Construction of Islam

A) Qur'an unchanged i) If a hundred scientists present a hundred scientific hypotheses, and we can disconfirm them all except one, and we can even confirm the truth of that hypothesis, then we have a plausible reason to view it as relatively special. I did not say that the Qur'an is special only because it is unchanged. It is special because among all religious books, it is the single one that is unchanged (at least one that is older than say, 50 years), and among all other books, it is the one that has been unchanged for the longest periods of time. Notice how this is perfectly fitting to the resolution: Construction of Islam. If the religion is perfectly contstructed - as I am making evident - the resolution is therefore affirmed. ii) Con dismisses my real point. The fact is that we have traces of one of the oldest Qur'ans in the world, [1] and we can easily prove that the Qur'an is as it is originally, i.e., not distorted. However, with other religious books, not only is it that you can distort them (it can be done easily), but we do not know of the originals. We do not know what the "original" sayings of Buddha are. There were disputes among the early Buddhists on this. We do not know of the original Vedas. It is not that the original and the distorted versions are standing side by side - but that the original is non-evident, and the distorted is very evident and prevailing. That, however, is the exact opposite when it comes to the Qur'an. We have the original to prove the distorted wrong. And, 100% of Muslims have the same Qur'an. Is this the case with scriptures of other religious groups? Not the least. B) No contradictions in the Koran 'As far as I can see, its pretty easy to write a book with no contradictions.' Religious books? In these four rounds, I have not seen my opponent name a single other religious book without contradictions. Islam is constructed perfectly, especially in relation to other religions. The resolution is yet again affirmed. C) The Qur'an is irreproducible because of its style i) It is not an appeal to authority. The fact that my opponent thinks I am referring to Muslim poets and not the poets belonging to tribes who fought Muslims is an error. His point holds no water. If I came to Charles Darwin when he lived, and claimed that the earth is 6,000 years old, would he believe? No. Why did the non-Muslim poets of highest level get amazed by the Qur'an? Because they could not challenge its style. http://www.adamdeen.com... "Don't give him a free pass on this." Actually, when I am being kind to accept a long debate even though the challenge came out of the blue, I think it is fairly acceptable of me not to use all the available characters if I have little time to write the most important arguments. It is not I who made a thread for you to hastily accept a debate challenge - you did that to me. 58:8 is again in English. Islam calls for studying, not skimming. First of all, have you read the history of the verse? No. You cannot just read it in English and say it doesn't make sense, especially when you don't know what the Qur'anis trying to say. Second, there is nothing wrong with the sentence since the idioms, metaphors, and so on, in the Qur'an are extremely hard to translate properly, and many a times it is impossible. The Qur'an says, "And God does not change the condition of a people until they change it themselves" If you want to be inspired, then be open to inspiration. ii) It is extraordinarily unique if you compare it to books of its own kind, and remember that its not only its content that is unique. iii) Why can I not prove that the Qur'an is perfect / beautiful in style? Do you teach people something because they know, or because they do not know? D) No one has produced a book that lasted as long as the Qur'an Sure, there are older books that are original, but they are not unchanged. As a matter of fact, even in the link Con presented, it seems to be pretty clear that the old tablets are not even compiled fully. Those parts that are found are original, sure. But the whole books are neither found, and probably neither existing. Something that is half its original size is not original. E) Mathematics Indeed, one sources showed a scatter plot. And, why does it matter? I linked numerous sources of extemely complicated mathematical structures in the Qur'an. In fact, Con misunderstands me horribly once more. I didn't say that sea plus land equated 100. I said that they are both mentioned in a sense that combining them, we get 100% (simple logic), and if we make a simply calculation between the amount of "sea" and "land," we get around 71% for sea and 28% for land - which is a scientific reference from mathematics. I am sure that the Muslims didn't calculate that 14 centuries ago. On "dropping some points," I say that I have 8K character space, not a million. I have to address the most important parts. I move on to clay. Con says that I have no source for clay consisting of several forms and components. I will gladly present sources if you wish: http://hubpages.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://kengeorgepottery.tripod.com... The Qur'an does not state what kind of clay humans were made of. In fact, it mentions it in the context of earthly material that is found within humans, and that is magnesium, iron, calcium, and so forth. This is a hundred percent consistent with science. Moreover, if we think about abiogenesis, science will make absolutely no objection to the fact that mixing certain earthly chemicals with water might contribute to creating life. The Qur'an says that all life on earth is made of water. Now, Con says that I cannot make counter-arguments due to les in R1. Why not? The rules are not to make new arguments. Rebuttals are welcome in the last round. I move on to a quick rebuttal on mountains being pegs. Again, my opponent dismisses the fact that a fact does not not constitute a general truth of something, i.e., mountains being pegs =/= every single mountain being peg-like. http://www.quranandscience.com... There is scientific truth in this, and my opponent has presented zero evidence against it. One type of mountain =/= all types of mountains. As for prophecies, Con has made no references to other prophecies that have come true. If he thinks that all the other religions and so-called astrology figures have gotten half of their prophecies correct, then why does he not bring his evidence? Also, notice how I not only say that the prophecies of other religions have not come true, but I make a specific claim that they cannot come true because they predicted a historical event that did not happen. I can get into many details, but new arguments are not welcome. Conclusion The resolution is affirmed. It speaks of the construction of Islam. Con has come with no evidence that makes the construction of Islam seem weak. On the other hand, I have proven that it is perfectly contrsucted. Thanks to Con for a nice debate. References [1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org...