The apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab and said to her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself, "If you are a prophet, the God will inform you; and if you are a king, we will get rid of you."
Looks like false prophet confirmed.
"According to the hadith, Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewish woman, following the conquest of Khaibar, where he took Safiyah as a wife, and ordered the torture and beheading of her husband Kinana, the chief of the Jews at Khaibar."
Why didnt Allah tell Muhammad that food was poisoned?
Why did Allah deceive Muhammad?
Answer is here:
Qur’an 69:44-46
"And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand, and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta)."
Why did Muhammad die from the very thing that was said to die from if he was a false prophet?
Qur’an 69:44-46
"And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand, and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta)."
"O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut" - Muhammad moments before death.
"the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth. (oxford)
there is no lies here."
So Allah makes people believe what is not true.
"let me throw u the context"
the context is just Allah's lies.
And you dodged the question. Do you feel safe from Allah's planning/lies?
Do you feel safe from Allah's lies?
You can learn Arabic from here:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Allah,_the_Best_Deceiver_(Qur%27an_3:54)
"The key word you mentioned, "makr" (مَكْر), is the Arabic term here translated as "plan"
No, that Quran's verse is literally translated as Allah being deceiver, so a liar.
And you haven't answered my question. Who is a better liar than Allah.
None would feel secure from Allah’s lies except the losers.
the correct translation is "Did they secure themselves against Allah's lies"?
Who is a better liar than Allah?
All cheatery belongs to Allah. Did they secure themselves against Allah's lies?
Qur'an 7:99
Qur'an 13:42
So no one trusts Allah's lies except the nation of losers.
Qur'an 7:99
Allah cheated and lied, and Allah is the best cheater and liar.
Qur'an 3:54
I agree, however, that Pascal's wager is a very flawed argument. I dont know why people keep using it on mass scale. the better argument is about truth, and being correct in more cases logically.
One achieves truth by being both omni theist and atheist who thinks God doesnt exist. Logically, some God either exists or doesnt, and believing both of these means you are correct in one case, so your position contains more truth logically than any other position.
Existence cannot be sustained by itself.
Well, Pro can argue this by claiming subjective morality where everything is good. the issue for Pro is that this topic seems to deal with all people.
Given that Quran says Allah is best liar, it is difficult to believe anything Allah says.
"So what is he?"
Well, ask him. I wouldnt really know, other than when discussing scripture, he does seem to prefer to focus on exactly what scripture says. And scripture doesnt say Christianity, and really doesnt say JW.
I voted. I don't think my vote needs more explanation because the opponent forfeited everything.
Which gender is intersex?
I will post later why I oppose minimum wage. Cant post now because it could influence debate, so I will wait until voting is over.
So if you met Jesus, you would try to eat his arm. Oki doki
We can read whole Bible, and nowhere will we find words "tortured with greatest pain in Hell", which both you and Con conceded was truism. Now, truism is something which must be true, so saying that I made a claim which must be true, while also saying claim isnt true, is nonsense.
Now, if you want to punish me in your vote for making a truism, fine. But then dont at same time pretend Con proved anything. If topic is truism, then topic is true, and if you want to punish a truism, thats something different entirely.
Pro would have to defend literal rape in some cases, because the only way some people can marry is by forced marriage, as not all people are wanted by others. Right to marriage literally means being able to have it at will, which isnt even logically possible, but also would create situation where person who "has right to marriage" has no one to marry unless they force someone to marry them. If Pro is supposed to defend that, then this is basically a debate asking Pro to justify forced marriages, and by necessary conclusion, also to justify rape.
Also, saying that my claim is a truism while giving win to opponent? "Your side of debate must be true, so I will vote for your opponent"
I don't know how someone can cast a vote and mistake me for my opponent. You are literally blaming me for not proving opponent's position in your vote.
Alright, so it seems that words are confusing you. My position isn't to prove greatest possible pain in hell.
My position argues that Bible doesn't teach that.
Now, saying cats aren't greatest animals isn't same as saying cats aren't animals.
Accept the debate to find out!
I am not going for any tricks here. The topic is literally mathematically true. In math, there is actually something which is neither 1 nor not 1. There is also something which is neither true nor false. But I am not going to reveal my argument here. People have accused me of doing "semantic traps", but this isn't really a semantic trap as much as math puzzle.
Here is a debate challenge for you, if you want.
