Islamic Scripture is from God

1a. Horses I ask my dear opponent whether the verse said 'horses' or 'wild horses'. It clearly said 'horses'Are wild horses somehow not horses? If I make the statement “All humans speak a language” and if you point to some wild humans in jungles that don’t speak any type of language, would a valid response be “I said all humans not all wild humans”?even if it said 'wild horses' it would not be illogic. A wild horse can become a domesticated horseThe domestication took years for a rideable horse [1]. You can’t just raise a wild horse and expect it to be rideable.and the Koran does not say in this verse that he did everything that is neccesary to ride the horse and that we have no more work with it... not that we did not have to work for itLet’s say a computer is purchased and the store owner says it’s created for the purpose of running. If it’s taken home and we find out it needs several parts to run, how can it be said the purpose was to be ran if the parts were never there? Would a valid response by the store owner be “Well I didn’t say it has every necessary piece to run.”? Saying it was created to run presumes no work is needed. Just like the store owner, the Qur’an doesn’t say horses were created to be put together.This analogy is being generous too. It’s more like hackers taking a cell phone, figuring out how to convert voice to data, then the cell phone company claiming it created the cell phone for that purpose. When the company is confronted, would a valid response be “Well, we didn’t say no work needed to be done”? Can the company really state it created it for that purpose?Furthermore, if a foal is kept in captivity and domestication from the very beginning of his life, he does not become wild in the least. It gets used to its living situation and bows itself to it. Is this horse then not a creation?It can’t be said God created it in a domestic manor. The domestic creature would’ve been thanks to man.I hope my opponent will leave this horse topic now, for no more arguing is possible for a healthy mind after reading this clear answer...Ad hominem.2a. Layers of the EarthThen, my honourable rival, I did not intend to insult you at all...But I just suprised myself over the fact that you could not see the difference between two very clear opposites: heavens and earth...I’ve seen “heavens” refer to three things. 1. Sky2. Space3. Afterlife“Heavens” doesn’t just have one meaning. If Pro clicked on the source from M.O.Q he would see this“The word "heavens," which appears in many verses in the Qur'an, is used to refer to the sky above the Earth, as well as the entire universe. Given this meaning of the word, it is seen that the Earth's sky, or the atmosphere, is made up of seven layers.” [2]Why should we accept your interpretation instead of the one at miraclesofthequran.com?And as you said, it is most of theories that say that. And it remains a theory, that can always change after science advances.Based on the evidence, it’s likely if a multiverse exists, it’s infinite [3]. We can postulate it may change to fit the Qur’an, but we can also postulate the heliocentric model will be replaced. We must go by the evidence.If we can follow the multiverse theory that says there is not an infinite but a great and almost incountable number of universes outside our own, this universe is our closest heaven.Then what relevance does the number 7 have? Even if the number of universes was only uncountable it still doesn’t help you.3a. Perfect Creation?Moreover, I believe my opponent has missed a piece of my previous argument. I said that something is 'imperfect' when something occures that is not meant to happen with it. If God deliberatly forms a man thus with only one arm or leg, blind, deaf, or some other 'faults', these are not really faults, because God intended so. He wanted the man to have just one arm or leg, to be blind or deaf, etc.I did address it as it was based off equivocation. If faults are different to God and God uses his idea of what a fault is to communicate, how can it be said we know what God is talking about at all? As if words mean different things to God and he uses these definitions to talk to humans, it can’t be said we have any idea what Allah is trying to say at all. You’re saying God is the ultimate standard of perfection and whatever he creates is perfect. However this makes the word “perfect” arbitrary according to God’s will however language needs to be constant. I will also note that an all loving deity wouldn’t create a man with faults. You previously said it could be a test, however an all knowing God wouldn’t need to test anything. He would already know the answer. It’s like flipping a double headed coin to see if it what the outcome will be. If flipping that coin will cause anyone harm then an all loving God wouldn’t flip it.And Allah does not think, Allah knows. If He intends to make something happen, it happens perfectly according to his plan. It is not the form that is perfect (which would point to the adjective my rival rejected) It would refer to “perfect” as in being created “perfect”. Furthermore as I’ve shown the Qur’an refers to the structure of man as the “best form”. but the plan according to which God made the human beings. (which is more like a verb, do you not think?)It’s not that there was no verb, but your definition was an adjective to defend a verb.4a. Black CuminTHE HADITHS ARE NOT FROM GOD BUT FROM THE PROPHET MOHAMMED.I have been told by other Muslims it was. I apologize if I was misinformed, but you did accept to this debate titled “Islamic Scripture is from God” and in the first round I defined it as “The Qur’an+ Hadith.” Rather you believe this or not, you accepted it, which means you conceded against the resolution you were arguing for. If the resolution needs to be modified it was your job to let me know before you accepted anything.1b. Allah’s SonMy opponent has now flew over the topic of this thing with God's son. I gave clear arguments. If my opponent's brain cannot process clear arguments, that is no matter. As long as you, voters, are clever enough, there is no matter...I demur. It is Pro who evaded this one and committed the ad hominem fallacy. I simply asked Pro to cite the context and I pointed out flaws that it was a response to Christians. There was no reason whatsoever for Pro to insult and not answer my objections.Qur’an ChallengeI underlined the most important sentence of my argument and still, my rival uses my opinion to manipulate the minds of the voters.My opponent yet proved he can read. Read this then: And any true Arabic poet, Muslim or non-Muslim cannot deny none of this work is better than that of the Koran.Pro has given no citation for this. Furthermore if it was true it would still be subjective and wouldn’t prove anything. If every single ice cream man agreed there was no better ice cream than strawberry and some claimed it’s evidence of divine inspiration , that doesn’t prove strawberry ice cream is divine.It’s like a rapper saying since no one can “flow” like him therefore he’s the world’s greatest rapper.Conclusion*I’m disappointed that Pro results to insults in the debate. This not only is fallacious, but also violates the first rule in the debate. Here’s some examples “no more arguing is possible for a healthy mind after reading...”“If my opponent's brain cannot Process clear arguments, that is no matter. As long as you, voters, are clever enough...”Pro is suggesting I’m too stupid to understand the argument. I would like to remind Pro he is representing the Islamic religion and shouldn’t act in this way.*Pro uses fallacies such as the moving goalpost, ad hominem and equivocation.*Pro makes several spelling mistakes.*Pro evaded 1b and conceded against the resolution.*Pro doesn’t do too well in backing up his argument.I hope everyone enjoyed reading this debate as I did participating in it.Sources in comments.