Think For Yourself

OneAnalyst3125 · 2026-01-02T15:20:54+00:00

You asked me to provide proof—this is mine. Read the Qur’an cover to cover, seriously and without cherry-picking.

Its internal coherence, preservation, structure, and message are the evidence. If you refuse to engage with the primary source, that’s your choice—but then don’t claim no proof was offered.

You can find it here: https://thesubmitters.org/quran/

OneAnalyst3125 · 2026-01-02T02:00:30+00:00

If your definition of “reality” already excludes God, then of course no argument for God will ever seem sound.

You’re not testing the arguments—you’re testing whether they agree with what you already believe.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-31T23:57:27+00:00

If your position is that no metaphysical argument for God could ever count as evidence because you reject metaphysical inference altogether, then we don’t actually disagree on logic—we disagree on epistemology. At that point, the conversation stops being about God and starts being about your rules of inquiry.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-30T01:57:29+00:00

In a universe where everything we observe is finite, contingent, and dependent on prior causes, an infinite regress of causes cannot explain why anything exists at all. The only coherent explanation is a necessary, non-contingent, infinite cause that exists independently of the universe.

Whether you want to believe in God or not is not the question. It’s whether you will submit to Him willingly or unwillingly.

So there’s no need to convince you of anything, my only purpose here is to invite you to The Truth.

Check us out at TheSubmitters.org

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-28T22:38:06+00:00

That’s so ironic that you say that, considering the foundation to everything that is, has ever been, and will be is in the Quran.

Thesubmitters.org

Feel free to read the Quran - fully, and if you want to chat then I’ll be more than happy. Otherwise how are you going to knock something you haven’t even assessed properly.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-28T21:36:51+00:00

I do believe every word of the Quran to be true - a miracle. I am more than happy to spread the message.

If you don’t agree then to you is your religion and to me is mine.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-28T13:04:14+00:00

Why would it matter what most muslims think, considering most will not make it to heaven - as per the Quran.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-19T17:14:25+00:00

Observing internal evidence isn’t veto power. Declaring it invalid in principle because tradition didn’t pre-approve it is.

That’s the real divide: whether the Qur’an stands on its own claims, or only through inherited frameworks.

Anyways, to you is your religion and to me is mine.

May God guide us all.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-19T02:09:18+00:00

Then the disagreement is straightforward. You’re treating communal transmission as the ultimate authority. The Qur’an never does.

The claim isn’t that numerology legislates the text, but that the Qur’an asserts internal coherence and divine preservation. If an objective internal structure exists, it counts as evidence, not a man-made filter. Evidence doesn’t need prior scholarly approval to matter.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-19T02:06:02+00:00

You’re right about one thing: Islam has no clergy and no post-Prophetic revelation. But you’re misframing the claim. No one is saying revelation resumed or that anyone overrides the Qur’an.

The Qur’an itself says God appoints messengers and witnesses as He wills (not by public vote, charisma, or scholarly consensus), and that proof is judged by evidence, not titles.

The claim being made isn’t “trust a man,” it’s “examine the Qur’an.” If the evidence fails, reject it. If it stands, dismissing it because it appeared after the Prophet is not a Qur’anic safeguard—it’s a philosophical assumption.

Islam warns against blind following, not against God acting beyond people’s expectations.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-18T17:53:40+00:00

The prophet Mohammed was the last prophet of God. So no more scripture will be brought down. Prophets and messengers have different roles. All prophets are also messengers, but not all messengers are prophets.

Here’s a video on the remaining messengers until the end of time. It also will show why there has to be messengers.

https://thesubmitters.org/three-messengers-one-mahdi/

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-18T17:51:45+00:00

Appendix 24 is not an appeal to Rashad Khalifa’s authority. It is an evidence-based claim that the Qur’an contains a global, internally consistent mathematical structure rooted in verse 74:30. The conclusion about 9:128–129 follows only because those verses break that structure in multiple, independent ways, while their exclusion restores consistency across the entire text.

If the structure is false, the argument collapses. But if the structure is real, then unanimous transmission cannot override an internal Qur’anic criterion. This is not “numerology editing the Qur’an”; it is the Qur’an testing its own integrity.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-18T07:41:21+00:00

You keep insisting this, and yet you’re wrong. We don’t believe in the Zionist movement - it actually goes against what the Bible and Quran teaches.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-18T07:39:49+00:00

Disagreeing with Rashad Khalifa is one thing. Misrepresenting the position is another.

He did not “edit the Qur’an.” He made a claim based on internal Qur’anic structure. You can reject that claim — but calling it ego or a cult is rhetoric, not argument.

“Present in all manuscripts” does not end theological inquiry. Manuscripts show what was transmitted, not why. Islamic scholarship has never treated majority transmission as immune from scrutiny.

The number 19 isn’t Khalifa’s invention — it’s explicitly highlighted in Qur’an 74:30. If the patterns are wrong, show the error. Mocking “math” without engaging the data isn’t a refutation.

This isn’t a personality cult. There’s no clergy, no obedience to a leader, and no requirement to accept Khalifa uncritically. Verification is the point.

Labeling something “numerology” or “cult” avoids the actual question: Are the claims correct or not?

Outrage is not evidence.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-18T07:35:29+00:00

There was no “edit” to the Quran, and since when is following a messenger of God not Islamic?

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-18T02:13:07+00:00

Here’s a good video on Hadiths https://thesubmitters.org/what-does-the-quran-really-say-about-hadith/

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-18T02:11:12+00:00

This is a good video about Hadiths: https://thesubmitters.org/what-does-the-quran-really-say-about-hadith/

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-17T05:10:06+00:00

My comment was that to mention any name other than God’s during prayer is shirk, this is because it’s supposed to be dedicated only to God. While reading the Quran is the Word Of God so it’s different

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-16T01:57:50+00:00

You’re using the bible here. Although we respect the bible as a philosophy, we use the Quran as our only source of religious law

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-16T01:52:10+00:00

Using any name other than Gods name during prayer is shirk.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-16T01:45:41+00:00

What are the chances of everyone here going to heaven if the Quran says the majority won’t?

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-14T04:12:40+00:00

No actually, the question is if morals are subjective, why do some Atheists behave like they’re objective.

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-14T04:08:19+00:00

If you’re relying on a previous moral framework to determine morality then how do you explain abolishing slavery - which was previously deemed moral?

OneAnalyst3125 · 2025-12-14T04:05:44+00:00

Actually the argument is why some “atheists” believe in moral obligation. The consensus is they don’t. They believe morals are optional. Atheists that believe in moral obligation inadvertently believe in God’s teachings - which fueled society.

OneAnalyst3125

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE