Quran is the Word of Allah(God)

Pro's argument may be summarized as follows: The Koran was written in such a way that it makes the idea of supernatural revelation more likely than not.(I) Rational Deduction1. Pro argues the Koran could not have come from Arab people as at the time of it's supposed immaculate revelation the Arab people consisted of many excellent writers and poets who all admitted that the Koran could not have come from a human. The problem with this argument is that it makes an unwarranted jump in logic (as do most of Pro's arguments). The following syllogism represents Pro's argument.P: The literary geniuses of the Arab world could not challenge the Koran's literary excellence.C: Therefore the Koran must have been divinely inspired.The problem with this explanation is that it fails to take into account any other possibilities and fallaciously invokes God of the gaps. For instance, there are numerous other possibilities that may have taken place. The Koran's author may have been a prodigious writer. After all we don't attribute Mozart's masterpieces or Aristotle's genius to God just because they are unparalleled. Furthermore invoking supernatural explanation is simply a God of the gaps argument wherein one invokes God or some other supernatural entity to explain something where one has ignorance as to its ultimate cause. There's nothing inherent in this point that means a God divining the book is the only rational or logical explanation.2a. Pro argues from a similar point to (1) wherein Muhammed was an Arab and the Arabs as he pointed out failed to challenge the Koran. Apply my reasoning in point (1) then to this point. Just because we don't currently understand something doesn't mean God is necessitated as an explanation. Pro is only using lack of evidence for anything else, not positive evidence suggesting divine inspiration. Furthermore my point regarding possible literary genius on the part of Muhammed bypasses this problem.2b. The next point argues that Arab linguists at the time never thought he was the author. This point fails in that it assumes infallibility on the part of these linguists in question. It's certainly a logical possibility that they could have been wrong in their conclusions and Pro fails to insert reasoning why they weren't. Because of this, this point is merely an argument from authority.2c. This point argues that Muhammed went through various tragedies and tribulations in his life which the language of the Koran fails to suggest. Why should we conclude that, as Pro says, "It is almost a psychological and physiological impossibility to go through what the Prophet went through and yet none of the emotions are expressed in the literary character of the Qur"an." Pro has failed to offer a reason why compartmentalization was non-existent in Muhammed's time. Furthermore the refutation of his other points (that this is simply a Gap argument) applies here as well.2d. Pro argues here basically from the literary masterpiece of the Koran that it was divinely inspired. He argues more specifically that it has not undergone revision or deletion like other works. Of course again this point fails as it's simply a Gap argument again. It's certainly not a logical necessity that these conditions make divine inspiration the only possibility. Furthermore it fails the evidentialist maxim that we proportion our beliefs to the evidence available. But as stated before there is no evidence provided by Pro, merely lack of evidence as to other possible explanations.2e. The next point rests on the supposed impossibility of writing in more than one literary style. Since the Koran and the Hadith have different literary styles and were written by one author, the only possible explanation (in Pro's eyes at least) is divine inspiration. Of course like every single argument by Pro thus far this is merely a Gap argument so refer to my previous refutations for a full explanation. On top of that Pro has failed to provide warrant for his claim of "psychological and physiological impossibility" of different literary styles being expressed by one author.2f. I'm getting tired of writing out basically the same refutation but in different words. See my previous refutations. This is an argument from ignorance by which Pro takes the lack of any explanation as positive evidence for his position. Furthermore the lack of imitation also fails the evidentialist test of justification.2g. Pro's argument here rests on the supposed lack of formal teaching of Muhammed juxtaposed with his sudden recitation of the Koran. Not only does Pro fail to provide any reliable historical evidence which proves this, but the Gaps refutation of each of his previous points applies just as well here.2h. The possible existence of unselfish characters is not impossible or even highly improbable. We can observe people like Gandhi without assuming the truth of Hinduism, just well there's no reason why assuming that Muhammed was a virtuous person necessarily makes the divine inspiration of the Koran a necessary conclusion.2i. Apply the gap refutation as well as the evidentialist critique to this point, as well as the fact that one can be moved by their own words. For instance in the case that they are mistaken as to the origin of those words. There's no reason to think divine inspiration is more likely than this prophet simply being mistaken as to the origin of the words or that he was some sort of charlatan.===Conclusion===The majority of Pro's argument could be stated as follows: Some aspect of the writing of the Koran or the life of the prophet Muhammed makes an explanation for such instances hard to come by. Therefore God must have been the inspiration for the writing of the Koran. As stated before, Pro is taking the *lack* of explanation by other means as somehow *positive* evidence for his own conclusion. That's not the way rational deduction works though. Just because we don't know exactly how the universe originated doesn't mean there is any reason to assume it was a magical crocodile. Lack of evidence for something else is never positive evidence for a theory, unless they are the only two logical possibilities. And Pro has certainly failed to substantiate that that it the case. The resolution is negated.