Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

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

[LiamOS]

I do not believe he does not exist.
I just don't believe he does.

Also, the second half of your paragraph, as has been the case many times, is an argument from ignorance; you are claiming that our inability to disprove your statement(In your view) verifies it, which is not the case.

[Fatihah]

Once again, your inability to quote where I've said I believe Bolt is God only makes you look absurd, not me. Adding the fact that you're too ashamed to state your belief, you've discredted yourself from any sound logic.

This would be considered an ad hominem attack, and is neither productive nor ethical in debate.

Resonse: This would be considered trolling, as like all of your other posts, it's only directed to me and is not an argument on the subject.

And this would be considered idiocy. If it's trolling to point out your opponents logical fallacies, what exactly is the point of us being here?

Response: Clearly your statement is idiocy, for you can't point out what doesn't exist.

[Fatihah]

I do not believe he does not exist.
I just don't believe he does.

Also, the second half of your paragraph, as has been the case many times, is an argument from ignorance.

Response: To the contrary, you're inability to show fault is yet claim you have is an argument of idiocy.

[LiamOS]

Response: To the contrary, you're inability to show fault is yet claim you have is an argument of idiocy.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but the idea that something is true because it has not been disproved is the definition of an argument from ignorance.

Please consider avoiding this logical fallacy, and personal attacks, especially as you're already on probation.

[Fatihah]

Alright Fatihah,

Just for the fun of it, let me see if I can write down your "logic" as apparently laid down in post 2. Tell me if you agree that this is what you believe constitutes valid reasoning, or tell me where I misinterpreted your logic.

In other words, what attributes are possessed by this intelligent designer? The qur'an answers that question stating that the originator of the universe and all that exist within it is no other than Allah and provides two tests to validate the claim. And that is:

"Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy". (ch.4:82).

P 1: If a book isn't from God, there will be discrepancy, but if it is from God, there will be no discrepancy.
P 2: Looking for discrepancy in a book is a valid way to establish divine origin.
P 3: There is no discrepancy in the Quran.
C: Therefore the Quran is from Allah.

Do you believe that this logic is valid?
Is this your logic?
Please confirm.

"And if you are in doubt as to what we have sent down to our Servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah, if you are truthful".(ch. 2:23).

P 1: Only a book from divine origin has some (conveniently undefined, of course) characteristics
P 2: These characteristics cannot be found in the works of humans nor can they be reproduced by humans, but they can be found in the Quran
C : Therefore the Quran is from God

Do you believe that this logic is valid?
Is this your logic?
Please confirm.

While you're at it, tell us exactly how you would judge whether or not something invented by humans is the equivalent of the Quran. Failure to do this exposes your argument as fallacious - setting undefined criteria but rejecting all answers "just because" is not valid reasoning.

The next is a challenge is presented for all of humanity to disprove that Muhammad performed a miracle. And what is that miracle:

"It is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature created by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

This is the challenge for all of humanity. The challenge is to show that it is humanly possible to achieve such an act. And when you take the challenge and fail, you will come to learn that such an act is impossible to accomplish. However, Muhammad used the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. And once you discover that it's impossible to use any speech or literature created by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, then this would mean that the qur'an in which Muhammad used was not a creation of any person but from a higher power, a higher intelligence, a deity, and that is Allah. You disagree? Then take the challenge and prove otherwise. To even simplify it for, you won't even be able to conquer the street you live on. Again, you disagree? Then take the challenge and prove otherwise.

I really love this one.


P 1: Only someone with divine help could convince people, with speeches or literature, to do violence in self-defense and conquer other nations, and doing so is a miracle.
P 2: Muhammad inspired others, with speeches, to conquer nations in self-defense.
C: Therefore Muhammad is a true prophet.

I won't even bother with your ridiculous notion that failing to do what Muhammad did (convince a bunch of ignorant desert barbarians that Allah wants them to conquer nations, supposedly in self-defense) means that it is humanly impossible to do so.

Do you believe that this logic is valid?
Is this your logic?
Please confirm.

-Woland

Response: Post 2 is written in simple, basic english. So there's no need to question my logic unless you failed to understand english. So the question is, which english words do you fail to comprehend in post 2.

[LiamOS]

None of us have any trouble understanding the words.
The trouble we have is that a challenge to disprove something is not really a positive argument for anything.

As such, we are requesting that you lay out you premises, with supporting evidence and use them to draw a conclusion. This is a standard way to summarise ones' argument.

[Fatihah]

Response: To the contrary, you're inability to show fault is yet claim you have is an argument of idiocy.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but the idea that something is true because it has not been disproved is the definition of an argument from ignorance.

Please consider avoiding this logical fallacy, and personal attacks, especially as you're already on probation.

Response: Yet the simple fact that you can't quote any post of mine which says that something is true because it's not been disproven is an example of your argument of idiocy. Please refrain from such logical fallacy, and personal attacks, especially as you are already discredted for beong able to produce sound logic.

[Fatihah]

None of us have any trouble understanding the words.
The trouble we have is that a challenge to disprove something is not really a positive argument for anything.

As such, we are requesting that you lay out you premises, with supporting evidence and use them to draw a conclusion. This is a standard way summarise ones' argument.

Response: Yet what we can clearly see is your problem is denial of the fact that the challenge is valid. Thus you've reduced your argument to try to persuade for logic which doesn't leave you so utterly debunked.

[LiamOS]

Yet the simple fact that you can't quote any post of mine which says that something is true because it's not been disproven is an example of your argument of idiocy.

The first that comes to mind is:

the fact that you've consistantly failed to show fault in my argument supports the fact that it's valid.

There are a few others, if you wish to see them.

Please refrain from such logical fallacy

I challenge you to name the logical fallacy I used, and to show that I did indeed use it.
1st challenge.

and personal attacks

I challenge you to show where I have committed a personal attack.
1st challenge.

especially as you are already discredted for beong able to produce sound logic.

What one has previously stated has no bearing on the validity of their arguments.
This is an attempt to poison the well.

[LiamOS]

Response: Yet what we can clearly see is your problem is denial of the fact that the challenge is valid. Thus you've reduced your argument to try to persuade for logic which doesn't leave you so utterly debunked.

A challenge is not a valid form of proof, as it is inherently reliant on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

This is how:
The challenge is to prove that A is possible.
Nobody can fulfil the challenge.

It would be an argument from ignorance to say that because nobody can fulfil the challenge, that it must not be possible.