The moral argument, for atheism!

[LadyForCamus]

LadyForCamus, I never once argued that Quran is true because Quran says so. I never did.  Re-read what I stated as I'm not going to re-explain again and again. Quran being endless knowledge cannot be known simply because it states that.  Any one can write a book with that claim.

As I said I can show you some ways reflections unlock doors of it to other levels of the Quran and show you to degrees of how layered it is.   Reason and Logic precede the Quran, and it's what connects the verses, and it's what Quran is addressed to.

If I can show you how to replace one level of knowledge with an entire new level and Quran will continuously facilitate this process, then, you will see the Quran as to what it does. The Quran I underestimated in the past, disbelieved in it for five years, I know of the critical approaches to it, and I know of the neutral reading of it and I know of the belief type recitation. I been through all three.

So, what you’re saying is that if you read the Quran a certain way, and reflect properly on its contents for long enough, it will give me knowledge and proofs about what it says about Allah?

This wasn’t a rhetorical question, MK.  And, the fact that you chose not to answer it leads me to suspect that perhaps you’re more self-aware of the fatal flaw in your argument than you’ve lead us to believe up to this point.

“Quran is true because Quran says so” - And - “Quran is true because when I read it in a special way, its magic tells me how true it is.”

— are exactly the same statement. In the latter, you’re simply adding a second unsupported assertion; “cuz the book is magical”, as a placeholder for the external evidence that you don’t have. You are still attempting to use the book to prove the truth of the book, which unfortunately for your argument, is still question begging. “Cuz magic”, is not an escape hatch, and it doesn’t get you out of your fallacy.

But, I have a funny feeling you know that already.

[Mystic]

LadyForCamus, I never once argued that Quran is true because Quran says so. I never did.  Re-read what I stated as I'm not going to re-explain again and again. Quran being endless knowledge cannot be known simply because it states that.  Any one can write a book with that claim.

As I said I can show you some ways reflections unlock doors of it to other levels of the Quran and show you to degrees of how layered it is.   Reason and Logic precede the Quran, and it's what connects the verses, and it's what Quran is addressed to.

If I can show you how to replace one level of knowledge with an entire new level and Quran will continuously facilitate this process, then, you will see the Quran as to what it does. The Quran I underestimated in the past, disbelieved in it for five years, I know of the critical approaches to it, and I know of the neutral reading of it and I know of the belief type recitation. I been through all three.

So, what you’re saying is that if you read the Quran a certain way, and reflect properly on its contents for long enough, it will give me knowledge and proofs about what it says about Allah?

This wasn’t a rhetorical question, MK.  And, the fact that you chose not to answer it leads me to suspect that perhaps you’re more self-aware of the fatal flaw in your argument than you’ve lead us to believe up to this point.

“Quran is true because Quran says so” - And - “Quran is true because when I read it in a special way, its magic tells me how true it is.”

— are exactly the same statement. In the latter, you’re simply adding another unsupported assertion; “cuz the book is magical”, as a placeholder for the external evidence that you don’t have. You are still attempting to use the book to prove the truth of the book, which unfortunately for your argument, is still question begging. “Cuz magic”, is not an escape hatch, and it doesn’t get you out of your fallacy.

But, I have a funny feeling you know that already.

They are not the same statement if you understand the nature of miracles and reasoning to attest to them.

[Brian37]

This wasn’t a rhetorical question, MK.  And, the fact that you chose not to answer it leads me to suspect that perhaps you’re more self-aware of the fatal flaw in your argument than you’ve lead us to believe up to this point.

“Quran is true because Quran says so” - And - “Quran is true because when I read it in a special way, its magic tells me how true it is.”

— are exactly the same statement. In the latter, you’re simply adding another unsupported assertion; “cuz the book is magical”, as a placeholder for the external evidence that you don’t have. You are still attempting to use the book to prove the truth of the book, which unfortunately for your argument, is still question begging. “Cuz magic”, is not an escape hatch, and it doesn’t get you out of your fallacy.

But, I have a funny feeling you know that already.

They are not the same statement if you understand the nature of miracles and reasoning to attest to them.

The word "miracle" is a gap filling word and is nothing but a superstition.

It is simply an ignorant way of saying "Magic explains it because I don't know."

This garbage of a word falls apart when you look at the amount of death that happens all over the world from everything. 50 to 60 million humans WORLDWIDE die each year from everything at every stage of life. That is 500 million deaths every 10 years and 1 billion deaths every 20 years.

The reality is you either survive something or you don't, but death gets everyone no matter what. There is no magic to surviving or dying. 

I still find good in life and still find joy, even though I also feel pain, and no, that does not make my life meaningless to me. It just means I accept reality without assigning it to gap filling superstitious words that are hollow and meaningless.

I do not need a god to live my life. I do not need to assign the good or bad that happen to super heros or ground trolls.

[LadyForCamus]

This wasn’t a rhetorical question, MK.  And, the fact that you chose not to answer it leads me to suspect that perhaps you’re more self-aware of the fatal flaw in your argument than you’ve lead us to believe up to this point.

“Quran is true because Quran says so” And - “Quran is true because when I read it in a special way, its magic tells me how true it is.”

— are exactly the same statement. In the latter, you’re simply adding another unsupported assertion; “cuz the book is magical”, as a placeholder for the external evidence that you don’t have. You are still attempting to use the book to prove the truth of the book, which unfortunately for your argument, is still question begging. “Cuz magic”, is not an escape hatch, and it doesn’t get you out of your fallacy.

But, I have a funny feeling you know that already.

They are not the same statement if you understand the nature of miracles and reasoning to attest to them.

For all meaningful purposes they are exactly the same.  Not only do you not have external evidence for the truth of the Quran, you don’t have any evidence that the book is magic. The only difference between the two statements, is that the second one has an additional unsupported assertion (‘the book is magic’) on top of the one you’ve already made (‘the book is true’). So, tell me, what evidence do you have that the Quran is magic? Remember; if you reference the Quran in your answer you’re begging the question. 😉

[LadyForCamus]

The silence is defeating. 😏

[Mystic]

They are not the same statement if you understand the nature of miracles and reasoning to attest to them.

For all meaningful purposes they are exactly the same.  Not only do you not have external evidence for the truth of the Quran, you don’t have any evidence that the book is magic.  The only difference between the two statements, is that the second one has an additional unsupported assertion (‘the book is magic’) on top of the one you’ve already made (‘the book is true’). So, tell me, what evidence do you have that the Quran is magic? Remember; if you reference the Quran in your answer you’re begging the question. 😉

I already explained where the proof lies.  You understood and are now trying to equate what has no equation.

[LadyForCamus]

For all meaningful purposes they are exactly the same.  Not only do you not have external evidence for the truth of the Quran, you don’t have any evidence that the book is magic.  The only difference between the two statements, is that the second one has an additional unsupported assertion (‘the book is magic’) on top of the one you’ve already made (‘the book is true’). So, tell me, what evidence do you have that the Quran is magic? Remember; if you reference the Quran in your answer you’re begging the question. 😉

I already explained where the proof lies.  

Nah.  You said, “cuz mircles”, which is the same thing as, “cuz magic”.

MK, it’s painfully obvious that you want your position to be rational almost as fervently as you want it to be true.  Does it make you feel even the slightest bit uncomfortable when you’re confronted with the fact that your logic is invalid?

[Angrboda]

This wasn’t a rhetorical question, MK.  And, the fact that you chose not to answer it leads me to suspect that perhaps you’re more self-aware of the fatal flaw in your argument than you’ve lead us to believe up to this point.

“Quran is true because Quran says so” - And - “Quran is true because when I read it in a special way, its magic tells me how true it is.”

— are exactly the same statement. In the latter, you’re simply adding another unsupported assertion; “cuz the book is magical”, as a placeholder for the external evidence that you don’t have. You are still attempting to use the book to prove the truth of the book, which unfortunately for your argument, is still question begging. “Cuz magic”, is not an escape hatch, and it doesn’t get you out of your fallacy.

But, I have a funny feeling you know that already.

They are not the same statement if you understand the nature of miracles and reasoning to attest to them.

Regardless, if your argument is based on reason, logic, and demonstrable facts, your argument should be capable of being presented without reference to the Quran. Your unwillingness to divorce your argument from the Quran is basically tacit admission that you cannot do so, and that it is therefore not a valid proof based on reason, logic, and demonstrable facts. You're basically conceding LadyForCamus' point by your actions.

[Mystic]

No, LadyForCamus, the Quran must be referenced, but it's not due to it be reference it's true, it's due to the higher type of literature and way of guidance which is beyond capability of humans. I explained how it is, and I also offered over the years other arguments for the Quran, but the fact is you are trying to equate the two so you don't have to look at the proof.

That is not by quoting Quran, that is by reflection, logic and reason precedes Quran. God is ultimate reason and is capable of providing a sign/proof in the form of guidance from him.

[Angrboda]

No, LadyForCamus, the Quran must be referenced, but it's not due to it be reference it's true, it's due to the higher type of literature and way of guidance which is beyond capability of humans.

The Koran is a mere four-fifths of the length of the New Testament; but some Westerners find it an even more difficult read. Edward Gibbon complained about its “endless incoherent rhapsody of fable and precept”. Thomas Carlyle said that it was “as toilsome reading as I ever undertook; a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite”. ... Muslims greatly prefer to read the Koran in the original Arabic. Yet the archaic language and high-flown verse, while inspiring, can also be difficult to understand even for educated Arabic speakers. ... Many students of the Holy Book do not understand much of what they are memorising.

https://www.economist.com/christmas-spec...-the-books

The Quran contains grammatical errors. Miraculous books do not contain grammatical errors. (https://answering-islam.org/Authors/Newton/grammar.html)