It is probable that the Qur'an is from God

This will have to be a quicky as my internet was down yesterday. Please forgive me for the delay. Throughout this debate, my opponent used two main lines of evidence: 1) Scientific foreknledge; 2) Historical forekowledge. The third "evidence" he provided is the style of the Qur'an. I'll get to that in a little.1) THE QUR'AN AND THE SEAMy opponent argues that the "barrier in the sea" was foretold in the Qur'an. First and foremost, all holy texts boast scientific foreknowledge [1] and therefore, based upon my opponent's logic, I should accept all sacred texts. So, let's review the verse that my opponent gave and we need to have several criterian for the argument to hold any water (pun intended). 1. It must not be vague 2. It must not have been previously known or guessed3. It must be a scientific fact that is well established. [2] It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed. [25.53]2) Haman in the Qur'an. Due to time restraints, I will deal with that in the following round.3) The Style of the Qur'an cannot be reroducedThe first and foremost problem that I see is that this is extremely subjective. How do we match the style of the Qur'an when it is subjective? Secondly, the Qur'an is not perfect in style as Nöldeke, Theodornotes on this challenge:"[W]hile many parts of the Qur'an undoubtedly have considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance. . .. let us look at some of the more extended narratives. It has already been noticed how vehement and abrupt they are where they ought to be characterized by epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who learned them first, because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast, in these respects, "the most beautiful tale," the history of Joseph (xii. ), and its glaring improprieties, with the story in Genesis, so admirably executed in spite of some slight discrepancies. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Qur'an. The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anancloutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a "when" or "on the day when," which seem to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a "think of this" or some ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases; in xviii. , for example, "till that" (hatta idha) occurs no fewer than eight times. Muhammad, in short, is not in any sense a master of style. "[3] The third problem that I see is that there are many books that cannot be reproduced. Let's take, for example, the Codex Gigas, also knowns the Devil's Bible. 1. It is the largest midevil manscript ever found. [4] 2. It is estimated that reproducing only the calligraphy, without any of the illustrations will take 5 years with non-stop writing. [ibid][5]3. It cannot be printed. [6] So, based upon my opponent's logic, why shouldn't I accept the legend of the Devil's Bible? The final nail in the coffin is the fact that the Qur'an is FAR from perfect. Ibn Warraq notes:"In verse 9 of sura (sic) 49, "If two parties of believers have started to fight each other, make peace between them," the verb meaning "have started tofight" is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in the in the dal like its subject "two parties". (In Arabic, as in other languages, verbs can be conjugated not only in the singular and plural, but also in the dual, when the subject is numbered at two. "[7] I am out of time. Apologies to Pro. [1] See, for example, the so called "miracles" of the Bible in science. From the CMI. . http://www.creationists.org... [2] The Big Bang Theory, for example, is not well established. [3] Nöldeke, Theodor. "The Qur'an," Sketches from Eastern History. Trans. J. S. Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1892. Quoted . http://ho-logos.blogspot.com.... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... The Codex Gigas means "Giant Book. " [5] Legend has it that a monk did it in one night in order to save his life; though it cost him his soul to the devil. [6] . http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com... [7] Warraq, Ibn. Why I am Not a Musim. page 111