Why logical arguments for Messengers don't work.

[Mudhammam]

The argument above can be paraphrased that for all we know it's perhaps true that a writing cannot be known to be God's miracle in that no other being human or otherwise, can create that literature and quality. Given that is true, then arguments for religion and it's reasoning, as to why God would send Messengers are negated by that, by the issue that there would no everlasting proof of these Prophets. Since that reason being taken account would negate all arguments for Messengers being sent independently of the issue, all arguments not addressing this issue would be irrelevant to the issue of revelation and Prophethood and religion.

The following argument seems true to me:

1. There are good reasons to assume God exists and he would send Messengers or appoint Guides if and only if he can prove their divine authority. (undisputed assumption by the anti-religion argument)

2. God could send continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age. (undisputed assumption).

3. God has not sent continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age (observation).

4. Since God could of sent that continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age but didn't, it's safe to assume there are is alternative way to prove his religion and guidance.

5. The only present and through out for quite some time claim to prove religion is true a book who's literary quality is claimed to be sufficient as proof for it, and that humans and Jinn cannot bring the like of it. The book would be the best in guidance and contain the best sayings.

6. It's safe to assume given there is no alternative proofs to religion right now, that God somehow proved his religion through the best book, in which no human can replicate or be the like of.

7. It's safe to assume humans can then recognize a book is revealed by God if God makes it of a certain quality beyond creation capabilities.

8. It's logical the book would emphasize on it's higher quality nature and challenge humanity to do their best to bring the like of it, confident that people would fail.

9. There is only one religion with such a book (ie. with claims it's highest quality, best in guidance, best sayings, and that humans cannot bring the like of it's chapters).

10. Therefore that religion (ie. Islam) is true and that book is proven to be true given we assume God exists and there is good reasons for him to send guidance to humanity.

"The best book"? Even if you included additional categories, as the Qur'an is disputably neither of "high quality" nor includes the "best guidance" (one might rightly think that should be obvious by now), such as style, rhetoric, scientific enlightenment, ingenuity, or morality, how can you establish a standard that renders the Qur'an (the motherfucking Qur'an?!?) to be "the best book," to say nothing of "divine"? Shouldn't we have other examples of the kinds of books a god might write, so that we know what marks to look for? And the Qur'an is that book? Based upon what? Hold on...

Lolololololol.

Err, ahem. It seems to me that many would justly omit the Qur'an from all of these categories even if the list was titled "THE 1,000 GREATEST BOOKS EVER WRITTEN."