The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

They deny the truth (Allah/GOD, Islam, the Quran, the final prophet/Messenger Muhammad).

They deny historical evidence.

They deny Jesus and what he said and taught.

They deny their salvation.

They deny their place in Paradise (Heaven).

And who would be so foolish as to deny this?

do you consider the Qur'an to be the most verified book?

[pioneer]

He could have,if He wanted.It is not our discretion to question the will of GOD.

What kind of twisted god makes a gruesome murder of children his will?

[megadoc1]

what adam b sould tell me is why allah saved jesus from crucifixion and fooled the jews into thinking they did it but allowed a jewish woman to kill the "greatest" prophet muhamed without intervention

[AdamB]

Duane,
The Quran is the Word of Almighty GOD, preserved in Arabic for over 1400 yrs, word for word, letter for letter. Its content agrees with science of modern day, that an illiterate man at that time could not possibly have known.

What do you think?

Megadoc,
Youi guys haven't named one christian nation as yet! The will of Allah at work?

[Habit7]

probably if you answer the question you wont make the statement below

the most verified book of antiquity

is that what you consider to be absolute truth? because AdamB says that the Qur'an is the most verified book and you say the Bible is. You both claim speak the truth.

please, quote where AdamB has said this

http://www.trinituner.com/v3/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&p=6918143#p6918143

Arabic, unlike the languages used in the Bible, is not a language of "antiquity". The language is in use today, and the texts have been preserved in wording and meaning. The Quran is therefore on a stronger footing than the Bible when it comes to reliance for historical evidence.

No proof exists for your Jesus of the Bible, so what makes your Jesus correct and the one of the Quran wrong? A question Duane has been asking...

AdamB makes the exact point I wanted to make to you. Not every claim to absolute truth is equally valid. If I say Christianity is the only true religion and another man says Islam is the only true religion, it is not one equally subjective faith against another. One must study the claims of each religion which are not of equal validity and then come to an objective conclusion.

Every time someone makes an objective religious claim, you run to present an opposing claim as if they are equal and the absolute truth of it all is not knowable. You believe there is no faith needed in science, Richard Dawkins opposes that view. To find out who is right, one needs to investigate each claim for validity. I for one can remember that you said faith is belief without evidence, yet you claim that though scientific knowledge you believe in the existence of aliens despite there being no empirical evidence



So even if we were to examine AdamB's counterclaims we should trust the Quran more because Arabic is spoken today and biblical languages aren't. Also, there is no proof for Jesus of the Bible. Therefore the Quran is on a stronger footing than the Bible when it comes to reliance for historical evidence.

The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, all languages spoken today if not in some derivative form while there is extensive scholastic linguistic study on those languages within the biblical historical context. Furthermore, should the history of Ancient Egyptian, Roman, British Isles, etc be less valid because they are recorded in a language form not spoken today? Could it be the reason for Arabic language perseverance today be not as a result of cultural significance but by the violence subjugation of conquered territories and the imposition of a language upon them in the name of Allah? Is this even worthy of being considered a counterpoint?

Tiberius Caesar, the ruler over the largest empire of the world at that time, we only have about 10 primary sources (including the New testament) within 150 years for his existence. Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish peasant within the Roman Empire, who lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar's rule, there are over 42 primary sources with 150 years for the existence of Jesus, over 4 times more the most powerful man in the world at that time. Anyone denying the existence of Jesus is advertising their ignorance, and anyone relying on the Quran's 700 year later explanation must also reject the Gnostic 300 year later explanation also, and rely in a god that deceived the most faithful followers of his prophet.

Duane I believe absolute truth is knowable, but not all absolute truth claims are equally valid. Stop trying to align yourself with erroneous counterclaims because you end up sounding just as ridiculous as those who make them.

[Slartibartfast]

Let's assume for a second that God does exist (Both the Christian and Islamic God, I'm ignorant in the teachings of Hinduism so I will leave that out). Both religions make claims about their God; claims which have been shown to not be true. For example both religions (to my knowledge) claim their God is

1)All powerful
2)All knowing and by extention possesses infallible logic
3)All present
4)Unconditionally loving

Before you respond first answer if you believe He/She is everything I have stated above (so I will not go off topic with my response) and then answer me why do you think He/She is everything you say He/She is (proof, empirical evidence, observation or innate knowledge)

(If you answered "Yes" to 1-4 there is no need to keep on reading)
Bonus: Some people believe that God is so great that His/Her capabilities are beyond the scope of our limited understanding and imagination. This means that if you say that God is not all of the above, have imagined something that is greater than God?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ that was dealt with already: Habit7 stated that God is supernatural, therefore we cannot show naturalistic proof, empirical evidence, observation or innate knowledge for him.

[Slartibartfast]

^ that was dealt with already: Habit7 stated that God is supernatural, therefore we cannot show naturalistic proof, empirical evidence, observation or innate knowledge for him.

If, by definition, something cannot be proven, observed or deduced (through logic and innate knowledge), does it exist? Habit7's answer is just a sidestep of the question and not an actual answer.

What about the first part of the question, do you believe God possesses all of the previously mentioned attribute?

[Habit7]

Yeah we dealt with that already and despite Duane's role as spokesperson for everyone's views (thx ), my precise view is that there is no natural empirical evidence for the supernatural God. There is observational, logical and philosophical evidence for Him, which informs an innate knowledge.

P.S. The Islamic God is not 4)Unconditionally loving

[Slartibartfast]

Then what supernatural evidence is there, and how are you sure that the evidence is supernatural. I think that there must be at least some evidence to separate these more genuine religions from other religions like Mormonism and scientology (which has absolutely nothing to do with science BTW)

Also, if God is the creator (I am assuming Muslims believe He is) why would he create something that he doesn't love?

Btw I wanted to respond to this to but it was too long so I made an official Aliens thread

You believe there is no faith needed in science, Richard Dawkins opposes that view. To find out who is right, one needs to investigate each claim for validity. I for one can remember that you said faith is belief without evidence, yet you claim that though scientific knowledge you believe in the existence of aliens despite there being no empirical evidence

here

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

AdamB makes the exact point I wanted to make to you. Not every claim to absolute truth is equally valid. If I say Christianity is the only true religion and another man says Islam is the only true religion, it is not one equally subjective faith against another. One must study the claims of each religion which are not of equal validity and then come to an objective conclusion.

or do you mean a subjective conclusion?

When you start off by making claims that the Bible is absolutely right and any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible must therefore be wrong, this is being subjective.

Science itself is objective.

Every time someone makes an objective religious claim, you run to present an opposing claim as if they are equal and the absolute truth of it all is not knowable. You believe there is no faith needed in science, Richard Dawkins opposes that view. To find out who is right, one needs to investigate each claim for validity. I for one can remember that you said faith is belief without evidence, yet you claim that though scientific knowledge you believe in the existence of aliens despite there being no empirical evidence

firstly, what is an objective religious claim? Or rather how can a religious claim be objective?

ob·jec·tive [uhb-jek-tiv]
noun

• not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

• intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

I see both religious claims as subjective which is why I present an opposing claim. What makes one right and the other wrong when either side has their own subjective reasoning for believing it to be absolutely true?

Secondly, I really don't care what Richard Dawkins says and I'm not sure why you keep bringing up his name to me. I've never read his books, though perhaps I'd agree with some of his thoughts, I am sure that I won't agree with all. Again, because you follow a doctrine or dogma does not mean that I also do i.e. I do not see Richard Dawkins as a "Pastor".

Thirdly I never said I believe in aliens. I said that given the evidence of the vast number of stars and planets in the universe and the growing discovery of numerous planets within the habitable zone, there is a possibility for life to exist there.

So even if we were to examine AdamB's counterclaims we should trust the Quran more because Arabic is spoken today and biblical languages aren't. Also, there is no proof for Jesus of the Bible. Therefore the Quran is on a stronger footing than the Bible when it comes to reliance for historical evidence.

I didn't make that claim, AdamB did. I presented his claim to you asking what makes you right and him wrong?

The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, all languages spoken today if not in some derivative form while there is extensive scholastic linguistic study on those languages within the biblical historical context. Furthermore, should the history of Ancient Egyptian, Roman, British Isles, etc be less valid because they are recorded in a language form not spoken today? Could it be the reason for Arabic language perseverance today be not as a result of cultural significance but by the violence subjugation of conquered territories and the imposition of a language upon them in the name of Allah? Is this even worthy of being considered a counterpoint?

I don't know, AdamB may be able to answer that with his opinion on the matter.

Tiberius Caesar, the ruler over the largest empire of the world at that time, we only have about 10 primary sources (including the New testament) within 150 years for his existence. Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish peasant within the Roman Empire, who lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar's rule, there are over 42 primary sources with 150 years for the existence of Jesus, over 4 times more the most powerful man in the world at that time. Anyone denying the existence of Jesus is advertising their ignorance, and anyone relying on the Quran's 700 year later explanation must also reject the Gnostic 300 year later explanation also, and rely in a god that deceived the most faithful followers of his prophet.

I don't think anyone or most in this thread have denied the existence of Jesus. Even AdamB who has opposed your views believes Jesus existed. What some deny are the Christian claims that he is God and the claims of supernatural capabilities.

Also with regards to claiming numbers for validity there can be one source of evidence that is true (like a dinosuar bone) and 100 that are false due to the perpetuation of misinformation especially through religion, politics etc. e.g. the thousands of artifacts documenting the Ancient Egyptian religion that claims Amun Ra, Horus, Anubis and Isis were real gods.

Duane I believe absolute truth is knowable, but not all absolute truth claims are equally valid.

I would agree with the latter

Stop trying to align yourself with erroneous counterclaims because you end up sounding just as ridiculous as those who make them.

I am in no way aligning myself with the counter claims. I am presenting the counterclaims made by other users to you as they seem to be just as subjective as your claims and I am trying to find out what makes one right and the other wrong. I thought that was simple reading comprehension!

[marlener]

Out of curiosity where and by whom was it proven that God is not all powerful and all knowing? Question when science uses varying methods of dating,that measures trees,fossils to be x amour of years old.I think that they are using a certain amount of faith. They are guessing the temperature,rate of decay at that time humidity,and a host of other external factor that they are not sure about. Even in science a lot of thing cannot proven to be absolutely true but rather temporarily true until some other result comes along.Your views?

[Slartibartfast]

Out of curiosity where and by whom was it proven that God is not all powerful and all knowing? Question when science uses varying methods of dating,that measures trees,fossils to be x amour of years old.I think that they are using a certain amount of faith. They are guessing the temperature,rate of decay at that time humidity,and a host of other external factor that they are not sure about. Even in science a lot of thing cannot proven to be absolutely true but rather temporarily true until some other result comes along.Your views?

No faith is used here. In every study there is a section called "Assumptions", "Limitations" and "Sources of Error" as well as reasons for each which would enable future scientists to come along and disprove/update whatever findings were made.

When last was the Qur'an or Bible updated?

[marlener]

The bible doesn't need updating,it applicable even now,AdamB will answer as to the Quran.So if assumption according to you is used then is it absolute truth or temporary truth?You still didn't answer the question who prove that God is not all powerful,all knowing etc.You made a statement and I am just asking for reference.

[Slartibartfast]

The bible doesn't need updating,it applicable even now,AdamB will answer as to the Quran.So if assumption according to you is used then is it absolute truth or temporary truth?You still didn't answer the question who prove that God is not all powerful,all knowing etc.You made a statement and I am just asking for reference.

Oh sorry, I didn't see when you asked that. Let's consider something that happened right here in Trinidad. The Sean Luke murder.

If he didn't know it was happenning he is not all knowing
If he knew it was happening and let it happen he is not all loving
If he knew it was happening and loved Sean Luke enough to stop it but couldn't then he is not all powerful.

But if he is all knowing, all powerful and all loving, why did it happen?


And for the part where you say the bible is applicable, even now. Do you think the entire bible is applicable or just parts? Is the book of Leviticus still applicable today in its entirety?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Out of curiosity where and by whom was it proven that God is not all powerful and all knowing?

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on the person who they are trying to convince.

If someone tells you there are little green men inside your engine then they are the ones who have to prove that claim to be true. You cannot accept their statement as true until you can disprove them, that is illogical.

Question when science uses varying methods of dating,that measures trees,fossils to be x amour of years old.I think that they are using a certain amount of faith.

no they are not. When you use a ruler to measure a piece of paper and then you use a laser measuring device to verify your findings are you putting faith in the ruler? No, it is a measuring device. You can get subjective about the thoughts and emotions of the person using the ruler, their inability to use or read a ruler or even the possibility that the ruler may be manufactured poorly leading to inaccurate measurements. But that is why you use another ruler or other measuring device or give another person to measure it. That is called testing and peer review, a major process in the scientific process.

They are guessing the temperature,rate of decay at that time humidity,and a host of other external factor that they are not sure about.

not guessing at all. Are you guessing when you use a calculator to add up numbers?
that is the reason for developing measuring devices!

Even in science a lot of thing cannot proven to be absolutely true but rather temporarily true until some other result comes along.Your views?

that's the great thing about science. It changes its view when new evidence is found. The same way a court and jury works, but apparently not the same way religion works.

are you suggesting that if a thing cannot be proven true by science that we should just resort to a religious view in the mean time? That is what the ancient greeks did when they did not understand thunder and lightning and instead chose to believe that Thor and Zeus produced these from their hammer and staff respectively.

[AdamB]

So adamb how come allah leh dem chiren die?

dey had so much ahead of them

If allah is all-knowing, almighty and loves his ppl...why he didn't strike down the bandits?

And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits) 2:155
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option ... ew&id=3147

Knowledge, wisdom and justice all shall receive...

Allah created everything that exists, so HE does as HE pleases...

[Habit7]

Here we go down this road again

Science itself is objective.

That is your subjective view, let me remind you of the subjective view of one of the world's most influential paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science:

"But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."
Stephen Jay Gould

You just seem to love to make some absolute statements about science that just doesnt seem to be consistent with those who are accredited in the study of it...oh well, like if that is going to stop you.

firstly, what is an objective religious claim? Or rather how can a religious claim be objective?

The God of the Bible says He is the true God, Allah of the Quran says he is the true God, the answer will be an absolute truth. I have made the objective claim that the God of the Bible is the true God not just by voicing my personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice but based on voicing observable and logical facts.
For you to disagree with me is it based on objective or subjective claims?

My example of Dawkins is just an attempt to mimic your logic, you have made and objective claim, he made an opposite objective claim. The absolute truth will be determined by examination of the fact.

I don't hold out the possibility of of the FSM existance, because I dont believe in it. You holding out the possibility of aliens means you believe in aliens to some extent. You base that belief in a logical review the few habitable planets we believe exists and the hope to locate more. However there is still no empirical evidence and by your definition, that is faith.

When you represent AdamB erroneous claims, you own them. If we are having an intellectual debate and I say the sky is blue and you say "yeah but to my cousin Cecil, it is red." It is not two subjective views vying against each other, there is an absolute truth, and based on the human's eye colour spectrum range, the colour of the sky is blue. Your cousin is wrong and you sound just as wrong for referencing him.

Also with regards to claiming numbers for validity there can be one source of evidence that is true (like a dinosuar bone) and 100 that are false due to the perpetuation of misinformation especially through religion, politics etc. e.g. the thousands of artifacts documenting the Ancient Egyptian religion that claims Amun Ra, Horus, Anubis and Isis were real gods.

In the study History, Historical Evidence is evidence based on primary sources (when it happened) of secondary sources (after it happened). There are more primary and secondary sources for the Jesus of the Bible than the Jesus of the Quran, which has no primary source and the only secondary source being itself.
That is why one can objectively claim the Jesus of the Bible is correct the Quran's is wrong.

[AdamB]

what adam b sould tell me is why allah saved jesus from crucifixion and fooled the jews into thinking they did it but allowed a jewish woman to kill the "greatest" prophet muhamed without intervention

In order that fools like you will:
1. Follow your Lowly polytheistic desires by
2. Worshipping a man,
3. Thereby confirming your disbelief in ALLAH / ALMIGHTY GOD!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ You are saying that God fooled people so they can show their disbelief in him?
How do you know what else God may be fooling you about?

Habit7, you seem to be confused.

Science is objective. Scientists can be subjective.

Creation science (whatever that is) is clearly subjective.

How do I own a claim when I quote it?
you claim X and I show that another person claimed Y - how am I owning either viewpoint?

The God of the Bible says He is the true God, Allah of the Quran says he is the true God, the answer will be an absolute truth.

it does not have to be an absolute truth. It can be relative to the person believing it to be true. Christians believe the former and Muslims believe the latter, but even that statement is not absolute.

There appear to be holes in your logic.

[marlener]

@Duane no I am not suggesting that if it cannot be proven by science then we should resort to religious view in the meantime,I was asking if science can claim to be absolute truth,when our new poster said they use assumption etc and he was the one who said that it was shown that God is not all powerful etc so I simply asked by whom and when.@slatibastfast I suggest that you go back a couple pages and reread this,MG man,pioneer,nareshsheep also asked the same question at different times if I am not mistaken read the responses. Duane

[marlener]

Concerning Leviticus that was also discussed by Habit7 a few pages back,happy reading.

[AdamB]

Let's assume for a second that God does exist (Both the Christian and Islamic God, I'm ignorant in the teachings of Hinduism so I will leave that out). Both religions make claims about their God; claims which have been shown to not be true. For example both religions (to my knowledge) claim their God is

1)All powerful
2)All knowing and by extention possesses infallible logic
3)All present - NO
4)Unconditionally loving - NO (depend on the full explanation of the question)

Before you respond first answer if you believe He/She is everything I have stated above (so I will not go off topic with my response) and then answer me why do you think He/She is everything you say He/She is (proof, empirical evidence, observation or innate knowledge)

(If you answered "Yes" to 1-4 there is no need to keep on reading)
Bonus: Some people believe that God is so great that His/Her capabilities are beyond the scope of our limited understanding and imagination. This means that if you say that God is not all of the above, have imagined something that is greater than God?

No to #3 because HE doesn't need to be present everywhere to know, see and hear everything (for HE is All-Knowing, All-Seeing and All-Hearing). HE is never absent, for HE always existed and will always exist. HE is not unaware of anything. HE has absolutely no defect in any of HIS Perfect Attributes!!
http://abdurrahman.org/tawheed/asmawasi ... s-sadi.pdf

No to 4 because HE loves all creation that is obedient to HIM and hates those that are disobedient. HE is not unjust to anyone or anything.

Those (christians) who want to contest this, please answer this: Does GOD love Satan, the Hellfire, the evil doers, murderers, criminals, polytheists, disbelievers?

From one perspective, we could say that HE does love that they will change and turn to HIM in repentance and obedience but HE does not love the evil acts they perform in ignorance.

Even a believer is ignorant when he sins, his faith is taken away during the sinful act and when it returns afterwards, he is regretful and should be repentant.

habit,
Please post the attributes of GOD according to the Bible or christianity or post a link to such document.

[AdamB]

Yeah we dealt with that already and despite Duane's role as spokesperson for everyone's views (thx ), my precise view is that there is no natural empirical evidence for the supernatural God. There is observational, logical and philosophical evidence for Him, which informs an innate knowledge.P.S. The Islamic God is not 4)Unconditionally loving

In Islam, we don't mix philosophy with knowledge of GOD. Our knowledge comes from valid sources from GOD - the Quran and the Messenger, Muhammad.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

@Duane no I am not suggesting that if it cannot be proven by science then we should resort to religious view in the meantime,I was asking if science can claim to be absolute truth,when our new poster said they use assumption etc and he was the one who said that it was shown that God is not all powerful etc so I simply asked by whom and when.@slatibastfast I suggest that you go back a couple pages and reread this,MG man,pioneer,nareshsheep also asked the same question at different times if I am not mistaken read the responses. Duane

science does not claim to be absolute truth! In fact the theory of relativity says quite the opposite.

Scientifically you can measure a car going at 100 miles an hour, but that is relative to the person who is measuring it. However to someone floating in space the car is actually going over 1,100 miles per hour since the car was already going over 1,000 miles per hour when standing still because that is the speed of the rotation of the earth. Therefore you cannot say it is absolute truth that the car is going at 100 miles per hour.

[AdamB]

^ that was dealt with already: Habit7 stated that God is supernatural, therefore we cannot show naturalistic proof, empirical evidence, observation or innate knowledge for him.

If, by definition, something cannot be proven, observed or deduced (through logic and innate knowledge), does it exist? Habit7's answer is just a sidestep of the question and not an actual answer.

What about the first part of the question, do you believe God possesses all of the previously mentioned attribute?

Valid question but why are they deflecting? Don't they believe GOD has attributes that HE has affirmed for HIMSELF?

No, they desire to use their own intellect / philosophy to define GOD, thereby making HIM like HIS creation and the creation like HIM. This is how they joins partners with GOD, they have made a man into GOD and vice versa.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ isn't it circular logic to say that the book says what the book says is right?

[megadoc1]

Oh sorry, I didn't see when you asked that. Let's consider something that happened right here in Trinidad. The Sean Luke murder.

If he didn't know it was happenning he is not all knowing
If he knew it was happening and let it happen he is not all loving
If he knew it was happening and loved Sean Luke enough to stop it but couldn't then he is not all powerful.

But if he is all knowing, all powerful and all loving, why did it happen?

what is your argument then? that because there are evil things taking place ,there is no such thing as a all knowing,all powerful and all loving God? see here page 296

God’s right to govern the Universe this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just. I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please. Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just. This is an action I believe we have all subscribed to by our living.


The Existence of Evil
evil is a result of God’s love. There are different beings, creatures and species on the earth: worms, bacteria, dogs and humans etc. The privilege of being a human is having the capacity to exhibit true love which must be a free choice to be truly called love. So God created us like him – it is the only way love can be exhibited - for God is love. Being like God means we have freewill and we can choose God or No God. This choice allows for the existence of evil. Could not the Almighty God find another way to do this? The answer is yes but then we will all be robots. God made us like Him because that is the only way love can be shown. There is only one way to be like God.


What about suffering in the world?
God could instantly stop suffering on the earth. However it will mean forcing His will on humanity. God could rule the earth like Superman. He can use His omniscience and His omnipresence and instantly stop evil wherever it happens on the earth. Humanity would be subject to Him in every way and the earth would be a beautiful place. However, we will then stop being human. So God in His eternal wisdom has chosen to rule the earth through His love – it is only then that His nature would be manifest in us.

[Habit7]

Science is objective. Scientists can be subjective.

Science is the conclusions of scientists, you can't divorce the two, one flows out off the other. Therefore your statement contradicts itself: subjective scientists propose objective science? Won't it be that subjective scientists propose subjective science?

How do I own a claim when I quote it?
you claim X and I show that another person claimed Y - how am I owning either viewpoint?

By referencing Y you are saying that it is relevant to the discussion. If someone claims that the sum of 1+1 is 2, you bringing up another sum, even though you didnt propose it, means you think it relevant to the discussion and should be considered.

The God of the Bible says He is the true God, Allah of the Quran says he is the true God, the answer will be an absolute truth.

it does not have to be an absolute truth. It can be relative to the person believing it to be true.

It is not relative. If Allah of the Quran is absolutely the true God, it means that Christian and non-Muslim will suffer in Hell, no matter how sincere their faith is (it also means that the Muslim can suffer in Hell too). If the God of the Bible is absolutely the true God, it means the Muslim and all who are non-Christian will suffer in Hell, no matter how sincere their faith is.

The true God is true because He is absolutely true, His truth is not relatively based in who believes Him.

There appear to be holes in your logic.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Science is objective. Scientists can be subjective.

Science is the conclusions of scientists, you can't divorce the two, one flows out off the other. Therefore your statement contradicts itself: subjective scientists propose objective science? Won't it be that subjective scientists propose subjective science?

it does not contradict itself, no matter how much you would like it to. No more than you saying Christianity is perfect but it's adherents are not.

"Science is the pursuit of objectivity. Perhaps an unattainable goal [for us], but one worth pursuing nonetheless". "Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results.".

How do I own a claim when I quote it?
you claim X and I show that another person claimed Y - how am I owning either viewpoint?

By referencing Y you are saying that it is relevant to the discussion. If someone claims that the sum of 1+1 is 2, you bringing up another sum, even though you didnt propose it, means you think it relevant to the discussion and should be considered.

1+1=2 is objective. Your claim is subjective. I quoted another claim that is equally as subjective but makes a contradicting claim to yours and asked to show me which, if any, of the subjective claims is right. It is relevant, but in no way my claim. Both sides are relevant in an argument.

It is illogical to suggest that an arbiter is biased for drawing the attention of one side to the other.

The God of the Bible says He is the true God, Allah of the Quran says he is the true God, the answer will be an absolute truth.

it does not have to be an absolute truth. It can be relative to the person believing it to be true.

It is not relative. If Allah of the Quran is absolutely the true God, it means that Christian and non-Muslim will suffer in Hell, no matter how sincere their faith is (it also means that the Muslim can suffer in Hell too). If the God of the Bible is absolutely the true God, it means the Muslim and all who are non-Christian will suffer in Hell, no matter how sincere their faith is.

and what if both are wrong?

The true God is true because He is absolutely true, His truth is not relatively based in who believes Him.

in the minds of the believers, yes!

People no longer believe in Amun Ra and him being the sun god is no longer considered to be true.

Perhaps he really is the sun god, perhaps he isn't. I agree that consensus does not affect how true something is, however it was considered to be true for thousands of years BCE and so it was true in the minds of the believers.

There appear to be holes in your logic.

Q.E.D.