Are there anything could destroy thst proof

[WinterHold]

Even from pure linguistic perspectives, the Quran is a masterpiece; you're not hearing this because I'm a biased Muslim; you would know it if you could speak Arabic indeed.

In terms of linguistic structure, the book is simple yet strong, poetic but accurate, ah well, Heathens of Mecca (who were masters of Arabic) couldn't breach into it; you'll hear this argument a lot as a proof for Islam, it's one of my favorites anyhow.

The Hadiths are dry, very dry in comparison.

So are you saying a computer could never be programmed to write something better than the Quran in the (original) Arabic? Are you saying it is impossible for humans to arrange words in a language created by humans in a particular order? Are you sure the rules of Arabic aren't bent and twisted to fit the Quran and make it seem like a masterpiece?

There is a website called Library of Babel which contains everything in the Latin Alphabet that ever has been written and that ever be written. Most of the library is random strings of characters, but that's the nature of something so crude, but within the website you can find linguistic masterpieces because the Library of Babel contains every single combination of Latin alphabetical characters.

If somebody makes a similar website to Library of Babel for Arabic, the computer would be able to randomly generate text of the Quran simply by the nature of the software.  Every single possible combination of Arabic characters will be saved in the database. Then the Quran won't seem so linguistically miraculous.

As an example, on this page in a book contained with the Library of Babel, we see the phrase "to be or not to be" on its own. You can find the entire works of Shakespeare in the Library of Babel. Anything you can ever conceive is generated by the software. The same can be done for the Arabic language.

Also, The True Furqan, is a response to the claim that the Quran is linguistically miraculous. The Quran Furqan mirrors the Arabic of the Quran but people dismiss it as either U.S. or Israeli inspired or as Christian propaganda. Nobody knows its original author but it was translated into English by the Palestinian Arab Anis Shorrosh (born in Nazareth and somebody who has debated Ahmed Deedat).

As a matter in fact a programmer might have a different opinion:

http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/general/174441/

The site is not doing what you think it does. Truly, first observations are the speed, as a programmer who work codes on almost daily basis, this is something that is ultra fishy.

Secondly, it doesn't "contain" things, we'll have a storage problem -a severe one, actually- if we were to store all these strings. All this text you see is created on the fly.

Technically, I can describe this as "the book is not physically there unless you begin to search for it; the book is not there unless you provide an a value for the parameter :  from there, the algorithm would take your input, and produce to you some random text, manipulated enough over the pages. " ; to me, to logic, that is a mere trick, actually it's very simple to implement. Changing bases is very basic in Computer Science.

Frankly, that is so different, from a masterpiece that is simple to read, and at the same time : logical; it's not "generated through my input"; rather it is summed up in 600 pages, sitting there since 1400 years. 

As for the "True Furqan", I wouldn't call it propaganda, but an attempt of "trolling" ?
Ah, Anis Shorrosh is not the best example on wise criticism; he's a troll. The book itself is copycatting Quranic verses in a childish way that ends up to be hilarious and actually brings a very bad name to the author and the translator. It just shows the sad desperate state that some theists reach; exploding with tantrums.

chimp3

It's not just "well written", it was special to a degree that made ancient Arabs call Mohammed a wizard over it. 
Its beauty is combined with a logic that is non existent in other literature.

Constable Dorfl

Logic and meaning is what makes it so special.
For the two to exist in the same book, has a strange effect.

Though, it's all about the logical meaning after all. 
Shakespeare's work might be beautiful, but it doesn't provide enough logic to back the text up.