There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

Rather than responding to each of the first few responses of my opponent (which is against me claiming that Allah didn't change by the prayers), I'll summarize it. Opponent said: "the fact is that Allah said one thing, the 50 prayers, but he then revised his claim to 5 prayers. .. I was using an expression that said that god thought one thing but then revised it. He changed his mandate. Anyone can see this. .. My opponent did not contest that Allah first said 50 prayers but then said 5. By definition that is a change. My point stands. "Yes, that's a change. A change of the amount of prayers/mandate, but how does that necessitate a change to Allah? It doesn't;the change occurred to the creation, which was the order. Allah eternally willed that the order would change on that night, just as Allah eternally willed for the laws to change from one Messenger* to another (For example, during the time of Adam, the diktat of Allah was for them to pray once a day. The next Messenger, who was Shith -or in English, Seth- they were ordered to pray twice a day). None of that necessitates a change to Allah. *In Islamic terminology, a Messenger is a Prophet who receives a new set of laws which abrogate some or all of the previous Messenger's laws. Every Messenger is a Prophet, but not every Prophet a Messenger. Opponent says: "I never claimed that something can bring itself into existence, I claimed the universe came into existence out of nothing, uncaused. What my opponent is doing is strawmanning my argument. I am NOT arguing that the universe created itself. "I agree that it came out of nothing, but what you fail to understand is that one either takes the position that it independently came into existence (thus claiming that it created itself), or that it is dependent upon something other than itself to come into existence. There is no third option, so this isn't a false dichotomy. The latter would be claiming that it is caused, which is the position you choose not to take, so, by deduction, you are claiming it created itself. Conclusion: A change to the Laws doesn't necessitate a change to The Creator. The Laws have changed many times; from Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, et al. The opponent says: "But moving on, my opponent tries to say my argument about quantum fluctuations says that the universe made itself but this is just not true". I had meant that you were claiming that "something created itself", I mentioned that in the comments section seconds after I posted by previous response. I agree that it came from nothing. .. but if there is nothing, then how can there be any action, such as a quantum fluctuations. .. ? There can't be any action if there is nothing (there has to be some THING to perform that action, not no-THING(nothing), because the action itself is dependent upon something to do it). Even if someone did take your position and say that the universe did come from quantum fluctuations, thus becoming dependent upon the quantum fluctuations to exist, wouldn't you be contradicting your stance of saying that it was "uncaused"? After all, you purport that the universe is a result of quantum fluctuations. Thus, one can infer that, according to you, the cause is the quantum fluctuations and the result is the universe; a paradox of your previous stance. My opponent contradicts himself and fails to understand the implications of his claims.