Islam is the true religion

1. Rebuttals to Pro's Arguments- Evidence 1: The Quran Pro contends that the Quran is evidence for God. He uses the claims in the Quran as proof of the Quran's legitimacy as evidence. This is circular logic. The Quran cannot be said to be evidence for God any more than Harry Potter is evidence of Dumbledore. - Evidence 2: Muhammad's IlliteracyPro contends that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate and therefore the only possible way for the Quran to have come from him is via divine intervention. This claim of Muhammad's illiteracy must be sourced (by something other than the Quran) first and foremost, but more importantly it is not outside the realm of man's ability to form a collaborative effort to write a book. Muhammad could have sought help in writing the Quran. No divine intervention is needed.- Argument 1: The Quran's Uniqueness Pro contends that nothing on Earth is similar to the Quran and therefore all other Holy books fail to meet Allah's challenge to do so. This may or may not be true depending on how "alike" something must be in order to meet this criteria of similarity, but ultimately this is a non-sequitur. The uniqueness of the Quran does not validate the existence of God. Many fiction books are unique in some form or another, but they are still fiction nonetheless. - Argument 2: iPhone 3G =/= iPhone 5Pro points out that smashing an iPhone 3G does not cause it to transform into an iPhone 5. Pro contends that this shows the formation of planets due to the big bang is unlikely. This is dangerously close to a straw-man as I have not made the argument for the Big Bang theory in this debate, however since I am a proponent of said theory I will let this slide. The fact of the matter is, the smashing of an iPhone does not parallel the formation of planets. First off, the Big Bang theory is not a theory of planet formation. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe" [1]. Now, to address the schwerpunkt of Pro's argument here, planet formation is not as complicated or precise as the formation of an iPhone. According to the Nebular hypothesis, the leading theory in planetary development, planets form as the result of gravity around a star. A star's incredible gravity pulls in "giant molecular clouds" (GMC) which in turn pull eachother together to form progressively larger and larger clumps; eventually reaching planetary size [2]. This is a very simplified explanation of this process, but even so it is clear that the formation of planets does not require much precision, at least not nearly as much as it takes to create an iPhone and therefore the natural formation of planets is logical and expected, while the spontaneous formation of an iPhone 5 from the scattered remains of an iPhone 3G is not logical or expected.Side Note:My opponent claims that planets are perfectly round. This is matter-of-factly false. Earth is an oblate spheroid. [3]- Argument 3: Monkey's Don't Beget HumansPro attempts to discredit evolution by pointing out that there is not a single occasion where a monkey has become a human. This argument is also a straw-man to the same extent the last argument was, but once again I will continue anyway. Evolution does not propose such rapid changes. Evolution describes the progressive changes a particular organism goes through to better suit its environment [4]. A monkey turning into a human is not what an evolutionist would expect. To the contrary, such a phenomenon would be evidence against evolution. There doesn't seem to be any more coherent arguments laid out by Pro here (even given the standards set by his arguments thus far) So I will move on to the defence of my arguments.2. Defence of My ArgumentsNo counter-argument has been made to my argument yet. I extend my argument.ConclusionCon did not defend his arguments in round 1 and instead has opted to only make new arguments. This suggests that he has surrendered those point, however he did take the effort to source those arguments (sort of), so perhaps he plans on defending them in the next round. We'll just have to wait and see. I will ask Pro to source his material in such a way that it can be immediately verified if possible and to not use the book he's arguing for as evidence of its own legitimacy. For now, Pro's arguments have been refuted and my argument on the impossibility of near-arctic Ramadan stands undressed. I look forward to your response. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...