Some Problems with Quran

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

but I decided not to post anymore here because I realized people don't have interest.

I'm curious; wasn't the name "Atheist Forums'" a bit of a hint?

Oh well, at least here you will not receive death threats for daring to question the personal superstitions of others.

[Mystic]

I'm curious; wasn't the name "Atheist Forums'" a bit of a hint?

Not really, I didn't assume anything about Atheists. I thought many of them could be agnostics towards religions and would want to know if a religion can be proven false.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

and would want to know if a religion can be proven false.

I don't know of anyone remotely interested in trying to prove a negative and have never actually run across anyone who has managed to do so. You have disproved nothing.

The reason I am not interested is because I am an agnostic atheist. I make no claims, I assert only "I do not believe". It is up to the person making the claim to provide proof,not to me to disprove their claim.

[Mystic]

I don't know of anyone remotely interested in trying to prove a negative and have never actually run across anyone who has managed to do so.

Well for whatever reason many Muslims have strong belief in their religion, I was one of them. To me, finding logical problems, would be a step to seek the truth of whether it was false or true. I didn't actually want to seek logical errors, it's just that when I came across them, I found no solution.

You have disproved nothing.

How so? If there are logical contradictions or problems in the Quran, and I point them out, how haven't I disproved Islam?

The reason I am not interested is because I am an agnostic atheist. I make no claims, I assert only "I do not believe". It is up to the person making the claim to provide proof,not to me to disprove their claim.

Muslims provide proofs for their claims. It's another thing if it's a valid argument. They feel they are.

If the Quran argument (it's unique, hence divine) is not a convincing argument, then it's proven false, because it can't be set up on something that is not a proof and claim it's a proof.

Therefore it makes no sense to sit on the fence. A lot of people believe in the Quran argument and become Muslims. A lot of people don't.

The Muslims can look at those not convinced as being insincere to the truth.

Therefore providing objective evidence that Quran is not true can be useful for an agnostic towards Islam or a disbeliever in Islam that is not sure it's wrong.

People can also find interest so they can prove to people they know are Muslims.

[Angrboda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

[Mystic]

There are some negatives that can't be proven. There are some negatives that can be proven.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There are some negatives that can be proven.

I didn't know that. Please name five,showing your proofs.

[Minimalist]

Well for whatever reason many Muslims have strong belief in their religion, I was one of them.

I do commend your talent for understatement, though. Many of them are downright fanatical.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

How so? If there are logical contradictions or problems in the Quran,

Logic does NOT guarantee truth. .

A claim may be logically valid yet false. The truth of a claim is dependent on the truth of the premise,not the form of argument.

In my opinion, logic alone may not be used to reveal truth. To be accepted as true, a logical inference needs to be supported by credible evidence. IE that the premise is true..

My position is that God cannot be argued into or out of existence.


Should you disprove the validity of Islam (or Christianity for that matter) you're gonna be REALLY famous;nobody has done so before,ever. Nor so far has anyone proved the truth of the Qur'an,ever.

[Mystic]

I quote a philosopher Michael Antony:

Another common claim of the New Atheists is that you ‘can’t prove a negative’ – where what is typically meant is a negative existence claim of the form ‘X does not exist’. Rhetorically, this claim functions to legitimize the idea that evidence needn’t be provided for God’s nonexistence. After all, if evidence cannot be provided for a proposition it would be irrational to expect one to provide some, and so reasonable to believe that evidence isn’t needed. But the claim that you can’t prove a negative cannot help the atheist. That is because, on each of two possible ways of interpreting what it means to ‘prove’ something, it is generally false that you can’t prove a negative (and often true that you can’t prove a positive).

Consider first, proofs which deliver certainty, as in mathematics or logic. Such proofs are sometimes possible for negative existence claims, such as the claim that there is no greatest prime number. One can also prove with certainty that there are no Xs whenever the concept X can be shown to be incoherent (like the concepts round square, or 3pm on the sun). Of course, it is true that many negative existence claims cannot be proved with absolute certainty, but the same holds for positive existence claims, for example, from science or common sense, such as that there are electrons or tables and chairs. So there’s nothing special here about negative existence claims.

Turn next to proofs which aim to establish only the probable truth of their conclusions. These are the sorts of proofs which result from successful scientific and other empirical investigations. In this sense of ‘proof’, it is easy to prove the non-existence of many things: for example, that there is no pomegranate in my hand, or no snow-capped mountains in the Sahara Desert. And while it may be difficult or impossible to even in this weaker sense prove the non-existence of many things – goblins, sombreros in the Sombrero Galaxy – the same goes for many positive existence claims – that Aristotle sneezed on his 20th birthday; that there is a transcendent deity; that there is a sombrero somewhere in the Sombrero Galaxy. So, again, there is nothing unique about negative existence claims. The unfortunate saying that one can’t prove a negative should be dropped.