It is probable that the Qur'an is from God

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited. I understand why and it's fine. Because it would be impossible for me in my last round to defend my arguments and refute what Con will say in his last round, I will now defend my arguments as I said.Defending my argument 1: The Quran on the seasCon's first objection to my argument is saying that all holy texts boast scientific foreknowledge. This claim is just beyond exaggerated. Clearly not all holy texts have scientific foreknowledges. If this absurd claim is to stand, Con have to show us that all holy texts has scientific foreknowledges in them. We can however argue that there are some holy texts which have scientific foreknowledges in them. And indeed, that's probably true. However, even if there are some holy texts which have scientific foreknowledges in them, that would not prove anything against the Quran or its divine claim, because the Quran makes it very clear that God has sent many more books besides the Quran to mankind (just four are mentioned).These books which was sent to mankind by God before the Quran, according to the Quran, were all corrupted over time since they was meant only for a particular people at a particular time. Indeed, it is possible that there are some other holy texts which have scientific foreknowledges in them which must have been from God. Muslims however will just say that this information was really from God, and because Muslims believes that God has sent many other holy texts to many other different people (like the Bible and the Torah), we have no problem accepting that some holy texts may have scientific foreknowledges in them. Although Muslims believe that the other holy texts have been corrupted over time, we also believe that the holy texts may also still contain some of God's words, because God has sent many other holy texts besides the Quran to mankind.Moving on to Con's second and last objection. Con gave 3 criterias for my argument to hold any water (i.e It must not be vague, it must not have been previously known or guessed, and it must be a scientific fact that is well established). However, Con provides absolutely no evidences that my argument doesn't fulfill any of these criterion's. Thus, this objection is nothing more than a failure.Summary of these two objectionsThese two objections are the objections which Con made against this argument. As we can see, they are both flawed and are not successful in refuting my argument. In fact, they are not even really and directly rebutting it. Con's first objection is that all holy texts has scientific foreknowledges in it. Con has given zero evidences to back up this absurd claim. Con's second and last objection to this argument is 3 criterias which Con gave to my argument. Con didn't give any evidences that these criterias wasn't fulfilled by my argument or that these criterias refuted my argument. It is very clear that Con's two objections to this argument are nothing more than failures and are totally unsuccessful in refuting my argument. Indeed, my argument on the Quran and the seas stands very strong. Defending my argument 2: The word 'Haman' in the QuranCon couldn't respond to this argument because he didn't have time. I extend this argument to the next round.Defending my argument 3: The challenge of the QuranCon starts by saying that the challenge of the Quran is subjective. Con doesn't tell us why and nor does he give us any evidences for this claim. Moreover, had it been subjective then the pagan Arabs would have used this charge against the Quran already, and that would have put that challenge to an end. However, they didn't. In fact, they had to resort to ad hominem as anyone who reads the arguments of the pagan Arabs against Prophet Muhammad can see. The language of the Quran surpasses any known Arabic poetry in regards to its eloquence, and to argue against the evidence by simply making excuses or dismissing it as a “subjective”, only shows us Con's deep ignorance regarding the subject of the matter.In Con's second objection to this argument, Con said that there are many books that cannot be reproduced. But in what way? It is probably true that there are many books that cannot be reproduced, like for example a book which contains a language which we cannot understand at this time.However, are there any book that cannot be reproduced in the way the Quran cannot be reproduced? That is, in an beautifully, eloquent, deeply and meaningfully way as the amazing Quran? Not at all, and I challenge Con to give me just one book that cannot be reproduced as language, poetry and literature is concerned. Hamza tzortzis says:'What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it is impossible for a human being to compose something like it, as it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language.Therefore, this leaves only one conclusion; a Divine explanation is the only coherent explanation for this impossible Arabic literary form – the Qur’an. Hence, it logically follows that if the Qur’an is a literary event that lies outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language, i.e. an impossibility, then by definition, it is a miracle.' [1]The Quran, as Hamza tzortzis correctly states, is indeed a miracle. And to to compose something like the Quran is in fact impossible. I urge Con to go to this site if he wants to learn more about the amazing inimitability of the Quran and why it is impossible to successfully take the challenge of the Quran. [Ibid]The Devil's bookCon asked why we shouldn't accept the legend of the Devil's Bible? But in what way should we accept it? We can surely accept it in some ways, like for example that it is a interesting and a very big book. However, can we accept it as a book from God? Absolutely not. The devil's book is not even close to the amazing Quran. Moreover, zero evidences has been given by Pro to show us why the devils book is from God. The three points Con made on it does not in any way prove that it is from God (i.e It is the largest medieval manuscript ever found; it is estimated that reproducing only the calligraphy, without any of the illustrations will take 5 years with non-stop writing; and it cannot be printed). Moreover, the devils book itself doesn't claim to be from God, so it just absurd then to say that it is from God. It's like saying that A is from B, although A himself says that he is from C. Now, Con never claimed that the devil's book is from God. But if why did he then mention it? After all, my case is only that the Quran is from God. If Con wants to argue that the devil's book is from God, then he must provide evidences for that. If Con don't want to argue that the devil's book is from God, and it doesn't look like he does, then why mention it at all? Moreover, even if Con wants to argue that the devil's book is from God and even provide evidences for that claim, that would still not refute the Qumran's divine claim (see defending my argument 1: The Quran on the seas)In finishing, Con said that the Quran was far from perfect. To support this claim, Con then quoted ibn warraq. First of all, Ibn warraq is just a biased anti-Islamist. Moreover, I don't see how he proves that the Quran is far from perfect. He is only talking about words being in the plural etc. Please, Con, tell us how he shows us and proves to us that the Quran is far from perfect. More importantly, tell us what evidences he gives to support his claims.ConclusionWe can clearly see that all of Con's objections against two of my arguments are all failures. My second argument (i.e The word 'Haman' in the Quran) have for now gone completely un-responded.My arguments stands strong and so does still the conclusion: It is more probable than not that the Quran is from God.Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...[2] http://www.survivalistboards.com...