Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

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

[Fatihah]

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

Response: The absurdity continues. After using an analogy which only helped to prove my point concerning creation, you've still failed to prove that physical constants were not created by intelligence. Then you use a ridiculous analogy of Usain Bolt in comparison to the challenge of the qur'an. You're analogy is absurd. For my challenge is proving whether something is humanly possible. Your analogy however is trying to prove whether it's possible to do what you already acknowledge a human (Usain Bolt) can do. Thus your analogy is flawed and once again only further demonstrates that the proof that Allah exist can not be disproven.

[Fatihah]

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.

Response: Agreed. But the simple fact that it's written no where that a creator is an intelligent agent nor anything synonymous to makes the post clear enough and no need for reformation.

[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.

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.

Do we really need to get a mod in here every time because you refuse to provide proof? You have already been warned about not giving proof for your claims and here you are doing it again. If you want to get banned you are doing a bang up job of it but if you actually want to prove your position then you really need to provide some evidence other than your words that substantiates your claims.

[Woland]

Hello Fatihah,

"The absurdity continues, as once again you dodge my challenge of running as fast as the God Ussain Bolt or finding someone who can run as fast as he, thus supporting the fact that Ussain Bolt is God. For if you could prove that such a thing is humanly possible then you would have done so already, thus we can see from your dodging of the challenge of running as fast as Ussain that he is God and Ussainism stands once again proven right, not your ideology. For it is evident that Ussain Bolt is God and no mere human, as supported by your inability to rise up to the challenge of running as fast as he or to prove otherwise."

-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.

Do we really need to get a mod in here every time because you refuse to provide proof? You have already been warned about not giving proof for your claims and here you are doing it again. If you want to get banned you are doing a bang up job of it but if you actually want to prove your position then you really need to provide some evidence other than your words that substantiates your claims.

Response: Does a moderator have to explain your persistence in hypocrisy? You're responsible for providing proof as well. Crying about someone not presenting proof while you never ever present any yourself won't get unnoticed. If you claim that I've presented no evidence, then you yourself must prove it. Your refusal to do so will be getting you banned. I'm not obligated to present what you consider evidence. In fact, no one is. A poster has the right to consider whatever they want as evidence, not what you consider as evidence. No one here is obligated to follow you. Either present your proof that my evidence in post 2 is false in your next post or you'll be reported.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

If you claim that I've presented no evidence, then you yourself must prove it. Your refusal to do so will be getting you banned. I'm not obligated to present what you consider evidence.

I seriously suspect this ‘character’ to be an alter ego of Loki, the Trickster God having a few laughs.

[Fatihah]

Hello Fatihah,

"The absurdity continues, as once again you dodge my challenge of running as fast as the God Ussain Bolt or finding someone who can run as fast as he, thus supporting the fact that Ussain Bolt is God. For if you could prove that such a thing is humanly possible then you would have done so already, thus we can see from your dodging of the challenge of running as fast as Ussain that he is God and Ussainism stands once again proven right, not your ideology. For it is evident that Ussain Bolt is God and no mere human, as supported by your inability to rise up to the challenge of running as fast as he or to prove otherwise."

-Woland

Response: Then according to your logic, Usain Bolt is God. Yet Usain Bolt is an intelligent being. Thus your own words support the fact that all the universe and life itself originated from intelligent design. Thanks for the clarification.

[Wyvern]

Response: Does a moderator have to explain your persistence in hypocrisy? You're responsible for providing proof as well. Crying about someone not presenting proof while you never ever present any yourself won't get unnoticed. If you claim that I've presented no evidence, then you yourself must prove it. Your refusal to do so will be getting you banned. I'm not obligated to present what you consider evidence. In fact, no one is. A poster has the right to consider whatever they want as evidence, not what you consider as evidence. No one here is obligated to follow you. Either present your proof that my evidence in post 2 is false in your next post or you'll be reported.

I have not made any claims so I have no evidence to present. In post two on the other hand you confuse claims with evidence. Post two is where you make your claims which I am trying to get you to provide evidence for being true. Opposed to what you seem to think you have made a number of claims as such in these forums you are obligated to provide proof. Simply regurgitating what the previous post says will no longer do and if you want to report me go ahead I know what a claim is and I have made none here. Notice in the other thread when I did make a claim I presented evidence to back up my claims, you tried to refute it but again refused to present evidence for your claims.

[Woland]

Response: Then according to your logic, Usain Bolt is God. Yet Usain Bolt is an intelligent being. Thus your own words support the fact that all the universe and life itself originated from intelligent design. Thanks for the clarification.

You don't seem to understand that the logic I used was a replica of the one you use to "prove" (give me a break) Muhammad's prophethood, and despite it being obvious that I think that both lines of logic are absolutely fallacious you have failed to grasp that your own logic is riddled with holes despite having them pointed out to you repeatedly.

According to your own logic, Ussain Bolt is God.
Don't believe me?
Put the logic you use to "prove" Muhammad's prophethood in formal logic format.
Do you know what that is?
If you're so certain that your logic is worth anything -which it isn't, as has been demonstrated several times now, to the point of sadness- you should have no problem presenting it in P1 P2 C form.

Please go ahead.

-Woland

[Fatihah]

Response: Then according to your logic, Usain Bolt is God. Yet Usain Bolt is an intelligent being. Thus your own words support the fact that all the universe and life itself originated from intelligent design. Thanks for the clarification.

You don't seem to understand that the logic I used was a replica of the one you use to "prove" (give me a break) Muhammad's prophethood, and despite it being obvious that I think that both lines of logic are absolutely fallacious you have failed to grasp that your own logic is riddled with holes despite having them pointed out to you repeatedly.

According to your own logic, Ussain Bolt is God.
Don't believe me?
Put the logic you use to "prove" Muhammad's prophethood in formal logic format.
Do you know what that is?
If you're so certain that your logic is worth anything -which it isn't, as has been demonstrated several times now, to the point of sadness- you should have no problem presenting it in P1 P2 C form.

Please go ahead.

-Woland

Response: And once again, your own belief that Usain Bolt is God supports the fact that the universe was created by intelligent design, as Usain Bolt is an intelligent being. Thanks for the clarification.