Is it easy to prove Allah exists?

[Lonely]

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

[Fatihah]

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

Response: For starters, we first would have to prove the existence of a deity. Then, see if that deity is the same deity spoken of in the qur'an as Allah.

As for the proof of deity, the answer is in the following questions:

Name another way something or someone can come into existence besides it being a creation from a creator. When analyzed, we see that the answer is "there is no other way". Every creation has a creator. Even when you consider evolution, the act of evolving is a form of creating, thus the result is a creation and what it evolved from is the creator.

The next question would be:

Name another way to create a pattern which repeats itself without using intelligence. When analyzed, again the answer is "there is no other way". Creating patterns consist of intelligence. Case in point, ask a mentally challenged person or an animal to create certain patterns and watch the result. Thus if one of little intelligence can barely create a pattern, then one of no intelligence would not be able to create a pattern. So when we look at the patterns within the universe, such as the orbit of the earth and other planets, etc., this is the result of intelligent design.

In conclusion, when we ask how the universe and and all that exists within came into existence, the only conclusion is that it came from intelligent design. That its origin is a creation from one who is intelligent. The question to be asked now is who is that intelligent designer. In other words, what attributes are possessed by this intelligent designer? The qur'an answers that question stating that the originator of the universe and all that exist within it is no other than Allah and provides two tests to validate the claim. And that is:

"Will they not, then, meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy". (ch.4:82).

"And if you are in doubt as to what we have sent down to our Servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah, if you are truthful".(ch. 2:23).

Here are the tests which validate the authenticity and truthfulness of the qur'an. The first stating that all that is attributed to Allah in the qur'an has no error. You disagree? You can open the qur'an and prove otherwise. The next is a challenge is presented for all of humanity to disprove that Muhammad performed a miracle. And what is that miracle:

"It is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature created by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

This is the challenge for all of humanity. The challenge is to show that it is humanly possible to achieve such an act. And when you take the challenge and fail, you will come to learn that such an act is impossible to accomplish. However, Muhammad used the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. And once you discover that it's impossible to use any speech or literature created by any person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, then this would mean that the qur'an in which Muhammad used was not a creation of any person but from a higher power, a higher intelligence, a deity, and that is Allah. You disagree? Then take the challenge and prove otherwise. To even simplify it for, you won't even be able to conquer the street you live on. Again, you disagree? Then take the challenge and prove otherwise.

[Lonely]

Yes.
But why was violence associated with much horror against innocent bystanders to achieve enough proof that Allah exists?

[Fatihah]

Yes.
But why was violence associated with much horror against innocent bystanders to achieve enough proof that Allah exists?

Response: As the test will demonstrate, such was never the case. Muhammad (saw) and the muslims who followed him were attacked, thus forcing the muslims to fight in defense and only because Allah aided them were they successful.

[Wyvern]

"It is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature created by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

Restating an already debunked claim will not make it true. The example of Lenin has already been given which you were not able to find fault in.

[Baron von Gailhard]

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

This is a double edged question indeed. Do you mean Allah, the god of Mahomet, or Allah, the supreme being?

The God "Allah" was in existence long before Mahomet. It is quite possible to believe in Allah but not be a muslim. In fact it is easier to believe in Allah, the God of the Old Testament, than it is in the muslim Allah. Allah was chosen by Mahomet as the least offensive name of the gods in Mecca according to Muhammed's biographer, Ibn Hisham.

So you need to sort out which Allah you want to believe in. There is a big difference, believe me. By proving that Allah the supreme being exists, one does not necessarily draw closer to Islam. In fact, paradoxically, true belief in Allah the supreme being ouight to move one closer to Christianity, because only the Chiristian God upholds the OT. The muslim Allah does not for the following reasons.

In the bible it is written

Ex 20;3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

It is difficult to accept that Islam does not deify a mere man. For Islam, the most important personage is arguably Mahomet, whereas in Christianity, the most important personage is God himself, and his Son, but a Son no longer, for he is glorified.

The problem for Islam, and it is a big one, is to show that Ex: 20;3 is not broken by the semi-deification of Mahomet. The muslim Allah is only known through Mahomet. One must first accept Mahomet before one can accept the muslim Allah. When a muslim believes in Allah, then he believes in Mahomet. Islam is necessarily centred around Mahomet, who is, quite literally, a god, despite any contrary statements.

Isa 48;2 "I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another,"

It is difficult for Islam to pretend that Mahomet is not some kind of deity. Allah seems to have broken all his own rules by the elevation of Mahomet.

That is why is it easier to believe in Christianity, than is Islam, if one truly believes in the pre-Islamic Allah of the OT.

[Fatihah]

"It is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature created by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

Restating an already debunked claim will not make it true. The example of Lenin has already been given which you were not able to find fault in.

Response: To the contrary, reposting the same redundant example as proof which clearly proves nothing but your denial only reaffirms to the fact that proof has been given and your alleged evidence has been utterly debunked repeatedly.

[Fatihah]

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

This is a double edged question indeed. Do you mean Allah, the god of Mahomet, or Allah, the supreme being?

The God "Allah" was in existence long before Mahomet. It is quite possible to believe in Allah but not be a muslim. In fact it is easier to believe in Allah, the God of the Old Testament, than it is in the muslim Allah. Allah was chosen by Mahomet as the least offensive name of the gods in Mecca according to Muhammed's biographer, Ibn Hisham.

So you need to sort out which Allah you want to believe in. There is a big difference, believe me. By proving that Allah the supreme being exists, one does not necessarily draw closer to Islam. In fact, paradoxically, true belief in Allah the supreme being ouight to move one closer to Christianity, because only the Chiristian God upholds the OT. The muslim Allah does not for the following reasons.

In the bible it is written

Ex 20;3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

It is difficult to accept that Islam does not deify a mere man. For Islam, the most important personage is arguably Mahomet, whereas in Christianity, the most important personage is God himself, and his Son, but a Son no longer, for he is glorified.

The problem for Islam, and it is a big one, is to show that Ex: 20;3 is not broken by the semi-deification of Mahomet. The muslim Allah is only known through Mahomet. One must first accept Mahomet before one can accept the muslim Allah. When a muslim believes in Allah, then he believes in Mahomet. Islam is necessarily centred around Mahomet, who is, quite literally, a god, despite any contrary statements.

Isa 48;2 "I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another,"

It is difficult for Islam to pretend that Mahomet is not some kind of deity. Allah seems to have broken all his own rules by the elevation of Mahomet.

That is why is it easier to believe in Christianity, than is Islam, if one truly believes in the pre-Islamic Allah of the OT.

Response: The same Allah as mentioned by Muhammad and worshipped in islam is the same Allah who originated all of creation. The bible, on the other hand, or at least christianity, preaches a trinity, which is three gods. Far different from what the Abrahamic Faiths teach. Thus it is much easier to believe in islam, as the concept of God in christianity is defined by many definitions and attributes.

[Wyvern]

"It is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature created by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

Restating an already debunked claim will not make it true. The example of Lenin has already been given which you were not able to find fault in.

Response: To the contrary, reposting the same redundant example as proof which clearly proves nothing but your denial only reaffirms to the fact that proof has been given and your alleged evidence has been utterly debunked repeatedly.

Where? You like to make a lot of claims but I'm not seeing anything to back it up.

You are correct my putting forth the same example is indeed evidence that I have given proof which you could not debunk even after trying to claim Lenin was not the head of state of Russia and then going to even more ridiculous depths as to claim he was democratically elected to his position. If you want to call spurious claims with no backing evidence (but then you have yet to show one piece of evidence for anything you have claimed)a debunking then go ahead but you might want to look up the rules on this forum about supporting your arguments.

[Fatihah]

"It is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature created by a person/s to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

Restating an already debunked claim will not make it true. The example of Lenin has already been given which you were not able to find fault in.

Response: To the contrary, reposting the same redundant example as proof which clearly proves nothing but your denial only reaffirms to the fact that proof has been given and your alleged evidence has been utterly debunked repeatedly.

Where? You like to make a lot of claims but I'm not seeing anything to back it up.

You are correct my putting forth the same example is indeed evidence that I have given proof which you could not debunk even after trying to claim Lenin was not the head of state of Russia and then going to even more ridiculous depths as to claim he was democratically elected to his position. If you want to call spurious claims with no backing evidence (but then you have yet to show one piece of evidence for anything you have claimed)a debunking then go ahead but you might want to look up the rules on this forum about supporting your arguments.

Response: Another desperate attempt. As it has been clearly demonstrated that Lenin rose to authority by a democratic vote, not by using any speech or literature to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. Your consistency to repost the same absurdity only makes you look more illogical.