Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

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

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

FIRST
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.

SECOND
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.

THIRD
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.

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

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.

You have not answered my questions.

Is the logic mentioned above representative of the one you implied in post 2, or not?

I think it does a good job of summing up your arguments in post 2, but I wouldn't want to be making any strawmen, so please confirm or correct the logic so that we may address your actual logic.

If you think I misunderstood your simple, basic english, it's then obvious that I can't tell you which words I failed to comprehend, so please educate me and tell me where I erred.

I don't think that's asking too much of someone who is supposedly here to debate.

Failure to do so on your part will not reflect kindly on the validity of your position, and would be a display of ill faith and a total lack of basic debate ethics.

-Woland

Response: Again, post 2 is written in simple basic english which you failed to comprehend. Thus you would have to tell me which english words you failed to comprehend if you want clarification. Again, the answers to your questions is post 2. So unless you present which simple words you fail to comprehend, then it is clearly your questioning which is a reflection of your total lack of debate tactics.

[LiamOS]

Response: And as shown, the empty rhetoric is your argument. For you've done nothing but make statements, with no proof. You have not proven that particles can exist without being created. You just simply said that they do. Saying so is not proof that it is so.

Okay, I shall then prove that it is so.
With respect to virtual particles, a resultant of vacuum energy, their ladder operators, a_i^†, do not interact with the Hamiltonian operator of the system, Ĥ, meaning that they do not have a permanent existence.
That's just in case you feel like trying them in the Schrodinger equation. or in this:


Now, I'm sure you'll just dismiss the mathematics out of hand, so there's an experimental proof! How about that, eh?
Here's a brief explanation of the idea to observe virtual particles:

The simplest explanation of the Casimir effect is that the two metal plates attract because their reflective surfaces exclude virtual photons of wavelengths longer than the separation distance. This reduces the energy density between the plates compared with that outside, and--like external air pressure tending to collapse a slightly evacuated vessel--the Casimir force pulls the plates toward one another

Experiments have confirmed the force's existence. This force cannot be explained without virtual particles that occur in a non-causal manner.
Physics Review Latter.

And, here is the actual paper!
Enjoy that read, Fatihah.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

FIRST
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.

SECOND
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.

THIRD
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.

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

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.

You have not answered my questions.

Is the logic mentioned above representative of the one you implied in post 2, or not?

I think it does a good job of summing up your arguments in post 2, but I wouldn't want to be making any strawmen, so please confirm or correct the logic so that we may address your actual logic.

If you think I misunderstood your simple, basic english, it's then obvious that I can't tell you which words I failed to comprehend, so please educate me and tell me where I erred.

I don't think that's asking too much of someone who is supposedly here to debate.

Failure to do so on your part will not reflect kindly on the validity of your position, and would be a display of ill faith and a total lack of basic debate ethics.

-Woland

Response: Again, post 2 is written in simple basic english which you failed to comprehend. Thus you would have to tell me which english words you failed to comprehend if you want clarification. Again, the answers to your questions is post 2. So unless you present which simple words you fail to comprehend, then it is clearly your questioning which is a reflection of your total lack of debate tactics.

Why do you insist on running away from simply confirming if the logic I laid out corresponds to your own? Does it or doesn't it?

If you think that, despite my impression that I understood you perfectly, I didn't understand your logic and I still don't, don't you agree that it's ridiculous to ask me what I didn't understand? Why not simply correct my mistakes? I wrote it in formal logic and it would take you but a minute to correct my mistakes.

This is how debate is conducted.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Response: And as shown, the empty rhetoric is your argument. For you've done nothing but make statements, with no proof. You have not proven that particles can exist without being created. You just simply said that they do. Saying so is not proof that it is so.

Okay, I shall then prove that it is so.
With respect to virtual particles, a resultant of vacuum energy, their ladder operators, a_i^†, do not interact with the Hamiltonian operator of the system, Ĥ, meaning that they do not have a permanent existence.
That's just in case you feel like trying them in the Schrodinger equation. or in this:


Now, I'm sure you'll just dismiss the mathematics out of hand, so there's an experimental proof! How about that, eh?
Here's a brief explanation of the idea to observe virtual particles:

The simplest explanation of the Casimir effect is that the two metal plates attract because their reflective surfaces exclude virtual photons of wavelengths longer than the separation distance. This reduces the energy density between the plates compared with that outside, and--like external air pressure tending to collapse a slightly evacuated vessel--the Casimir force pulls the plates toward one another

Experiments have confirmed the force's existence. This force cannot be explained without virtual particles that occur in a non-causal manner.
Physics Review Latter.

And, here is the actual paper!
Enjoy that read, Fatihah.

Response: Thus once again, you've only helped to prove my point, as there is nothing in the article which states that particles are not created. To the contrary, you've explicitly stated that particles are the resultvof vacuum energy, thus your own words state that the particles are created. Thanks for the clarification.

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

FIRST
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.

SECOND
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.

THIRD
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.

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

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.

You have not answered my questions.

Is the logic mentioned above representative of the one you implied in post 2, or not?

I think it does a good job of summing up your arguments in post 2, but I wouldn't want to be making any strawmen, so please confirm or correct the logic so that we may address your actual logic.

If you think I misunderstood your simple, basic english, it's then obvious that I can't tell you which words I failed to comprehend, so please educate me and tell me where I erred.

I don't think that's asking too much of someone who is supposedly here to debate.

Failure to do so on your part will not reflect kindly on the validity of your position, and would be a display of ill faith and a total lack of basic debate ethics.

-Woland

Response: Again, post 2 is written in simple basic english which you failed to comprehend. Thus you would have to tell me which english words you failed to comprehend if you want clarification. Again, the answers to your questions is post 2. So unless you present which simple words you fail to comprehend, then it is clearly your questioning which is a reflection of your total lack of debate tactics.

Why do you insist on running away from simply confirming if the logic I laid out corresponds to your own? Does it or doesn't it?

If you think that, despite my impression that I understood you perfectly, I didn't understand your logic and I still don't, don't you agree that it's ridiculous to ask me what I didn't understand? Why not simply correct my mistakes? I wrote it in formal logic and it would take you but a minute to correct my mistakes.

This is how debate is conducted.

-Woland

Response: To the contrary, what is ridiculous is claiming that you've understood the logic yet you ask for clarification of the logic at the same time. If you don't understand, there's obviously a reason why. Since it is written in simple english and you failed to comprehend it, then the simple english is your problem. So asking you to state which simple english words you failed to comprehend is a logical question which would require you to now state what they are.

This is how debate is conducted.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

FIRST
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.

SECOND
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.

THIRD
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.

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

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.

You have not answered my questions.

Is the logic mentioned above representative of the one you implied in post 2, or not?

I think it does a good job of summing up your arguments in post 2, but I wouldn't want to be making any strawmen, so please confirm or correct the logic so that we may address your actual logic.

If you think I misunderstood your simple, basic english, it's then obvious that I can't tell you which words I failed to comprehend, so please educate me and tell me where I erred.

I don't think that's asking too much of someone who is supposedly here to debate.

Failure to do so on your part will not reflect kindly on the validity of your position, and would be a display of ill faith and a total lack of basic debate ethics.

-Woland

Response: Again, post 2 is written in simple basic english which you failed to comprehend. Thus you would have to tell me which english words you failed to comprehend if you want clarification. Again, the answers to your questions is post 2. So unless you present which simple words you fail to comprehend, then it is clearly your questioning which is a reflection of your total lack of debate tactics.

Why do you insist on running away from simply confirming if the logic I laid out corresponds to your own? Does it or doesn't it?

If you think that, despite my impression that I understood you perfectly, I didn't understand your logic and I still don't, don't you agree that it's ridiculous to ask me what I didn't understand? Why not simply correct my mistakes? I wrote it in formal logic and it would take you but a minute to correct my mistakes.

This is how debate is conducted.

-Woland

Response: To the contrary, what is ridiculous is claiming that you've understood the logic yet you ask for clarification of the logic at the same time. If you don't understand, there's obviously a reason why. Since it is written in simple english and you failed to comprehend it, then the simple english is your problem. So asking you to state which simple english words you failed to comprehend is a logical question which would require you to now state what they are.

This is how debate is conducted.

Hello Fatihah,

I believe I understood you, but I want you to agree or disagree that the logic above is your own before I spend time debunking it, just to make sure you won't say that this isn't your logic for another 100 posts of stalling.

It's very interesting to me that you refuse to even disagree that the logic above represents your own. It would take but a second, and then you could either point out where I misrepresented your argument or stall for another 100 posts, but instead you keep avoiding even answering this.

At any rate, do you really fail to grasp how ridiculous your request that I point out what I misunderstood when I believe I understood what you meant is? It's like if I kept telling you "tell me where you're wrong" and parroted this endlessly. Will you please point out where you (apparently) believe I misrepresented your argument?

To be honest, I am still left wondering how it's possible that you haven't been banned yet considering the sum total of your posts, which can only be explained either as general trolling on your part (non-Muslim or Muslim who is fishing for reactions) or an incredible (truly astounding) and stubborn lack of understanding of basic principles of logic, reason, and debate combined with a necessity to resort to triumphalism and stalling to retain a given delusion despite being provided all the evidence demonstrating it to be unreasonable repeatedly on a silver platter.

The saddest part is not being able to tell which is which, considering the number of Muslims with the same "debate tactics" as you I've encountered online.

Just answer the question of whether or not these logical pathways I devised, which I believe adequately represent your position, in fact do so, and tell me where I misrepresented your position if such was the case. Then we can start debating. I can't for the life of me fathom why you would prefer to have discussions the way you seem to enjoy them. It's just a slight notch above shouting *LALALALALALA* when someone speaks to you (something I've actually had Muslims do in real life debates).

-Woland

[LiamOS]

Response: Thus once again, you've only helped to prove my point, as there is nothing in the article which states that particles are not created. To the contrary, you've explicitly stated that particles are the resultvof vacuum energy, thus your own words state that the particles are created. Thanks for the clarification.

Vacuum energy is random, as is the coming into existence of virtual particles.
The Casimir Effect demonstrates the apparent lack of causation.
You're arguing against Quantum Electro-Dynamics, here, so I suggest you make a better effort than simply saying it's wrong.
In the spirit of being ironic, I'd like to add:
Can you not comprehend simply basic English? I did not say that vacuum energy causes them, merely that their existence is possible due to vacuum energy.
In the future, please try to both read and understand that which is presented to you, as your dismissal of it without having done both of these is even less warranted than a baseless one.


Let it be noted that Fatihah cannot maintain the validity of his initial argument.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

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

Which is exactly what the qur’ân does repeatedly, e.g:

2:23 — If you doubt what We revealed to Our servant, bring forth one sura like it… But if you do not, and surely you will not…

10:38 — Or do they say: “He forged it�? Say: “Bring forth one sura like it.�

11:13 — Or because they say: “He fabricated it?� Say: “Bring forth ten suras like it, fabricated…� If they do not respond to you, know that it was only sent down with the knowledge of god.

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

FIRST
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.

SECOND
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.

THIRD
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.

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

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.

You have not answered my questions.

Is the logic mentioned above representative of the one you implied in post 2, or not?

I think it does a good job of summing up your arguments in post 2, but I wouldn't want to be making any strawmen, so please confirm or correct the logic so that we may address your actual logic.

If you think I misunderstood your simple, basic english, it's then obvious that I can't tell you which words I failed to comprehend, so please educate me and tell me where I erred.

I don't think that's asking too much of someone who is supposedly here to debate.

Failure to do so on your part will not reflect kindly on the validity of your position, and would be a display of ill faith and a total lack of basic debate ethics.

-Woland

Response: Again, post 2 is written in simple basic english which you failed to comprehend. Thus you would have to tell me which english words you failed to comprehend if you want clarification. Again, the answers to your questions is post 2. So unless you present which simple words you fail to comprehend, then it is clearly your questioning which is a reflection of your total lack of debate tactics.

Why do you insist on running away from simply confirming if the logic I laid out corresponds to your own? Does it or doesn't it?

If you think that, despite my impression that I understood you perfectly, I didn't understand your logic and I still don't, don't you agree that it's ridiculous to ask me what I didn't understand? Why not simply correct my mistakes? I wrote it in formal logic and it would take you but a minute to correct my mistakes.

This is how debate is conducted.

-Woland

Response: To the contrary, what is ridiculous is claiming that you've understood the logic yet you ask for clarification of the logic at the same time. If you don't understand, there's obviously a reason why. Since it is written in simple english and you failed to comprehend it, then the simple english is your problem. So asking you to state which simple english words you failed to comprehend is a logical question which would require you to now state what they are.

This is how debate is conducted.

Hello Fatihah,

I believe I understood you, but I want you to agree or disagree that the logic above is your own before I spend time debunking it, just to make sure you won't say that this isn't your logic for another 100 posts of stalling.

It's very interesting to me that you refuse to even disagree that the logic above represents your own. It would take but a second, and then you could either point out where I misrepresented your argument or stall for another 100 posts, but instead you keep avoiding even answering this.

At any rate, do you really fail to grasp how ridiculous your request that I point out what I misunderstood when I believe I understood what you meant is? It's like if I kept telling you "tell me where you're wrong" and parroted this endlessly. Will you please point out where you (apparently) believe I misrepresented your argument?

To be honest, I am still left wondering how it's possible that you haven't been banned yet considering the sum total of your posts, which can only be explained either as general trolling on your part (non-Muslim or Muslim who is fishing for reactions) or an incredible (truly astounding) and stubborn lack of understanding of basic principles of logic, reason, and debate combined with a necessity to resort to triumphalism and stalling to retain a given delusion despite being provided all the evidence demonstrating it to be unreasonable repeatedly on a silver platter.

The saddest part is not being able to tell which is which, considering the number of Muslims with the same "debate tactics" as you I've encountered online.

Just answer the question of whether or not these logical pathways I devised, which I believe adequately represent your position, in fact do so, and tell me where I misrepresented your position if such was the case. Then we can start debating. I can't for the life of me fathom why you would prefer to have discussions the way you seem to enjoy them. It's just a slight notch above shouting *LALALALALALA* when someone speaks to you (something I've actually had Muslims do in real life debates).

-Woland

Response: What's sad is the nonsensical debate tactics of yours. What's sad is even after you've been utterly debunked repeatedly, over and over again, you still find it necessary to keep posting. It's the common reaction of all non-muslims like you. Because it's clear that your logic is flawed, you have to now reduce yourself with attempt after attempt to redeem yourself. Thecunfortunate part about non-muslims like you is your ignorance to the fact that continuous conversation with you only helps to spread the religion of islam because those of us who are reasonable could never side with your absurd logic. And to continue with your absurdity, you've reduced yourself even further by stating that you believe you understood my logic, yet you ask questions to understand my logic. Clearly ridiculous. There's no need to question what you believe you understand unless there's something you don't understand. And if that's the case, then your misunderstanding is due to an inability to comprehend the simple english words stated. So unless you state what they are, then you'll continue to be, like your logic, clueless.

[Fatihah]

Response: Thus once again, you've only helped to prove my point, as there is nothing in the article which states that particles are not created. To the contrary, you've explicitly stated that particles are the resultvof vacuum energy, thus your own words state that the particles are created. Thanks for the clarification.

Vacuum energy is random, as is the coming into existence of virtual particles.
The Casimir Effect demonstrates the apparent lack of causation.
You're arguing against Quantum Electro-Dynamics, here, so I suggest you make a better effort than simply saying it's wrong.
In the spirit of being ironic, I'd like to add:
Can you not comprehend simply basic English? I did not say that vacuum energy causes them, merely that their existence is possible due to vacuum energy.
In the future, please try to both read and understand that which is presented to you, as your dismissal of it without having done both of these is even less warranted than a baseless one.


Let it be noted that Fatihah cannot maintain the validity of his initial argument.

Response: Yet we can cleary read your post and see that it clearly states that particles are the result of vacuum energy, thus supporting the fact that particles are created.
Let it be noted that if akithepirate keeps backpeddling at this rate, he's surely to run into something. Let's hope it's common logic this time.