Undeniable proof for the existence of God.

nimnimak_11

Peace all

Can you refute this? I can't see a way.

In any existence there is at least a thing.
Within an existence a there may be another existence b. Dreams, mental content virtual realities and so on are perhaps examples of this.
Existence b is necessarily encompassed, entailed and dependent on existence a.
Given 3, the content in existence b must be dependent on the content in existence a. In other words it is impossible to have something in existence b that cannot be possible or accommodated in existence a.* Furthermore it is impossible to have something in existence b that is entirely independent of content from existence a (For example a Unicorn is finite, has shape. This is an example of how existence b is dependent on content from existence a. If existence a is entirely shapeless, then there would be no possibility of something with shape or something that is finite. Perhaps this is better illustrated by considering dimensions. You cannot have a 3D (space dimensions) existence within a 2D existence since there isn?t a third space dimension to draw from in the encompassing 2D existence.
In the mind there are simple and complex concepts Simple* = foundational. It is itself and it is built up of no other concept Complex* = Built up of a combination of simple concepts
Whilst the mind has the capacity to create and come up with various complex concepts by combining or manipulating simple concepts, it cannot do the same with regards to simple concepts.
Given 3 and 4, the simple concepts in the mind must be derived from the existence in which the mind is encompassed by.
8 ) We have the concept of Perfect.
Perfect is a simple concept.
Given 7, Perfect must be in the existence in which the mind's existence is encompassed by.
Only that which is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Self-sufficient/sustaining, and other sustaining/sufficient (it sustains and provides for other than itself), can be Perfect while all else is by default imperfect*
Therefore an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Self-sufficient/sustaining, and other sustaining/sufficient being exists.

5* Examples of simple concepts include Determined, in-determined, finite, infinite, imperfect, sight etc. Examples of complex concepts include Unicorn, wizard, human etc.

11* Because all else will lack one of these attributes, they cannot be perfect. For example we may say that the perfect human would have attributes xyz. However a human by definition is limited and that which is perfect cannot be defined or found within imperfect boundaries. To say the perfect human is to say the perfect imperfect. Or to say the perfect instance of an imperfection. But to say this is to make the word Perfect = to the best possible human. Whilst that which is perfect is necessarily the best possible being, it is also more.

For example if the perfect was not in existence. Then the best possible being may have been and omniscient but not omnipotent god. This would then be an imperfection thus the best possible thing in such a case would not be perfect and we would not have the concept of perfect. Hence the difference between the concepts of best possible and perfect.

Note that you cannot have two perfect entities. For example both cannot be almighty. It would be a contradiction.

Edip_Yuksel

Dear Minimak,

Thank you for sharing with us this delicious modified "Argument from Perfection" or "Ontological Argument"

I think that there are multiple problems with this argument. Here are the ones I just caught in few seconds. My mind is now very busy with multiple tasks and projects; thus, the following ideas are not as focused and organized as I expect from myself. But it might be a good start and spark some ideas in your mind

I find the number 8 and 9 are problematic.

Do we really have the concept of Perfection and is it really a simple concept?

Whether we have an absolute and universal concept of Perfection is questionable... We have words that are in fact place-holders for "I do not know" These words could be "mystery" or "soul" or "ghosts" or "UFO" or "god" or "infinite" depending on the context or the set of the unknown questions.

So, when we say "perfect" we mean "perhaps a better thing than the ones I have already experienced and even better than that I can imagine now." Besides, what is perfect? Perfection might be limited to the purpose of things or used to describe things within the context of Aristotle's four causes. Perfect what? Perfect pen? Perfect shoes? Perfect house? Perfect child? Perfect artist? Perfect circle? Thus, the concept of perfect may not be that "simple" It needs qualification or qualifiers. So, when we say perfect circle, we mean that all the points on the circumference must have exactly the same distance from the center of the circle.

Let's talk or more accurately, write about a "perfect pen", which is perfectly okay. For a pen (or pens) to be perfect, it does not need to be super-perfect, since we do not expect a pen to be Omniscient or Omnipresent, Unique, etc. Whatever we mean by the word pen, be it through stipulative or lexical definition, it will have limited and conventional intensions.

MATERIAL Nu rusting, no wearing, optimum softness to accommodate the flesh of finger yet not bend while writing.
FORMAL Ergonomic, fitting to the fingers.
EFFICIENT Made by a "perfect company or group", not by slaves, child laborers, polluters, or a company that supports religious terrorists or racist, imperialist governments.
FINAL Write very smoothly, visibly, on every surface, in adjustable thickness and colors.

Of course, even the perfect pen in my imagination, will not be the same perfect pen in your imagination. Furthermore, what I consider perfect today, may not be perfect tomorrow. For instance, I or someone else might consider another attribute fitting to the concept of perfection or pen and might think that a perfect pen must also speak, take the blood pressure, check the cholesterol, etc.

As you might see, I might expect from my perfect pen to do everything I want, including acting like the stick in Cinderella's godmother turning a pumpkin into a Ferrari, well a perfect Ferrari. Better, the pen itself must transform into the car and produce another perfect pen? So, starting from pen, evolving to a better, an even better pen, finally I will end up with a god-pen, or simply God, that do anything I want or anything I consider possible.

The "Argument from Perfection" that you shared with us, reverses the DIRECTION of the concept of PERFECTION, since the concept (perfection) is NOT the SOURCE, but the PRODUCT. In other words, we are not born with the concept of perfect chair, perfect pen, perfect vehicle, perfect house, perfect friend, and even perfect circle and "perfect everything". We gain those concepts through our experience; surprisingly they are subjective and continually or continuously evolving concepts.

If merely having a "simple concept" requires its ontological existence, then we have the concept of "nothingness" Thus, there must be Nothing! A big, real NOTHING! Have you received a revelation from Nothing? What does Nothing look like? What does Nothing do? Have you recently asked help from Nothing?

nimnimak_11

Hi Edip

I know you to be busy, so I don't expect a detailed discussion or reply but you may find my reply interesting. This is more a modified version of Descartes' cosmological argument than his ontological. I think Kant breaks down the ontological argument very well and I agree with him but no one in my opinion has sufficiently dealt with the cosmological argument in particular this modified version.

With regards to the cosmological argument, I've read the points you've raised in books and I think that there is a misunderstanding of Descartes' argument because he has badly worded it

As you might see, I might expect from my perfect pen to do everything I want, including acting like the stick in Cinderella's godmother turning a pumpkin into a Ferrari, well a perfect Ferrari. Better, the pen itself must transform into the car and produce another perfect pen So, starting from pen, evolving to a better, an even better pen, finally I will end up with a god-pen, or simply God, that do anything I want or anything I consider possible.

Yes. But you have the concept of perfect to begin with which is essentially God to be able to make such progression. How else would you know which is better and how else would you make your way up in such a way as to ultimately reach simply God? Abraham I think was doing the same. He recognised imperfections in all those things and rejected them as his Lord or God

Here I think there is a semantical mistake between the words ideal and perfect. Whilst you can reach something ideal within imperfect boundaries (as in something that cannot be bettered within those imperfect boundaries), you cannot reach perfect within imperfect boundaries.

I think your strongest objections are primarily based on negation.
The cosmological argument has been faulted by suggesting that the concept of perfect is simply the negation of imperfect.

I have strong problems with this. To negate something is to reduce it into "nothingness". Thus the negation of imperfect does not lead us to the concept of perfect. For example consider the example finite and infinite. Some suggest that infinity is just the negation of finite.

You have a finite entity. Now negate it. Surely you then have nothing as opposed infinity. If you negated the bounds of a finite existence, there must be an infinity that encompasses it otherwise negating the bounds would make that finite existence smaller or literally result in nothingness.

We can objectively recognise imperfections in things precisely because we have the concept of perfect. We recognise that it does not have attribute x which is one necessary component for being perfect and thus can objectively see that it is imperfect. I don't believe this to be an instance of negation.

Perfect is a simple concept since it is not a combination of other concepts.

So, when we say "perfect" we mean "perhaps a better thing than the ones I have already experienced and even better than that I can imagine now.

This can't be. When we say perfect we literally say that which is perfect. Since it's a simple concept, it cannot be defined by anything other than itself like the concept of good. Pleasure may be good but good is not pleasure.

Similarly you mention better than that which I have already experienced. This is one aspect of the perfect. That it will be better then that which one has experienced. But imperfect things can also qualify for this position. Consider a god that is not perfect.

If there was no perfect entity in existence. Then we would not have the concept of perfect in the way that we do. We would have the concept of the best possible thing which would be an imperfect god. But clearly the phrase "best possible" is not equivalent to perfect as this hypothetical example I hope shows.

In an existence devoid of the perfect, we could not meaningfully and objectively distinguish between the one perfect and all else that is imperfect. We could distinguish between good, bad, best worst and recognise that there is a best possible thing but perfect and imperfect would not even cross our minds and won't makes sense since the existence that we are encompassed by won't allow such mental content to be possible.

If merely having a "simple concept" requires its ontological existence, then we have the concept of "nothingness"

Nothing is just a negation. Negation is a quantifier not predicate, I should have clarified earlier that I was referring to simple predicative concepts. Besides no one's going to argue that nothing exists )
Negation is one part of the mind's ability to manipulate it's not a simple concept in my opinion.

piobaxter

What does refute means?

Roshan

Peace

I don't understand why we can't accept that there is no DIRECT proof of God.

The evidence is indirect and based on faith. Isn't this the point of the story of pharoah?

Roshan

IAMOP

Peace

I don't understand why we can't accept that there is no DIRECT proof of God.

The evidence is indirect and based on faith. Isn't this the point of the story of pharoah?

Roshan

The story of pharoah demonstrates Moses showing DIRECT proof of God. God states that within himself Pharoah accepted the proof. Yet he decided to turn away in pride. This example shows that people will deny the self-evident. Nowhere in the quran does it ever debate whether God exists or not, nowhere does it question that. It presents clear arguments to the lost and sensible and nothing more.

The evidence is TOTALLY centred in knowledge & wisdom and it is stated that those who are certain of the hereafter & God are the mu'min; certain, not doubting. Faith is what precedes this and opens the door to that knowledge. The translations have it backwards. Only on a faith basis can you prop up false religion because faith and fear/doubt go hand in hand and the faith is used to repress the very valid fear/doubt. Truth destroys faith and replaces it with certitude.

As regards the OP you might remember I made a thread about this before. Just remember that a lot of what humans call "greatest philosophers" are in the reality of God known certainly to be bullshit artists. All of these arguments boil down to one thing which is the Absolute. Here you define it as 'perfection' and so people will debate the semantics of 'perfection'. Define it as 'omnipotent', and people will debate the semantics of omnipotent. This goes nowhere. We all know there is an Absolute and not even the hardest of atheists can deny this. This reduces the argument down to which is the Absolute - the universe or God. In 2435 God states clearly He is the light of the heavens and earth and the debate ends right there. This we observe unanimously and demonstrated by science, that Light is eternal, abiding and possesses all properties of perfection. Any argument beyond this is inevitably ends in vanity.

Also your argument can be rephrased I can think of 'perfect' => 'perfect' has a gold standard somewhere which is absolutely Perfect => 'perfect' emanates from Perfection

Peace

nimnimak_11

What does refute means?

Proven wrong.

nimnimak_11

As regards the OP you might remember I made a thread about this before. Just remember that a lot of what humans call "greatest philosophers" are in the reality of God known certainly to be bullshit artists. All of these arguments boil down to one thing which is the Absolute. Here you define it as 'perfection' and so people will debate the semantics of 'perfection'. Define it as 'omnipotent', and people will debate the semantics of omnipotent. This goes nowhere. We all know there is an Absolute and not even the hardest of atheists can deny this. This reduces the argument down to which is the Absolute - the universe or God. In 2435 God states clearly He is the light of the heavens and earth and the debate ends right there. This we observe unanimously and demonstrated by science, that Light is eternal, abiding and possesses all properties of perfection. Any argument beyond this is inevitably ends in vanity.

Also your argument can be rephrased I can think of 'perfect' => 'perfect' has a gold standard somewhere which is absolutely Perfect => 'perfect' emanates from Perfection

I know that semantics can make this difficult but there is in my opinion a solid argument in this.

We can contingently understand or imagine better beings because we have knowledge of the perfect to compare with. For this reason we can understand lesser beings (greek gods for example) than the perfect as well as sufficiently understand the perfect. We augment humans into better beings by using the model of perfect. The more closer it is to perfect (competence and beneficence) the better it is.

If we consider our usage of perfect, it is always subjective. The only time where in which our usage of "perfect" is universal and objective is when we try to define and unpack what exactly is perfect. I strongly doubt that anyone can disagree that the perfect is at the very least omnipotent, omniscient, wise, self-sustaining/sufficient, other sustaining/sufficient. Hence the objectivity. But with everything else that we label as perfect or perfectly or perfection there is subjectivity or context dependence. Does this not render everything else as either imperfect or irrelevant and unqualified for the status of perfect and imperfect? There is only once instance where in which we can objectively distinguish perfect from imperfect and for that reason, in my opinion, only in this can we use the term perfect and imperfect.

All else that we call "perfect" should in my opinion be termed "ideal" because ideal semantically conveys the significance of subjectivity and there is clear difference between that which is perfect or ideal. To use one term for both these semantical possibilities is a mistake

In the fact that there is objectivity to perfect, and only in this instance is it not subjective or context dependent, I think is irrefutable evidence for the existence of God considering all things pointed out.

Edip_Yuksel

Peace

I don't understand why we can't accept that there is no DIRECT proof of God.

The evidence is indirect and based on faith. Isn't this the point of the story of pharoah?

Roshan

No Roshan, we have the proof of God's existence. Code 19, is both a mathematical and prophetic proof. It is miraculous and our perception of it too is unique or miraculous it is 100 percent objective and 100 percent subjective. To witness it, a person must have both good mind (reasoning faculties, critical thinking) and good heart (good intention in seeking the truth of the matter).

Peace,
Edip

good_logic

Peace All.

What I find " Hypocritical and unjust" is the majority of scientists will agree a " 5 sigma" and accept it as some kind of proof ( in the case of the Higgs Boson particle), yet deny the Koran proof.

" 5 sigma" is- probability of 1 in a million -( i.e impossible!), Scientist have accepted this fact about the " Higgs Boson particle ( impossible not to be ?). However they will not accept the 19 code and other scientific facts of the Koran, yet their probabilities ( More than impossible to be authored by man!) go beyond " 5 sigma".

Certain proofs will not be accepted because of arrogance and self interest.
Peace.

Noon_waalqalami

No Roshan, we have the proof of God's existence. Code 19, is both a mathematical and prophetic proof.

What I find " Hypocritical and unjust" is the majority of scientists will agree a " 5 sigma" and accept it as some kind of proof ( in the case of the Higgs Boson particle), yet deny the Koran proof.

" 5 sigma" is- probability of 1 in a million -( i.e impossible!), Scientist have accepted this fact about the " Higgs Boson particle ( impossible not to be ?). However they will not accept the 19 code and other scientific facts of the Koran, yet their probabilities ( More than impossible to be authored by man!) go beyond " 5 sigma".

Certain proofs will not be accepted because of arrogance and self interest.

Peace,

Everything presented has 1 chance in 19 unlike the Higgs boson which is precisely stated beforehand that a particle of a certain mass will be created and confermed by measuring its speed and refraction through powerful magnetic fields after a collision like throwing a rock at a structure and looking at the debris.

In addition, no consistent statement/theories of any code whatsoever to carry out an experiment, e.g.

Each verse/chapter/whatever is consistently multiple of x-code; define function.

Therefore, state exactly what you want people to test/see and exact probability?

Give your one or two best examples; no links to websites or books/debates please.

good_logic

Peace Noon walqualami.

Do you have a copy of the Koran? Let us start with the following

1- Count the letter " Q" in Chapter 50 . Then in - HMASQ Chaptter. All the initialled chapters have the letters in Multiples of 19.Check all that.

2- Verses that confirm science discovered in this century 2130, 2164, 2561, 2562. 2782, 159, 1516, 5147,541. I will give you other verses to check at your request. (Remember this book came over 1400 years ago)

3- The author of the Koran is saying HE will send proof . Check 2793, 2366, 2766. 3959. More if required.

Then the one I rely most on 2533. I have no doubt that the Koran is a message from the Creator.
Peace

Noon_waalqalami

Peace good logic,

Do you have a copy of the Koran? Let us start with the following

1- Count the letter " Q" in Chapter 50 . Then in - HMASQ Chaptter. All the initialled chapters have the letters in Multiples of 19.Check all that.

Yes I have copy doing my own translation since all are atrocious and counting letters is meaningless.

What is the total #of Q's in Quran? I have 7034/19 = 370.210526
Do you "exclude" 112 chapter titles? Why include for other counts?

Statistically it's expected ~6 chapters # of Q's is a multiple and true for other common letters any text.

2- Verses that confirm science discovered in this century 2130, 2164, 2561, 2562. 2782, 159, 1516, 5147,541. I will give you other verses to check at your request. (Remember this book came over 1400 years ago)

3- The author of the Koran is saying HE will send proof . Check 2793, 2366, 2766. 3959. More if required.

Then the one I rely most on 2533. I have no doubt that the Koran is a message from the Creator.

I was only referring to your code which you said was impossible to imitate and that you have proof. Therefore, please show an example of this code and consistency not statistically meaningless multiples.

E.g. code 29 chapter 1 has 29 words is statistically meaningless unless all chapters have multiples of 29 words or some function which shows consistent input on data yields a multiple output; similar to how encryption keys/machines work.

http//www.ilord.com/images/enigma/open-lid-400.jpg

good_logic

Peace Noon walqualami.

The "Q" count must be from Chapter 50 . It has the initial "Q". I was asking you to check the initialled chapters and their initials.

You have come up with " Q" in all the text? You need to understand Why the initialled chapters? or give a better reason why the author of the Qoran uses initials at the start of Chapters and says " These are the proof of this book"?

Also where does your probability of _ 1 in 19 - come from.?Show us this using examples.

Then you add you are not talking about the Scientific facts in the Qoran. Well my argument that the probability of these scientific facts alone exceeds the " 5 sigma" that the Scientists themselves use as proof is valid then.

Finally, you requested -quote-" no links to websites or books/debates please." All your knowledge comes from somewhere else or from GOD, the main thing is you verify and prove all things. I have checked the " 19 multiples", now do the same and let us compare the table of initials and see if there is a "code19" and what is its probability.

Peace.

loxbox13

Peace all

Can you refute this? I can't see a way.

In any existence there is at least a thing.
Within an existence a there may be another existence b. Dreams, mental content virtual realities and so on are perhaps examples of this.
Existence b is necessarily encompassed, entailed and dependent on existence a.
Given 3, the content in existence b must be dependent on the content in existence a. In other words it is impossible to have something in existence b that cannot be possible or accommodated in existence a.* Furthermore it is impossible to have something in existence b that is entirely independent of content from existence a (For example a Unicorn is finite, has shape. This is an example of how existence b is dependent on content from existence a. If existence a is entirely shapeless, then there would be no possibility of something with shape or something that is finite. Perhaps this is better illustrated by considering dimensions. You cannot have a 3D (space dimensions) existence within a 2D existence since there isn?t a third space dimension to draw from in the encompassing 2D existence.
In the mind there are simple and complex concepts Simple* = foundational. It is itself and it is built up of no other concept Complex* = Built up of a combination of simple concepts
Whilst the mind has the capacity to create and come up with various complex concepts by combining or manipulating simple concepts, it cannot do the same with regards to simple concepts.
Given 3 and 4, the simple concepts in the mind must be derived from the existence in which the mind is encompassed by.
8 ) We have the concept of Perfect.
Perfect is a simple concept.
Given 7, Perfect must be in the existence in which the mind's existence is encompassed by.
Only that which is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Self-sufficient/sustaining, and other sustaining/sufficient (it sustains and provides for other than itself), can be Perfect while all else is by default imperfect*
Therefore an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Self-sufficient/sustaining, and other sustaining/sufficient being exists.

5* Examples of simple concepts include Determined, in-determined, finite, infinite, imperfect, sight etc. Examples of complex concepts include Unicorn, wizard, human etc.

11* Because all else will lack one of these attributes, they cannot be perfect. For example we may say that the perfect human would have attributes xyz. However a human by definition is limited and that which is perfect cannot be defined or found within imperfect boundaries. To say the perfect human is to say the perfect imperfect. Or to say the perfect instance of an imperfection. But to say this is to make the word Perfect = to the best possible human. Whilst that which is perfect is necessarily the best possible being, it is also more.

For example if the perfect was not in existence. Then the best possible being may have been and omniscient but not omnipotent god. This would then be an imperfection thus the best possible thing in such a case would not be perfect and we would not have the concept of perfect. Hence the difference between the concepts of best possible and perfect.

Note that you cannot have two perfect entities. For example both cannot be almighty. It would be a contradiction.

- 3 -

he is the first and the last, the apparent and the hidden...

it's simple, you don't have to proove that existance exists, all what is apparent, and what is not apparent

all what is apparent, exists, and all that is not apparent exists , so you don't have to rpouve the existance of existance, the existance itslef is allah , nature is allah , nature exists , allah is the universe and beyond with no limits
easy to prouve

the supreme of all , THE ALL = Allah

Noon_waalqalami

Peace good logic,

The "Q" count must be from Chapter 50 . It has the initial "Q". I was asking you to check the initialled chapters and their initials.

You have come up with " Q" in all the text? You need to understand Why the initialled chapters? or give a better reason why the author of the Qoran uses initials at the start of Chapters and says " These are the proof of this book"?

Also where does your probability of _ 1 in 19 - come from.?Show us this using examples.

Here are few examples of statistically meaningless multiples
71 #of Q = 361 (19 x 19) initialed with different letters
261 #of Q = 133 (19 x 7) initialed with different letters

It's "these are" verses (what follows) not code/s or a collection of disassociated multiples.

Read in context....

11 in name The God The Powerful The Merciful
12 the praise to God Lord the creations
13 The Powerful The Merciful
14 Owner day the last
15 You alone we serve and You alone we ask help
16 guide us the path the straight
17 path the ones who blessed on them not the ones earned wrath on them and not the ones who stray

21
22 that the book (i.e. ch 1 is essence) not doubt in it guidance to the mindful

31
32 The God no deity only He The Living The Sustainer of all

3108 these are verses The God We recite them to you in truth and not The God intends injustice to those of knowledge

71
72 scripture descended to you so not was in your breast difficulty from it that you warn with it and reminder to the believers

101 these are verses the book the wise

111 scripture are tightened/perfected its verses/signs furthermore explained from One Who Wise Aware

121 these are verses the book the clear
122 indeed We sent it Qur?an Arabic that you may use reason

131 these are verses the book and the one who descended to you from your Lord the truth and nonetheless greater the mankind not they believe

141 scripture We sent it to you that you bring out the mankind from the darkness to the light by permission their Lord to path The Mighty The Praiseworthy

151 these are verses the book clear

191
192 remembrance Mercy your Lord His servant Zakariyy

201
202 not We descended to you the Qur?an to distress

261
262 these are verses the book the clear

271 these are verses the Qur?an and book clear
272 guidance and glad tidings to the believers

281
282 these are verses the book the clear
283 We recite to you from news Moses and Pharaoh in truth for people they believe

291
292 think the mankind that they?ll be left lest/that they say we believe and they not be tested

301
302 prevailed the Romans

311
312 these are verses the book the wise
313 guidance and mercy to the good doers

321
322 revelation the book not doubt in it from Lord the creations

361
362 and/by the Qur?an the wise

381 and/by the Qur?an owner the reminder

401
402 revelation the book from The God The Mighty The Knowing

411
412 revelation from The Powerful The Merciful
413 scripture explained its verses Qur?an Arabic for people who know

421
422
423 like that suggests to you and to the ones who from before you The God The Mighty The Wise

431
432 and/by the book the clear

441
442 and/by the book the clear

451
452 revelation the book from The God The Mighty The Wise
453 indeed in the skies and the earth surely signs to the believers

461
462 revelation the book from The God The Mighty The Wise

501 and/by the Qur?an the glorious

681 Noon and/by the pen and what they write (total N=131 is prime)

IAMOP

so you don't have to rpouve the existance of existance, the existance itslef is allah

Exactly. Trying to "prove" the existence of God is like trying to prove the water-ness of the ocean.

good_logic

Peace Noon walqualami.

You did not answer any of my questions.

You have not given any reason why the " 14 initials" are not the proof of the book. You just listed them?

Try again Why would the author of the Qoran use these initials? Also check that "code 19" apply to them?

Peace.

Noon_waalqalami

You did not answer any of my questions.

You have not given any reason why the " 14 initials" are not the proof of the book. You just listed them?

Try again Why would the author of the Qoran use these initials? Also check that "code 19" apply to them?

Peace good logic,

I did check all the code stuff (have degree in computing/math) and found it extremely naive.
You did not answer my questions and the burden of proof is on you since you made a claim.

Here, it's straightforward and easy; simply show why these verse #'s and letters are here?

201
202 not We descended to you the Qur?an to distress

As for meaning of initials, most likely acronyms for a phrase; I don't want conjecture further.

37 He The One Who descended to you the book from it verses mu?kamtun/clearly understood they mother/foundation the book and other allegorical so as what the ones who in their hearts deviation so they follow what similarity from it seeking the discord and seeking its interpretation and not knows its interpretation only The God and the ones firm in the knowledge they say we believe in it each/all from at/with our Lord and not remembers only those the understanding

good_logic

Peace Noonwalqualami.

The proof is there. All the Qoran initials fit the " code 19". You need to refute/ counter if you disagree.

It should be easier for you to check since you have the skills in computing and Maths.

Peace.