If you're claiming that God sent you with a message, you're going to have to bring evidence, claiming is not enough.
You're the one making that claim, you bring the evidence, since you ignored mine.
You can start by proving, objectively, the existence of your God.
* https://www.provingislam.com/proofs/fire-of-hijaz
* https://www.provingislam.com/proofs/green-arabia
* https://www.provingislam.com/proofs/bedouins-prophecy
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3FmcWR1M-0
You diverted the discussion to prove the existence of God. The original discussion was that it is not possible to have objective morality without a Creator. That is fact as per the atheist figures and philosophers, so no need to argue that point.
Which means that the morality you claim to derive from an objective God is just derived from your belief in an idea of God that you made up. Which makes your morality - and all religious morality - just as relative as anyone else's, barring your providing actual proof that any God exists.
>You diverted the discussion to prove the existence of God.
No, you claimed that anyone claiming to speak a message from God must bring evidence - without ever bothering to do so yourself.
>The original discussion was that it is not possible to have objective morality without a Creator.
No, you claimed that morality of any kind was impossible without belief in a religion. Here are your exact words:
"You can't have morality without religion, it's a senseless question to pose."
It's not a senseless question to pose. You can have morality without religion. You've done nothing to prove the senselessness of the question or to defend your premise.
Now you are the one diverting the discussion.
>That is fact as per the atheist figures and philosophers, so no need to argue that point.
What figures? What philosophers? Who have you read? Can you correctly state their arguments and refute them on their merits? If so, why haven't you done so yet? I've provided you plenty of material to work with. If your knowledge of atheism and secular philosophy is so complete, why do you keep falling back on juvenile tropes like a slippery slope towards nihilism or referencing Mao and Stalin - as if religious people had never been responsible for slavery, genocide, cruelty and violence despite their "objective" point of view? Should I stoop to your level and point out that Mao was raised a Buddhist and Stalin an Orthodox Christian?
The closest you've come to an actual defense of your views is a quote from Steven Hawking, which you seem oddly fixated on, talking about the chemical nature of humans and the insignificance of Earth relative to the universe - all of which is objectively true, and completely orthogonal to questions of the nature of morality. What about Sartre? Kant's categorical imperative? Dawkins? Hitchens? How do you rationalize your thesis that all atheists must be amoral sociopaths with the existence of secular humanism? Have you ever even heard of secular humanism?
We're done here. I won't be replying further. Good night.
No you can't. This is a challenge.
Islam is the only faith or tradition that has the notion of Isnad, by which we are able to ascertain that certain events or narrations are true. No other religion has this. For example, the authors of all the 4 New Testament bibles are unknowns. Under the Islamic Sanad system, this immediately renders the text as unreliable.
> You consider it evidence because you believe it
I believe it because of the evidence, after strict investigation of the process.
> without ever bothering to do so yourself.
I just did.
> You can have morality without religion
No you can't. This is the established position among atheist heads and philosophers, please see https://youtu.be/EqK_JPts26k?t=183 again.
Ah, Dawnkins, who argues along with Kraus, that he cannot find a moral argument against incest. Or that some pedophelia is ok.
Again, all atheists who are true to themselves will only come to the ultimate natural conclusion of their world view, that nothing matters and that there is no objective morality. At least they're honest with themselves.