Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

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

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Let's try something different, since it seems that you are stuck in this endless loop of affirming your fallacies over and over again despite having seen them debunked countless times. Please address the numbered points.

Response: The redundancy continues. When asked to produce another way something can come into existence besides it being a creation from a creator, again you present nothing.

False.
Energy has always existed, and can be converted to matter.
No need for an Allah.

I have presented what you have asked.

1. Please explain to me why you believe that there is an uncreated ingelligent creator who created everything else, and why this is a superior alternative to the eternal existence of energy and emergence of properties and assemblies of matter based on physical constants which doesn't require special pleading of the "everything must be created by a creator except the creator of everything" variety.

When asked to explain how to make a pattern which repeats itself without using intelligence, your ridiculous answer is "energy has always been there".

That is simply false, please refer to my last post to prove yourself wrong.
You are confusing the answers I gave to your questions.

You don't seem to understand the point, which was that the patterns in nature which are observed by humans do not require an intelligent designer or a designer at all - they can very well be the product, for example, of physical constants which may or may not take different values permitting life or not in a variety (perhaps even an infinity) of universes - all without intelligent or conscious intervention.

2. Please show how Allah, an intelligent being with intent and emotions, exists without having been created, and while you're at it, tell us how this is not special pleading.

That doesn't answer the question in any way, shape or form. Energy always existing does not answer "how" to design a repeating pattern without intelligence.

Refer to the last answer.

Again you weasel in the word "design", assuming your conclusion. Do you really not understand why this is a fallacy?
You are assuming that the emergence of complex assemblies of matter requires intelligent design.

Even though you refuse to understand this, it's entirely plausible that energy and physical constants exist randomly without the necessity for an uncreated magical sky daddy called Allah.

A mentally challenged person can see that. Then you make the same redundant statement that I've stated that no error in the qur'an equals proof Allah exist yet can't quote any such statement. I said the fact that there is no error in the qur'an is proof that the attributes of the existing deity is the attributes described to Allah, not proof that Allah exist.

Still fallacious, for the very same reasons.
You really seem to enjoy stalling conversations with irrelevant comments.

I wonder why.

Thus your flawed strawman fails again. Lastly, you've again failed to produce any writing or speech and use it to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, thus your inability to do so only helps to support my claim while continuing to debunk yours.

3. Please tell us why you think that it is humanly impossible for a person to inspire others to do violence on their behalf or on the behalf of a deity in self-defense, when innumerable human beings have done so, because this is all your claim boils down to.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

Let's try something different, since it seems that you are stuck in this endless loop of affirming your fallacies over and over again despite having seen them debunked countless times. Please address the numbered points.

Response: The redundancy continues. When asked to produce another way something can come into existence besides it being a creation from a creator, again you present nothing.

False.
Energy has always existed, and can be converted to matter.
No need for an Allah.

I have presented what you have asked.

1. Please explain to me why you believe that there is an uncreated ingelligent creator who created everything else, and why this is a superior alternative to the eternal existence of energy and emergence of properties and assemblies of matter based on physical constants which doesn't require special pleading of the "everything must be created by a creator except the creator of everything" variety.

When asked to explain how to make a pattern which repeats itself without using intelligence, your ridiculous answer is "energy has always been there".

That is simply false, please refer to my last post to prove yourself wrong.
You are confusing the answers I gave to your questions.

You don't seem to understand the point, which was that the patterns in nature which are observed by humans do not require an intelligent designer or a designer at all - they can very well be the product, for example, of physical constants which may or may not take different values permitting life or not in a variety (perhaps even an infinity) of universes - all without intelligent or conscious intervention.

2. Please show how Allah, an intelligent being with intent and emotions, exists without having been created, and while you're at it, tell us how this is not special pleading.

That doesn't answer the question in any way, shape or form. Energy always existing does not answer "how" to design a repeating pattern without intelligence.

Refer to the last answer.

Again you weasel in the word "design", assuming your conclusion. Do you really not understand why this is a fallacy?
You are assuming that the emergence of complex assemblies of matter requires intelligent design.

Even though you refuse to understand this, it's entirely plausible that energy and physical constants exist randomly without the necessity for an uncreated magical sky daddy called Allah.

A mentally challenged person can see that. Then you make the same redundant statement that I've stated that no error in the qur'an equals proof Allah exist yet can't quote any such statement. I said the fact that there is no error in the qur'an is proof that the attributes of the existing deity is the attributes described to Allah, not proof that Allah exist.

Still fallacious, for the very same reasons.
You really seem to enjoy stalling conversations with irrelevant comments.

I wonder why.

Thus your flawed strawman fails again. Lastly, you've again failed to produce any writing or speech and use it to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, thus your inability to do so only helps to support my claim while continuing to debunk yours.

3. Please tell us why you think that it is humanly impossible for a person to inspire others to do violence on their behalf or on the behalf of a deity in self-defense, when innumerable human beings have done so, because this is all your claim boils down to.

-Woland

Resoonse: Once again, we still see the most ludicrous of rebuttles. When asked to present another way something can come into existence without it being a creation from a creator, you state that energy always existed and can be converted to matter. What a ridiculous response. For your own answer only supports my claim as the existence of matter is the result of a creation from energy according to your own words. Your own example is proving my point that things come into existence by being created but you're to caught up in your own delusional logic to realize it. Then you state that the patterns of nature are created by physical constants without intelligence. But saying so is not proof that it is so, thus you've once again provided nothing but more nonsense. Simply stating so is not proof that such physical constants were not created from intelligence. And to further dismantle your claim, humans are intelligent beings. That alone demonstates that the originator of life is intelligent as well. Otherwise, according to your logic, unintelligence created intelligence which is completely ridiculous. Unintelligence can't create intelligence because by definition, it's unintelligent. Lastly, for about the 4th time, you've failed to use any literature or speech to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, thus proving nothing once again. If it's so possible, you would be able to do it. Even when the test was just simplified to conquer the street you live on, you've failed to do so. Thus your own inability is further proof that such an act is humanly impossible unless aided by a higher power. And since Muhammad acheived such an act, it once again confirms the miracle and true prophethood of Muhammad.

[Furrowed Brow]

the act of evolving is a form of creating,

Evolve usually means “come into being�
Create means “cause to come into being�
Creator is an “intelligent agent that is the cause�.

thus the result is a creation and what it evolved from is the creator.

There is a semantic shift glossed over here. That something has a cause does not mean the cause is the result of an intelligent agent. The argument for a creator employed here is fallacious and a clear example of the fallacy of equivocation.

If this argument were valid then the next sentence would also be valid.

[center]The act of coming into being is a form of caused coming into being thus the result of an intelligent agent.[/center]

But this sentecne is not valid and neither is the original fomulated by Fatihah. Please withdraw it or reformulate.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Resoonse: Once again, we still see the most ludicrous of rebuttles. When asked to present another way something can come into existence without it being a creation from a creator, you state that energy always existed and can be converted to matter. What a ridiculous response. For your own answer only supports my claim as the existence of matter is the result of a creation from energy according to your own words. Your own example is proving my point that things come into existence by being created but you're to caught up in your own delusional logic to realize it.

Nothing I said necessitates or implies a conscious or intelligent creator. If you want to play the semantics game, go ahead, but you're only fooling yourself - and thoroughly. If you want to call energy transformation "creation", go ahead, but then you need to prove your implicit assertion that all "creation" or transformation of energy requires a conscious and intelligent creator, which you of course haven't done and will not do other than with faulty logic and denialism.

There is no evidence to suggest that all the matter and energy in the universe originated from an uncreated intelligent being. All you have is massively flawed logic assuming your own conclusion - not impressive.

Then you state that the patterns of nature are created by physical constants without intelligence. But saying so is not proof that it is so,

I think you're on to something here.

Please try to remember your own words and start providing evidence for your endless claims.

thus you've once again provided nothing but more nonsense. Simply stating so is not proof that such physical constants were not created from intelligence.

And simply stating that they were created by an uncreated being even more complex than his alleged creation doesn't solve the problem, it just shows your selective logic, lack of critical thinking, and special pleading.

And to further dismantle your claim, humans are intelligent beings. That alone demonstates that the originator of life is intelligent as well.

It certainly does not.

Please substantiate your implicit claim that consciousness and intelligence in arrangements of matter necessitate anything else than the right physical constants and the natural process of evolution.

Then, show that the physical constants were determined by a conscious uncreated intelligent creator and are not simply random or determined by natural processes.

If you cannot do this, you have nothing.

Which, for your information, is very much the case.

Otherwise, according to your logic, unintelligence created intelligence which is completely ridiculous. Unintelligence can't create intelligence because by definition, it's unintelligent.

Not unintelligence, non-intelligence.
Natural processes are not intelligent to any extent, and they do not require an uncreated intelligent deity for their own existence.

Here's something interesting: according to your logic, an infinitely intelligent, conscious being simply exists eternally without having been created. Explain to me why it is reasonable to believe this ludicrous statement especially in the light of your own claims.

Lastly, for about the 4th time, you've failed to use any literature or speech to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, thus proving nothing once again.

You really are dogmatically unable to understand the flaws in your arguments. It has been explained to you why inspiring people to do violence in self-defense with speeches and/or literature cannot be a reasonable criterion of divine intervention - not only because others have achieved this, but also because it doesn't prove divine assistance in the slightest. This is true regardless of whether or not Muhammad was a particularly successful manipulative desert pirate, which he certainly was (no debate here). Your failure to acknowledge this suggests more than a poor understanding of debate, reason, and logic - it suggests pure denialism on your part.

If it's so possible, you would be able to do it. Even when the test was just simplified to conquer the street you live on, you've failed to do so. Thus your own inability is further proof that such an act is humanly impossible unless aided by a higher power. And since Muhammad acheived such an act, it once again confirms the miracle and true prophethood of Muhammad.

*Sigh*

Muslims and their fallacies...

"Inspiring others to do violence in self-defense with speeches in the name of religion requires prophethood! If you don't believe me, go ahead and conquer a nation! See? You can't do it! Therefore, I'm right!"

This is essentially what you are claiming, and it's nothing short of pathetic that you will stick to this faulty reasoning until the end, never acknowledging the obvious fallacies in your endless claims.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

Resoonse: Once again, we still see the most ludicrous of rebuttles. When asked to present another way something can come into existence without it being a creation from a creator, you state that energy always existed and can be converted to matter. What a ridiculous response. For your own answer only supports my claim as the existence of matter is the result of a creation from energy according to your own words. Your own example is proving my point that things come into existence by being created but you're to caught up in your own delusional logic to realize it.

Nothing I said necessitates or implies a conscious or intelligent creator. If you want to play the semantics game, go ahead, but you're only fooling yourself - and thoroughly. If you want to call energy transformation "creation", go ahead, but then you need to prove your implicit assertion that all "creation" or transformation of energy requires a conscious and intelligent creator, which you of course haven't done and will not do other than with faulty logic and denialism.

There is no evidence to suggest that all the matter and energy in the universe originated from an uncreated intelligent being. All you have is massively flawed logic assuming your own conclusion - not impressive.

Then you state that the patterns of nature are created by physical constants without intelligence. But saying so is not proof that it is so,

I think you're on to something here.

Please try to remember your own words and start providing evidence for your endless claims.

thus you've once again provided nothing but more nonsense. Simply stating so is not proof that such physical constants were not created from intelligence.

And simply stating that they were created by an uncreated being even more complex than his alleged creation doesn't solve the problem, it just shows your selective logic, lack of critical thinking, and special pleading.

And to further dismantle your claim, humans are intelligent beings. That alone demonstates that the originator of life is intelligent as well.

It certainly does not.

Please substantiate your implicit claim that consciousness and intelligence in arrangements of matter necessitate anything else than the right physical constants and the natural process of evolution.

Then, show that the physical constants were determined by a conscious uncreated intelligent creator and are not simply random or determined by natural processes.

If you cannot do this, you have nothing.

Which, for your information, is very much the case.

Otherwise, according to your logic, unintelligence created intelligence which is completely ridiculous. Unintelligence can't create intelligence because by definition, it's unintelligent.

Not unintelligence, non-intelligence.
Natural processes are not intelligent to any extent, and they do not require an uncreated intelligent deity for their own existence.

Here's something interesting: according to your logic, an infinitely intelligent, conscious being simply exists eternally without having been created. Explain to me why it is reasonable to believe this ludicrous statement especially in the light of your own claims.

Lastly, for about the 4th time, you've failed to use any literature or speech to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, thus proving nothing once again.

You really are dogmatically unable to understand the flaws in your arguments. It has been explained to you why inspiring people to do violence in self-defense with speeches and/or literature cannot be a reasonable criterion of divine intervention - not only because others have achieved this, but also because it doesn't prove divine assistance in the slightest. This is true regardless of whether or not Muhammad was a particularly successful manipulative desert pirate, which he certainly was (no debate here). Your failure to acknowledge this suggests more than a poor understanding of debate, reason, and logic - it suggests pure denialism on your part.

If it's so possible, you would be able to do it. Even when the test was just simplified to conquer the street you live on, you've failed to do so. Thus your own inability is further proof that such an act is humanly impossible unless aided by a higher power. And since Muhammad acheived such an act, it once again confirms the miracle and true prophethood of Muhammad.

*Sigh*

Muslims and their fallacies...

"Inspiring others to do violence in self-defense with speeches in the name of religion requires prophethood! If you don't believe me, go ahead and conquer a nation! See? You can't do it! Therefore, I'm right!"

This is essentially what you are claiming, and it's nothing short of pathetic that you will stick to this faulty reasoning until the end, never acknowledging the obvious fallacies in your endless claims.

-Woland

Response: With another illogical rebuttle, it's reasonable to assume that perhaps someone is actually paying you to post such delusional comments. For it's hard to believe any rational person would repeatedly post over and over again with the most absurd logic ever invented. Your own example of energy converting to matter furthe proves that nothing can come into existence without being created. And after we watched you fail to provide any proof that physical constants were not created from intelligence, your own words discredit you from any sound logic. It's basic common sense. Nothing which is intelligent can be created from unintelligence because by definition, IT's UNINTELLIGENT. Thus your own existence is proof of intelligent design if you consider yourself intelligent. Then you try the most pathetic move and say, "not unintelligence but non-intelligence". What kind of lunacy are you speaking now? The words mean the same.

But let's look at your redundant claim that a pattern which repeats itself can be created without intelligence. If that's the case, then according to your logic, a rock can draw a pattern. Or how about a stuffed doll. It's nonsense.

Lastly, you still failed to produce any speech or literature to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Even when simplified to conquer the street you live on, you run ans hide in the corner. Instead you repeat the same redundancy, "it's been proven". How many times must it be said, saying so is not proof that it is so. Thus you've refuted nothing, (as usual), and the proof that Allah exist is still valid.

[Fatihah]

the act of evolving is a form of creating,

Evolve usually means “come into being�
Create means “cause to come into being�
Creator is an “intelligent agent that is the cause�.

thus the result is a creation and what it evolved from is the creator.

There is a semantic shift glossed over here. That something has a cause does not mean the cause is the result of an intelligent agent. The argument for a creator employed here is fallacious and a clear example of the fallacy of equivocation.

If this argument were valid then the next sentence would also be valid.

[center]The act of coming into being is a form of caused coming into being thus the result of an intelligent agent.[/center]

But this sentecne is not valid and neither is the original fomulated by Fatihah. Please withdraw it or reformulate.

Response: For starters, the definition of the word "create" is to bring into existence. And even when accepting your definitions, they both mean the same. For nothing can come into being without cause. As for your statement, I never stated that the act of coming into being is caused by an intelligent agent, but rather, it came from a creator. What was said is that a created pattern which repeats itself can only come from an intelligent creator. Thus there is no need for reformation of my wording.

[Wyvern]

But let's look at your redundant claim that a pattern which repeats itself can be created without intelligence. If that's the case, then according to your logic, a rock can draw a pattern. Or how about a stuffed doll. It's nonsense.

Even though I know you will dismiss it out of hand fractals fit your needs perfectly and they are all over the place.

Lastly, you still failed to produce any speech or literature to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Even when simplified to conquer the street you live on, you run ans hide in the corner. Instead you repeat the same redundancy, "it's been proven". How many times must it be said, saying so is not proof that it is so. Thus you've refuted nothing, (as usual), and the proof that Allah exist is still valid

You have not shown any proof of the existance of Allah so your argument is not proven and until you can prove allah exists your argument is not true. You have also not shown that Mohammed used speech or literature to inspire enough people to conquer a nation so until you prove that point there is no point in you trying to challenge others to prove something you yourself have failed to prove. In short all your claims are not true until you prove them to be so.

[Furrowed Brow]

Response: For starters, the definition of the word "create" is to bring into existence.

Ok use that definition if you like.

For starters, the definition of the word "create" is to bring into existence. And even when accepting your definitions, they both mean the same.

If you mean and only mean “cause to come into being� and “to bring into existence� are the same then ok.

As for your statement, I never stated that the act of coming into being is caused by an intelligent agent, but rather, it came from a creator.

If you mean that a “creator� is not creating by design, that there is no intelligence agency doing the creating then your meaning is valid.

Thus there is no need for reformation of my wording.

Yes there is if you do wish your words to be clearly understood and not have them mistaken as fallacious and presenly they surely look guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. A simply qualification will do. Simply and clearly state a creator is not an intelligent agent and this is not implied by your argument.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

Response: With another illogical rebuttle, it's reasonable to assume that perhaps someone is actually paying you to post such delusional comments. For it's hard to believe any rational person would repeatedly post over and over again with the most absurd logic ever invented.

A while ago, I honestly used to think that online people like you weren't Muslims at all but non-Muslim trolls fishing for reactions with purposefully ridiculously unsound logic, fallacies, triumpahlism, denialism and Ad Hominems.

Now, after many real life experience with Muslims, I know better.

Your own example of energy converting to matter furthe proves that nothing can come into existence without being created. And after we watched you fail to provide any proof that physical constants were not created from intelligence, your own words discredit you from any sound logic.

Again, using vague terminology and shifting meaning of words like "created" and "creator" where convenient.

Where does your intelligent deity come from?
Oh, right: it's always been there.
Allah doesn't need to have been created, does he?
Do you know why?
Because your argument is unsound and assumes without ever demonstrating
-the eternal existence of an intelligent being
-the necessity for everything to have been created from intelligence except this intelligent being
-the impossibility of consciousness to arise from non-consciousness by natural processes which aren't conscious or intentional


Please demonstrate the validity of your own assumptions. Simply saying it is so, doesn't mean that it is so. Do you understand why making empty claims is not the same as proving them to be correct? If you feel that you have already demonstrated the validity of your assumptions, tell me where you think you have done this. Know that circular thinking doesn't demonstrate anything except an inability or unwillingness to properly support one's claims.

It's basic common sense. Nothing which is intelligent can be created from unintelligence because by definition, IT's UNINTELLIGENT. Thus your own existence is proof of intelligent design if you consider yourself intelligent.

You have simply assumed that the properties of consciousness and intelligence cannot be derived from the arrangement of energy and matter according to natural laws which do not require a conscious creator, then conclude that you are correct in an absurd example of circular thinking.

Please support your claim that the properties of consciousness which arise from an arrangement of matter have to be designed by an intelligent being. You have done no such thing and indeed will do no such thing, because all you have is hot air and endless claims "backed up by" fallacies.

But let's look at your redundant claim that a pattern which repeats itself can be created without intelligence. If that's the case, then according to your logic, a rock can draw a pattern. Or how about a stuffed doll. It's nonsense.

False analogy, as usual.
Natural processes and forces aren't objects.
Have you ever presented a valid analogy anywhere?
Every single time I see the words "according to your logic" from you, I just know there's going to be fallacies immediately ensuing. It hasn't failed once yet.

I'm serious. Here's an opportunity for you. Give me a single example of where you've provided a valid analogy. Just one will do.

Lastly, you still failed to produce any speech or literature to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Even when simplified to conquer the street you live on, you run ans hide in the corner. Instead you repeat the same redundancy, "it's been proven". How many times must it be said, saying so is not proof that it is so. Thus you've refuted nothing, (as usual), and the proof that Allah exist is still valid.

This again?
You really don't understand why this is an unsound argument despite all our explanations?

Do you want to see something interesting?
Let me show you exactly the extent of the stupidity of your argument with a valid analogy - something you seem absolutely unable to produce.

1. Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world.
2. No mere human can run as fast as he does.
3. If you doubt it, try to outrun him, or bring me someone who outruns him.
4. Since you failed, Usain Bolt is God.

There you go, this is actually your logic in a nutshell.
"Try to prove me wrong. You can't? Then once again your failure supports my position and Usain Bolt remains proven to be God".

The most amazing thing is that surely you haven't even yet realized how faulty your reasoning is.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

But let's look at your redundant claim that a pattern which repeats itself can be created without intelligence. If that's the case, then according to your logic, a rock can draw a pattern. Or how about a stuffed doll. It's nonsense.

Even though I know you will dismiss it out of hand fractals fit your needs perfectly and they are all over the place.

Lastly, you still failed to produce any speech or literature to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Even when simplified to conquer the street you live on, you run ans hide in the corner. Instead you repeat the same redundancy, "it's been proven". How many times must it be said, saying so is not proof that it is so. Thus you've refuted nothing, (as usual), and the proof that Allah exist is still valid

You have not shown any proof of the existance of Allah so your argument is not proven and until you can prove allah exists your argument is not true. You have also not shown that Mohammed used speech or literature to inspire enough people to conquer a nation so until you prove that point there is no point in you trying to challenge others to prove something you yourself have failed to prove. In short all your claims are not true until you prove them to be so.

Response: To the contrary, you've failed to demonstrate any fault in my proof, thus your own words support the fact that my proof is valid. Otherwise, you would be able to show fault but you haven't.