Minimilast, obviously I'm not trying to convince Atheists of Islam with this argument, because it's contingent on two assumptions.
1) That there is good reasons to believe in God (which Atheists reject).
2) That there is good reasons to believe God would send Prophets and appoint Guides if and only if he can prove that guidance.
I know Atheists don't believe in either of these two. What I was refuting was an old argument I did to suggest Deism is plausible and arguments for Messengers don't take account the factor that revelations maybe non-proven.
I also believe with added premise:
"The book would emphasize on it's unique higher nature and challenge humanity to bring a like of it's chapter" is logical to assume given that the premises before suggest God would want to prove his religion through such a book and so should emphasize on it's proof. Adding that premise in, and it seems Islam holds a unique stance.
However this is simply to refute an old argument I made in the past.
1) That there is good reasons to believe in God (which Atheists reject).
2) That there is good reasons to believe God would send Prophets and appoint Guides if and only if he can prove that guidance.
I know Atheists don't believe in either of these two. What I was refuting was an old argument I did to suggest Deism is plausible and arguments for Messengers don't take account the factor that revelations maybe non-proven.
I also believe with added premise:
"The book would emphasize on it's unique higher nature and challenge humanity to bring a like of it's chapter" is logical to assume given that the premises before suggest God would want to prove his religion through such a book and so should emphasize on it's proof. Adding that premise in, and it seems Islam holds a unique stance.
However this is simply to refute an old argument I made in the past.
