It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God

INTRODUCTION Note that I will use PA and CA as defined below: PA (Pro’s Argument): “It cannot be shown that the Qur’an is a revelation from God. ” CA (Con’s Argument): “It can be shown that the Qur’an is a revelation from God. ” SHORT REBUTTALS In his 1st argument Pro tries to show that there is a low possibility (i. e. , not impossibility) for the Quran to be the only revelation from God (which is not what he must establish). Hence, it is clear that this argument doesn’t prove PA (will be described in more details under DETAILED REBUTTALS). In 2nd argument Pro brings evidence (namely 2-Finding True Statements in the Qur’an) for Qur’an being revelation from God and then tries to refute them. His 2nd argument is only a rebuttal to an argument that supports CA, not direct refutation of CA itself or direct proof of PA. I will show that it neither refutes CA nor does it prove PA (will be described in more details under DETAILED REBUTTALS). VERY IMPORTANT I will show how Pro violates the rules he established in R1 by showing that his 2nd argument (i. e. , 2 – Finding True Statements in the Qur’an) is not an argument which establishes PA, but it is a direct REBUTTAL to my arguments in R1. Here is what Pro tries to refute in his 2nd argument: “X and Y are true, and no one knew it was true before our religious text, thus our religious text is true! ” Pro doesn’t bring a direct argument here to establish PA. He rather tries to refute the above argument, which is (almost) the equivalent of my arguments in R1 which I have concluded as follows: “I showed that the Qur'an gives specific information about the universe that nobody other than its Owner, Allah, could know at its time of revelation. Therefore, … the Qur'an is for sure revelation from Allah. ” Pro says that the above argument is used by many apologists (where my argument makes me one of them) and informs that he will refute it. This clearly makes his 2nd argument a REBUTTAL to my arguments in R1 which is an obvious violation of conditions he established in R1. Therefore, Con automatically wins this debate (as per conditions set)! SHORT CONCLUSION Announcement to voters: Pro has lost the debate due to his violation of rules set by himself in R1! Now it is up to you whether you just vote according to this violation or also consider our arguments in succeeding rounds. Both is OK for me. Detailed explanation of how Pro’s 2nd argument is a REBUTTAL to my arguments in R1 is given under DETAILED REBUTTALS. => BUT, this topic is very exciting and we can continue if Pro wishes. I assume that Pro wants to continue. Let me now bring my detailed rebuttals to Pro’s arguments. DETAILED REBUTTALS 1. ) Existence of Many Religious Texts IMPORTANT! Please note that Pro must prove PA = It cannot be shown that the Quran is a revelation from God. ->Pro argues that since many books, which are claimed to be divine, contradict each other on many issues then they cannot all be revelations at the same time. I agree! ->Pro’s argument is shortly as follows: “Isn’t the possibility very low” that “out of all the religious books in existence, The Qur’an is the only one revealed by god? ” => First, it is a MUST for Muslims to also believe in the Books (revelations from God) revealed to some other prophets before prophet Muhammad such as to Moses, David, and Jesus (peace be upon them all). The Quran itself mentions and commands Muslims to believe in revelations to other prophets. Therefore, Pro's argument is pointless. => Second, what we don’t accept is that, for example, the Bible is the pure and unchanged revelation to true prophets of God such as Moses, David, and Jesus Christ (peace be upon them all). Its discussion can be made, but it is out of our debate topic. => Third, low possibility doesn’t mean impossibility. Therefore, it doesn’t prove PA. => Fourth, this argument is not about even if Quran is a revelation from God or not, but it is about low possibility (not impossibility) of Quran being the only revelation from God. Therefore, it doesn’t prove PA. Conclusion – 1 Pro’s 1st argument fails to establish PA to be true (or CA to be wrong). 2. ) Finding True Statements in the Qur’an Let me now show how Pro’s 2nd argument doesn’t prove PA (or doesn’t disprove CA). Consider the following imaginary debate: CA’: There is at least 1 person (human) in a room. PA’: There is nobody (human) in that room. A’: We are hearing a voice of a human coming from that room. B’: The voice we are hearing is a recorded voice and is being played in a computer in that room. C’: We found out that a person was seen while s/he came out and then re-entered the room and hasn’t come out yet. Note that A’ seems to prove CA’, B’ seems to refute A’, and C’ seems to prove CA’, without saying anything about B’ and independent of A’. Hence, if only C’ is true then, regardless of what B’ says, CA’ is true (thus PA’ is wrong). Then for the above example, we have the following results: 1. Even if B’ is true, it doesn’t necessarily prove PA’ or doesn’t necessarily refute CA’, but it ONLY refutes A’. 2. THEREFORE, B’ IS ONLYA REBUTTAL TO A’, NOT AN ARGUMENT/PROOF FOR PA’! Why am I writing these? You will see why, after you see that Pro did the same in his 2nd argument. CA: It can be shown that the Quran is revelation from God (Con must establish! ). PA: It cannot be shown that the Quran is revelation from God (Pro must establish! ). A: There are true statements in the Quran about things which nobody knew before it. B: True statements in a text, e. g. , Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which were not known before, don’t mean that it is revelation from God (Pro’s 2nd argument). Note that A, B, CA, and PA for Pro’s 2nd argument are similar to/presented in the same way as were A’, B’, CA’, and PA’ in my example of a person in a room, respectively. In other words, CA -> CA’, PA -> PA’, A -> A’, and B -> B’. Since they are similar to each other, as explained above, we have the same results of that examplefor Pro’s 2nd argument, as follows: 1. Even if B is true, it doesn’t necessarily prove PA (which Pro must establish) or disprove CA (which Con must establish). 2. THEREFORE, B IS ONLY A REBUTTAL TO A, NOT AN ARGUMENT/PROOF FOR PA. Conclusion - 2 The first result clearly shows how Pro’s 2nd argument doesn’t necessarily prove his claim PA. The second result, however, clearly shows how B (Pro’s 2nd argument) is a REBUTTAL to A (my arguments in R1). In other words, B of Pro is; (1) – not an argument for PA, (2) – a rebuttal to A, and (3) – A is (almost) exactly my Common Sense Argument – 1 in R1. This can be easily justified by putting my arguments (e. g. , “Universe is Expanding” and “Position of the Stars”) instead of X and Y in Pro’s 2nd argument to see if that is the conclusion of my arguments in R1. 3. ) The Eloquence of Arabic/ Not Being Able to Produce a Surah from the Qur’an First, only the eloquence/beauty of Arabic is not a sufficient evidence for Quran to be revelation from God. Otherwise, thousands of books written in Arabic would be also claimed to be so. Nobody claims such a thing and that doesn’t make sense. Therefore, Pro’s argument is pointless. Second, there is a challenge in the Quran which is not about the eloquence of Arabic, but about the eloquence of the Quran itself (being in Arabic is only one “dimension” of that eloquence). It would be nonsensical to challenge Arabs to write something in Arabic, wouldn’t it? First of all, this is just a claim, not a proof. Pro has first to prove that such a program can be made! Further I would like to ask the followings regarding his claim: As it is clear, Pro is not establishing PA, rather he is making claims which also need to be proven. Conclusion - 3 Pro tries to refute an irrelevant argument which he claims that many apologists use for Quran. Further he makes a hypothetical that can generate phrases with increasing complexity. It would be exciting if Pro gave more information about how it could be. It is also not defined what he means by complexity and what relation that has with Quran and its Surahs. Shortly, his 3rd argument doesn’t prove PA. REBUTTAL TO REBUTTAL OF PRO I showed that Pro’s 2nd argument wasn’t an argument for PA, rather it was a rebuttal to my arguments. Does that really refute my arguments? No, it doesn’t. Remember the key points in wallet example I gave and try to understand why that test determines the owner of the wallet without any doubt. Pro makes a comparison between arguments like that of mine and scientific discoveries. But my argument is not quite similar. Simply, I showed things in the Quran that nobody knew before, at the time of (including himself), and (for about 1200-1300 years) after prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and nobody COULD POSSIBLY KNOW. This is one of the key points to be considered in my arguments. This makes my arguments quite different than the discoveries Pro is talking about. He says that if a part of a text is correct, it doesn’t mean that the whole is also correct. I agree, but note that it doesn’t also mean that there are incorrect parts in that text. CONCLUSION I showed that Pro has violated the rules. In addition I showed how his 1st and 2nd arguments don’t establish that “It cannot be shown that the Quran is revelation from God”. Further I refuted his argument 3 and provided a rebuttal to his 2nd rebuttal/argument. In the next round I will provide more evidences that Quran cannot be from anyone else but Allah. I will also provide rebuttals to Pro’s arguments if he brings any. .