In this thread, I'm proposing a challenge for anyone to provide a reasonable explanation to justify their belief that the Quran is the work of a man who lived 14 centuries ago. In other words, tell me why you think that the Quran is not a revelation from God, and then, support your theory of the Quran by using historical evidence and/or by using logical arguments.

But first, you'll have to consider the following things which I'm about to explain. Then, you are free to reply in accordance to your own perception of the Quran (after reading my original post).


1. Science in the Quran

Since you guys believe that the Quran is just one of the many fairy tales of the ancient, I would like to bring to attention a few of the scientific facts that are mentioned in the Quran which could not have been known by human beings living in the 7th century (except if the knowledge came to them from a divine source, i.e. God). For example, there are several verses in the Quran that speak about the structure and formation of the human embryo inside the uterus in no uncertain terms.

Check it out:
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

A French medical doctor named Maurice Bucaille was told by his church to find scientific mistakes in the Quran. Then, after studying the Quran, he ended up writing a book entitled "The Bible, the Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge," in which he intelligently points out the correlations between the Quran and science. In the book, he questions the reader by saying:

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?" (Bucaille, 132).

Once again, how can a man in the 7th century know all these information about the human embryo before the invention of the first electron microscope?

Scientists on the Quran:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/S...tists.html

There are also videos on each of the scientists who are quoted in the link above at youtube. Search for "Al-Quran: A Miracle of Miracles (1/6)," and you will hear them talking about the Quran as they explain the scientific truths that are found in many of the verses. There are also videos of Dr. Maurice Bucaille and Dr. Keith Moore at youtube. So, you can hear their comments for yourself if you don't believe me.


2. The inimitable language of the Quran

One of the interesting things about the Quran is that it has a challenge for all of us who thinks that the Quran is a work of a poet. The challenge is to simply imitate the linguistic style of the Quran, or to produce something that is better than the Quran. And many non-Muslims in the past have tried to do this. They were among the ones who knew the Arabic langauge fluently and some of them were even experts in the language. Even Arab Christians and Arab atheists took up the challenge. So, they were all trying to imitate a single chapter of the Quran, any chapter, in terms of it's linguistic eloquence. Why? Because they wanted to prove that the Quran is wrong in saying that it cannot be reproduced by human beings. But ultimately, nobody could do this for the past 1,400 years.

Many of the pagan Arabs were thinking that Muhammad was the author of the Quran, that he somehow forged it. That's when God revealed the following verse to the Prophet (pbuh): "Say: If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof even if they backed up each other with help and support" (Surah 17:88). Then, many of the Arabs and poets were trying to produce a book that is similar to the rhythms of the Quran. But not surprisingly, they couldn't do it even though they were helping each other. So God made the challenge easier for them, and said to Muhammad: "Or do they say: 'He forged it.' Say (to them): 'Then bring ten chapters, the like thereof, and call on whomever you can besides God, if you are truthful'" (Surah 11:13). They couldn't do that either. So then, God made it even easier for them and said: "And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then bring a single chapter like it, and call your witnesses besides God if you are truthful" (Surah 2:23). But again, they couldn't even produce a single chapter that is similar to nor better than the Quran.

The Challenge of the Quran: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/648/

So, how is it rational to believe that Muhammad was the author of the Quran if no one else was able to write something that is better than the Quran, let alone the fact that he was illiterate?


3. The historical information on the Quran

Unlike the other religious scriptures, there are authentic historical information about the compilation of the Quran that the majority of scholars agree with (both Muslims and non-Muslims). To say that such a book is a plagiarism of other sources, you will have to show that this is true by falsifying all the historical facts about the Quran by using other, opposing historical facts (i.e. those which would support the idea that the Quran is work of plagiarism). Recently, I was reading a book entitled "The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments," by Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami. It is a comprehensive and well-researched analysis in which the author responds to many different attacks on the possibility of the Quran being fabricated. He looks at each claim separately and clearly shows how everyone has failed in proving that the Quran is a fabrication.

Here's a downloadable file: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8MF5SKDE


4. The beautiful character of Muhammad (pbuh)

After learning about the life of Muhammad, I have no doubts that he was not a liar or an imposter, as many tend to believe unknowingly. All the ill notions about Muhammad are presented only by those who are not knowledgeable about the history of Islam and the life of the prophet (pbuh). There are many biographies written about Muhammad that were written by both Muslims and non-Muslims which show how much of a good character and compassion he had. After we look at these biographical facts with an unbiased approach, it's not reasonable for anyone to believe that Muhammad was a crazy man, or a trickster, or a psychopath, or a man with an evil agenda.

A quote from from a non-Muslim scholar, who said:

"His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad ... Thus, not merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with difficulty" (W. Montgomery Watt in 'Muhammad at Mecca," Oxford, 1953).

More comments from non-Muslim scholars: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html


5. No rational arguments which support that Muhammad is the author of the Quran

See this: Why the Quran cannot be written by Muhammad (pbuh)

Having said that, now the burden of proof is on the atheists to prove that the Quran is not the word of God, because I have explained five different reasons on why there has to be a divine source behind the Quran. Additionally, even the Quran itself is telling us why the book is a miracle (such as the verses on scientific facts that could not have been known by Muhammad nor anyone else living during that time).

"This Quran is not such as can be produced by anyone other than Allah." (10:37)

So, what other theories can you come up with in regards to the Quran?

If the Quran is not a revelation, then what is it? And secondly, how would you get around all the points that I mentioned above to support your own theory of the Quran? Can you justify it?

(December 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm)Rayaan Wrote: 1. Science in the Quran

Since you guys believe that the Quran is just one of the many fairy tales of the ancient, I would like to bring to attention a few of the scientific facts that are mentioned in the Quran which could not have been known by human beings living in the 7th century (except if the knowledge came to them from a divine source, i.e. God). For example, there are several verses in the Quran that speak about the structure and formation of the human embryo inside the uterus in no uncertain terms.

Check it out:
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm

Are you kidding me? Do you know how many miscarried foetuses there would have been for people to look at? The Maori (my countries native population) used to have ritual burials for them over a thousand years ago, they've found graves of dozens of them in various stages of development... Knowing rudimentary things about foetal development IS NOT the domain of revelation.

Quote:A French medical doctor named Maurice Bucaille was told by his church to find scientific mistakes in the Quran. Then, after studying the Quran, he ended up writing a book entitled "The Bible, the Qur'an and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge," in which he intelligently points out the correlations between the Quran and science. In the book, he questions the reader by saying:

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?" (Bucaille, 132).

Firstly, we've been over this TIME AND TIME AGAIN. Stop making arguments from authority. Either provide specific examples or don't bother at all. I don't give a flying fuck what an MD in France thinks and I don't give a fuck that you've quoted him, if you think he's got a good argument then provide it, otherwise don't bother.

Secondly, you don't think the shit about dunking flies into your drink to protect yourself from their filth was an error in pronouncement? How about it's just plain stupid.

Thirdly, Mohammed DID NOT WRITE A SINGLE WORD. You can't call him an author, not even by dictation. The Qur'an was cobbled together from collections of sayings from the New and Old testament and phrases that people had attributed to Mohammed. He had a series of 'revelations' that even his wives noted seemed to fit very well with his interests at the time, and he managed to convince a bunch of illiterate and uneducated Arabs that he was really talking to a God.

Bigfuckingdeal.

Quote:Once again, how can a man in the 7th century know all these information about the human embryo before the invention of the first electron microscope?

WOW... You don't need a fucking Electron Microscope to look at a foetus, you need a pair of eyes.

Quote:Scientists on the Quran:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/S...tists.html

There are also videos on each of the scientists who are quoted in the link above at youtube. Search for "Al-Quran: A Miracle of Miracles (1/6)," and you will hear them talking about the Quran as they explain the scientific truths that are found in many of the verses. There are also videos of Dr. Maurice Bucaille and Dr. Keith Moore at youtube. So, you can hear their comments for yourself if you don't believe me.

They have trained you well have they not? Because you're really fucking good at retreating to authority whenever you want to support your beliefs.

Again, if you think there is an argument that supports your conclusions then PRESENT THE ARGUMENT IT'S SELF and not just a quote from someone saying that they agree with the argument.

Quote:2. The inimitable language of the Quran

One of the interesting things about the Quran is that it has a challenge for all of us who thinks that the Quran is a work of a poet. The challenge is to simply imitate the linguistic style of the Quran, or to produce something that is better than the Quran.

You are truly the fallacy king.

1. Pure subjectivism. What is "better" and by who's standard? "One who flew over the cuckoo's nest" Is better than the Quran in my opinion, does than mean MacMurphy is real? Fuck no.

2. I don't write Arabic, so "imitating the linguistic style" is going to be just as difficult as any work in Arabic. The fact that it's the Quran is arbitrary. Case and point a parallel argument: If you can't imitate the traditional iterations of the Chinese Confucian poems then the Confucian poems are true. It's clearly a fallacious line of reasoning, as you should now be able to see.

Quote: And many non-Muslims in the past have tried to do this. They were among the ones who knew the Arabic langauge fluently and some of them were even experts in the language. Even Arab Christians and Arab atheists took up the challenge. So, they were all trying to imitate a single chapter of the Quran, any chapter, in terms of it's linguistic eloquence. Why? Because they wanted to prove that the Quran is wrong in saying that it cannot be reproduced by human beings. But ultimately, nobody could do this for the past 1,400 years.

ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ.....

Quote:Many of the pagan Arabs were thinking that Muhammad was the author of the Quran, that he somehow forged it. That's when God revealed the following verse to the Prophet (pbuh): "Say: If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof even if they backed up each other with help and support" (Surah 17:88).

Why don't you pick out the very best verse in the Quran and we'll beat that k?

Oh, and Jinns don't exist. I guess ol Mo fucked up on that one right?

Quote: Then, many of the Arabs and poets were trying to produce a book that is similar to the rhythms of the Quran. But not surprisingly, they couldn't do it even though they were helping each other. So God made the challenge easier for them, and said to Muhammad: "Or do they say: 'He forged it.' Say (to them): 'Then bring ten chapters, the like thereof, and call on whomever you can besides God, if you are truthful'" (Surah 11:13). They couldn't do that either. So then, God made it even easier for them and said: "And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then bring a single chapter like it, and call your witnesses besides God if you are truthful" (Surah 2:23). But again, they couldn't even produce a single chapter that is similar to nor better than the Quran.

And who was the judge of this little write-off? And why the fuck should that matter. It would be like Picasso saying "if you can't out-paint me the moon is made of cheese".

Can you out-paint Picasso? No, therefore mooncheese?

Quote:The Challenge of the Quran: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/648/

So, how is it rational to believe that Muhammad was the author of the Quran if no one else was able to write something that is better than the Quran, let alone the fact that he was illiterate?

You've still not supported the idea that the Qur'an is that good. Simply quoting people and making assertions is not sufficient. Not only that, but you've provided no criteria for which the works should be judged, and let's face it, you're not exactly unbiased

Quote:3. The historical information on the Quran

Unlike the other religious scriptures, there are authentic historical information about the compilation of the Quran that the majority of scholars agree with (both Muslims and non-Muslims). To say that such a book is a plagiarism of other sources, you will have to show that this is true by falsifying all the historical facts about the Quran by using other, opposing historical facts (i.e. those which would support the idea that the Quran is work of plagiarism).

1. All religious scriptures have some level of historical accuracy.

2. A book can be a forgery and still be historically accurate.

Quote: Recently, I was reading a book entitled "The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments," by Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami. It is a comprehensive and well-researched analysis in which the author responds to many different attacks on the possibility of the Quran being fabricated. He looks at each claim separately and clearly shows how everyone has failed in proving that the Quran is a fabrication.

More arguments from authority.

Should we keep a fallacy tally for you Rayaan?

Quote:4. The beautiful character of Muhammad (pbuh)

He fucks 8 year old girls. Really beautiful... Oh, no, just paedophilia.

Quote:After learning about the life of Muhammad, I have no doubts that he was not a liar or an imposter,

Personal credulity.

+1 to fallacy tally.

Quote:All the ill notions about Muhammad are presented only by those who are not knowledgeable about the history of Islam and the life of the prophet (pbuh).

Bare assertion.

+1 to fallacy tally.

Quote: There are many biographies written about Muhammad that were written by both Muslims and non-Muslims which show how much of a good character and compassion he had. After we look at these biographical facts with an unbiased approach, it's not reasonable for anyone to believe that Muhammad was a crazy man, or a trickster, or a psychopath, or a man with an evil agenda.

He fucked children.

Quote:A quote from from a non-Muslim scholar, who said:

Argument from authority.

+1 to fallacy tally.

Quote:More comments from non-Muslim scholars: http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html

Argument from authority.

+1 to fallacy tally.

Quote:5. No rational arguments which support that Muhammad is the author of the Quran

I agree, because it was cobbled together after his death.

Quote:Having said that, now the burden of proof is on the atheists to prove that the Quran is not the word of God, because I have explained five different reasons on why there has to be a divine source behind the Quran. Additionally, even the Quran itself is telling us why the book is a miracle (such as the verses on scientific facts that could not have been known by Muhammad nor anyone else living during that time).

No numbnuts, you haven't satisfied your burden of proof, you've made some shockingly bad arguments.

Quote:"This Quran is not such as can be produced by anyone other than Allah." (10:37)

So, what other theories can you come up with in regards to the Quran?

The same as any other religious texts.

Quote:If the Quran is not a revelation, then what is it? And secondly, how would you get around all the points that I mentioned above to support your own theory of the Quran? Can you justify it?

A religious text...

And i've dismantled your "points" one by one already.

You've made next to no case at all.

Quote:In other words, tell me why you think that the Quran is not a revelation from God,

Because there is no evidence that there is any god. First things first, amigo.

To further address the claims of scientific accuracy within the Quran... Embryology in the Quran

(December 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm)Rayaan Wrote: ...
1. Science in the Quran

Awwwh, look, he wants to be a Statler for Islam.

Doesn't the quaran claim humans were originally made out of mud, dust and a blood clot? If you want to be taken seriously on the points about hte quaran knowing science maybe you can explain that part?


Also, the fact there is ZERO proof for a god is probably the best proof that your book is not the work of god. The rest however was answered beautifully by theVoid.

(December 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm)Rayaan Wrote: If the Quran is not a revelation, then what is it?

It's the same thing as all other religious texts. It's fictitious crap that was written by ignorant men.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Are you kidding me? Do you know how many miscarried foetuses there would have been for people to look at? The Maori (my countries native population) used to have ritual burials for them over a thousand years ago, they've found graves of dozens of them in various stages of development... Knowing rudimentary things about foetal development IS NOT the domain of revelation.

It's not rudimentary knowledge for people who lived 14 centuries ago ...

"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babies, then (foster you) that you may reach your age of full strength." (Surah 22:05)

If the Quran was invented by men who lived in such a primitive age, then, shouldn't there be at least a single scientific error in the verse above?

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Firstly, we've been over this TIME AND TIME AGAIN. Stop making arguments from authority. Either provide specific examples or don't bother at all. I don't give a flying fuck what an MD in France thinks and I don't give a fuck that you've quoted him, if you think he's got a good argument then provide it, otherwise don't bother.

1. It's more time-saving to post quotes and links instead of elaborating it myself.
2. Why is it a bad thing to quote from people who are intelligent in a certain field (or "authorities" as you say) if it is coming from a credible source?
3. It's always better if we can support our views with the opinions of more knowledgeable people than ourselves. Isn't that what we are taught to do in research papers?

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Secondly, you don't think the shit about dunking flies into your drink to protect yourself from their filth was an error in pronouncement? How about it's just plain stupid.

Dunking flies into your drink? ... yeah, actually it doesn't make any sense.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Thirdly, Mohammed DID NOT WRITE A SINGLE WORD. You can't call him an author, not even by dictation.

Yes, Muhammad didn't write a single word because he was illiterate. He recited the verses that were revealed to him, and a lot of the people who heard him began to memorize the verses while his appointed scribes were busy with putting them into a book form.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: The Qur'an was cobbled together from collections of sayings from the New and Old testament and phrases that people had attributed to Mohammed. He had a series of 'revelations' that even his wives noted seemed to fit very well with his interests at the time, and he managed to convince a bunch of illiterate and uneducated Arabs that he was really talking to a God.

1. How do you know that Muhammad had a series of revelations?
2. How do you know that his wives had noticed any such revelations? And where did you learn this from?
3. What are these "interests at the time" that he had which you are speaking of?
4. If we assume that he managed to convince a bunch of illiterate Arabs that God spoke to him, then it contradicts your statement that all the verses in the Quran are only being "attritubted" to Mohammad, because you just said that he convinced people to believe that he was talking to God.
5. And who could be these mysterious authors of the Quran if the book was neither transmitted from God nor Muhammad?

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: WOW... You don't need a fucking Electron Microscope to look at a foetus, you need a pair of eyes.

What about the embryo? Isn't the shape of the embryo too small to be seen by the naked eyes? Also, why was this confirmed only in the last century?

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: They have trained you well have they not? Because you're really fucking good at retreating to authority whenever you want to support your beliefs.

There's no training involved, I just got good at it by myself.
But you make it sound as if retreating to authorities is a bad thing. What's the reason for that?

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Again, if you think there is an argument that supports your conclusions then PRESENT THE ARGUMENT IT'S SELF and not just a quote from someone saying that they agree with the argument.

I did present the arguments as well as backing them up with credible and trustable sources. What else are you looking for?

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: You are truly the fallacy king.

I disagree, but think whatever you want about me. I know myself better than you do.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: 1. Pure subjectivism. What is "better" and by who's standard? "One who flew over the cuckoo's nest" Is better than the Quran in my opinion, does than mean MacMurphy is real? Fuck no.

2. I don't write Arabic, so "imitating the linguistic style" is going to be just as difficult as any work in Arabic. The fact that it's the Quran is arbitrary. Case and point a parallel argument: If you can't imitate the traditional iterations of the Chinese Confucian poems then the Confucian poems are true. It's clearly a fallacious line of reasoning, as you should now be able to see.

It's not actually purely subjective. There's an objective way to test if one's work is better than the Quran.

See this:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/M.../ijaz.html

The challenge is to produce, in Arabic, "three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook."

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZ.....

That means you couldn't think of something more intelligent to say ...

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Why don't you pick out the very best verse in the Quran and we'll beat that k?

The smallest chapter in the Quran is only 3 lines, and no one has yet been able to write something better than that chapter given the style of the Quran.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Oh, and Jinns don't exist. I guess ol Mo fucked up on that one right?

Or maybe they do exist, but you can't see them. The Jinns are a part of the unseen world.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: And who was the judge of this little write-off? And why the fuck should that matter. It would be like Picasso saying "if you can't out-paint me the moon is made of cheese".

Can you out-paint Picasso? No, therefore mooncheese?

This is not a good comparison to the Quran's challenge, because there is an objective reason on why it is not possible to imitate the Quran.

"The inability of any person to produce anything like the Qur’an, due to the uniqueness of its language, is the essence of the Qur’anic miracle. A miracle is defined as 'events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature'. The argument posed by Muslim Theologians and Philosophers is that if, with the finite set of Arabic linguistic tools at humanity’s disposal, there has been no effective challenge to try and imitate the Qur'an, then providing a naturalistic explanation for the Qur’an’s uniqueness is not sufficient. This is because the natural capacity of any author is able to produce the varying expressions known in the Arabic language. The development of an entirely unique expression is beyond the scope of the productive nature of any author, hence a supernatural entity, God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation" (Source).

The Literary Form of the Quran:
http://www.theinimitablequran.com/QuranicStyle.html

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: You've still not supported the idea that the Qur'an is that good. Simply quoting people and making assertions is not sufficient.

The Quran is awesome whether you believe it or not. Here's another quote for you:

“....the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Muhammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evidential miracle” (Hamilton Gibb, a well-known Arabist from University of Oxford).

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Not only that, but you've provided no criteria for which the works should be judged, and let's face it, you're not exactly unbiased.

You can't read my mind and I can safely say that you're wrong if you think that I'm being biased. You may still disagree, though.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: 1. All religious scriptures have some level of historical accuracy.
2. A book can be a forgery and still be historically accurate.

1. Yes, but the historical accuracy of the Quran's preservation is much greater than any other holy books.
2. You still didn't give any good arguments on why the Quran is a counterfeit (but only making some conjectures without citing from anything).

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: More arguments from authority.
Should we keep a fallacy tally for you Rayaan?

No thanks, I prefer that you keep the tally in your head.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: He fucks 8 year old girls. Really beautiful... Oh, no, just paedophilia.

Can you show me any references or citations to verify that claim? If not, then why should I believe you?

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Personal credulity.

+1 to fallacy tally.

So, when I make a statement of my own, it's the "personal credulity" fallacy. And when I back up my statements by using other sources, it's the "argument from authority" fallacy. How clever.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Bare assertion.

+1 to fallacy tally.

You should at least give a reason on why it's a bare assertion.

I said that the people who have ill notions about Muhammad (pbuh) are not knowledgeable about the history of his life. But instead of proving that sentence wrong, you just simply threw out the words "bare assertion" even though I've already said that there are many authentic biographical information about him which negate the idea that he was an evil person.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: He fucked children.

Base Assertion Fallacy. <- (See, I can play that stupid game also).

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Argument from authority.

+1 to fallacy tally.

Argument from authority does not equal to a bad argument. Why don't you examine the argument itself?

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: I agree, because it was cobbled together after his death.

If you truly think that, then you don't know anything about the history of the Quran. You are very incognizant of the scholarly works on the Quran.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: Argument from authority.

+1 to fallacy tally.

Again, argument from authority doesn't mean that it's a bad argument. The same thing can be said by me, a scientist, a philosophy teacher, or even by a 5th grader.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: No numbnuts, you haven't satisfied your burden of proof, you've made some shockingly bad arguments.

I disagree because your counter-arguments are not strong enough to show that mines are shockingly bad.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: The same as any other religious texts.

By that, if you mean to say that the Quran was invented by men, then, I think you have certainly failed to support that view (unlike I did with links).

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: A religious text...

Of course it's a religious text. But the question is, who's the author? I've already made my case.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: And i've dismantled your "points" one by one already.

Actually, you didn't dismantle the points very well. Each of the 5 points that I discussed in the original post are well-supported by scholarly research. You weren't able to show me otherwise.

(December 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm)theVOID Wrote: You've made next to no case at all.

That's not true, because I proved with enough sources that the Quran cannot be anything else but the word of God based on the scientific, literary, and historical aspects of the Quran.

Anyways, be happy for all the kudoses that you got.
You deserve it for the effort, at least. But that doesn't mean that you're right. You're smart enough not to fall into the kudos fallacy.

(December 2, 2010 at 5:55 pm)Rayaan Wrote: 4. The beautiful character of Muhammad (pbuh)

After learning about the life of Muhammad, I have no doubts that he was not a liar or an imposter,
...
After we look at these biographical facts with an unbiased approach, it's not reasonable for anyone to believe that Muhammad was a crazy man, or a trickster, or a psychopath, or a man with an evil agenda.

This is a variation on the "liar, lunatic or lord" canard that has been offered as "proof" of Christianity.



Seriously, human nature is more complicated than what the trilemma presupposes. Someone who falsely masquerades as a god may still be able to utter moral teachings or do occasional good deeds.