you say. To deny me, you would have to show how what I speak of is an actual change in the divine nature or how even a cambridge change is illogical in reference to God. I’ll be waiting but I certainly won’t hold my breath.

        I know the differences between types of changes, but thanks for the refresher anyways. Regarding your analogy, it is in fact ridiculous. You’re putting an entity within another then claiming they are one because they’re inside each other. I fail to see how that logically follows. You’re speaking of God taking upon Himself a new quality, which is the nature of humanity. While this is probably not representative of inherent change, it’s not accurately represented in your box-triangle analogy. If Jesus Christ was just a representation of a human quality that God took upon Himself, then it’s more appropriate to say that the box took to itself a new color. Moreover, your analogy does represent an inherent change in the divine essence in that you can no longer speak of an empty box, but a box-triangle if you would like to refer to it as a single unit, or just speak of it as two separate units; a box AND a triangle. Moreover, if we were to apply the proposition of the Trinity onto your analogy, both the box and triangle must share the all too important quality of divinity, otherwise it would be crazy for you to be worshipping Jesus Christ. So either we speak of the box AND triangle being both equally divine, which is preposterous because that would mean we have two Gods, or we speak of a box-triangle that is wholly divine, which means that neither an empty box nor a lone triangle can be divine on their own. Basically, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

        The state one would be left with after contemplation over the Trinity is confusion. It’s not simply a paradox, but a contradiction. The question then becomes: can one have true faith in a contradiction? What’s the point of having an intellectual faculty that reasons?

        You certainly have not made a logical defense of the Holy Trinity, and nor did anyone else for that matter. It is a matter of faith for the Christian. Any logical attempt at reasoning it out has failed. It is in fact MY hope that you have the intellectual fortitude to see why Islam is logically coherent whereas Christian theology is not.

        There we go again with making unsupported statements. Faith is not opposed to logic. We are not dealing with blind faith here so let’s not even bring up that strawman. In any case, from the above we can gather that there has not been a logical defense of the Trinity simply because you claim so and furthermore feel no need to even prove. What’s even more astounding is that you haven’t even bothered to follow the link to the article concerning the trinity and yet you can immediately say that I haven’t made a logical case for it. How sad. Notice that I have consistently pointed to proofs in support of my argument while you have done little other than simply claiming that you are right. A logical argument, if this can even be called that, simply does not work that way.

        I think I’ve done enough for unrelated comments on an article addressed to a different audience why your faith in the Trinity is based on blind faith. Your arguments were broken down and shown for their irrelevance and general weakness, and I don’t really see a need to go any further. Moreover, I’ve taken your proofs and showed them to not work anyways. Your inability to see that is not really my problem. I’m doing this more for the readers coming through here. As far as my concern about convincing you, believe me when I say that I know I can’t. You already seem to have invested a lot of time, albeit wastefully, in building up your case for the Trinity. You’re not in the right state of mind of objective searching for the truth – you’ve already made it up to believe in the Trinity against all odds and all reason and logic. More power to you!

        Now, what will now most likely happen is that you’ll claim yourself to be too busy to actually back up your points and that we should end here (and I honestly do hope that you prove me wrong on this count). I really only ask for two things: show how the hypostatic union and the trinity are illogical doctrines. You did make such claims in your comment yet the actual argument for your position was nowhere to be found, why is that?

        So many assumptions about my life my friend. I am very busy. But this, I couldn’t pass up.

        This was fun. Peace!

  2. It would seem that we are at the end of this discussion and particularly your last response has been filled with little other than intellectual drivel. Now i have gotten tired of this back-and-forth within your comment section (the format just isn’t to my liking) and so I have posted my final refutation–yes, refutation–here: http://godomnipotent.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/still-talking-about-logic/

    You certainly had made a passable attempt at using reason to prove your point but once we take things step by step, we find how reason actually indicts the Islamic understanding of things. Hopefully after reading, you will not remove my link after having read my final response (assuming of course that you at all bother to do so).

    • Divine nature. Box-triangle analogies. Contradictions being accepted as logical. Mental gymnastics that deserve an Olympics gold medal.

      Aside from the fact that that the Bible never talks about this business of a “divine nature”, our friend Methods seems to be oblivious to the simple truth that since 325 AD at the Council of Nicea all attempts to logically defend this idea of the Trinity have failed. It’s simply accepted by Christians that it’s a “Divine Mystery” that one should just have blind irrational faith in. It’s quite obvious that he hasn’t actually read much scholarly work from various philosophers that found it impossible to philosophically defend the Trinity. You most certainly are not unique and have not proved the logic of something the greats before you have not been able to.

      I’ll leave it to the readers to determine who “refuted” who. I’m convinced that I’ve deconstructed your so-called arguments and shown them to be weak enough to be discarded. The truth of the matter is, Christian faith is built on manmade creed rather than revelation. One would think that the most important central text for Christianity, the Bible, would be unambiguous about this matter. But it was a bunch of old men that got together at the order of a Roman Emperor, some 300 years after Jesus Christ, who set down this puzzling belief system about God and about Jesus Christ peace be upon him. Their efforts were based more on pagan Greek philosophy than actual scripture. Here are some quick links for those who would like to get started and investigate this matter further:

      The Doctrine of the Trinity

      The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

      The Trinity Defined & Refuted (Video)

      Thanks for stopping by Methodus. I know this can be emotional for you and too hard to accept. But you’ve been taken care of over here.

      Cheers

    • Your prior comment did go through Methodus. I won’t attempt to control what people read my friend. I’m not going to be afraid of a fallacious article on your part 😉

  3. Hello Mohamed,

    What an exciting run. Logic games and words, as you have noted, fall short of truth. Each person seeks their truth, some hold it dear in the heart of hearts, and still others must prove wrong those who believe otherwise. I respect that you have opened your website and blog to the world so that all may express their thoughts. Thanks also go to Method Man for expressing himself so intensely. Fervent belief, what can you say…

    Thus appear the limitations of belief. What if we could only live our own life and never reveal how we do it and what we believe? We’d have to relate to a person’s actions and not judge anything else. No word comparisons or belief system battles. We would have to honor those who live the highest ideals all religions share and respect their path, whatever it may be. As Dr. Bronner, master soapmaker and health-food prophet, stated, “Judge only by the results”.

    Yet God, as you have beautifully recounted from the Islamic perspective, has no way of being likened. Words fall short, images within our Minds are simplistic at best, and the many names just seem confuse those still seek but do not yet feel the Presence in all things. For those who do feel the Presence, no words or justifications are necessary, however they may be clothed.

    I know so many Names and they are all but arrows shot toward a blinding sun. Mankind must seek to focus more on similarities and less on differences; our human past indicates so, our present demands so, and our future is a future only if it is so. I know you know. I feel it in your words.

    I have excerpted a small section of your essay below and wanted to share another wonderful perspective relating to it:

    “Anything that comes to your mind, anything that you can comprehend, anything that you can picture – God is other than that. There is absolutely nothing that can be imagined that can be likened to God. In fact, the only reason “Him” is used is a shortcoming in language, because God is not a He and not a She. Muslims do not refer to God as “the Father” (or “the Mother” for those who have a problem with patriarchy). The closest companion of the Prophet peace be upon him Abu Bakr As’Sidiq may God be pleased with him said in beautiful Arabic poetry what translates to:

    Your inability to comprehend God is your comprehension of God

    And delving into the nature of God is a type of polytheism ”

    عجزك عن إدراكه إدراك

    والخوض في كنه الإله إشراك

    In the spirit of Advaita Vedanta, Sri Sankaracharya has excellent words concerning your quote above. It can be found in his most important work, the Upadesa Sahasri, (A Thousand Teachings). To summarize his discourse on how the Supreme can be explained, conceived, or even mentioned, the chant or mantra “Neti, Neti” applies. It simply means “Not This, Not This” or “Neither This, Nor That”. This describes what is by describing what is not. Unlike Christianity’s view of God, there is no affirmative.

    By negating everything, including the person who negates, what is finally left is Brahman.

    This method brings me nearer and nearer to the Indescribable when I get stuck in my intellect or consider the conflicting beliefs of Man.

    Peace to you, your family, and your work to explain to others the Path of Islam.

    James Bergstrom

  4. This is the right blog for anyone who wants to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!

  5. Oh my goodness! an amazing article dude. Thank you However I am experiencing issue with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anyone getting identical rss problem? Anyone who knows kindly respond. Thanks

  6. Pingback: Does God Exist? The Atheist Doesn’t Care | Mohamed Ghilan | The Bonds of Brotherhood (Ribaat ul-Ukhuwa)

  7. Pingback: Talking About God | Mohamed Ghilan | The Bonds of Brotherhood (Ribaat ul-Ukhuwa)

  8. Pingback: Logic is all there is | Epimetheus

Comments are closed.