Hello everyone,
I would like to start off by thanking LogicForTW for agreeing to participate in this thread. Of course, all are welcomed and highly encouraged to do the same as well. Logic and I have been talking and to make a long story short we agree its best that we establish what would be considered evidence when discussing Islam and Atheism. Yes, this thread focuses solely on Islam and Atheism/Science and nothing else, given the way conversations have gone on these forums I think its best we limit the scope (for now) in an effort to try and at least reach some common grounds. Our difference will surely come later but, for now let’s see what we can agree on. Also, this thread is not about “winning or losing” so please try and be as fair and unbiased as possible when looking at the evidence each side brings forward. The aim here is to reach a common ground and not continuing to argue simply for the sake of arguing. I will be the first to point out a flaw if a Muslim posted something that contradicts Islam in an effort to simply try and “win” but, again, that is not the purpose so I ask for atheists to please do the same.
Please see a few things below to consider prior to replying/posting to this thread.
Objective:
The main and sole goal of the thread is to establish what Islam and Atheism consider and agree is evidence prior to moving to the (possible) next step. So please think and possibly even do some research prior to posting or reply.
Purpose:
The main purpose of this is to avoid asking questions from a stand point of ignorance when not even understanding or knowing what a Muslim or Atheist thinks or believes. So, when you are asking a Muslim here a question (am I the only one?) it would be better for you to make sure that your questions are even relevant to what we believe. Small example, Logic asked me if I or Muslims believe if the earth is 13.8 billion years old, my answer was that to a certain extent it is irrelevant to Muslims. 13.8 Billion, 4.5 Billion or 1 Billion, it does not change our or effect our belief. The reason I bring that up is because when we look at the big picture, ultimately we are wasting our time. So please lets establish an agreed upon scope for evidence prior to asking questions.
Once again, everyone is highly encouraged to voluntarily participate under the above “guidelines”.
I would like to start this off by requesting the Atheists to please define what they consider to be evidence. I am not trying to start off by putting anything on the shoulders of the Atheists and looking to “pick apart” anything they say. The reason being is that I think it would be easier to start with that since based off my experience, I think their scope of evidence is smaller than the Muslims. So I think it would be a good starting point for common ground.
As this conversation progresses, I will routinely post an update of what has been agreed to as evidence for both parties to make sure we are not constantly repeating ourselves. It also serves to help any newcomers or viewers to see where we have reached. It will look something kind of like the below
Agreed upon evidence so far
1)aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Example:yyyyyyyyyyyy
2) bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Example:zzzzzzzzzzzzz
3)ccccccccccccccccccccccc Example: xxxxxxxxxxxx
I welcome any and all suggestions that could be used to improve upon anything I have said so far, all in an effort to hopefully and finally reach at least some common ground together. And yes, I know I repeated myself a few times so far but, that was done to simply enforce the main goal of this thread.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well done guys, hopefully some good debate can stem from this!
Searching for truth, may I ask the following...
Could we ask what branch of Islam is being debated? (I know of the two main branches sunni and shia, but there are obviously sub branches of islam)
And then for a formal question, where does your specific branch of Islam stand on natural evolution and formation of the planet?
I.e. Does your version of Islam accept the natural law of evolution through natural selection.
And for the second part
What is the thought or belief in regards to Earth being formed roughly 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun.
Thank you in advance, look forward to learning more.
All the best to you both.
i'm a former Muslim so i'm gonna answer your questions.
The Islamic of view evolution is similar to Christan view that humans and all creatures were created by god in the form we see now.
About the formation of the planets the Islamic view is that Allah created earth out of thin ear and that it took six days, which The Quran then states that each day is measures to a thousand day in human time. So basically it took six thousand days to finish creating the earth. Each one of the six days, according to a Hadeeth, one portion of earth was created, on Saturday it was dirt or soil, on Sunday the mountains, on Monday the trees, on Tuesday the filth (which i honestly have no idea what it means), on Wednesday light, on Tuesday the animals, and on Friday the last creation of Allah which was Adam. Of course, water was always there as Allah built earth, similar to Genesis in the bible.
This is clearly in contradiction with scientific evidences. First of all it is impossible to create the earth and have life begin on it in only 6000 days, earth as a planet without life needs millions of years to start forming in the first place. Second water didn't come before the birth of the earth but long after it, nor did light. the source of light is a star and starts form before planets as fas as i know. Even if we said it is possible for earth and water to form in 6000 days, there are fossils that prove that there were animals like the dinosaurs millions of years before any civilized human, Adam was created only after 1000 days of the creation of animals.
@madman,
With all due respect, the majority of what you said is NOT true, you are confusing Christianity with Islam (it seems) . Too long to go in to everything now so for now, please focus on the main goal of this particular thread. This thread was started to establish evidence, not get in to a scientific/theological debate. If you would like, please start your own thread and i will gladly join in and we can discuss whatever you would like but, for now, here, please let's stick to the main objective of this thread.
@Searching for truth
Actually, this is on topic, the problem is that two Muslims cannot agree on a common ground. This is the problem with religion, everyone has their own interpretation of the same book.
@David,
False, that is NOT on topic. First off you seem to have conveniently left out where he said FORMER Muslims. Former meaning he NO longer believes in it due to a few reasons the simplest being 1) Misunderstood or 2) Misrepresented or 3) He found something else to be the truth to him. Regardless of the reason it's irrelevant here and now. And we are not discussing Islamic religion right now as the focus should be establishing what evidence i from the Atheist point of view then Islam. If you or he wants to discuss of science or theology start a new thread. Also just FYI, there is NOWHERE in the Quran where it states anything he said in regards to the earth nor is there any scholar that says what he said. That's why i am assuming he is mixing up Christianity with Islam. Please try to stay on the topic and make sure anything you type helps us accomplish our main objective at the moment.
Thank you for pointing that out that's as a beginning. Second of all I don't want to get off topic so I will say that what I concieve as evidence falls under the criteria of scientific evidence, where it applies under the laws of nature, the results are repeatable, it follows or falls under what is agreed upon as facts by the scientific community. I think that five Sense are not very reliable though.
On the other hand what I said is in hadeeth and not in the Quran except for the part of creating the Earth in six days. And as you say that's off topic for now and I respect the rules of this thread so I will not comment on religion or anything else that doesn't relate to the concept of evidence.
@madman
Thanks. I'm sure are we will eventually get to the points you are talking about
I'm an aethiest, but mistakes happen so it's cool.
This is where the problem lies when trying to set ground rules. The importance of the question goes directly to the type of answer you give. For example, if you say yes, the earth is 4.7 billion years old, then yes, it's a moot point. If you say no, it's 6,000 years old, then it's very difficult to move past that.
Searching for truth
Do you believe in the same God as Christians and Jews do?
I use my 5 senses to gather evidence, I believe in the scientific method of testing and peer review to gather evidence.
Yes, Islamic believe clearly states that Allah is the same God as the God of Christians and Jews. in fact, Islam states that Allah has sent prophets to every group of people on earth, in this sense every God that ever was believed in is Allah.
@Madman,
"Yes, Islamic believe clearly states that Allah is the same God as the God of Christians and Jews."What you said is true but, the Christians do not practice nor believe that as they believe in the whole trinity and believe Jesus is god. Muslims believe the entire of humanity has 1 single god aka Allah whether they believe in him or not
"in this sense every God that ever was believed in is Allah."Not true, just ask the Hindus and Christians for example if they consider their god to be Allah. Also, it sates in the Quran that many people worshiped idols therefore, proving that not every god everyone ever believed is was Allah.
"What you said is true but, the Christians do not practice nor believe that as they believe in the whole trinity and believe Jesus is god. Muslims believe the entire of humanity has 1 single god aka Allah whether they believe in him or not"
It is true that Christians worship the trinity God but in Islam it states that they have modified their religion and edited it, but still basically the original God of both Christianity and Jews is the same, but both hose religions have been manipulated.
"Not true, just ask the Hindus and Christians for example if they consider their god to be Allah. Also, it sates in the Quran that many people worshiped idols therefore, proving that not every god everyone ever believed is was Allah." Yes that is true, and it does state that many people worshiped idols. but in the sense that Allah has sent a prophet to every group of people on earth before the time of Muhamed doesn't remove the possibility that those religions have been corrupted in the same way as Christianity. That still is a possibility, but i have to admit that i over generalized with my statement there i apologize.
They are called, "The Abrahamic Religions". It is the same God, just a different description.
Really? Does that include all of these?
http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods.html
rmfr
Addenda: Reference added to help avoid confusion.
@Orignal post
I believe you are the only Muslim that post here regularly lately.
Nit picky perhaps, but: I stated the earth at ~4.5 billion and the Universe at ~13.8, Just wanted to get the record straight.
Is not god/Allah as big picture as it gets for Muslims? If we are not looking at big picture, does that not preclude god/Allah from the conversation? Fine with me in a conversation only about evidence, but it seems like it would be unfair to later re-add god/Allah to the conversation once we agree upon "evidence" in the smaller picture.
Well I think a good place to start is by looking up the definition of evidence in various english dictionaries and see if there is anything to work with there that we can agree upon.
Merriam-Webster:
Definition of evidence
1 a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
— in evidence
1 : to be seen : conspicuous
trim lawns … are everywhere in evidence
2 : as evidence
.
Dictionary.com
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
.
Oxford
1 The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
‘the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination’
1.2 Signs or indications of something.
‘there was no obvious evidence of a break-in’
____________________________________________
I personally like Merriam Webster's the most as it is the most detailed. Ofcourse we can easily slip into word games and circular definitions. As we try to further define key words in the definition. Perhaps going deeper into more basics we can find common ground.
We humans are to some extent, self aware. We have a sense of self, and we have an organ, (our brain,) dedicated to receiving input through our senses that can be processed and through our ability to remember past sensory input, to create our reality. A reality that exists only in our heads. We can not peer into other people's reality, only through communication with others can we get a crude, often tainted glimpse into another person's reality, that once again this information is only interpreted in one's own reality.
If this concept is hard to grasp, realize our thoughts and sensory input is not instant, and compared to say computers and fiber optics our sensory input data pathways and memory is quite slow. Clocked at a few hundred miles per hour or less. An easy to understand example of this in our lives is reaction time. If we are driving along the highway and we see a large potentially damaging rock on the road, the time it takes to see the rock, recognize the rock and what it means, and then send the signal to our arms and hands to turn the steering wheel to avoid the rock can be measured in the seconds, where as a computer with the right input tools and software could do all the same in 1-2 milliseconds. Everything we perceive is all being recreated in our own heads and not quickly either our reality is always in lag time to actual reality.
So how does evidence fit into what I said above? Well evidence to me is really just sensory input from actual reality, to the reality we create in our heads that we essentially "operate in." Now, to make all this sensory input evidence into reality useful for us, we need to separate out important sensory data from non important sensory data. Recognizing another humans face to determine friend or foe can be very useful to our overall well being, both in actual reality and the reality we re-create in our heads. The person is dirty blond hair, hair cut short, no beard, important. The person has a few barely perceptible strands of hair running perpendicular to the rest of the hair that is swept back, not important. The person has a dark tan face, important, the person's skin condition show signs of youth consistent with the friend you remember, important. And so on.
How do we decide what evidence is important and what is not? In the sense of self preservation and avoidance of discomfort, we look for patterns, repeatable data something to compare one sensory input of discomfort to another sense such as the visual sense of flame. Placing your hand in the flame, = not comfortable, lets try again.. yep not comfortable. Even better, we can learn that listening to our parents, our peers and so on, we can "shortcut" this pattern recognition process. If we decide the person we recognize to be one of our parents that we recognize to have our best interest at heart communicates that fire causes discomfort, instead of finding out for yourself based on pattern which can be very uncomfortable or perhaps even fatal, we can take what others have communicated to us. Some of this communication, in it's most crude form is even handed down to us genetically, fear of predators, fear of unknown, fear of loss of our primary sense (darkness impairing our sense of vision.)
Something else we all must learn for ourselves, as valuable as insight from others can be to shortcut the process of figuring out which evidence is important, that those outside sources of evidence are not always correct, sometimes they can even be deliberately misleading, especially in the cases of humans that are more likely to not have our best interest at heart. (Perhaps they are serving their own interest in a non mutually beneficial way.) Here in lies the real trick, how do we know which evidence, especially from others that we can accept or not? A good trick I learned is to try to examine the motivations behind the sharing of evidence.
I will stop here as this is getting long and possibly wondering off topic, and will instead try to summarize, we can discuss this further if you are interested.
My attempt at a brief summary: Evidence at its core is sensory input into our own reality that can be repeated, it is then sorted in our reality to what we think is most beneficial to us. There is virtually unlimited sensory data input to be had, so to shortcut the process of evidence collection we also rely on evidence finding of others, which can be tainted, wrong, by accident or purposefully or otherwise.
You spelled what you meant "start" as "star." I at least would want someone to point out my more obvious typo's in effort to improve my original post if it was my own.
__________________________________
A question for you: How do we avoid this thread turning into the 100's reply long thread kind of like the thread labeled "EVIDENCE" short cutting it to muslim/atheist does help, but even the evidence question itself turns into a more philosophical all lines of thinking conversation. (Once a thread goes much over 50 replies I tend to stop participating as the forum reply structure gets messy real fast and to accurately keep up with the conversation gets onerous to me.)
@Randomhero and Xenoview
With all due respect but, right now the focus is establishing and agreeing to evidence from the atheists point of view. While I certainly appreciate your question I would prefer if we all focus on that just for now, I promise to get to all that later. But, since you have taken the time you ask I will answer briefly Yes, I know, I am contradicting what I just said but, won’t do it next time lol
In Islam there really are NOT supposed to be any branches or sects that is clearly stated in the Quran and reiterated by the Prophet. One of the foundations and principles of Islam is that we accept Prophet Muhammed as the last Prophet. So, if the terms and sects/branches called Sunni and Shia did not exist during his time, why do they exists today? Short answer, political power. Had I been asked that question by a Muslim, I would simply answer I follow neither and I identify solely as a Muslim and not sunni or Shia. But, for the sake of this conversation and knowing what the term Sunni means in today’s world, my answer will be we are talking about Sunnis. I hope that makes sense.
Islam does not believe in natural evolution as we believe Adam was the first human (not creature) to walk the earth and he was a human. In regards to formation of the planet, I really don’t understand what you mean by that. Please elaborate.
Thank you however, this conversation is for all not just Logic and myself. Looking forward to more of your input.
When it comes to Christianity, the short and simplified answer is NO since they believe in the Trinity and believe Jesus is God while Muslims believe in 1 single god and Jesus was a Prophet of god, not his son. Judaism and Islam have the same definition of God the main difference between Muslims and Judaism is accepting Prophet Muhammed and the message and book that was revealed through him
Can you please elaborate, I think saying using your 5 senses is very vague as I can make the same claim. The goal here is to try and establish (as much as possible) an objective standard we can all agree to and later on use that standard to ensure we are all using the same “yardstick” to measure and compare what we are saying.
Everyone uses their 5 senses to gather evidence and use our brain to process it. Science is used to gather evidence and test it, then it is peer reviewed to prove either true or false.
@LogicForTW
We won’t be re-adding anything later as we have yet to agree to anything, once we have finished with the atheist definition of evidence we will then talk about the Islamic point of view on evidence and we will discuss Allah and see if that fits in.
That’s fine, I can accept that definition from an atheists point of view, keep in mind right now we are trying to agree to what AETHEISTS define evidence as. Me, accepting your definition of evidence does NOT mean that, that will be the ONLY standard of evidence down the road. After we agree to the Atheist evidence we will then move on to discuss and try to come to common ground to the Islamic definition of evidence. My goal here is not to slip in to word games, I am going to assume for the most part we can agree what the words used in the Merriam Webster’s dictionary mean. Just as a heads up, I am willing to accept all 3 definitions as well however, I think if we added the dictionary.com version as well it will be better since it also adds “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof” So can we agree to combing the 2?
If by reality you mean that we live in our own world (matrix type stuff. Wrong movie? You get what I mean) then I will question on you that. If by reality you mean our point of view, then I agree. Maybe as I read further there will be some clarification to what you mean by reality.
Completely agree, which is why my answer to how long the earth has been around is irrelevant to a certain extent to Muslims because as long as it’s been around long enough to have everything believe have happened then that’s all that is needed. The extra years are irrelevant therefore, we focus on that evidence that is important. Make sense?
While I am sure we will eventually get to the whole objective part to this conversation that is why it’s imperative we have an objective standard or 3rd party standard we must adhere to. That’s the main reason for us here trying to establish that “objective” standard for evidence. Also, how do you know your examination of motivations is correct? By the way, I wholeheartedly agree on examining the motivations behind the evidence that is actually a HUGE part of Islam. Nowhere in Islam are people expected to blindly follow what is said or told to them before examining what is being told to them, within reason of course. I will later on elaborate the limits of “within reason”. By later I mean different when we move on to Islamic definition of evidence
Thank you, I made the edit when I read this.
The best thing I can think of is if everyone focused on what we are currently trying to achieve and be patient with their questions about Islam. Wait all due respect to randomhero and xeno but, they have already gone “off course” by asking questions about Islam when we are trying to establish evidence from the atheist point of view.
I do not know how familiar you are with my posts but, I try my best not to “slip into word games and circular definitions” as long as the definition is clear enough. My personal belief is the things that make most logical sense can be explained in the simplest terms possible. If you need to engage in word gymnastics to try and prove your point 1) I honestly tend to zone out and stop caring and 2) you are trying too hard to prove something simple which tends to lead me to think someone is more worried about their personal “victory” rather than the truth.
I am hoping we get some more input from Atheist as well as other theists in regards to EVIDENCE ONLY. Please do not try to prove you are right or wrong right now, that does not matter now. At the end of the day, I am not here for personal victories or to prove someone right or wrong, I have a strong feeling we will end up disagreeing but, at least let’s try to understand each other’s point of view and see what happens. Maybe somethings change, maybe they don’t, let’s find out together.
@Searching for truth
Got busy, will respond to your long post directed to me when I have the time to properly respond.
@LogicForTW
No rush. Although it seems this whole idea seems to be a waste of time. Once again, it only shows how theists (Islam in this case) is living rent free in the mind of most atheists here when they can't even read and follow the guidelines set out in order to try and achieve a common ground somewhere. Seems most people so far are actually afraid to try that, i never thought i would actually see Islamaphobia (in its true meaning) on a thread but, the actions and posts have proven that to be true. Honestly, even if you do not reply or continue i will understand. Seems like a waste of time, this is why we can't have nice things lol
@Searching for truth
Apologies for the delay in my response, why is it my weekends are always more busy then my weekdays?
Okay we will go with a mix of the Merriam Webster definition of evidence along with dictonary.com sort of combining the two.
1 a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
— in evidence
1 : to be seen : conspicuous
++plus++
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
This atheist (me, LogicForTW) take on evidence: demonstrable, repeatable, results that is not prone to misinterpretation, bolsters other findings, independently verifiable, that offers real world results, evidence is also allowed to be challenged with other evidence and the evidence gets stronger as it is further "tested." Strong evidence looks like something that can take on all competing theories based on evidence and still "stand the test of time."
I mean our point of view. A different conversation entirely, but: a different all encompassing reality that is ultimately false to actual reality I do consider a possibility, but only because it cannot be disproved, it is unfalsifiable however so mostly a useless concept beyond talking about it in a philosophical manner. A different conversation for a different day.
That is great to hear. All of us, no matter out belief systems or lack of should always examine motivation. I examine any possible motivations behind atheist line of thinking all the time, even just for myself and my own motivations.
Also good to hear.. err read? :)
Well hopefully you got an answer you were looking for so you can move forward?
You a theist come here, an atheist forum, start a thread demanding common ground for your superstitious religious beliefs, having rejected both empirical evidence and science, then claim "Islam is living rent free in the mind of most atheists ". I'm guessing you still don't see the irony. Common ground might be easier if you offered something cogent, instead of vapid point scoring and lies about atheism and atheists, neither of which you seem to have even the vaguest clue about.
Is it ever moral for a 50+ year old man to have sex with a nine year old child?
@ Searching for truth
Do you accept the current scientific model of the universe in that it's age is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old? A simple yes or no is requested, anything extra indicates evasiveness.
Since I do not know the scientific model used I will say no. When it comes to earth being 13.7 billion year old, as I said before it's irrelevant to Islam but, yeah sure, I agree to the 13.7 billion years I just can't say yes to the method used since I do not know it. If you would like to explain it, I'm all ears.
You seem to have switched the age of the Earth, and the age of the universe (age of the surface of last scattering).
In extremely basic terms, scientists measure the rate of expansion of the universe, then extrapolate backwards to arrive at the time of the "big bang". Edwin Hubble made the great discovery that the universe was expanding. That "Hubble Constant" has been refined as instruments and techniques became more precise. One of the Hubble Space telescope's main mission was to measure the age of the universe. This theory has been confirmed by other disciplines, notably the identification of the cosmic background radiation.
From http://www.spacetelescope.org/science/age_size/
"The expansion of the Universe
One of Hubble's initial 'core' purposes was to determine the rate of expansion of the Universe, known to astronomers as the "Hubble Constant". After eight years of Cepheid observations this work was concluded by finding that the expansion increases with 70 km/second for every 3.26 million light-years you look further out into space.
Hubble's sharp vision means that it can see exploding stars, supernovae that are billions of light years away and difficult for other telescopes to study. A supernova image from the ground usually blends in with the image of its host galaxy. Hubble can distinguish the light from the two sources and thus measure the supernova directly.
For many years cosmologists have discussed whether the expansion of the Universe would stop in some distant future or continue ever more slowly. From the new supernova results it seems clear that the expansion is nowhere near slowing down. In fact, due to some mysterious property of space itself, called dark energy, the expansion is accelerating and will continue forever. This surprising conclusion came from combined measurements of remote supernovae with most of the world’s top-class telescopes, including Hubble. Furthermore recent supernova results indicate that cosmos did not always accelerate, but began accelerating when the Universe was less than half its current age.
The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe led to three astronomers, Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt, being awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics."
I suggest you do some personal investigation and learn some science.
I requested a simple yes or no, and I can't even get a simple and frank response from you.
Ok, cool makes sense.
While I know and agree Edwin Hubble discovered this I would argue that he was NOT the first person to say or “discover” this. An illiterate man (Prophet Mohammed) in the desserts of Arabia in the 7th century said this long before Edwin did and it was revealed “And the heaven We created with might, and indeed We are (its) expander.” (Quran 51:47). The English translation does this verse true justice as in Arabic it is more accurate and precise but, you can make out what it means. But, for now, let's continue to talk about the "Hubble Constant"
My final answer is YES to the scientific method and yes to the 13.7 or 13.8 Billion years. Simple and Frank enough?
Thank you, that took us 504 words to arrive at a simple yes.
And I definitely disagree that some illiterate goat herder from the 7th century actually explained the expansion of the universe. You just took some rambling passages from your holy book and mis-applied what he stated.
Next question, what is your position on old men having sex with girls (very young children).
For the record, it is one of the most appalling and sick acts of a pervert.
Just to clarify, we have heard Muslims argue that their religion offers objective moral truths, and also heard them argue for context when confronted with the question is it ever moral for a 50+ old man to have sex with a nine year old girl? A question I might add that sft has evaded shamelessly. HE cannot both argue for objective morality and then argue that things we find immoral now had a different context just a few hundred years ago. So of course we can see why he (sft) is determined not to answer the question. As there are only two possible answers, either it is never moral for an adult in their 50's to have sex with a nine year old child, or there is a context in which it could be considered moral (Muhammad's sex with a nine year old girl). If the former then Mohammed behaved immorally and cannot be considered to possess knowledge of objective morality through revelation or any other source. Or if the latter, then Islamic claims of objective morality for their religion is destroyed, unless of course he (sft) accepts that a 50+ year old man having sex with a nine year old child is objectively moral, but this exposes the claim of objective morality to the same objections.
Pages