Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

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

[LiamOS]

It has repeatedly been demonstrated, supported by the fact that you've failed to answer the challenge and demonstrate otherwise.

As has been pointed out, an argument from ignorance is not a valid proof.

Your claim did not refer those on the forum as the word "forum" was not mentioned in the post. You perhaps intended to say so, but it was not said.

For that I apologise.

Secondly, to ask whether muslims accept islam based on the miracle of Muhammad is ridiculous. For what other reason would it be, especially when the challenge itself is mentioned several times in the qur'an?

Blind faith, combined with an unquestioning acceptance of authority.

It's like asking a christian to prove whether all christians believe that Jesus performed miracles. They're christians. Of course they believe it because it's the basic fundamental of christianity.

Indeed. However, none of them can support those beliefs.
Can you?

But to answer such a ridiculous challenge, the proof is in the fact that the qur'an itself states the challenge validates it's authenticity. So naturally, if people accept islam, they would also have had accepted the fact that the challenge is valid, for the challenge is mentioned in the qur'an.

Not necessarily; you neglect the fact that people can be raised into Islam and never really question it.

Also, the challenge is not a proof.

Lastly, since you've chosen to now say that vacuum energy facilitates virtual particles, then that still doesn't answer how particles come into existence. So even your new choice of words still proves nothing.

Exactly.

There's no how or why about it. They just do, probabilistically.

Your inability to prove your own statement supports the fact that you're incorrect.

Chose a statement that I have qualified as factual and not supported.

To the contrary, since you've repeatedly dodged the challenge and failed to show fault in it, then it's safe to conclude this discussion is over and that Muhammad is a true prophet.

As usual, this is an argument from ignorance.

[Wood-Man]

Response: Certainly. Lenin was voted democraticallly to power. Thus Lenin's rise to power was not by using a speech or literature invented by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. As for Hitler, Hitler rose to power though nomination as well. His conquering of Poland or France was not due to followers being inspired by a person's speech or literature but simply due to their allegiance to those in authority to defend the country. For example, one who enrolled to the army during Bush's term as president did not do so because they were inspired by his speech, but because of their own desire to defend their country. In short, neither Hitler nor Lenin acheived the challenge.

I see, so you are distinguishing between people following a leader because of the leader's vested (or seized) authority vs. following them because of their persuasiveness. I actually see some logic in that distinction (surprise!) because in one case the leader rises more suddenly ("out of the blue") and without any preexisting authority, so you might conclude they must be inspired or supported by divine intervention.

This argument does not convince me, though. Muhammad was born in 570, reportedly had his revelation in the mountains in 610, and began preaching in 613. In the ensuing years, he worked to build an army and succeeded in uniting the tribes of Medina, but it was not until 630 that he conquered Mecca. That's 17 years from his appearance as a leader to his conquering "a nation." This is hardly a sudden event. So, since it does not differ in suddenness from the many other examples of leaders rising to power and conquering nations, we are left with only the idea that it happened with no preceding election or vesting of formal authority in him by the people. However, the very fact that he gained this number of supporters is itself a vesting of power by the people. It seems nothing more than a technicality that he chose not to have the title of "King" or "Emir" or something. Actually, I suppose he chose the title "Prophet." I'm sure everyone in Medina knew he was the boss during much of those 17 years. So, there seems to be no significant difference between Muhammad's rise and military success vs. any number of other conquerors who made more widespread conquests even more quickly.

[Wyvern]

Response: Certainly. Lenin was voted democraticallly to power. Thus Lenin's rise to power was not by using a speech or literature invented by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. As for Hitler, Hitler rose to power though nomination as well. His conquering of Poland or France was not due to followers being inspired by a person's speech or literature but simply due to their allegiance to those in authority to defend the country. For example, one who enrolled to the army during Bush's term as president did not do so because they were inspired by his speech, but because of their own desire to defend their country. In short, neither Hitler nor Lenin acheived the challenge.

Are you trying to hit every logical fallacy on your way down? This one is called shifting the goal posts, at first it was about conquering a nation but now it is about their rise to power.

If you think Lenin was voted into power you have a horrible grasp of history. Lenin was just as much voted into power as was Mohammed. Lenin was head of the Bolsheviks just as Mohammed was head of the muslims. Lenin used the communist manifesto to inspire enough followers to conquer nations just as Mohammed used the koran to inspire enough followers to conqer nations. Other than your insistence they are different what actually is the difference here? I think your initial claim where you say it is impossible for anyone other than Mohammed to do it makes it impossible for you to admit this claim is wrong, after all your faith hinges on this being true.

[Fatihah]

It has repeatedly been demonstrated, supported by the fact that you've failed to answer the challenge and demonstrate otherwise.

As has been pointed out, an argument from ignorance is not a valid proof.

Your claim did not refer those on the forum as the word "forum" was not mentioned in the post. You perhaps intended to say so, but it was not said.

For that I apologise.

Secondly, to ask whether muslims accept islam based on the miracle of Muhammad is ridiculous. For what other reason would it be, especially when the challenge itself is mentioned several times in the qur'an?

Blind faith, combined with an unquestioning acceptance of authority.

It's like asking a christian to prove whether all christians believe that Jesus performed miracles. They're christians. Of course they believe it because it's the basic fundamental of christianity.

Indeed. However, none of them can support those beliefs.
Can you?

But to answer such a ridiculous challenge, the proof is in the fact that the qur'an itself states the challenge validates it's authenticity. So naturally, if people accept islam, they would also have had accepted the fact that the challenge is valid, for the challenge is mentioned in the qur'an.

Not necessarily; you neglect the fact that people can be raised into Islam and never really question it.

Also, the challenge is not a proof.

Lastly, since you've chosen to now say that vacuum energy facilitates virtual particles, then that still doesn't answer how particles come into existence. So even your new choice of words still proves nothing.

Exactly.

There's no how or why about it. They just do, probabilistically.

Your inability to prove your own statement supports the fact that you're incorrect.

Chose a statement that I have qualified as factual and not supported.

To the contrary, since you've repeatedly dodged the challenge and failed to show fault in it, then it's safe to conclude this discussion is over and that Muhammad is a true prophet.

As usual, this is an argument from ignorance.

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

[Fatihah]

Response: Certainly. Lenin was voted democraticallly to power. Thus Lenin's rise to power was not by using a speech or literature invented by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. As for Hitler, Hitler rose to power though nomination as well. His conquering of Poland or France was not due to followers being inspired by a person's speech or literature but simply due to their allegiance to those in authority to defend the country. For example, one who enrolled to the army during Bush's term as president did not do so because they were inspired by his speech, but because of their own desire to defend their country. In short, neither Hitler nor Lenin acheived the challenge.

I see, so you are distinguishing between people following a leader because of the leader's vested (or seized) authority vs. following them because of their persuasiveness. I actually see some logic in that distinction (surprise!) because in one case the leader rises more suddenly ("out of the blue") and without any preexisting authority, so you might conclude they must be inspired or supported by divine intervention.

This argument does not convince me, though. Muhammad was born in 570, reportedly had his revelation in the mountains in 610, and began preaching in 613. In the ensuing years, he worked to build an army and succeeded in uniting the tribes of Medina, but it was not until 630 that he conquered Mecca. That's 17 years from his appearance as a leader to his conquering "a nation." This is hardly a sudden event. So, since it does not differ in suddenness from the many other examples of leaders rising to power and conquering nations, we are left with only the idea that it happened with no preceding election or vesting of formal authority in him by the people. However, the very fact that he gained this number of supporters is itself a vesting of power by the people. It seems nothing more than a technicality that he chose not to have the title of "King" or "Emir" or something. Actually, I suppose he chose the title "Prophet." I'm sure everyone in Medina knew he was the boss during much of those 17 years. So, there seems to be no significant difference between Muhammad's rise and military success vs. any number of other conquerors who made more widespread conquests even more quickly.

Response: However, I never distinguished between suddenness, but what is possible and what is not. Thus your argument does not invalidate the challenge, for it doesn't relate to the challenge.

[LiamOS]

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

Rather than insult me, could you perhaps respond to my objections?

[Fatihah]

Response: Certainly. Lenin was voted democraticallly to power. Thus Lenin's rise to power was not by using a speech or literature invented by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. As for Hitler, Hitler rose to power though nomination as well. His conquering of Poland or France was not due to followers being inspired by a person's speech or literature but simply due to their allegiance to those in authority to defend the country. For example, one who enrolled to the army during Bush's term as president did not do so because they were inspired by his speech, but because of their own desire to defend their country. In short, neither Hitler nor Lenin acheived the challenge.

Are you trying to hit every logical fallacy on your way down? This one is called shifting the goal posts, at first it was about conquering a nation but now it is about their rise to power.

If you think Lenin was voted into power you have a horrible grasp of history. Lenin was just as much voted into power as was Mohammed. Lenin was head of the Bolsheviks just as Mohammed was head of the muslims. Lenin used the communist manifesto to inspire enough followers to conquer nations just as Mohammed used the koran to inspire enough followers to conqer nations. Other than your insistence they are different what actually is the difference here? I think your initial claim where you say it is impossible for anyone other than Mohammed to do it makes it impossible for you to admit this claim is wrong, after all your faith hinges on this being true.

Response: Are you again displaying an inability to comprehend english? Conquering a nation is rising to power so I've made no distinction. 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. Your redundancy to keep posting such nonsense only helps to discredit you even more, which only favor's the argument for islam. So keep it up. 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.

[Fatihah]

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

Rather than insult me, could you perhaps respond to my objections?

Response: I did respond to your objections by pointing out your argument of idiocy. If you feel insulted, then you should stop posting them. For stating the truth is not an insult.

[Wood-Man]

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.

[LiamOS]

Response: I did respond to your objections by pointing out your argument of idiocy. If you feel insulted, then you should stop posting them. For stating the truth is not an insult.

Simply saying that my arguments are idiotic does not reflect on their validity.
I'm challenging to show you that interactions and formations at a quantum mechanical level are entirely deterministic.
(Hint: You can't.)