There are proofs supporting the belief that the Quran is from Allah

= = = = => Defense <= = = = = 1. Historical Accuracies in the Quran My opponent does not respond to any of my contentions. He said he will refute it in R4 but R3 was the main round for rebuttals and my chance to respond to them. I cannot respond to rebuttals made in R4 in R4. Anyways, what my opponent presents is not a rebuttal of my contention but another argument against the Quran. I will defend against the allegation on the Quran but my opponent has to actually address my contentions not dodge them and present other arguments. My opponent says that Jews never called Uzayr the son of God. If we take a look at the encyclopædia of Judaica, an authentic source of information on Judaism we see that Ezra was called the son of God. It says: “...the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.' According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah.”[1] In the History of the Jews in Arabia, the Jews living in Hijaz were involved in rituals and religious activities regarding Uzayr (Ezra) [2]. My opponent made a bold assertion that no one ever thought Uzayr (Ezra) was the son of God. This is not supported by the evidence as was shown. 2. Scientific Accuracies in the Quran Oceanography My opponent only partially addresses the argument. I said that the Quran is mentioning internal waves but my opponent only attacked the darkness in the depths of the ocean. Let me show the verse once again: ==Surah An Nur Chapter 24 Verse 40== “Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!” If one reads carefully knowing that billow is another word for wave, the Quran is clearly mentioning internal waves in the ocean which is proven by science. My opponent ignored this. Regarding the darkness in the depths of the ocean, my opponent is trying to downgrade the argument by showing works which are much lesser in degree in all honesty than the verse in the Quran. This verse mentions darkness in levels in the ocean (depths of darkness one above the other) , and internal waves. The Greek works are much lower in degree and in context cannot be taken seriously. The section in Argonautica in context says: “So he spake; and Triton stretched out his hand and showed afar the sea and the lake's deep mouth, and then addressed them: "That is the outlet to the sea, where the deep water lies unmoved and dark; on each side roll white breakers with shining crests; and the way between for your passage out is narrow.” [3] This is talking about a large white mouth (beaker) which will lead them to the bottom of the sea. This source cannot be taken seriosuly whereas the verse in the Quran can be taken as a literal explanation of the nature of the deep sea. His second source says the person plunged into the dark sea which is the surface of the sea. This is not an accurate source of the levels of light in the ocean/sea, as it illuminated on the surface under regular conditions. My opponent then says pearl divers can dive 100ft (30.5m). This is in the euphotic zone of the ocean and is illuminated. I would like to remind the audience that the darkness wasn't the only part I talked about but internal waves which was much more important. Water Cycle My opponent has attacked a complete strawman of my argument. My argument here was that the Quran mentions the origins of Groundwater (part of water cycle) which was absolutely not known or even conceived by the Greek philosophers or any of the intelligency of the time. I provided a source proving this. My opponent tries to dodge this as evident by his statement: “Finally, the Qur’an tells us that it leads through springs in the earth and causes various colours; basically saying in a rethoric divice that rain makes the flowers grow—no miracle there.” Does my opponent talk about how the verse said that rain is lead to springs (groundwater) in the earth? He ignores the crucial part about rain going to springs (origins of groundwater) but simply says that the rain makes flowers grow. A complete strawman. Also, I never claimed the entire water cycle was in the verse but arguing a crucial part of it was (origins of groundwater). 3. High Quality Literature My opponent completely brushes off my whole contention and labels it as subjective. There are good reasons why we read very old plays such as Shakespeare in high school until today. I didn't simply say “The Quran is an amazing work of literature”, I gave examples on verses where specific words are used in given contexts and match perfectly with them. I gave reasons, justifications, and sources for why the Quran can be said to be of high quality literature. My opponent must address this, he cannot simply ignore and brush it off. They were sound and valid arguments. Once again, my opponent doesn't actually address my arguments but brings forth another argument. He says the Quran in one verse is a run on sentence but doesn't expand or explain. My opponent simply presents a verse and doesn't explain anything. = = = = => Conclusions <= = = = = I would like to bring in all the threads of this debate and draw conclusions from it. At the beginning of this debate, I presented a system by which to come to conclusions based on various truths in the Quran presented: 1. Luck/ Chance/ Coincidence 2. Author was very intelligent and figured it out(research, tests etc), a genius 3. Already existing information, nothing new 4. Common sense/observable (anyone can figure this out) 5. A source beyond all the capabilities of man at the time was involved (Allah in this case). A summary of the contentions for the Quran presented and explained in this debate: Historical Accuracies 1. Quranic distinction between Pharaoh and King of Egypt (Chronological accuracy) 2. Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship 3. Lost City of Iram Scientific Accuracies 1. levels of darkness in ocean, internal waves 2. origin of groundwater (rain) 3. sexes of plants 4. every living organism made up of water Literary Quality 1. Precise use of the word Bakka in context 2. Prophet Yunus (Jonah) run away (like a slave from captivity) These are the seven arguments I have argued and defended in this debate. 7/9 of them were not even addressed. One of them was only addressed partially (oceanography) and the other one wasn't attacked but a strawman of it was (watercycle). As for my opponent arguments, I have addressed every single one of them. None of these facts in the Quran could have been known during the time of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), weren't existing, wasn't commonsense, Muhammad (pabbuh) was illiterate and didn't undergo strenous education, and all of this could not have been simply luck or a coincidence. It seems plausible to assume #6, a source beyond all the capabilities of man at the time of Muhammad (pabbuh) was involved, Allah. I would like to remind the audience that the resolution is: “There are proofs supporting the belief that the Quran is from Allah” My opponent has not even addressed almost all my arguments so at least for this debate, I urge a Pro vote. At least in this debate, there are proofs suppporting the belief that the Quran is from Allah. There are reasons to believe this from Allah (God). The main reason is because my opponent has not even addressed most of my arguments while I have addressed all of his.Sources http://www.debate.org...