Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism

[R00tKiT]

Al-Ghazali's book The incoherence is really not a cakewalk, so don't blame me if I didn't understand all the material there. I know enough though to tell there is nothing in this particular book speaking against arguing for qur'anic miracles.

Yes, like all apologists, he twists the verses until they agree with what he already knows.

I'm sorry but you have to do better than lay out platitudes about theologians, especially when it comes to an established authority like Al-Ghazali. You'll have to actually come up with a particular verse, together with Al-Ghazali's analysis of it, and point out where you think he did the purported twisting.

And besides, as someone who probably doesn't understand the Arabic language nor ever studied any Arabic text, you are far from being qualified to criticize Al-Ghazali's exegesis of the Qur'an, or any exegesis of it, for that matter.

Again, the Quran is wrong because it makes truth claims about a deity

Since when religious texts become wrong simply because they contain utterances about a deity ? Even logical positivists, who take the most extreme position against religious language, say that religious utterances are inherently meaningless, not false or wrong, just meaningless. The only position you can take is that the Qur'an's supernatural claims are unfalsifiable or unproven, that's very, very different from saying that the Qur'an is false or wrong. If you insist on the latter, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that the claims on the Qur'an are factually false, e.g. that their logical negation is true: that God positively doesn't exist, that the angel Gabriel positively doesn't exist, etc, etc.

Good luck.  

Being Muslim is NOT the same as 'believing the truth'. Those metaphysical assumptions and adherence to the Quran are precisely where things go wrong. The correctness of the proof is useless if the assumptions are invalid.

The metaphysical assumptions of the Qur'an are not the topic here, so please don't change the topic, we're only concerned with the inevitability of the articles of faith when the assumptions are accepted. 

Again, once you grant the assumptions, some assertions become inevitably true, and you can't reject them because you think it's ((fundamentalist)) to accept them, which is what you're trying to do here.