Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

Kindly, help me to convert to Islam by proving that Allah exists.

[Fatihah]

This seems to be a rather long thread with many posts. I've read through them, admittedly fairly rapidly. Let me first apologize if I am covering ground that has already been covered. However, I'd like to return to Fatitah's argument that Muhammad, in leading his people to victory in conquering another nation, proved the existence of Allah. I understand that Fatitah believes an intervening democratic process would invalidate such proof. I have this question for Fatitah: Why does the existence of a democratic process make such an event less convincing?

Response: It is not the existence of a democratic process that makes an event less convincing. Referring to the miracle of Muhammad, it is the simple fact that it is impossible for a person/s to use any speech or literature invented by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Yet Muhammad used the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. However, since it is impossible to use any speech or literature invented by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, that means that the scripture in which Muhammad used was not invented from any person/s but must have came from a higher power, and that is Allah. In short, to prove this is not the case, then a challenge is presented to you as well as any other who disagrees, to show that it is humanly possible to use a speech or literature invented by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. To simplify it even more, just try to conquer the street you live on. If you do so, then it invalidates my claim that such an act is impossible and that the proof of Muhammad's prophethood is false. If you fail to do so, then it is further evidence which supports the fact that Muhammad is a true prophet.

I must have misunderstood your previous response about Lenin. I thought you agreed that his speech and literature had indeed caused people to rise up and conquer a nation, but you felt that this example did not apply because there was an election involved. (I don't recall there being an election, but that is really not important.) Since I misunderstood your prior response, can you please clarify again whether you believe Lenin caused the people to rise up and conquer a nation? Can you also please tell me if you believe Adolph Hitler caused the people of Germany to conquer Poland or France?

[Fatihah]

This seems to be a rather long thread with many posts. I've read through them, admittedly fairly rapidly. Let me first apologize if I am covering ground that has already been covered. However, I'd like to return to Fatitah's argument that Muhammad, in leading his people to victory in conquering another nation, proved the existence of Allah. I understand that Fatitah believes an intervening democratic process would invalidate such proof. I have this question for Fatitah: Why does the existence of a democratic process make such an event less convincing?

Response: It is not the existence of a democratic process that makes an event less convincing. Referring to the miracle of Muhammad, it is the simple fact that it is impossible for a person/s to use any speech or literature invented by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Yet Muhammad used the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. However, since it is impossible to use any speech or literature invented by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, that means that the scripture in which Muhammad used was not invented from any person/s but must have came from a higher power, and that is Allah. In short, to prove this is not the case, then a challenge is presented to you as well as any other who disagrees, to show that it is humanly possible to use a speech or literature invented by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. To simplify it even more, just try to conquer the street you live on. If you do so, then it invalidates my claim that such an act is impossible and that the proof of Muhammad's prophethood is false. If you fail to do so, then it is further evidence which supports the fact that Muhammad is a true prophet.

I must have misunderstood your previous response about Lenin. I thought you agreed that his speech and literature had indeed caused people to rise up and conquer a nation, but you felt that this example did not apply because there was an election involved. (I don't recall there being an election, but that is really not important.) Since I misunderstood your prior response, can you please clarify again whether you believe Lenin caused the people to rise up and conquer a nation? Can you also please tell me if you believe Adolph Hitler caused the people of Germany to conquer Poland or France?

Response: Certainly. Lenin was voted democraticallly to power. Thus Lenin's rise to power was not by using a speech or literature invented by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. As for Hitler, Hitler rose to power though nomination as well. His conquering of Poland or France was not due to followers being inspired by a person's speech or literature but simply due to their allegiance to those in authority to defend the country. For example, one who enrolled to the army during Bush's term as president did not do so because they were inspired by his speech, but because of their own desire to defend their country. In short, neither Hitler nor Lenin acheived the challenge.

[LiamOS]

Given how stringent the details of this infamous challenge are, can you show that Muhammad does fulfil it?

[Fatihah]

Hi Fatihah,

Read both paragraphs, and think about it.

Response: And with this being another of the already dozens of times you've dodged the challenge, your own actions support the fact that Muhammad is a true prophet. Otherwise, you would have accepted the challenge and demonstrated by now that it's possible. Non-muslims like you humor me. You boast as if there is no proof of Muhammad's prophethood yet the the challengw is presented to show the proof, you quiver and run. Do realize that whether you answer the challenge or not, any reasonable person reading the thread can see that the simple fact that you keep running from the challenge is evidence enough that you know that it's proof. And that's all the satisfaction I need.

->

"Response: And with this being another of the already dozens of times you've dodged the challenge, your own actions support the fact that Bolt is a true God. Otherwise, you would have accepted the challenge and demonstrated by now that it's possible. Non-Boltists like you humor me. You boast as if there is no proof of Bolt being God yet the the challengw is presented to show the proof, you quiver and run (but not fast enough, and not only from debate). Do realize that whether you answer the challenge or not, any reasonable person reading the thread can see that the simple fact that you keep running from the challenge is evidence enough that you know that it's proof. And that's all the satisfaction I need."

Well, can you run as fast as Bolt?
No.
Does it prove or even support the notion that he is a God?
No.

->

Can I inspire a people to use violence against its neighbors "in self-defense" by using speech to convince gullible desert-dwellers that I am a prophet?
Maybe, maybe not, but let's assume that I simply can't.
Does it prove or even support the notion that Muhammad is a true prophet?

No.
Obviously not - at all.

"Or can you run as fast as Bolt?"

Your "argument" simply assumes what it's supposed to "prove" (basic logical principle: challenges don't prove anything - ask any philosophy master): that only a divinely assisted human can do what Muhammad did, completely disregarding the ignorance and tribal mentality of people in that time and the very evident cunning of the scheme master Muhammad.

Other religious figures have done far more inspiring things than Muhammad ever could. Actually, most of them have, I'm sure. I'm not impressed at all by your prophet's actions, only and I admit, by the magnitude of his greed and cunning as well as general human stupidity, something which has been underestimated time and again.

-Woland

Response: Another dodge of the challenge. Your ducking and dodging supports the fact that Muhammad is a true prophet.

[LiamOS]

Your inability to conclusively prove that he is supports the fact that he isn't, then.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

If repeating illogical nonsense is what you've been reduced to, we can safely conclude that the discussion is over, and that your repeated avoidance of the points made is best explained by your lack of a proper rebuttal.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

You stated earlier that no one agrees to my argument in which I refuted and debunked such a claim with the fact that islam has over a billion followers based on the same argument.

You have yet to show that your argument is the reason for Islam's following.
I now challenge you to do so.

Also, I was referring to those on the forum. It appears to me that nobody, regardless of religion or other factors, nobody accepts your arguments on this forum.

So your claim that no one agrees is clearly false.

That is a misrepresentation of my claim.
My claim was that other debaters here disagree vehemently with you, and my statement also carried a less-than-subtle inference that those who are educated would also disagree.

Finally, your rebuttle is worthless, as your own words show support of the fact that your logic is fkawed when stating that particles are the result of vacuum energy.

They are facilitated by vacuum energy; I should've chosen my words more carefully.

I think an analogy is in order:
A piece of paper facilitates a drawing, but does not cause a drawing.
Vacuum energy facilitates virtual particles, but does not cause them.

A claim which supports my argument that nothing comes into existence without it being a creation from a creator.

If one warps my claim beyond reason, then yes.

Response: Your claim did not refer those on the forum as the word "forum" was not mentioned in the post. You perhaps intended to say so, but it was not said. Secondly, to ask whether muslims accept islam based on the miracle of Muhammad is ridiculous. For what other reason would it be, especially when the challenge itself is mentioned several times in the qur'an? It's like asking a christian to prove whether all christians believe that Jesus performed miracles. They're christians. Of course they believe it because it's the basic fundamental of christianity. But to answer such a ridiculous challenge, the proof is in the fact that the qur'an itself states the challenge validates it's authenticity. So naturally, if people accept islam, they would also have had accepted the fact that the challenge is valid, for the challenge is mentioned in the qur'an.

Lastly, since you've chosen to now say that vacuum energy facilitates virtual particles, then that still doesn't answer how particles come into existence. So even your new choice of words still proves nothing.

[Fatihah]

Given how stringent the details of this infamous challenge are, can you show that Muhammad does fulfil it?

Response: It has repeatedly been demonstrated, supported by the fact that you've failed to answer the challenge and demonstrate otherwise.

[Fatihah]

Your inability to conclusively prove that he is supports the fact that he isn't, then.

Response: Your inability to prove your own statement supports the fact that you're incorrect.

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

If repeating illogical nonsense is what you've been reduced to, we can safely conclude that the discussion is over, and that your repeated avoidance of the points made is best explained by your lack of a proper rebuttal.

-Woland

Response: To the contrary, since you've repeatedly dodged the challenge and failed to show fault in it, then it's safe to conclude this discussion is over and that Muhammad is a true prophet.