You cannot even attempt to defy or challenge it. This is the epitome of unfalsifiable claims.

Islam apologists claim that the miracle of the Quran is only seen in the Arabic version of the Quran. Any translation of the Quran from Arabic would not be a translation of the miracle of the Quran along with it. Also, almost all Islam apologists when asked what is it they see in the Quran that is miraculous, they say no one can make something like the Quran, and so the Quran must have been an inspiration from God to the prophet of Islam. When they are asked, has anyone ever tried to make something like the Quran and failed? They say the Arabs that were present at the time of the prophet of Islam and the appearance of the Quran have failed to come up with something that is like the Quran. What about those Arabs who came after the prophet of Islam’s time? They can’t judge such a thing because they are not like the Arabs that were around at the time of the prophet of Islam and the revelation of the Quran.

Which means if someone came with something that is even more miraculous or better than the Quran in Arabic but this individual has come up with it a hundred years after the appearance of the Quran, then the Arabs at this time or at their time will not be considered as good at Arabic as those who were around in Arabia at the time of the appearance of the Quran enough to judge whether whatever that is actually better than the Quran in every way in Arabic is actually better than the Quran or more miraculous than the Quran in any way, no matter who they are.

So Muslims believe Islam is a true religion that came from a real God because no one came up with something that matches the beauty or how miraculous the Quran in Arabic is since the time of the prophet of Islam until one or two hundred years after that. And anyone who actually does come up with something that matches or even tops the beauty of the Quran or how miraculous the Quran in Arabic is but only came up with it at any time after the time of the prophet of Islam and the appearance of the Quran by more than two hundred years or so will never be considered to have come up with something that is better than or at least a match to the Quran in any way, because the Arabs that are good enough at the Arabic language like that Arabic language of the Quran are not around anymore to judge whether this text that came up challenging the beauty of the Quran is actually matching the beauty and how miraculous the Quran in Arabic is or not, or even better or not, because Arabs since two hundred years after the appearance of the Quran and after the time of the prophet of Islam are not good enough at the Arabic language as those Arabs who were alive or around at the time of the prophet of Islam and at the first fifty or one hundred years since the first appearance of the Quran.

In other words, we’re stuck with it because we will never qualify to understand why whatever that we will ever come up with will pale in comparison to the beauty and miracle of the Quran, no matter what it is or what we do. There’s no escape. We can’t win. We have to obey, or else. Don’t think about it too much.

Almost all Muslims claim that the miracle of the Quran is only seen in the Arabic version of the Quran. Any translation of the Quran from Arabic would not be a translation of the miracle of the Quran along with it. Also, almost all Muslims when asked what is it they see in the Quran that is miraculous, they say no one can say something like the Quran that the prophet of Islam has said, and so the Quran must have been an inspiration from a god to the prophet of Islam. When they are asked, has anyone ever tried to say something like the Quran and failed? They say the Arabs (that were present at the time of the prophet of Islam and the appearance of the Quran) must have failed to come up with something that is like the Quran in any way. What about those Arabs who came after the prophet of Islam’s time? They can’t judge such a thing because they are not like the Arabs that were around at the time of the prophet of Islam and the revelation of the Quran, which means if someone came with something that is even more miraculous or better than the Quran in Arabic but this one has come with it a hundred years after the appearance of the Quran, then the Arabs at this time are not as good in Arabic as those who were around in Arabia at the time of the appearance of the Quran enough to judge whether whatever that is actually better than the Quran in every way (in Arabic) is actually better than the Quran or more miraculous than the Quran in any way, no matter who they are. So Muslims believe Islam is a true religion that came from a real god because no one came up with something that matches the beauty or how miraculous the Quran in Arabic is at the time of the prophet of Islam until one hundred years or two hundred years after the time of the prophet of Islam and after the first appearance of any verse of the Quran, and anyone who actually does come up with something that matches or even tops the beauty of the Quran or how miraculous the Quran in Arabic is but came with it any time between after the time of the prophet of Islam and the appearance of the Quran by more than two hundred years and judgment day will never be considered to be better than the Quran or a match to the Quran or a match of the Quran in any way because the Arabs that are good enough in the Arabic language like that Arabic language of the Quran are not around anymore to judge whether this text that came up challenging the beauty of the Quran is actually matching the beauty and how miraculous the Quran in Arabic is or not, because Arabs since two hundred years after the appearance of the Quran and after the time of the prophet of Islam are not good enough in the Arabic language as those Arabs who existed at the time of the prophet of Islam and at the first fifty or one hundred years since the first appearance of the Quran.

We cannot afford to put restrictions on speech, even if what we’re restricting is bad.

If we stop anything because it is hate speech then we are stopping any speech, because any speech could be regarded as hate speech if looked upon from a certain point of view. You can always justify why you believe some speech is hate, you can always find a way to make anything that anyone says look like hate speech, and you can always get away with it, and find countless other people who agree with you about such views. If we stop making people say what they want because someone else might get or be offended or because someone else might consider what these people are saying to be hate speech, then we will never have freedom of speech. We have to be allowed to speak freely about anything. Placing any restrictions on what we say because it might offend someone, because of political correctness, or because of fear of saying something that could be considered as hate speech or is actually hate speech, will only annihilate our right to freedom of speech gradually until there’s nothing left of it. If we start saying people are free to say what they want with only a few exceptions, then you are not free to say what you want. Even if these exceptions to what you are allowed to say do not increase over time, still the very existence of one exception to what you can say will mean that you still do not have absolute freedom of speech.

You think that the Islamic world is just another foreign culture that is okay to be welcome in the United States or any non-Muslim majority country. The Islamic world is not the culture of the Middle East. The Islamic world is the culture of the Islamic religion. If you openly without consideration accept any anti-nationalist idea, and happily embrace anything that would make way to a global civilization where the entire planet of earth is one big city, you are only welcoming the annihilation of whatever that might lead to your dreams of a global advanced civilization being fulfilled.

There is a big difference between freedom of thought and freedom of action. We have to criticize bad ideas. But we have to stop bad actions from criminals and terrorists from happening. It is the right of anyone to believe anything that is wrong or false or incorrect, but it is not the right of anyone to force a belief upon anyone as well. They are free to believe in bad and harmful ideas. Even if these ideas are not okay or not right or not correct or not true. But we are not allowed to force them against their own will through – for example – violence and law enforcement to stop believing in such ideas, we only combat such belief in such ideas through verbal criticism that is not indoctrination and not brain washing and not harmful and not intended to force them to leave or abandon their bad ideas, and not forced upon them to listen to even if they don’t want to (like making someone forced to listen to the criticism and why what he or she believes in is wrong even if this person does not want to listen to any of that criticism or that explanation of why someone else believes that what he believes is wrong or incorrect or false) (and yes there is such a thing as verbal abuse that may be even more harmful than physical abuse and bullying by means of law enforcement forces and non-violent non-law enforcement people). If someone believes that water boils at 110 degrees Celsius, that is unacceptable, but it is still his or her right to believe in such nonsense. This one also has the right to spread those ideas and indoctrinate other innocent or ignorant people into believing in such ideas and beliefs in order to increase the number of people who believe that the boiling point of pure water is 110 degrees Celsius. This is his or her right. What is against human rights is that we force them against their will to accept the fact that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius. That is unacceptable. You are allowed to believe what you want whether you keep it to yourself or you start spreading those ideas. And if you attempted to indoctrinate or manipulate or abuse others into believing in those bad or wrong or incorrect or false ideas then you are making something that is wrong but still you have the right to do such thing because you are free to believe what you want and say what you want, and you are not to be denied from making such an action because it has harmful consequences that include even the annihilation of the possibility of the existence of such a thing as freedom of speech. But no one is allowed to make anyone stop believing in such wrong or bad or incorrect or false ideas or beliefs or things by means of forcing those who believe in such wrong or bad or incorrect or false ideas or beliefs or things to stop that against their will. Nevertheless, we still have the right to expose such nonsense and say why this thing or belief is wrong or incorrect or false, and criticize anything all we want, because we have the right to freedom of speech. We should be able to criticize stuff, just because we can. There is no such thing as people are offended by what you say. If they are offended then they should not listen to what they don’t like to listen to. They have the right to privacy, and to be alone, and to listen to no one criticizing them, but they do not have the right to prevent others from criticizing their beliefs or even criticizing them. They have the right to privacy and to be somewhere where they are alone and no one can force anything on them. They can exist in places where no criticism can reach them or be known or perceived by them in any way. But they do not have the right to say that what someone else is saying is offending them and thus this someone else should stop saying what he or she is saying because this is hate speech. If we stop anything because it is hate speech then we are stopping any speech, because any speech could be regarded as hate speech if looked upon from a certain point of view. You can always justify why you believe some speech is hate, you can always find a way to make anything that anyone says look like hate speech, and you can always get away with it, and have countless people who agree with you on this trash. If we stop making people say what they want because someone else might be offended or because someone else might consider what these people are saying to be hate speech, then we will never have freedom of speech. We have to be allowed to speak freely on any matter. Putting restrictions on what we say because someone else is offended or because of political correctness or because of fear of saying something that could be considered as hate speech or is actually hate speech will only annihilate our right to freedom of speech. If we start saying you are free to say what you want except a few things, then you are not free to say what you want. Even if these exceptions to what you are allowed to say do not increase over time, still the very existence of one exception to what you can say will mean that you do not have freedom of speech.

Yes Muslims try to mislead people into believing their religion is good through propaganda and manipulation of public opinion, yes they say stuff that they totally do not believe in, and yes they say things that they know the Islamic religion doesn’t say but they will say it anyway because it helps spread Islam and it makes Islam appeal to non-Muslims and it makes Islam look different from what it really is and it makes people believe there is nothing wrong with Islam and it is only what some people who claim to be Muslims believe Islam to be while the real Islam is nothing like what these bad people do in the name of Islam. Muslims would say anything to make Islam spread more and make the number of Muslim people increase. In Islam it is okay to do or say anything in order to make non-Muslims become Muslims and in order to convert more non-Muslims to Islam and in order to make Islam spread more and in order to make Islam dominate the world and in order to make the number of Muslims increase. You can argue that it is not Muslims fault. And you can say that Muslims are not evil. But you cannot say that this is not the fault of the Islamic Religion or the Quran of the Islamic religion or the Hadith of the Islamic religion. This is regardless of whether or not Muslims are like that. This is regardless of whether or not Muslims follow their religion. This is regardless of whether or not there are good and nice Muslim people. This is an attitude that the only cause of which is following the Islamic religion. You can say that the person who is following Islam isn’t bad but you cannot say that the religion that makes this good person do bad things isn’t bad. Islam is not a race. Islam is the Quran of the Islamic religion and the Hadith of the Islamic religion. This is not a human being in the first place. How could something that is not a human being become a race of human beings? This is different from saying Muslims are not one race because there are a lot of races following Islam. Because even if it happened that only one race of human beings are following Islam still this does not make Islam a race. Even if Muslims try to indoctrinate people into becoming Muslims, this does not mean that they do not have that right, because indoctrination is bad but as long as the means to this indoctrination is by speech then they are free to do it, and we – non-Muslims – are free to criticize that all we want, just as we are free to criticize Islam and the Quran of the Islamic religion and the Hadith of the Islamic religion and anything that has anything to do with the religion of Islam all we want, even for no other reason than just because we can.

Just because you can describe how something works or how would something behave in nature under certain conditions accurately, does not necessarily mean that there is a creator of the universe that made those laws come to existence.

Almost all apologists for major theistic religions along with almost all creationists claim that things in nature behave the way they do because they follow laws that cannot have existed without some kind of intelligent designer creating all the laws of nature for nature to be what nature is in our currently existing universe. And they always wonder from where did the laws of the universe and all the laws of physics ‘come from’. And they always seem to consider failure to find an answer to such question to be a sound proof that there’s a creator of the universe who has made those laws come to being. Laws of nature – including all the laws of physics – are not something that requires to be created or made. All laws of nature – including all the laws of physics – are not something that could have been different if they weren’t what they are in our currently existing universe. It is not that the laws of nature or the laws of the universe – including all the laws of physics – can’t have existed on their own without a creator. It is that the laws of nature, all the laws of the universe, and all the laws governing anything in this currently existing universe – including all the laws of physics – are not entities in and of themselves, and are not things themselves. These laws are not things that require to be created like the universe itself if the universe itself required a creator to exist. None of these laws need to come from somewhere or someone. They don’t need a creator. They are laws because they describe how something behaves, not because they indicate that someone must have enforced those laws in order to make everything behave the way it already does. These laws all exist, because this is how things are, not because this is how someone made them to be, whether these things (what these laws govern or control) like it or not. 

They cannot have been otherwise. They are just what things happened to be. They are not stuff that requires to be made. They are not made up stuff. They are just findings. We do not invent the laws of nature, we discover them.

If they are arguing that these are properties that god has put in the stuff he created, then this is another topic. When we speak of things like Gravity, it isn’t something that God has put in the contents of the universe, it is something that happens to the contents of the universe. If God is the one that has made gravity happen, with certain laws, then gravity would be something that is dependent upon something that God does on a regular basis. Things can escape gravity or avoid the effects of gravity if it weren’t for something that God has put in them in order for them to behave this way that is in accordance to the phenomenon or theory of gravity. Remove that thing, and there will no longer be any gravity left. This would mean that this thing that makes gravity happen or take place can be isolated.

If gravity is happening because of God, or because of something God does or did to the universe or what’s in it, then this is direct interference from God, and this should be detectable, even if we cannot detect it yet. This is something that is distinct from the laws of gravity. It is some kind of force, not just a law at this point. 

God can create gravity itself, but God cannot create the laws of gravity, because if he did, it means that gravity will happen and behave on its own whether God is doing something to make gravity happen or not, and gravity will happen and behave the way it does according to the laws of gravity whether God exists or not, and whether God likes it or not.

Something being a natural law, or a law of physics, means it’s not up to a creator of the universe to make it happen, or make it happen one way or the other in particular. If it behaves according to whatever God wants, then it wouldn’t be a law. Only action taking.

God will be bound by the laws of gravity, and if this is the case, then God cannot make gravity happen or behave in any way outside of or that contradicts with any of these laws or without following these laws, or else they wouldn’t need to be considered laws.

The laws of gravity do not make gravity happen, they just describe the fact or natural phenomenon of gravity, they do not set gravity in motion, they do not operate gravity, they do not turn gravity on, and they do not make gravity happen. They just show us how gravity happens or how gravity affects anything. To create laws for something is to restrict its behavior in a certain way that makes it cannot behave in any other way whatsoever, whether it likes it or not, whether it wants to or not.

Why would any all-powerful entity put restrictions upon what he’s allowed to do or not do in his own universe or concerning whatever that he has created?

Laws are not an operating system or manual that makes things in nature work the way they do.

If God directly makes gravity happen, then gravity will not be following any laws of physics, but instead will be following the will of god, and will be possible to behave in ways that do not follow any particular set of laws. God would do whatever he wants with the force of gravity, apply it anywhere on anything the way he wants without any of this being possible to be described by any set of laws. That is, without his behavior being possible to be explained by any scientific theory or follow any kind of scientific or natural law whatsoever. If God created laws, it would mean that God is restricting his abilities for no reason other than to mislead scientists who value evidence, or it would mean that gravity would do everything it does with or without God existing in the first place, which would mean that God would have no authority or control over gravity to the extent that God would not be able to prevent gravity from leading to something that God himself does not want to happen. Laws are not programming that makes the universe work the way it works. Laws are just a description of how the universe works, without these laws – of physics or anything else natural – making the universe work the way the universe works and without these laws doing anything to the universe that makes the universe or anything in it behave a certain way or the other, and without the laws of the universe forcing the universe or anything in it to do anything or behave a certain way rather than another, because the laws of the universe told or commanded the universe or anything in it to do so.

Laws are just a description of what happens, not the author of what happens.

Why would the existence of the possibility to have an accurate description of what happens be evidence for the existence of a creator of the universe?

Most of all major theistic religions’ apologists and also all creationists as well claim that things in nature behave the way they do because they follow laws that cannot have existed without some kind of intelligent designer creating all the laws of nature for nature to be what nature is in our currently existing universe (and they always wonder from where did the laws of the universe and all the laws of physics ‘come from’). Laws of nature – including all the laws of physics – are not something that requires to be created or made. All laws of nature – including all the laws of physics – are not something that could have been different if they weren’t what they are in our currently existing universe. It is not that the laws of nature or the laws of the universe – including all the laws of physics – can’t have existed on their own without a creator. It is that the laws of nature and all the laws of the universe and all the laws of everything in this currently existing universe – including all the laws of physics – are not entities themselves, and are not things themselves, and so the laws of nature and all the laws of the universe and all the laws of everything in this currently existing universe – including all the laws of physics – are not things that require to be created (as all major and minor theistic religions claim) like the universe itself if the universe itself required a creator to exist. The laws of nature and all the laws of the universe and all the laws of everything in this currently existing universe – including all the laws of physics – did not come from (somewhere which is claimed by all major and minor theistic religions and all religious apologists and creationists to be) god or else the laws of nature and all the laws of the universe and all the laws of everything in this currently existing universe – including all the laws of physics – must have all come to exist without a god through some other cause(s) or reason(s) that has (or have) nothing to do with any god whatsoever (through somewhere or somehow that has nothing to do with any god whatsoever) and the laws of nature and all the laws of the universe and all the laws of everything in this currently existing universe – including all the laws of physics – must have all come to exist without a god through some other cause(s) or reason(s) that exist(s) without a god existing and without a god making that cause or reason exist (or those causes or reasons exist) as well. The laws of nature and all the laws of the universe and all the laws of everything in this currently existing universe – including all the laws of physics – are all existing because they have to, and because they are, and because the laws of nature and all the laws of the universe and all the laws of everything in this currently existing universe – including all the laws of physics – can never be and can never have been anything else (whatsoever), no matter what (at least in our currently existing universe). They are just what things happened to be. They are not stuff that requires to be made. They are not made up stuff. They are just findings. If they are arguing that these are properties that god has put in the stuff he created, then this is another topic. When we speak of things like Gravity, it isn’t something that God has put in the contents of the universe, it is something that happens to the contents of the universe. If god is the one that has made gravity happen, with certain laws, then gravity would be something that is dependent upon something that god does on a regular basis. If god is making gravity happen all the time, where is what god does to make gravity happen? If gravity is happening because of god, then this is direct interference from god in the universe, and this should be detectable, even if we cannot detect it yet. This is something that is distinct from the laws of gravity. God can create gravity itself, but god cannot create the laws of gravity because if he did, it means that gravity will happen and behave on its own whether god is doing something to make gravity happen or not, and gravity will happen and behave the way it does according to the laws of gravity whether god exists or god doesn’t exist. The laws mean god cannot make gravity happen or behave without obeying these laws, or while using other laws. God will be bound by the laws of gravity, and if this is the case, then god cannot make gravity happen or behave in any way outside of these laws or without following these laws of gravity. The laws of gravity do not make gravity happen, they just describe the fact or natural phenomenon of gravity, they do not set gravity in motion, they do not operate gravity, they do not turn gravity on, and they do not make gravity happen. They just show us how gravity happens. To create laws for something is to restrict its happening to a certain way, not to make that thing exist or happen according to whatever god wants, unless what god wants is to restrict what he can actually reach through his creation of gravity, that is, unless god wants to limit what he can accomplish through the gravity that he has created, and make the possibilities of what God can achieve through gravity lesser and restricted to the gravity laws he created. If god directly makes gravity happen, then gravity will not be following any laws of physics, but instead will be following the will of god, and will be possible to behave in ways that do not follow any particular set of laws. God would do whatever he wants with the force of gravity, apply it anywhere on anything the way he wants without any of this being possible to be described by any set of laws. If god created laws, it would mean that god is restricting his abilities for no reason other than to mislead scientists who value evidence, or it would mean that gravity would do everything it does with or without god existing in the first place, which would mean that god would have no authority or control over gravity to the extent that god would not be able to prevent gravity from leading to something that god himself does not want to happen. Laws are not programming that makes the universe works the way it works. Laws are just a description of how the universe works, without these laws – of physics or any laws – making the universe work the way the universe works and without these laws doing anything to the universe to make the universe do anything and without these laws make the universe reach anything because the laws of the universe told the universe to reach that outcome, and without these laws making the universe do anything because the laws of the universe told the universe to do this thing whatever this thing is, and without the laws of the universe forcing the universe to do anything because the laws of the universe told the universe to do so. Laws are just a description of what happens, not the author of what happens. Why would the existence of the possibility to reach the description of what happens be evidence for the existence of a creator of the universe?

Welp, it’s not gonna create itself.

If a God that could’ve created the universe can exist without a creator, and without having been created by an uncreated creator, or a created creator, and without having been caused by an uncaused cause, or a caused cause, then so could the currently existing universe come to existence, exist, or keep existing without a creator, and without having been created by an uncreated creator, or a created creator, and without having been caused by an uncaused cause, or a caused cause.

If nothing can by itself create itself, including the universe, then also even a God cannot create himself. If nothing could exist without having a prior cause to it or to its existence, then also no God could exist without having been caused or created.

If everything requires a creator to exist, then who created the creator? If not everything requires a creator to exist, then God could exist without a creator, and so could the universe. Why would God be the only exception to the rule? Why can’t the universe or anything whatsoever that is inside the universe ever be an exception to the rule as well?

The universe could also come to existence without being created by any God.

This isn’t to say that the universe created itself, but this is to say that whatever that can apply to God can also apply to and be the case with the universe and anything that’s in it or anything whatsoever that could be in the universe.

This does not necessarily mean that the universe instead was created by itself or by an entity that is inside the universe, is not distinct from the universe, is not outside the universe, or is a part of the universe. But if it can happen with God, it can happen with the universe. And if it cannot happen with God, then it can’t happen with the universe as well. But we are certain we exist. Therefore the other assumption that there is a God must be impossible or false, no matter what.

And so if the universe cannot come to existence without a God or a creator entity, then also any God whatsoever cannot come to existence without a God or a creator entity bringing him to existence as well.

If any God could exist since ever, on its own, without having been created or caused by anything else whatsoever, then so could the universe and anything in it exist or have been existing since ever without having been created or caused by anything else outside of or distinct from the universe and whatever that’s in it.

And so the argument that the universe can’t exist without having been caused or created by an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator does not prove the existence of any god whatsoever, because if a God can exist or come to existence without being or having been caused or created, then the universe as well can exist and can come to existence without being or having been caused or created as well.

If any God requires a cause or a creator to come to existence, then the same could be said about the universe and everything that exists or can exist inside this universe as well, no matter what.

If the universe or anything else whatsoever that is inside this universe needs to be created in order to be able to come to existence, then anything that can create any of the above will also require a creator in order to be able to come to existence as well.

If a creator of the universe must have been created by another entity that is uncaused, uncreated, and is other than, separate from, distinct from, and is outside of this acclaimed (or supposed) creator of the universe, then the universe and anything whatsoever that is in it can’t come to existence without having been created by another entity or a creator that is uncaused, uncreated, and is other than, distinct from, and outside of the currently existing universe as well.

If any of such gods that don’t need to be created in order for them to come to existence actually exists, or can actually exist, then so can the currently existing universe and anything whatsoever that exists inside of it come to existence without needing to be created or without needing a creator in order to be able to come to existence.

Any attempt to make a single entity creator of the universe an exception for or from anything whatsoever will eventually and inevitably backfire miserably.

If a god that could’ve created the universe can exist without a creator and without having been created by an uncreated creator (or a created creator) and without having been caused by an uncaused cause (or a caused cause), then so could the currently existing universe come to existence (and exist and keep existing) without a creator and without having been created by an uncreated creator (or a created creator) and without having been caused by an uncaused cause (or a caused cause).

If nothing can by itself alone create itself, and so the universe couldn’t have by itself alone created itself, then also even a god couldn’t exist without being caused and even a god could never have come to existence without being caused or created by another cause or creator other than himself (this particular god). If everything requires a creator to exist, then who created the creator? If not everything requires a creator to exist, then god could exist without a creator, and so does the universe (the universe also could come to existence without being created by any god whatsoever or any entity whatsoever other than the universe itself (this isn’t to say that the universe created itself, but this is to say that there was no creator of the universe that did create the universe while this creator of the universe is not part of or is not inside the universe, that is, the universe wasn’t created by an entity that is outside the universe and is not part of the universe and is distinct from the universe and is not inside the universe. This does not necessarily mean that the universe instead was created by itself or by an entity that is inside the universe or is not distinct from the universe or is not outside the universe or is a part of the universe)), and the universe also could exist and come to existence and keep existing without being caused by something else that is other than the universe itself and/or outside of and distinct from the universe itself.

And so the impossibility of the universe existing and/or coming into existence without being created by an uncreated creator that is distinct from and is outside of and is other than the universe itself is true and right and correct only if the impossibility of any god whatsoever existing without being created by an uncreated creator that is distinct from and is outside of and is other than this particular god himself is true and right and correct.

And the impossibility of the universe existing and/or coming into existence without being caused by an uncaused cause that is outside of and is distinct from and is other than the universe itself is true and right and correct only if the impossibility of any god whatsoever existing without being caused by an uncaused cause that is outside of and is distinct from and is other than this particular god himself is true and right and correct.

And so the universe cannot exist without a god if any god whatsoever cannot exist without any other god or creator of him (of this god) as well.

If any god could exist on his/her own without having been created or caused by anything else then so could the universe exist without having been created or caused by anything else. So the argument that the universe can’t exist without being caused or created by an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator does not prove the existence of any god whatsoever, because if a god can exist without being caused or created, then the universe as well can exist and can come to existence without being caused or created.

Any of the gods that are possible to exist require an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of any particular god of the gods that are possible to exist in order for them to exist or else they would be impossible to exist if the universe requires an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of the universe in order for the universe to exist, which means that they (any of these gods that are possible to exist) require an uncreated creator that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of any particular god of the gods that are possible to exist and they (any of these gods that are possible to exist) require an uncaused cause that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of any particular god of the gods that are possible to exist for them to come to exist if the currently existing universe did require an uncreated creator that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of the currently existing universe to exist and to come into existence and/or just as the currently existing universe did require an uncaused cause that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of the currently existing universe to exist and to come into existence.

A creator of the universe must have been created by another entity that is uncaused and is uncreated and is other than and is distinct from and is outside of this acclaimed (or supposed) creator of the universe if the universe can’t come to existence without having been created by another entity (a creator) that is uncaused and is uncreated and is other than and is distinct from and is outside of the currently existing universe.

If any of the gods that are possible to exist – without being caused by an uncaused cause that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of any of these gods that are possible to exist and without being created by an uncreated creator or a created creator that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of any of these gods that are possible to exist – actually does exist, this god does not have to be the uncaused cause that has created the currently existing universe because the currently existing universe can come to existence without being caused by an uncaused cause that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of the currently existing universe and the currently existing universe can come to existence without being created by an uncreated creator or a created creator that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of the currently existing universe, just as this (particular) god has come to existence without being caused by an uncaused cause that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of this (particular) god that is possible to exist and just as this (particular) god has come to existence without being created by an uncreated creator that is other than and is distinct from and is outside of this (particular) god that is possible to exist.

What are the odds. What a coincidence.

The problem isn’t in that you believe in such God only, it is also in the fact that you’re willing to do anything just to avoid the eternal wrath of that one true God. To think that this is the only way you can achieve morality is to doubt your ability to adhere to such morality even if enforced upon you by the one and only all-knowing, almighty, and all-powerful creator of the universe.

A major part of the problem is the fact that many religious believers think that it is impossible to stay moral without some form of adherence to one religion or the other.

In the Quran it is said that god has created heavens and that he has the capacity of doing such a thing. You see Muslims since the twentieth century immediately twist the meaning of such verses in the Quran and say that such verses mean that god has said in the Quran that he is expanding the universe, which then they go on saying that this is a scientific fact and that fact was only recently discovered and how could the prophet of Islam know such a fact without him knowing this fact by means of inspiration from god because he is god’s prophet as he claims himself to be. This is despite the fact that there is not a single verse in the Quran that says anything that means that the universe that is claimed to have been created by god is expanding or has been expanding or will be expanding, and whatever verses they cling to in support of their claims only mean that god has the capacity to create the vast heavens and the seven heavens and the earth easily and without this tiring him and without this being of any challenge to him. Twisting the meanings of verses in the Quran to make these verses seem to be mentioning some scientific facts or findings that have been discovered only after the eighteenth century AD in an attempt to prove that the Quran couldn’t have been made by the prophet of Islam but instead is really made by god and is really sent from god to the prophet of Islam only shows how Muslims themselves are willing to accept anything as proof that Islam is a religion from the one and only creator of the universe, even if this thing couldn’t be further from being a proof (and totally does not provide any evidence or any proof whatsoever) of the Quran being made by anyone whatsoever other than the prophet of Islam himself.