Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

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

[micatala]

Moderator Formal Warning

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.

Once again, challenges or questions on moderator actions are to be made via PM, not within the thread.



As a point of clarification, "argument from ignorance" is a standard term used to describe one of many fallacies. Thus, if used properly, it is not an personal remark or insult. Using the word "idiocy" will almost always be considered an insult.

See http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

or

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html and
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad ignorantiam

[Fatihah]

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.

Response: The topic of the thread is whether it's easy to prove Allah exist. Yet, here you are with another of your many responses which have absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic. What it is, like all of your other posts as one can clearly see, is a post directed towards me. Even if I was blaming somebody for something, it is not your place to say what I say should and shouldn't say, for you're not the moderator. You've done nothing on this forum but follow me wherever I go. You make all post directed towards me, even when no one's talking to you and doesn't concern you, as demonstrated by your response above. And it's no secret that you're the one reporting most of my posts. This is clearly trolling, yet the moderators sit back and do nothing. A moderator can clearly see that out of the dozens of recent threads on the forum, you've posted in none of them, except the one's in which I post in. That's clearly trolling, yet the moderators do nothing. The topic is whether Allah exist, in which nothing in which you just stated addresses. It clearly is off-topic, it clearly brings nothing to the debate, it's clearly one of your many posts which is only directed to me, it has no evidence, etc. Thus it violates forum rules in several ways, yet the moderators do nothing. You should have been banned a long time ago. I know bias moderation when I see it, especially when a moderator says it's o.k. with no logical reasoning to repeatedly call someone's argument an "argument of ignorance" but one can not respond and call such a claim an "argument of idiocy" .

An argument of ignorance is an insult when one says it is when it clearly isn't. Secondly, what you need to do is to focus on the absurd logic and rebuttles you've continued to display on this forum before criticizing other's logic. Only a clueless person would take your advice and follow your logic.

[Fatihah]

Moderator Formal Warning

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.

Once again, challenges or questions on moderator actions are to be made via PM, not within the thread.



As a point of clarification, "argument from ignorance" is a standard term used to describe one of many fallacies. Thus, if used properly, it is not an personal remark or insult. Using the word "idiocy" will almost always be considered an insult.

See http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

or

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html and
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Response: Yet when it's repeatedly used incorrectly, it's clearly a form of insult. Thus thecmoderation is clearly bias, as demonstrated. And profanity is standard terms as well, yet it's not allowed in any condition. So to insulting terms can be used properly makes no sense. It's an oxy moron.

[LiamOS]

Edit: What part of not challenging moderator warning in public do you not understand?
Also, for your claims of bias, I have a really, really difficult time believing that Mitacala(impartial in moderation in general) would be biased towards me.



Actually, Fatihah, what he said was relevant, as he was pointing out flaws with your posts.

A few more points:
-If you do not wish to have him interrupt you, you can challenge somebody to a head-to-head debate, or simply not debate in public forums.

-As to following you everywhere, that's not the case; I'm sure you'd think the same of me, but I really just wander around the forum poking my nose or other bodily parts where I feel like. Often, this leads to debates between us; this is due to the direct opposition of many of our ideals, and apparently, idea of logic.

-Trolling would be annoying multiple people. If he wished to merely debate you, so be it. If you do not wish to continue debating with him, say so, and give reason.

-The moderators do quite a lot. That you fail to view things from their point of view is nobody else's problem.

-Actually, I have my doubts that Wyvern is responsible for most of the reporting of inappropriate posts. In the case of the last one, it was reported before I got a chance, but I have reported several which were clearly uncivil, one liners or personal attacks. I'm also aware of at least two other members who have.

-I call your arguments arguments from ignorance due to the fact that they are. I am not entailing that you're ignorant, merely that your arguments fit the definition of a common logical fallacy.
You chose to call my point 'arguments of idiocy', which is not a logical fallacy, and merely a personal attack.

-As for your claims of your arguments not being from ignorance, I've demonstrated multiple times that you're attempting to disguise lack of disproof as positive proof. That's an argument from ignorance.

-As for your insulting of Wyvern's logic(along with mine, repeatedly) it may be worth noting that, on at least one occasion, a moderator has intervened to point out that you did not use logic or evidence in your arguments.


If you're going to reply, could you do it point by point; it'll make it easier to see what you are arguing against with different statements.

[Wood-Man]

Well, I just learned something new! I have not previously heard of this as a named logical fallacy, but I just Googled it and found there is even an entire Wikipedia article entitled "Argument from Ignorance." Here are the first few sentences from that article:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy; it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient data and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

This is exactly what I was referring to in my post about disproving that Muhammad was assisted by aliens from another star system a million miles away. It is one of an infinite number of assertions that could be made, none of which are disprovable.

[Jacob Simonsky]

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

This topic is pretty old but no matter.

"Allah" is only a word. It is not a proper name. Is not the name of God.

"Allah" is simply "God" in Arabic. We may be interested in knowing that in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, "God" is "Alla". See the similarity?

So why don't we use the more familiar word and ask "Is it easy to prove God exists"?

Now any Christian can answer this. If the Christian God exists then so does the Muslim God for there is only one God.

If the purpose of the critic is to deny that the same God can possibly be the benefactor of two different religions then they will try to do so by insisting that "Allah" is a NAME of some other god but not their God. When the critic tries this however he is in trouble if he is mono-theistic because he is then admitting that there is more than one God.

Easier to realize that we do not understand the mind of God and we prove this whenever we try to tell others that only our religion is the right one.

[Woland]

Now any Christian can answer this. If the Christian God exists then so does the Muslim God for there is only one God.

How does this take into account the mutually exclusive statements made by the holy texts of these two (or three) religions?

How can your statement even potentially be logically correct when we have extensive experience of humans making up religions for a variety of human reasons?

Isn't it possible that, if the Christian God exists (being very generous here for the purposes of the discussion), the Muslim God is only a fabrication inspired by the Christian one, having nothing to do with the "real God" except for what was borrowed from the "True religion"?

How about the notion that none of these religions seem to have anything at all to do with anything supernatural despite their numerous, extravagant and unverifiable claims?

-Woland

[Jacob Simonsky]

Now any Christian can answer this. If the Christian God exists then so does the Muslim God for there is only one God.

How does this take into account the mutually exclusive statements made by the holy texts of these two (or three) religions?

How can your statement even potentially be logically correct when we have extensive experience of humans making up religions for a variety of human reasons?

How about the notion that none of these religions seem to have anything at all to do with anything supernatural despite their numerous, extravagant and unverifiable claims?

-Woland

Isn't it possible that, if the Christian God exists (being very generous here for the purposes of the discussion), the Muslim God is only a fabrication inspired by the Christian one, having nothing to do with the "real God" except for what was borrowed from the "True religion"?


Beats me... But, if there IS a god then He is the God of all of us. Never is when I am willing to say that such a high, lofty being is vain enough to have any preference regarding how the people on earth worship Him so long as we treat each other nicely. It is we humans that create divisions in this way. Not God.

ps It is pretty often said by Christians that Muslims were inspired by the Bible when writing the Quran. This is nothing but a very shallow attempt to assert their scriptures over those of others. Sort of childish don't you think? And, not true. If both are correct then why on earth will there not be some similarities? Ridiculous.

Regarding your last statement I am, and always have been, in the opinion that religions are man made. This is the way we tend to do things. Humans like to organize stuff.

What's the big deal?

[happy forever]

Are you still here?
I have the answer of your question.

[Jacob Simonsky]

I'm going to have a nice nap until everyone gets finished with the moderator "food fight" issue. I'll be back when everyone returns to the topic.