It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God

SOME MAIN CORRECTIONS:1. 3rd detailed rebuttal (eloquence…) in R2: “First of all, this (that a program can be made that could write a text as eloquent as Quran) is just a claim, not a proof. Pro has first to prove that such a program can be made! Further I would like to ask the followings regarding his claim:” 2. Under “EVIDENCES FOR CA” in R3:“Now I will give only 2 examples for some different types. ” 3. Last paragraph in R3: “There are smaller bones than fingertips; therefore the verse must be talking of something more special and specific such as fingerprints. ”INTRODUCTIONpbuh - peace be upon him. I will still use CA and PA as I defined in my Introduction in R2. REBUTTAL TO PRO’S REBUTTALS IN R31) NOTE 4Pro quotes what I wrote:“The verses of Quran are not limited to one meaning. [2]”and then builds his arguments on what he understands from it without referring to the reference [2] I gave to see what I meant. Note that the hadiths (narrations of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) are the second (after other verses of Quran itself) main instructions for how to interpret a verse of Quran. The following is a hadith mentioned in that reference:“Each verse has an outer meaning, an inner meaning, a limit, and an aim, and each has roots, and boughs, and branches,”[2]Several examples are given in that source from Quran to show how that hadith is true. Therefore, this aspect of Quran was known since the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), it is not a new thing. Pro asks a (rhetoric) question: “how convenient is it that there are many different interpretations of single verses in the Qur’an? ”A detailed answer was given in that reference, but only if Pro read it:“… all the aspects and meanings which are found acceptable by the science of semantics, and appropriate by the science of rhetoric, and desirable by the science of eloquence, may be considered among the meanings of the Qur’an. ”2To give an example for what “not limited to one meaning” compare the followings:1. He is starving.2. He is hungry. Note that 1st sentence has also the meaning of 2nd, but is not limited to it. It provides further information about how hungry he is, which is not given in 2nd sentence.2) PRESERVATION OF PHARAOH'S BODYPro wrote: “According to modern historic sources, Ramesses most probably died from old age or heart failure. ”What is the actual cause of his death? Historic sources make that conclusion because the man was old and ill. BUT, is there any rule that a man who is old and ill cannot be drowned? Pro wrote: “Also, the Qur’an states that there were five plagues that occurred in Egypt, but,you see, there is no record of there being those plagues. ”Not having record of something doesn’t mean that something didn’t happen. Refer to reference [2] I provided in R3 for more information on the subject. Please note that my main argument was about 1 - preservation of the body of Pharaoh, 2 - the body being a sign for future generations (it is in a museum in Egypt now, open to tourists to come and see it), and mainly 3 – these events being mentioned in Quran. Pro hasn’t provided any rebuttal for these yet. However, I showed how his rebuttals fail to refute anything mentioned in Quran.3) ELOQUENCE OF QUR'ANPro wrote: “… eloquence is a very subjective thing. … I, Pro, don’t think that the Qur’an is eloquent at all. In fact, I think that it’s the worst written, ugliest book of all time…”This is a pure subjective argument that eloquence is a very subjective thing! No evidence, no proof, nothing more than a claim! Apparently Pro hasn’t any knowledge of (quite objective) science of eloquence in literature and especially when Quran is considered. [3]Pro wrote: “Now, suppose I were to make something as eloquent. Would an Islamic apologist admit that it’s as eloquent as the Qur’an? ”I would suppose he fails until he really tries to. But if he really brought something, then we would compare and see if his claim was right or not. Nothing is provided yet. Pro wrote:“And to date, no human being has been able to come close to [Shakespeare’s] writing style/ fame. ”Any evidence though? Many experts who have knowledge of both Shakespeare and Rumi admit that even the translations (where most of the time the originality, taste, eloquence, rhythm, etc. are lost) of Rumi’s works into English are, at least, easily comparable with that of Shakespeare. [4] There are many others in Persian literature that can easily be compared with Shakespeare such as Hafiz, Sa’di, Khayyam, etc. (the reason for me to give examples from Persian literature is because my mother tongue is Persian). [5][6] This is not to say that Shakespeare is not a great author in this field, but only to say that there are also others, at least, comparable with him.4) ASSUMPTION OF GOD'S EXISTENCEPro didn’t also write anything that we have first to prove God’s existence and His ownership of the universe. What he wrote to define God is: God - Allah i. e. , God in Islam (this part was discussed in comments section). Since God in Islam is the Owner of everything, including the universe, then it is automatically assumed. Otherwise this debate would turn into debate of existence of God.5) DARK MATTERQuran doesn’t give a name. What I showed were that 1 - all celestial bodies (including Earth and sun) move, 2 - each in an orbit, and 3 – within another matter i. e. , not in vacuum. “Swim” gives the meaning that “they move inside some other matter, not in vacuum”. I said that “motion within another matter” is a direct sign to existence of what we call as dark matter. Pro asks why dark matter? It can mean anything else, how can one conclude that it is about dark matter? I totally agree, it can mean water, oil, etc. But the point of my argument is that “it cannot mean in vacuum (i. e. , space unoccupied by matter)”. Note that what science discovered was that the space is not as free of matter as we thought before, there must exist another matter that approximately makes up 85% of the matter of known universe. That is all about scientific discovery; the rest is just naming that yet Unknown Matter as Dark Matter.6) OVERTAKE THE MOONWe can understand that the verse is mainly talking about everyday conditions of sun and moon not only in 21st century, but for billions of years and will continue this way until the end of the world. One reason for this is that the tense used is Present Simple Tense (It is not permitted for the sun…). Even if it was about final fate of the moon, there is nothing that can disprove it. I explained it in details in my arguments in R3. Pro admitted that nothing different than now would happen when the sun becomes a black hole. Yet he argues that “when the sun expands to a Red Giant, it will consume the earth. ” Interestingly, the link he provided for this claim writes: “Although it’s science fiction, the authors suggest that future technologies could be used to speed up the Earth’s spiraling outward from the Sun. ”[7]7) EXPANSIONI wrote: “Fifth, note that both vast and expand are compatible with the universe, since the universe is both vast and expanding. (You weren’t expecting this, were you? )”After “reading” the above Pro wrote: “Again, Con is stating that the translations I used (for the word vastness) are wrong because they disprove their case. ”Case Closed!7) POSITIONS OF THE STARSPro wrote: “My challenge still stands… Just using that one verse, show me how one can conclude the existence of black holes. ”Pro’s challenge is irrelevant to my argument because my argument was not about the existence of black holes. Note that my argument applies EVEN IF BLACK HOLES DIDN’T EXIST (by just considering what I discussed in i. and ii. ). Pro is misinterpreting my argument.8) FINGERPRINTSPro objects about "comprehensiveness of words of Quran". I re-explained it under Note 4 above (R4).9) RULE BREAKING (rebuttal to Pro’s arguments in R3)I couldn’t include it in R3 due to exceeding the character limit. I am giving it here. Let XY be what Pro claimed to be a very common line of argumentation for establishing CAas follows:XY: “X and Y are true, and no one knew it was true before our religious text, thus our religious text is true! ”I don’t argue that Pro chose his 2nd argument in R2 intentionallyas a rebuttal to my arguments in R1. I only tried to show that his 2nd argument is a rebuttal to my opening arguments, intentionally or not. Pro wrote:1. “The only reason I had included the argument … is because it’s a very common line of argumentation that I encounter in these types of debate. ”Note that his second argument is not an evidence for PA, it is rather a rebuttal to “a very common line of argumentation” for CA. He adds:2. “In fact, … I didn’t even read Con’s opening statement when I started. ”But he had to, before providing a rebuttal to a very common argumentation, to make sure that I, also, have not used that, in order not to break the rules he himself established in R1. I used the word almost to note a difference between them and took it under parentheses to show the insignificance of that difference, concluding that they were equivalent:Difference: Pro didn’t mention the name of my arguments in XY, instead he used X and Y which are generalizations to any such argument. Equivalence: Only replacing any two of my arguments in R1 with X and Y is sufficient to make XYexactequivalent of my arguments. Therefore, the above difference is insignificant. Furthermore, is only replacing the names of my arguments with X and Y sufficient to make his 2nd argument not a rebuttal to my arguments? CONCLUSIONI would like to thank Pro for instigating this interesting debate and wish him best of luck in his closing arguments. SOURCES:[1] Quranic verses: . http://goo.gl... [2] . http://goo.gl... [3] . https://goo.gl... [4] . https://goo.gl... [5] . https://goo.gl... [6] . https://goo.gl... [7] . http://goo.gl...