Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

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

[Jester]

Mocerator Comment

Response: To the contrary, your rebuttle is an argument of idiocy.

This post is against the rules in that it is both less than civil and a "one-liner" that does not contribute to debate.
Please be careful about this; once one is on probation, the next step is banishment from the site.

[Wyvern]

Response: Are you again displaying an inability to comprehend english? Conquering a nation is rising to power so I've made no distinction.

One must have power before they can exert it to conqer a nation. So yes rising to power is very different than conqering a nation. Lenin had to gather followers before he staged the October revolution just as Mohammed had to gather followers before he took over the arabian peninsula.

Then you continue in your absurdity, as you can't quote any source in which it states that Lenin used the communist manifesto to inspire enough floowers to conquer a nation.

Are you denying that Lenin was a marxist communist? Are you denying that the Bolsheviks which he was the head of was communist? I have posted links for you previously that show this all of which you reject out of hand, if you don't believe any of this go to a library and look him up in an encyclopedia or read one of the biographies on his life that you can find there. You say you are an american, this information is freely available for you at any local library since you seem to not trust online resources.

But to further point out the flaw in your logic, your proof that Lenin has done so is because a book or link "says so". Then according to your own logic, Muhammad is a true prophet because the qur'an says so.

Actually you just pointed out your own logical basis for this entire argument.

[Fatihah]

Fatitah, you are wearing me out. You argue that Muhammad's accomplishment was unique and not possible without divine intervention, but you do not offer any attributes of his accomplishment that are meaningfully different than Lenin's (or from many other similar historical figures). Certainly, they are not identical situations. For one thing, they had different names (one was named Lenin, the other Muhammad). They spoke different languages. They occurred during different centuries. The way the people indicated their support for each of them was somewhat different. None of these are meaningful differences, though, considering the magnitude of what you are trying to prove.

Often, adherents of a religion simply say their knowledge has been revealed through their personal relationship with God. That sort of transcendental argument is far harder to pick apart. I'm surprised you don't just say that.

Response: To the contrary, the difference between Lenin and Muhammad has clearly been stated, as Muhammad used the qur'an to unspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Lenin however, did not use any speech or literature to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Thus the validity of the challenge still stands as Lenin does not disprove the fact that it is impossible to use any speech or literature invented by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation.

[Fatihah]

Response: Are you again displaying an inability to comprehend english? Conquering a nation is rising to power so I've made no distinction.

One must have power before they can exert it to conqer a nation. So yes rising to power is very different than conqering a nation. Lenin had to gather followers before he staged the October revolution just as Mohammed had to gather followers before he took over the arabian peninsula.

Then you continue in your absurdity, as you can't quote any source in which it states that Lenin used the communist manifesto to inspire enough floowers to conquer a nation.

Are you denying that Lenin was a marxist communist? Are you denying that the Bolsheviks which he was the head of was communist? I have posted links for you previously that show this all of which you reject out of hand, if you don't believe any of this go to a library and look him up in an encyclopedia or read one of the biographies on his life that you can find there. You say you are an american, this information is freely available for you at any local library since you seem to not trust online resources.

But to further point out the flaw in your logic, your proof that Lenin has done so is because a book or link "says so". Then according to your own logic, Muhammad is a true prophet because the qur'an says so.

Actually you just pointed out your own logical basis for this entire argument.

Response: Conquering a nation puts the conquerer power, so to say that conquering a nation is not a rise to powers is absurd. Secondly, none of your links supported your claim. In fact, it debunked it.

[Wood-Man]

There is no logical reason that the ability to use speech and literature to inspire people to rise up in rebellion and conquer a nation would require the involvement of Allah (or the existence of Allah). I'm not going to repeat the attempts of others to convince you that other historical figures have used speech and literature to do this, because there is a more fundamental issue with this argument. There is simply no reason this ability predicts the existence of God/Allah. Even if there were only one person ever who had been able to successfully use speech and literature in this way, we really couldn't know that this was not simply an exceptionally rare individual able to do this and/or exceptionally rare circumstances that allowed it to happen.

[Fatihah]

Mocerator Comment

Response: To the contrary, your rebuttle is an argument of idiocy.

This post is against the rules in that it is both less than civil and a "one-liner" that does not contribute to debate.
Please be careful about this; once one is on probation, the next step is banishment from the site.

Response: Which clearly can be said about post 131 in which the response was made. To say it's o.k. for one to repeatedly call someone's argument an "argument of ignorance" but it's o.k. not to say an "argument of idiocy" in response is a clear display of bias moderation. And when moderation is done unfairly, I have no complaint to being banned.

[Fatihah]

There is no logical reason that the ability to use speech and literature to inspire people to rise up in rebellion and conquer a nation would require the involvement of Allah (or the existence of Allah). I'm not going to repeat the attempts of others to convince you that other historical figures have used speech and literature to do this, because there is a more fundamental issue with this argument. There is simply no reason this ability predicts the existence of God/Allah. Even if there were only one person ever who had been able to successfully use speech and literature in this way, we really couldn't know that this was not simply an exceptionally rare individual able to do this and/or exceptionally rare circumstances that allowed it to happen.

Response: To the contrary, there is no logical reasoning to suggest otherwise, especially considering the simple fact that you can't prove differently nor have you accepted the challenge to show differently. It does not take a genius to figure out that using a book or speech invented by a person/s to inspire a people to conquer a nation is impossible. A people would have to have more logical reasoning for doing so besides "because a book or speech says so".

[Wyvern]

Response: Which clearly can be said about post 131 in which the response was made. To say it's o.k. for one to repeatedly call someone's argument an "argument of ignorance" but it's o.k. not to say an "argument of idiocy" in response is a clear display of bias moderation. And when moderation is done unfairly, I have no complaint to being banned.

First off you have already been warned to reply to mods comments via PM. Secondly an argument of ignorance is a logical fallacy while an argument of idiocy is an insult. You have been told a number of times to learn logic, many of your arguments you use fall under the category of a logical fallacy and if you had bothered to take our advice you would know this. Stop blaming others for your own shortcomings especially when they can be easily corrected if you make a minimum of effort.

[Wood-Man]

There is no logical reason that the ability to use speech and literature to inspire people to rise up in rebellion and conquer a nation would require the involvement of Allah (or the existence of Allah). I'm not going to repeat the attempts of others to convince you that other historical figures have used speech and literature to do this, because there is a more fundamental issue with this argument. There is simply no reason this ability predicts the existence of God/Allah. Even if there were only one person ever who had been able to successfully use speech and literature in this way, we really couldn't know that this was not simply an exceptionally rare individual able to do this and/or exceptionally rare circumstances that allowed it to happen.

Response: To the contrary, there is no logical reasoning to suggest otherwise, especially considering the simple fact that you can't prove differently nor have you accepted the challenge to show differently. It does not take a genius to figure out that using a book or speech invented by a person/s to inspire a people to conquer a nation is impossible. A people would have to have more logical reasoning for doing so besides "because a book or speech says so".

Isn't it up to the person making an assertion to provide some proof or logical justification, rather than simply making the assertion and "challenging" anyone to disprove it? You might as well have simply said, "Prove Allah does not exist." am happy to acknowledge that I cannot disprove the existence of Allah. My inability to disprove it does not mean it is necessarily true, though.

This method of asserting something and saying it is true unless someone can disprove it would allow an infinite number of assertions. For example, I could assert that the Quoran was in fact written by aliens from a different star system, and that they assisted Muhammad in his conquests by using their telepathic powers before departing to return to their home a million light years away. I could then challenge you to "prove this is not so."

You say "It does not take a genius to figure out that using a book or speech invented by a person/s to inspire a people to conquer a nation is impossible." I'm certainly no genius, and this does not seem apparent to me. My perception is that speech and literature are very powerful, in that they express ideas. So, if you want to convince me that this is true, you'll have to provide more justification than just asserting it to be true. That's my challenge to you.

[LiamOS]

Fatihah, are you able to prove causation at a universal scale?
If you are unable to, please acknowledge that the premises of your initial argument are unsupported.