What makes Islam so special?

[Muslim Scholar]

I did not just proved that Allah is the true God
I proved that all others are impossible to exist

Somehow, every single fucking person on the forum missed that point or - you are a shameless dishonest twat!

Now show where you proved your gods existance!

Or maybe they are blind
Proving God Existence

[KichigaiNeko]

Or you may be utilising Taqiyya

[Something completely different]

Or maybe they are blind
Proving God Existence

this post of yours is nothing but proof of your ignorance!!!

Because what you had posted was debunked by several members of the forum!! it seems that your fascist mindset simply chose to ignore those posts which debunked your nonsence!!!!


So eighter you look for some other excuse! try to find another way to "prove" your god! adress those who debunked your nonsence! or shut up!!!

[CleanShavenJesus]

The true God: Yaheweh!

I did not just proved that Allah is the true God
I proved that all others are impossible to exist

Revelation 3:14:
“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans[a] write,

‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:

Hebrews 12:2:
looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Exodus 3:14:
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

I just proved to you that Yaheweh is the supreme god. He is with us, he is the God. All others, including yours, are false.

[Muslim Scholar]

I just proved to you that Yaheweh is the supreme god. He is with us, he is the God. All others, including yours, are false.

You didn't use any acceptable proof type!
A proof must start with premises (facts or Axioms) then use logic to get to a conclusion

You used some texts (which is not proved to be true) to get a conclusion

ON the other side
I used only logic (No religious texts) to prove the existence of God

---

Because what you had posted was debunked by several members of the forum!! it seems that your fascist mindset simply chose to ignore those posts which debunked your nonsence!!!!

I don't recall any refutation

Can you summarize any refutation of the proof?

[Joel]

I used only logic (No religious texts) to prove the existence of God

It didn't prove anything. Stop deluding yourself.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I just proved to you that Yaheweh is the supreme god. He is with us, he is the God. All others, including yours, are false.

You didn't use any acceptable proof type!
A proof must start with premises (facts or Axioms) then use logic to get to a conclusion

You used some texts (which is not proved to be true) to get a conclusion

Yahweh is the true God. The true God made those rules, if you follow them you will be in Paradise, if not you will go to Hell.

I just provided as much proof as you claim to have provided, plus a name! Does this mean my God is the one true God, or is this complete BS and neither of them are the true God? (hint: it's the second option)

[Muslim Scholar]

I just provided as much proof as you claim to have provided, plus a name! Does this mean my God is the one true God, or is this complete BS and neither of them are the true God?

I don't know if you are that stupid or just acting like one?

You need to read a bit about what a proof is (I created a thread about that)
Then try to refute mine (professionally)

My proof is simple yet very powerful
You need to point where exactly it fails either in the premises or a step is not leading to the next.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I just provided as much proof as you claim to have provided, plus a name! Does this mean my God is the one true God, or is this complete BS and neither of them are the true God?

I don't know if you are that stupid or just acting like one?

Actually all I did was copy and paste your "proof" of Allah.

[Ryantology]

You need to point where exactly it fails either in the premises or a step is not leading to the next.

As many people have already pointed out to you, the third portion of your 'proof' consists of nothing but your own baseless assertions. It fails completely right there.