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

I would like to than Con for their arguments. Rebuttal Note 4 Here, I would like to focus on note 4, as part of the introduction in Con’s Round 3 argument. To quote from Con, “The verses of Quran are not limited to one meaning. [2] Hundreds of huge tafsirs (exegesis) on Quran and multiple different interpretations of a single verse in each of them clearly show how extended are the meanings of verses of Quran are. [3]”. Let me ask a RHETORICAL question; how convenient is it that there are many different interpretations of single verses in the Qur’an? You see, if I say that one verse is empirically wrong, all Con merely has to say is that I didn’t take the verse in its proper context, or the meaning I gave isn’t the “right” meaning. You see what this implies? That the verses in the Qur’an are ambiguous to begin with, as they don’t convey any proper meaning. If they did, Con wouldn’t have stated that there exist many meanings/ interpretations to a single verse. Preservation of Pharaoh’s Body “This was said to Pharaoh (Ramesses II) of the time of Moses (pbuh) when he drowned (Quran, 10:91). ” When he drowned? According to modern historic sources, Ramesses most probably died from old age or heart failure. . http://www.ancient.eu... . http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com... The very fact that Con claims Ramesses II was drowned goes against what many professionals believe as to Ramesses II dying due to old age and a lot of health conditions (the man had arteritis, among many things! ) Also, the Qur’an states that there were five plagues that occurred in Egypt (. http://www.islam-guide.com...), but, you see, there is no record of there being those plagues! All in all, I don’t even know how this argument helps Con’s case, as it goes against modern history and what we know about Egyptian civilization. Eloquence of Qur’an I have heard this argument hundreds of times before. “The Qur’an is SO eloquent that it must be from Allah! ” And what’s the basis of this claim? “No human could make anything so eloquent! ” Now, suppose I were to make something as eloquent. Would an Islamic apologist admit that it’s as eloquent as the Qur’an? Of course not! Also, eloquence is a very subjective thing. Here, let me give an example; I, Pro, don’t think that the Qur’an is eloquent at all. In fact, I think that it’s the worst written, ugliest book of all time. There we go. Eloquence is a matter of opinion, as it’s relative to the person making the claim of eloquence. So, due to the Islamic apologists having a grandiose sense of the Qur’an, they believe it to be the most eloquently written book ever. You know who else was very eloquent in their writing? William Shakespeare. And to date, no human being has been able to come close to his writing style/ fame. So, does that mean that Shakespeare is Allah? I don’t think so. Common Sense Argument- 1 No, I didn’t assume Allah existed. If I were assuming that, I would have clearly written that in the rules. I just said that when talking about god, I was talking about Allah. Nowhere in the rules did I state that we were assuming that Allah existed. Dark Matter First of all, translations matter. And I took my translations from Islamic Scholars who translated the Qur’an, as well as Islamic sites who have translations of the Qur’an on their site (please, check my citations: I tried to use sources that were Pro-Islamic, so that the translations I used wouldn’t have any anti- Islamic bias). You see, Con is merely trying to say that his translation is the only one that’s correct, and you can ignore all the other translations made by all the other Islamic Scholars. Plus, my argument still stands, as Con merely stated that “The sign here is about space being filled with some matter”, and if it turned out, again, that space was somehow filled with water, or Jell-O, or a lot of particles, the word swim would still apply. Again, nothing really special here. It’s just a case of apologists bending the meaning/ contexts of phrases/ words to make their text seem true. On a side note, the word swim would even apply when not talking about any matter- it could be used just to describe the motion of celestial bodies. And finally, ask yourself this: if we didn’t know all that we knew today, and all we had was that one Qur’an verse, could you come to the conclusion regarding the existence of dark matter? No, you could not. If you could, we would have learned about the existence of dark matter a long time ago. Overtake the Moon “First, the verse [36:40] is talking about everyday conditions of the sun and the moon, not necessarily including what will happen in far future. ” Again, I seem to be coming back to this point: Islamic apologists will change the meaning/ context of verses just to fit their agenda of it being true. The sun won’t overtake the moon, but the Qur’an isn’t talking about so far into the future, it’s just talking about the present (although the Qur’an never states that regarding this passage; also, won’t the Qur’an still apply millions of years from now, or is it just a 21st century thing? ) Secondly, all the verses fall along the line of “it’s not possible for the sun to overtake the moon”. Yes, it’s possible. I’ve shown that. When the sun expands to become a Red Giant, it’s possible for the sun to overtake the moon. The Qur’an states that it’s NOT possible (check my citations of the verse in my previous argument). Also, when if the sun becomes a black hole, it would exert the same amount of gravitational pull on the earth as it does now. . http://spaceplace.nasa.gov... But when the sun expands to a Red Giant, it will consume the earth. . http://www.universetoday.com... Expansion Again, Con is stating that the translations I used are wrong because they disprove their case. Also, I asked a rhetorical question, expecting it to be obvious given the context of my sentence. But I’ll state it here: I asked a rhetorical question, a tool many people use when writing. Secondly, I encourage you to check back on the sources I gave: vastness and expanding are two different words. For example, if I say “The universe is vast”, it’s different from saying “The universe is expanding”. And it seems that before Hubble’s discovery, the former was predominantly used, and after Hubble’s discovery, the latter was predominantly used. Now, Con states that there are particular translations of words and verses. But, isn’t it true that Con also stated that there are many meanings and interpretations to verses? So, why is it that we must accept Con’s translations as being the only, legitimate translations? Why not the translations of Islamic Scholars, Islamic websites, and other sources? Again, Con is merely just referring to his own “authority” in order to skew the facts. You see, that’s why I used multiple translations, instead of just using one, in all of my arguments. Position of the Stars My challenge still stands. Don’t use anything that was discovered after the Qur’an. Just using that one verse, show me how one can conclude the existence of black holes. In Con’s explanation, they used the definition of a black hole to come to that conclusion. Don’t use the definition of a black hole, or anything after the Qur’an, and then tell me how you were able to come to the conclusion of black holes. As such, my argument still stands. Fingerprints “First, both my and Pro’s arguments can be easily explained by comprehensiveness of words of Quran, without contradicting each other. ” There we have it. It proves my point. One can take verses from the Qur’an to mean entirely different things. This goes back to apologists changing the contexts of verses to make them appear true, when it reality, the verses say absolutely nothing. Also, regarding the word proportioning, the fingertips are really small. The verse could mean that it’s very hard to make something as small as the fingertips, and implies that complexity in the human body even goes down to the fingertips. Yet again, I arrive to a different conclusion than Con (and a valid conclusion by Con’s concession), which goes to show that the Qur’an reveals nothing.