The God of Abraham (Muslim, Christian, and Jewish God) probably does not exist

Firstly, let me restate that I do not know what you mean by the term nature in such sentences as "Air is a nature". Now I will attempt to debate the arguments you have put forth in the most rational and logical way possible. Firstly, I think it is highly improbable that these bodies do not decay. You cited no sources for such and there is proof for the fact that bodies do decay, it is irrational to therefore assume that certain bodies do not decay because of a factor that has nothing to do with the biology of decaying (beliefs about the world held beforehand). Even if we accept the postulate that the bodies of dead jihadis do not decay, you argument on the Earth still does not stand. "The Earth is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. This obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists. The irrefutable proof on above commentary is that there are hundreds of fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and saints who are preserved from decay" First, let us point out that most inanimate objects can tell a lie. The exception would be texts and things of such nature (telling a story, which by definition can be true or false), but the Earth is not one of those. As far as I know, the Earth has no way of expressing itself as a conscious being. Correct me if I am wrong (with evidence). Next, the position that the Earth cannot support wrong thinking or beliefs is outrageous. Explain serial killers, rapists, criminals, and for that matter, Non-Muslims (a definite majority of all of these, as far I know, live on the Earth). Thirdly, anything that is "100% true and neutral" cannot "obey only true God or true followers of God" unless you are using a very strange and unorthodox version of the word neutral. Next, if the Earth doesn't obey fabricated Gods or atheists, why are countries such as the United States (a non majority Muslim nation) suffering less hardship and horror than Syria (a majority Muslim nation). Now, let us get to the crux of your argument, featuring the bodies of martyrs. The idea that the corpses of martyrs do not decay is not true. Also, even if it were true there is so much evidence that the Earth is not "biased" such that that fact would not irreversibly turn the debate in your favor. Firstly, the corpses of those who use suicide vests are not recognizable when compared with their bodies beforehand (also, one might wonder why Allah is concerned with the state of the body of a martyr when is he in paradise and has no need of that bodily form). To get back to my second point in this paragraph, which was discussed before, is that the Earth does not favor followers of Allah. Indeed, many of the nations whose religion is predominately Islam, such as those of Southeast Asia and the Middle East, as a general rule, are not doing as well economically and politically (and really any other measure of how a country is doing) then those of America and Western Europe, who's most dominate religion is Christianity. So, even if we accept that the bodies of Muslim martyrs do not decompose (which I don't) there is still little evidence to support the idea that the Earth supports Islam. We could say, seeing as the Earth is an inanimate object it has little concern with supporting any particular belief system, that the Earth could not play a factor in the prevalence of one ethical system or religion over the other. Of course, this may seem a tad radical, so I'll just throw it out there as a thought. Your last claim was that the Earth does not obey any God but Allah, to which I simply say that there needs to be evidence to such a statement. Until then it simply falls under worshipping the teapot in Russell's teapot argument. To respond to your argument about the air, I am still unclear what a nature is, so please explain it in your next reply. My argument to these statements are quite similar to the arguments for the Earth. The inability of inanimate objects to speak or communicate meaning, nonetheless lie, is proof of the ridiculousness of the state "[The Air] cannot tell a lie." Neither can the desk that I am writing this on or the chair which I currently sit upon, but that provides no foundation for the belief that these are holy or the product of a supernatural being. The air clearly does "support" wrong thinking, at least wrong thinking if we accept Islam to be true (I don't). Now, as I have mentioned before, the non-decaying of martyrs doesn't work as an argument because they do (the bodies of suicide bombers). To answer your two questions to all Atheists and Non-Muslims (which are basically the same question) I quote The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins: ""The fact that a question can be phrased in a grammatically correct English sentence doesn"t make it meaningful, or entitle it to our serious attention." Seeing as we have already cast doubt on the existence of non-decaying martyrs and the significance thereof, I think we safely categorize these as questions not entitled to "serious attention." The Fire argument is different than the other two arguments. This seems to me the essence of it. Correct me if I am wrong (also, in your response, please define a nature). If a Muslim person enters flame without any sort of protection, and survives, then Islam is correct. So, you propose that Muslims issue this as a challenge to all non-Muslims and have such an event heavily spectated so Allah can be proven to exist once and for all. Leaving aside whether or not that if that process definitively happened (i.e.. the non-burnee did not have any flame protection) that still might not mean that Allah had interfered. Other supernatural explanations could do just fine such as (this is purely speculative) the god of fire did not want someone whose stupidity was of such quality amusement to burn to death in a pointless demonstration of faith in a book written in the seventh century. Now, if we accept the idea that this event would be definitive proof of Allah's existence, we would still need it to be actually tested, so until then no further commentary can be made on the subject. Your next argument on the "natures" (please define) hinges on the idea that the Red Sea parted for Moses. If it did, then you are correct. But, unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest such an occurrence, and again I must point out that the burden of proof lies on those making the claims, not denying them (innocent until proven guilty). All the evidence you have is in a book written by a bronze age tribe. If you could prove your claims about the Red Sea, this would be a very different discussion. Also, assuming that the Ramses you are talking about is Ramses II, your statement is incorrect in saying that he died in the Red Sea. He died of complications of arthritis. Next, to deal with Maurice Bucaille, who claimed that Islam must be true because it violates no known scientific principle. Here is an example from the Koran, which implies that stars set (hint: they don't); (53:1) "By the Star when it setteth." Lastly, when it comes down to you commentary labelled (3) under the water section, if a Muslim is able to per for such a feat publicly, then we will talk then, Until then, there is not a lot to be said. To number 5, I say that I do not know what you mean by Atheists and Non-Muslims not being able to have water support them.Explain. Lastly, your references from the Koran have no effect on rational discourse, seeing as they are part of a book written 1500 years ago that provide no evidence for the claims they make and thus should be excluded from citation in rational discourse. In conclusion, I feel that I have dealt with all the arguments you have put forward effectively. I will clarify if you have any questions. Also, please define a "nature." I look forward to your response