Hello soulcalm17

[Nay_Sayer]

---

Basically, I of course believe that The God itself communicate and make the religion for human for the first time.

The reason is quite simple: for the first human got his consciousness, he didn't know anything if he did not got directions/information from the agency outside him. It was like babies that didn't know and do anything if their parents didn't teach them to behave, to speak, or to do something.

Few things to consider.  Firstly, were not sure it makes sense to say things like "got his consciousness".  This imports superstitious ideas about the bestowal of some trait or attribute...and in full, all at once, no less... but there's nothing in evidence to back that up and everything in evidence argues against it.  Fantastically and informatively so in the case of hss..us, and the very claims you make.  Secondly, human beings are curious and creative.  We discover and learn and do things our parents never conceived of.  Like islam.......for example....

If you believe modern human came from less advanced modern human species, this is also the case. That first modern human must got their God and religion from the previous staged of his species, so it was not from their contemplation skill (Some scholars suggest that hominin in lower paleolithic era also had a religious awareness). What I propose is, there was no need to crafting some "transcendental thing" by first modern human, while they can easily grabbed "the God's stuff stories" from their less advanced ancestors.

We find a point of agreement here.  I also don't think that proto-religions or full blown religions or contemporary religions have to manufacture transcendental experience.  They do appear to manufacture gods, though, and that process is very much in evidence in the archeological record, the historic record, and continues to be with us in the present day.  It's not like you believe in all of those other gods..right?  What are they if not manufactured?  Why do we keep creating gods, and the wrong gods, from your pov?  Don't you think it -might- be in service of some need, rightly or wrongly?  Can you see that even if people do have their parents gods to refer to, they still go ahead and make their own?

---

Do you believe that your god is actually the god of your parents, or do you have your own opinions about it?

Nothing to add, excellent question and I get to show off proper large text quoting

[The Grand Nudger]

One unlikely to be explored..because I know that the notion that monotheism was the original religion is actually a novel belief of muslims.... not based on archeological evidence...and certainly not to be found in the narrative contents of any of the abrahamic religions who were always and forever fighting the pagans that came before them - including each other.

We've had other muslim posters offer it before. The idea that a just god would give instruction. Rather than accept the evidence which would then suggest that allah is unjust - they assert a counterfactual and pretend it came from anywhere other than their normative beliefs about gods and what gods should do...itself a touchy subject in the context of islam.

Our new friend is his own person, and could have his own even more novel notions, ofc. Just playing the odds.

[soulcalm17]

Thanks all for the details of what I informed. But let me complete what I knew of Hinduism.
That is correct that Upanishad and Bhagavad Gita came later than old Vedas. But if we read the detail of Vedas, it still point to the monotheism instead of pantheism.
Rigveda, is the oldest of all type of Vedas.
The Rigveda states in book I, hymn 164, verse 46:
Sages (learned Priest) call one God by many names.
(This is states that only one God, but have many names)
Brahma (means The Creator) as well as Visnu (means The Sustainer), indeed the name of God mentioned in Rigveda book II, hymn 1, verse 3
What support my statement that Hindu is actually monotheism by its scripture is mentioned in Rigveda book VIII, hymn 1, verse 1:
O, friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone

And in Yajurveda, there is the verse that's same with the content in Upanishad. Here it is:
1. There is no image of Him (Yajurveda 32:3)
2. They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambuthi (Yajurveda 40:9)
*Sambuthi means created things, like table, chair, idol, etc

So I still conclude that in Hindu, monotheism changed to the pantheism by it's followers.

The problem is, might be the researchers only observed on the practicing of the religion, not observing the scriptures itself.

It is actually the case of all religion I suppose. Later on insha Allah I will give evidence that many religions rooted in monotheism.

[Belacqua]

So I still conclude that in Hindu, monotheism changed to the pantheism by it's followers.

It occurs to me that one of the problems English speakers have with the issue is simply the translation of the word "god." 

In India, as I understand it, Brahman is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, impassible, without extension or location, etc. etc. That is, it has all the attributes of the Christian God. (With differences too, but if we were to speak of a Hindu God, it would be Brahman.) 

Then there are many other beings which are not human. These get translated into English as "gods," though of course in the original languages they are called by different names. Devas, asuras, rakshasas, pretas, pisachas, vitalas, nagas, yakshas, gandharvas, and others -- all of which my computer spell-check warns me about. Calling Brahman "God" and all of these other beings "gods" implies a similarity which isn't there in the original. 

I've often felt this about Japanese kami as well. These are usually translated as "gods," but are fundamentally different from the Christian God -- to the point where using the same word is misleading. For example, they have location but no extension, are not omniscient, and have only very limited influence over the world. They are certainly unrelated to anything like a Ground of Being. 

In Europe it was long believed that there is a great range of beings on the hierarchy between God and humans, with a variety of abilities and powers. Angels, obviously, who have location but not extension. But also all kinds of spirits and genius loci and others which may have been holdovers from pre-Christian times, but were nonetheless widely believed in. Fortunately these were called by different names, never called "gods," as the spirits in the Indian pantheon were.

As I said before, I don't know enough about the development of Indian thought to know whether belief in something like Brahman pre-dated belief in the various devas, etc. etc. So I don't know if your thesis here is correct or not. But I do think the language we use pushes us toward more of a polytheistic view than is perhaps warranted.

Also, there is the question of what we call it when a single god manifests itself in different figurations. One god (or God) can appear in different forms at different times. This is true in the more esoteric types of Buddhism, where we may speak of different apparitions, but the different characters are really different ways the one deity shows itself. That might appear to be polytheism, but if there is really only one deity behind all the characters, then it's mono.

[soulcalm17]

I just trying to hide the text. Hope it can works

---

this is only for testing hide the texts.

---

[Belacqua]

I just trying to hide the text. Hope it can works

---

this is only for testing hide the texts.

---

It worked!

[Paleophyte]

Thanks all for the details of what I informed. But let me complete what I knew of Hinduism.
That is correct that Upanishad and Bhagavad Gita came later than old Vedas. But if we read the detail of Vedas, it still point to the monotheism instead of pantheism.
Rigveda, is the oldest of all type of Vedas.
The Rigveda states in book I, hymn 164, verse 46:
Sages (learned Priest) call one God by many names.
(This is states that only one God, but have many names)
Brahma (means The Creator) as well as Visnu (means The Sustainer), indeed the name of God mentioned in Rigveda book II, hymn 1, verse 3
What support my statement that Hindu is actually monotheism by its scripture is mentioned in Rigveda book VIII, hymn 1, verse 1:
O, friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone

And in Yajurveda, there is the verse that's same with the content in Upanishad. Here it is:
1. There is no image of Him (Yajurveda 32:3)
2. They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambuthi (Yajurveda 40:9)
*Sambuthi means created things, like table, chair, idol, etc

So I still conclude that in Hindu, monotheism changed to the pantheism by it's followers.

The problem is, might be the researchers only observed on the practicing of the religion, not observing the scriptures itself.

It is actually the case of all religion I suppose. Later on insha Allah I will give evidence that many religions rooted in monotheism.

Using scripture as a guide to history is always perilous. It assumes that the original was accurate and that your translation isn't flawed. In this case I'd suggest that you're also doing a lot of cherry picking. You have a few select verses here that you've quoted without context, whereas the overwhelming bulk of Hindu scripture is clearly polytheistic. The archaeological record also shows that the Hindu cultures have always been polytheistic. In any culture as rich as the Hindu pantheon you're bound to get some henotheism arising locally, but I think that's about as far as you can take it. The overwhelming bulk of the evidence simply doesn't support your case.

[Ferrocyanide]

You should use the HIDE tag to hide at least a portion of the text or your text, otherwise you will get Administrator Notice.

START OF BLOCK OF TEXT
Well, sounds like that problem is solved.
The argument was that if Mohammed made it up, why would he embarrass himself, therefore, the conclusion is that the text is of supernatural origin.

There isn’t any hint of embarrassment in the text, so case closed.

Your argument itself is faulty.
If there was some self embarrassment, this is insufficient to conclude that the jewish god exists, since I use Occam’s Razor.

I don’t know what was going through Mohammed’s head, I don’t know him personally, but I don’t see a problem with him saying those things.
To me, it just looks like good salesmen advice.

Even if there was a line in the Koran where it said
“The jewish god said that I am a fucking moron. I am Mohammed and he just told me that I am a fucking moron and also he pulled my pants down in front of everyone.”

that would not convince me that there is any magical beings, any gods, any aliens or alien gods.


My first thought would be, “Who writes books? Human’s write books.”
“Is an alien or god needed to write a story? Nope. Anyone can buy some ink and paper and write whatever they want.”
 “What is going on in the mind of this author? What is the author trying to communicate to the reader?”



END OF BLOCK OF TEXT

---

START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

The fundamental stuff means that it is fundamental stuff that is exist and is the basic of all  of universe. So it would be no other particle/matter that causing it. That's why I did not ask again to you, what causing that fundamental matter.

OK.

I assumed that we can't still discover and observe both of them. My God is unseen. And your matter might be still hasn't been found (thus unseen as well) i.e might be some other basic particle that we haven't found yet.

I can’t tell the difference between Universe A and Universe B. Both seem identical to me.
1. Universe A: the jewish god exists. He created the stuff and lifeform on this planet. Everything is artificial. He doesn’t show himself.
2. Universe B: No gods exists. Everything is natural.

If you want to believe that the jewish god exists outside this universe, I can use another name. Let’s call it Puniverse.
1. In Puniverse A, there is the jewish god and he created Universe A in Puniverse A.
2. In Puniverse B, natural processes transformed some stuff into Universe B. There are no gods. Everything is natural.

So, like I said, both seem identical to me.
I see no reason for there being 1 god and for him to remain in hiding, I see no reason for out of the hundreds or thousands of religions that various cultures have created, only 1 happens to be the correct one.
In fact, quite a lot of cultures view their religions as the correct religion.
Apparently, this god would have existed forever and suddenly, at some point decides to create humans.
You or this prophet would have to give a pretty solid explanation on that one. There is no excuse for not having an answer.

In the atheist world, at least there is an excuse. It takes time for science to advance. We aren’t even sure if we can find the answer to all questions since humans are limited.

There are too many problems with these jewish flavor of religions.
In the jewish world, supposedly, their god made things 6000 y ago and the first humans were Adam and Eve.
If that were true, there would be some solid evidence. We would all be nearly identical genetically.
On top of that, supposedly there was a global flood and only one family was saved. Noah, his nameless wife, his 3 sons, their 3 nameless wives. Again, you have a case of a genetic bottleneck

So, my postulation (which is God) has meet the same qualities with living creatures in observed nature, and your postulation (matter) never proved can't produce any living creatures. While we all know that living creatures exist in universe.

Living things aren’t anything special. The basic unit of a living thing is a cell, which is a sac of chemicals. The only thing that happens in a cell are a set of chemical reactions.
So far, you haven’t claimed that a god or alien is made of cells or that its cells can consume other chemicals or multiply.
The only thing that you have said is:
“I propose that the qualities would be:
Living, has idea, has purpose, intelligent. Which is called God actually.”

2. Human (which is living, has idea, has purpose, and intelligent) can give manipulation of the matter, i.e by experiment

A human being doesn’t have a purpose. It can be demonstrated that it has cells, that it is living, that his brain functions, he has ideas and some form of intelligence.
Purpose is something that you assign to yourself. It isn’t something that can be scientifically demonstrated.

1. No evidence of matter that are not living, has no idea, no purpose, and not intelligent, can produce living creatures

I think you are talking about going from just chemicals to the first self replicating cell. This concept is called abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not a solved problem but it is a concept that is being worked on.
It can be worked on because it is a reasonable proposition. It is something that is discoverable and researching is the best way to discover what the truth is.

Also, the theist will mention abiogenesis when having a debate with an atheist since this is not a solved problem.
The theist will say that so far, science has not discovered how the cell was made and therefore, it can’t possibly have formed on its own. His question will take the form of “How did the first cell form?”, “Lifeforms are too complicated?”, “It takes intelligence to make a machine such as a car and therefore, it takes a bigger intelligence to make a cell.”

1. The first one is the argument from incredulity.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.[2]

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce.[3] This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4]

2. The second one, I think is the argument of complexity. I think this one is called the watchmaker analogy.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument, an argument for the existence of God, originating in natural theology, which is often used to argue for the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design. The analogy states that a design implies a designer, by an intelligent designer, i.e. a creator deity. The watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity.[1] The original analogy played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God of the universe, in both Christianity and Deism. Prior to Paley, however, Sir Isaac Newton, René Descartes, and others from the time of the Scientific Revolution had each believed "that the physical laws he [each] had uncovered revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watch, wherein the watchmaker is God."[2]

The 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's book on natural selection put forward an alternative explanation to the watchmaker analogy, for complexity and adaptation. In the 19th century, deists, who championed the watchmaker analogy, held that Darwin's theory fit with "the principle of uniformitarianism—the idea that all processes in the world occur now as they have in the past" and that deistic evolution "provided an explanatory framework for understanding species variation in a mechanical universe."[3]

When evolutionary biology began being taught in American high schools in the 1960s, Christian fundamentalists used versions of the argument to dispute the concepts of evolution and natural selection, and there was renewed interest in the watchmaker argument. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins referred to the analogy in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker when explaining the mechanism of evolution. Others, however, consider the watchmaker analogy to be compatible with evolutionary creation, opining that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.[citation needed]

3. I don’t know what the 3 rd one is called but it has its own fault.
You are comparing 2 objects that are radically different. One is made of components that nature doesn’t know how to produce: the car, sheetmetal, glass sheet, aluminium engine, spark plugs, screws, bolts, steel tubing, rubber tubing.
The other, the cell, is just made of molecules, which nature can make under the right conditions.
The other problem is that the god itself is a complex machine so the theist has to explain its formation without using special pleading.

4. You are using a god of the gaps argument. You found a hole in human knowledge and you are trying to fill that hole with your alien friend.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God.[1][2] This perspective has its origins in the observation that some individuals, often with religious inclinations, point to areas where science falls short in explaining natural phenomena as opportunities to insert the presence of a divine creator. The term itself was coined in response to this tendency. This theological view suggests that God fills in the gaps left by scientific knowledge, and that these gaps represent moments of divine intervention or influence.

This concept has been met with criticism and debate from various quarters. Detractors argue that this perspective is problematic as it seems to rely on gaps in human understanding and ignorance to make its case for the existence of God. As scientific knowledge continues to advance, these gaps tend to shrink, potentially weakening the argument for God's existence. Critics contend that such an approach can undermine religious beliefs by suggesting that God only operates in the unexplained areas of our understanding, leaving little room for divine involvement in a comprehensive and coherent worldview.

The "God of the gaps" perspective has been criticized for its association with logical fallacies, specifically the argument from ignorance fallacy. This fallacy asserts that just because something is not currently explained by science, it must be attributed to a supernatural cause. This type of reasoning is seen as inherently flawed and does not provide a robust foundation for religious faith. In this context, some theologians and scientists have proposed that a more satisfactory approach is to view evidence of God's actions within the natural processes themselves, rather than relying on the gaps in scientific understanding to validate religious beliefs.

There was a moment in time when it was thought that thunder, lightning was cause by the gods.
There was a moment when it was thought that disease was done by the gods.
There was a moment when it was thought that the gods control pregnancy. “They bless you with a child”.
It was thought that when the gods bless you get get better crops.
If you do sacrifices, if you offer some animal, your first born kid or some virgin (the gods have sex with virgins?), the gods accept your gift and as a thank you note, they do you a favor.

Such things have been replaced by science. Once science gives an explanation, we never return to the god of the gaps argument.
This is a tendency that I have observed.

Also, nature is all around us. We continually observe a whole lot of events. The science books are full of them. So are court cases. So is the news. None of them contain any evidence of aliens or gods.
So, when it comes to a balance, the scale tips towards evidences that are godless.

Keep in mind that I have never said that abiogenesis happened.
In terms of science, that is the route to investigate. Nobody investigates any god proposals.

So, my postulation (which is God) has meet the same qualities with living creatures in observed nature, and your postulation (matter) never proved can't produce any living creatures. While we all know that living creatures exist in universe.

You have fabricated those qualities for your jewish god.
My magic black box that I postulated can pump out living creatures as well. It doesn’t mean that it truly possess such qualities. For now, the god claim and the magic black box are both just claims.
Evidence is required to support such a claim.
Note that it is possible that the jewish god exists and that the magic black box exists and they never made any lifeforms.


END OF BLOCK OF TEXT


START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

The reason is quite simple: for the first human got his consciousness, he didn't know anything if he did not got directions/information from the agency outside him. It was like babies that didn't know and do anything if their parents didn't teach them to behave, to speak, or to do something.

I don’t think that there was a point in time that humans had no consciousness.
At some point in time, apparently, there was a split. One group developed into homo sapiens and the other developed into the neantherthals. The common ancestor of these 2 groups had consciousness.
We can keep pushing back in time to figure out when consciousness arose but it would be hard to answer this question.
However it arose, it would be a process. Their would be feature gains over time. There is also the concept of instrict.
In terms of biology, there was no divine intervention. The only thing that existed is that the creatures with the best features, that best fit their environment, outlast the rest of the group, and reproduce more.
This is the concept of natural selection in Evolution theory.
BTW, natural selection is something that is observable.

If you believe modern human came from less advanced modern human species, this is also the case. That first modern human must got their God and religion from the previous staged of his species, so it was not from their contemplation skill (Some scholars suggest that hominin in lower paleolithic era also had a religious awareness). What I propose is, there was no need to crafting some "transcendental thing" by first modern human, while they can easily grabbed "the God's stuff stories" from their less advanced ancestors.

I’m not sure if I understood that. You seem to be saying that humans inherited the gods concept from their ancestors.
Yes, that is normal. Someone has invented languages over time. For example, I did not invent the entire english language but at some point in time, someone called someone else “Hey daddio! What’s happening?”
That line became popular and now we have a new word: daddio.

“Hey hip cats, whachoo doing?”
So hip becomes a new usage of words. Calling people cats is new.
Pronouncing it as whatchoo is new.

I guarantee you, no english speaker spoke like that in the 19 th century.
It is human inventiveness.

So, you think that humans possessed a language as soon as the first human was created? (The Genesis story).

END OF BLOCK OF TEXT

START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

About Genesis

I ever read it but it was long time ago, and not complete reading.

So why do you think childbirth is painful for women?


END OF BLOCK OF TEXT

---

[Nay_Sayer]

His quote wasn't that egregious.

[soulcalm17]

My first thought would be, “Who writes books? Human’s write books.”
“Is an alien or god needed to write a story? Nope. Anyone can buy some ink and paper and write whatever they want.”
 “What is going on in the mind of this author? What is the author trying to communicate to the reader?”

So I think I would prefer to reply it separately as I think it's more comfort to me. Later topic I will quote again from your reply.
About Qur'an. 
 
It depends on you actually whether you trust or not. I just give you rational explanation that it's impossible if someone want to lie to his people but he disgraces himself with his "God's words" in front of his companions.
 

---

God wants people to being true happy in their life, so that He gave us the revelation that's including story in it. I actually gave a link to watch (on youtube) about the impossibilities that Quran was being made by other than God.
So, I think I will explain some that youtube's contents in here.
 
The only rational possibilities if some text was not from God is just 4:
1. Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself
2. Muhammad (peace be upon him) used previous books
3. Muhammad (peace be upon him) used someone's helps
4. Muhammad (peace be upon him) used satan's helps (Btw, this option of course seems not makes sense for atheists. But this will answer some christian's view that satans help prophet to make Quran)
 
We go for the 1st possibility:
1.  Qur’an has been wrote by Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself
The problem:
a.   The writing/speech style
To convince this possibility, then we need to know how Muhammad (peace be upon him) usually give his formal speech to audiences. What his type of speaking. What words he chose, what style he used.
The spoken words of Muhammad were many recorded by his companion. These we called ahadist. And through reading on it, even if we doesn’t know arabic, it clearly a big difference with sayings of Muhammad himself with Quranic verses. Here is the example:
Qur’an’s quote:
…Who does more wrong than those who fabricate lies against Allah to mislead others without any knowledge? Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. (Al An’am 6:144)
Hadith’s quote:
…Whoever lies in my name deliberately, let his seat be prepared in hell… (Musnad Ahmad: 11711)
From the example, we know that the Quran style is more complex, like a poem, but with deep meaning, than one in the hadith.
b.   Verses that blaming the prophet for some actions

This actually I already gave you in Surah Abasa. But I’ll give you others examples.
Surah At Tawba 9:43
"May Allah pardon you O Prophet! Why did you give them permission to stay behind before those who told the truth were distinguished from those who were lying?"
At Tahrim 66:1
O Prophet! Why do you prohibit yourself from what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
The question is still: Why would he blame himslef in front of his companion?
c.    The prophecies
The Quran contains prophecies about many events. One I gave explain to you in youtube. Here is the examples:
1.   Surah Ar Ruum 30:2-4
‘2. The Romans have been defeated, 3. in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph. 4. within three to nine years. The whole matter rests with Allah before and after victory. And on that day the believers will rejoice”.
In those days the Byzantine occupied territories adjacent to Arabia were Jordan, Syria and Palestine, and in these territories the Romans were completely overpowered by the Persians in 615 A.D. And proved that later in 624 A.D, The Romans defeating Persians by destroyed Clorumia, the birthplace of Zoroaster, and ravaged the principal fire temple of Persian.
2.   Surah Al Fath, 48:27
“Indeed, Allah will fulfil His Messenger’s vision in all truth: Allah willing, you will surely enter the Sacred Mosque, in security—some with heads shaved and others with hair shortened—without fear. He knew what you did not know, so He first granted you the triumph at hand”.
In January 630, Muhammad peace be upon him and his companions finally can back to Mecca and ruled arabia with Islamic way of life.
  The question is: How could prophet have known future? Why took risk predicting the future?
d.   The delayed of the revelation
1.   The prophet was asked by some jewish about the story about “people in the cave”. The prophet said that he would answer him tomorrow expecting the revelation come but without saying insha Allah (If Allah willing). So the revelation delayed. The delaying was not short, but in 15 days, when finally the answer come as Surah Kahfi (18) :23-24.
2.   The prophet had difficult time when his wife was accused cheating with his companion. Of course it was just accusation without any evidence from people around him. The prophet waiting for soon revelation that will strongly clear the bad accusation but the revelation didn’t come after 1 month. And the situation is so hard since the wife of Prophet ask permission to Prophet to returned to her family. Finally after 1 month since the event of accusation, the revelation come to give the truth to the prophet that her wife is not a cheater and the bad people who spreading the false news would be punished. The Surah was An Nuur, 24:11-20.
The question is, if Muhammad peace be upon him just crafted the Quran by himself, why would he wait for so long to give an answer to his people? For the first case, he could easily answer the next day so that he can keep his promise. For second case, he could easily make “the verses that clear his wife name” in order that people not give bad opinion on him.
e.   The challenge
The verses in Quran itself challenges people to produce anything like the Quran. Even the challenges is for mankind and jinn (unseen creatures) to make. If Quran is made by Muhammad peace be upon him and easy to make, why Muhammad took a risk by openly challenged people to do that?
FYI, as an “arabic literature”, the style of Quran was strangely beautiful in the mind of people at that time and also until present. Many people accused that Muhammad was become a witch, because he can craft some “magic words with deep and beatiful meaning”. While they already know the lingua franca of Muhammad that he used everyday was not like The Quran. That’s why in the history of Arab from the prophet period until now, no one can challenge in producing the arabic speech/written words as the Quran.
f.    Personal information of Prophet
There is no personal information of the Prophet in The Quran. The Muhammad’s name just mention in 4 times in the Quran, which is fewer than other mentions of other prophets. For example Moses 134 times in 34 surahs, as well as Jesus mentioned dozens of times. So if Muhammad had made the Quran himself, wouldn’t he have given himself more credit or at least talked about his struggle more often?

So, we can conclude in fist premise that Muhammad made the Quran himself is actually illogical and full of problems.
 
And now could it be that he used the help of others thing ? Let’s analize possbility no 2:

2.  The Prophet used previous books to make Quran
 
This possibility could easily be refuted because the Prophet was illiterate which means that he could not read and write and even if we assume that he was not illiterate, where would he have got hold of the Bible or The Torah in arabic? Because the first arabic translation of Bible was made in 9th century which is a hundred years er the death of Muhammad peace be upon him and how could he have read it added to that, until around the 18th century the Church was essentially hiding the Bible from common people and forbade its translation? Therefore this leads us with no other conclusion than that The Prophet could not have used the previous books to write the Quran
So, the second premise is also illogical and full of problems.

Well, it could be in 3rd possibility? It seems that this was happening. Ok, let’s analize it:
3.  The Prophet used someone’s help
 
Was it any Jew or Christian that help Muhammad to create the Quran? Well, in the authentic (shahih) hadith, we will only find single hadith about the encounter between The Prophet and someone called Waraqa bin Naufal (a Christian). However The Prophet met Waraqah bin Naufal after the revelation came to him, not before revelation. Besides, in the hadith, Waraqah even testifies that Muhammad peace be upon him was the Prophet. So how could he have been the one who would help him to write the Quran?
Even if it wasn’t Waraqah and it was other Christian or Jew who would help The Prophet to write The Quran, how could they allow him to write verses like these:
a.   They are surely infidels who say “God is The Christ son of Mary” (Al Maidah, 5:72)
b.   You will be find the Jews and idolaters most excessive in hatred of those who believe (Al Maidah, 5:82)
How can it make sense that Jew or Christian would help The Prophet write something like that?

4.  The Prophet got it from satan
Well, I guess you denied this possibility. Because you didn’t believe the satan existence. But I just give reason that it would impossible if it come from satan:
a.   We as a muslim are taught to seek refuge from satan before starting to recite Al Quran
“O, when you recite The Quran, seek refuge in God from Satan the execrable” (An Nahl 16:98)
b.   Numerous verses in the Quran declaring satans as the mortal foe of humans

How could it be possible that satan helped the Prophet to write verses that cursing himself and declaring him as the enemy. And why would satan tell his plan to tempt humans and expose himself like that. Therefore it is impossible for satan to have held the Prophet write The Quran.

Now I would ask you, Quran is exist. It is one of the phenomena of the nature in universe, as well as others. It is impossible being made by human. Then, how could you explain how it came into existence? Was it like the causing of life, which is science has not now yet? Or just Occam Razor, that it just the way it did. No more explanation.
To me, of course it was from “the fundamental stuff” which is living forever, intelligent, has idea, has purpose. And it also as an empirical evidence to my postulation. That it was God who communicate to human. He is unseen, but his words is transferable and understoodable by us. Spreading in the history of humanity. Might be in history, humans ever changed it to their ambition. But He revealed his last words for humanity, which is unchanged, so that human know now that his words always go with sciences and rationality. So that human know, that is the truth.

---