It is probable that the Qur'an is from God

Thank you for your rebuttal. And it is completely fine concerning your internet being down etc.I will in my next round defend my arguments from Con's objections against them. In what follows now, I will refute Con's arguments and show how they fail to prove that it is more probable that the Quran is not from God.Is the Quran imperfect?No, it's in fact Con's arguments which are imperfect. Con first argues that there are verses missing from the Quran and that there are interpolations in the Quran. To prove his first claim (that there are verses missing from the Quran), Con gives a hadith narrated by Kharija bin Zaid. This hadith, according to Con, is telling us that Zaid bin Thabit confirmed via his memory that a verse in the Quran had been lost. Well, that's not quite true. This misunderstanding can easily be solved by simply just reading the hadith carefully:Zaid bin Thabit said, "When the Quran was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. I could not find it except with Khuzaima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah's Apostle regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was:-- "Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah." (33.23) Narrated Kharija bin Zaid.As we can clearly see, Zaid bin Thabit only said that he could not find that verse except with Khuzaima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, meaning that he did find it but only with Khuzaima bin Thabjt. I urge Con to start reading the hadiths carefully before making to fast conclusions.In Con's second point, Con argued that the Quran contains interpolations which are verses that were later added to the Quran. By proving this claim, Con gave a Hadith which he said confirmed that different Quranic manuscripts said different things which caused confusion amongst the early Muslims. This hadith is very misinterpreted and misunderstood by Con, because this Hadith does not in any way say that there was verses which were later added to the Quran, as everybody can see by reading the Hadith. This Hadith is talking about Uthman and what he did, which is what Con himself said: 'Uthman ordered copies that were imperfect to be burned.' He did this, as everybody can see in the hadith, because Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran. Indeed, this was a great thing which Uthman did, and almost all Muslims now and at the time of Uthman agree that it was a good thing. Seekersguidance.org, a Muslim site which promotes the message of Islam, nicely and shortly explain why Uthman did what he did:'Many people during the time of `Uthman had their own explanatory notes in their personal copies of the Qur’an. Others had written down portions of the Qur’an themselves. In order to prevent any future issues of explanatory notes being considered as part of the Qur’an or arguments due to a mistake on the part of the writer – claiming that he has something of the Qur’an which others do not have - these old copies were burnt.Next, the Caliph `Uthman ordered a group of the companions to write down the Qur’an in an official, standardized copy and these new copies along with recitors were sent to peoples of different lands. This was done out of their love of the Qur’an and avidness that revelation be preserved, unaltered.' [1]God cancels out verses in the Quran?Con quoted verse 2:105 of the Quran which says: 'Whatever verses we [i.e., God] cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' (2:106 - Corrected: This verse is 2:106 of the Quran, not 2:105 as Con said. Just a little mistake) If Con wants to argue that God did in fact really cancel some verses in the Quran, then he have to tell us which verses those are and also provide proofs that those verses really was canceled.Moreover, even if God really did cancel God can change, replace or cancel any verse he likes in the Quran, because He is the author of the Quran. This debate is about if it is probable that the Quran is from God, so as long as all the verses of the Quran was canceled by God himself and not humans, the Quran is still from God.Concerning those two people Con quoted (Ibn Warraq and Farooq Ibrahim). I really don't need to say anything more than 1) Both of them are biased, and 2) What Ibn Warraq and Farooq Ibrahim are saying is that how can an All-Powerful, Omniscient, and Omnipotent God change earlier verses revealed in the Quran. This to them doesn't make sense. This problem is easily refuted by for example many different Muslim scholars. However, it's also completely irrelevant to the topic of this debate. The debate topic is about if it is probable that the Quran is from God, not about how illogical it is for a omnipotent God to change, replace or cancel a verse from his own book. Again, as long as all the verses of the Quran was replaced, changed or canceled by God himself, and not humans, then the Quran is still from God, even if someone thinks that it doesn't make sense that a omnipotent God would do that. Just like this rebuttal will still be from me even if I replace, change or cancel some of it, because it was again me who did it.In summary, Con must tell us which verses those are and also provide proofs that those verses really was canceled. Moreover, even if Con successfully do that, this argument is still irrelevant to the topic of this debate and cannot in any way prove the Quran is not from God. I urge Con to drop this argument because it cannot prove anything and is basically just a failure.And as for al-Suyuti's claim that there are 5-500 abrogated verses in the Quran, this is nothing more than a false and non-evidenced claim. As long as those 5-500 so called 'abrogated verses' in the Quran are not showed and proven to really be abrogated, this claim remains nothing more than a failure and a pure lie.Satan and the QuranCon argued here that Prophet Muhammad thought that a revelation was from God, but that it rather was from Satan and God had to quickly correct prophet Muhammad and the Muslims from following that incorrect verse. I suppose Con is talking about verse 17:88 of the Quran since that was the verse he quoted. Con has however given zero evidences to back up this absurd and laughable claim. Until he does that, this argument is nothing more than a failure. In fact, this verse like some other verses which challenges mankind to produce just one verse or chapter like that of the Quran, in contrast to Con's false statement, proves that the Quran is from God, as I clearly showed at my first round.Moreover, even if Satan tried to give a incorrect verse to prophet Muhammad, God as Con himself said, quickly corrected prophet Muhammad and the Muslims from following that verse. In others words, God protected the Quran and quickly corrected prophet Muhammad and the Muslims from following that incorrect verse which Satan tried to give to prophet Muhammad. This could only show that the Quran truly is from God. As long as no verses really was influenced and put into the Quran by Satan, and that those verses wasn't corrected by God, then the Quran is still from God. If Con however wants to argue that Satan was successful in giving prophet Muhammad incorrect verses, and that those verses got into the Quran without God finding it out and taking it away, then go for it. I would love to see Con give some evidences that Satan was really successful in giving prophet Muhammad incorrect verses, and that those verses really got inside the Quran without God finding it out and doing something about it. But as for now, Con has only given non-evidenced claims.ConclusionCon's arguments are all very flawed and clearly refuted.The conclusion stands: It is more probable than not that the Quran is from God.Sources[1] http://seekersguidance.org...