The Quran as a miracle - is it a legitimate challenge?

[Clara Tea]

I disagree. There are some points in eloquence that can be seen to be eloquent objectively. The degree of amazement and wow factor will differ person to person, but you can point to amazing eloquent signs. And when they add up in Quran, they make a cumulative case.

Some of these signs are best seen in Arabic. Some of the eloquent signs in terms of eloquence don't require that.

Education produces eloquence. By your criteria, an educated person could do no wrong (because they speak eloquently). Therefore, they could murder their wife (while composing eloquent poetry, of course).

Not all educated people are saints. Many Nazis were said to have very high IQs....and saints they aint.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

We can't write similar, but we can help facilitate insights into Quran and Sunnah.

quite true, I agree completely

and insights are extremely helpful to other people

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

You have claimed that Quran is godly inspired

A Christian will say the bible is godly inspired

How do I tell which is right and which is wrong?

 

[robocop (actually)]

God can speak in a way humans cannot. He can put signs in his speech that would indicate it's from him and beyond capability of humans. I think this is rational, as we see there is ranks to eloquence, and not everyone is capable of the same eloquence.

Therefore if God speaks in a way beyond all humans and challenges all humans and Jinn, to bring something like it if they don't believe it's revealed by God, I believe this is a legitimate challenge.

I also believe some of the sermons and prayers and visitations taught by Ahlulbayt (a) are beyond normal humans, but still, I can see Quran is MUCH higher in eloquence, form, and speech.

So people can't even replicate some of the works of Ahlulbayt (a) and bring something similar to it, let alone the Quran which is signs from God in form of speech.

I believe it's legitimate challenge, bring something like it or akin to it. Another challenge it poses which is fair, you claim it's not guidance from God, then bring something more guiding than it.

Both challenges are fair from my perspective.

I believe the subconscious can come up with spectacular things instantly. I used to think when it happened it was Aliens. Now I just think for the most part it was schizophrenia. I do not rule out a higher being.

 

[firedragon]

What if someone said to you: bring forth descriptive mathematical physics equations either as compelling or more compelling than Albert Einstein's, otherwise you simply prove yourself not as mathematically gifted.

Wouldn't you simply admit you weren't as mathematically gifted?

Also related to this - if you can't produce mathematical physics equations on par with Einstein, does this serve as proof of God's existence, do you think? Would it be that God had to have revealed those equations to Einstein if there are no others up to the challenge?

Point being - substituting the "eloquence" of the Quran as executed by its authors DOES NOT suddenly serve as a proof of God's having had to have been involved in its crafting.

So what you are saying is, you are dismissing anything said in the OP by default without exploring it right?

 

[firedragon]

You have claimed that Quran is godly inspired

A Christian will say the bible is godly inspired

How do I tell which is right and which is wrong?

You have to understand both first.

 

[firedragon]

Why assume a God exists in the first place?

Why assume otherwise in the first place?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So what you are saying is, you are dismissing anything said in the OP by default without exploring it right?

Yes, because it is nonsensical. To tacitly make the claim that no human could have possibly written the Quran without God's explicit inspiration or direction flies in the face of all evidence we actually have - which is that humans did write the Quran - and no one can detect or evidence God in the details. Just because no one else has produced the Quran makes absolutely no difference. It would be like saying that God had to have had a hand in the writing of Harry Potter because no one but J.K. Rowling has ever produced the work. Asinine. An idea completely and utterly devoid of sense or intellectual value.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why assume otherwise in the first place?

Umm... a complete lack of compelling evidence comes to mind. Besides that, thousands upon thousands of items observable in the universe that require quite a bit more (outlandish) explanation when you assume "God exists" as opposed to the case where you assume such a thing does not exist.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, because it is nonsensical. To tacitly make the claim that no human could have possibly written the Quran without God's explicit inspiration or direction flies in the face of all evidence we actually have - which is that humans did write the Quran - and no one can detect or evidence God in the details. Just because no one else has produced the Quran makes absolutely no difference. It would be like saying that God had to have had a hand in the writing of Harry Potter because no one but J.K. Rowling has ever produced the work. Asinine. An idea completely and utterly devoid of sense or intellectual value.

So again, you are just dismissing it without understanding it. Thats a logical fallacy called genetic fallacy. It stems because of bias.

So super going.

 

[firedragon]

Umm... a complete lack of compelling evidence comes to mind. Besides that, thousands upon thousands of items observable in the universe that require quite a bit more (outlandish) explanation when you assume "God exists" as opposed to the case where you assume such a thing does not exist.

Lets together hijack this thread and turn this also into a "Does God exist thread" as any other thread one or two atheists are involved. What do you say. Anyway it is inevitable.

So tell me. Why assume God doesnt exist? Provide logical reasoning. Not just "no proof", because I can say "no proof" to you. Go ahead. Its alright. Anyway the need to say no God is greater than relevance to the topic. So please explain your logical explanation of why you should assume.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So again, you are just dismissing it without understanding it. Thats a logical fallacy called genetic fallacy. It stems because of bias.

So super going.

You assume it is logical and appropriate because of your own biases.

Why do you assume that I do not understand it? Because I don't agree with you? It had better be more than that. Please explain what part I am missing out on. As it stands, all you have done is say "So super going." and follow it up with a stupid smiley face emoji.

 

[firedragon]

Umm... a complete lack of compelling evidence comes to mind.

Thats not evidence to the non-existence of God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Lets together hijack this thread and turn this also into a "Does God exist thread" as any other thread one or two atheists are involved. What do you say. Anyway it is inevitable.

Without first proving that God exists, NONE OF THIS CRAP MEANS ANYTHING. Do you understand that? All conversations of this ilk (unless it is you and your Islamic buddies giving high fives in a circle and patting one another on the back for it) needs to start at that exact SQUARE ONE. Prove God exists... then we can actually address any of this other stuff in a manner than makes any sense whatsoever.

So tell me. Why assume God doesnt exist? Provide logical reasoning. Not just "no proof", because I can say "no proof" to you. Go ahead. Its alright. Anyway the need to say no God is greater than relevance to the topic. So please explain your logical explanation of why you should assume.

Why assume unicorns don't exist? Why assume leprechauns don't exist? Why assume the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Provide logical reasoning. Not just "no proof", because I can say "no proof" to you.

You should know how this works by now, and if you don't, then shame on you. Seriously... shame. I am not the one making outlandish claims without evidence. Not me sir. YOU. You and your pals. YOU do it. So it's definitely your job to do the convincing. Just as it would be my job to produce the deed to a bridge if I were trying to sell you one. My job then. But this is (supposedly) your bridge you're trying to sell. Therefore it is YOUR job to produce the deed. Not mine. I am the prospective buyer... and right now, it looks like you're trying to scam me... because YOU DON'T HAVE THE DEED.

 

[firedragon]

You assume it is logical and appropriate because of your own biases.

I didnt make any statement about it whether I assume or not. Its just a tu quoque. It is you who made the statement of dismissal without any knowledge of what the author of this OP is saying.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I didnt make any statement about it whether I assume or not. Its just a tu quoque. It is you who made the statement of dismissal without any knowledge of what the author of this OP is saying.

There is nothing to discuss with you then. I don't care about your ridiculous requirements from me before I dismiss the OP outright. Some daffy claim is made in the OP, and there is ZERO evidence provided for it except that the Quran exists. Well Whoop-De-Doo! We already knew as much. Now where is the direct correlation to God? Why couldn't fairies have directed the writing of or inspired the Quran? How about Djinn? Why couldn't it have been Bigfoot? Or why not Jerushiskarit? Or Macklefum? Why not Bilskidaroosimasker? Please prove to me that it wasn't any of those things first, and then we'll talk about the OP.

 

[firedragon]

Without first proving that God exists, NONE OF THIS CRAP MEANS ANYTHING.

Not at all. As a topic it is very much a subject to discuss. It is just that maybe you have a need to turn everything into a discussion about the existence of God. So now you have to retort angrily with some insults and attempts at some profanity.

This kind of act is religious fanaticism.

Why assume unicorns don't exist?

I dont know. Who assumed? Are you claiming unicorns exist? Okay. So start a new thread to discuss the existence of unicorns. Interesting.

You should know how this works by now, and if you don't, then shame on you. Seriously... shame. I am not the one making outlandish claims without evidence.

You are claiming no God exists without evidence. The typical ad hominem will not avoid that emptiness.

 

[firedragon]

There is nothing to discuss with you then. I don't care about your ridiculous requirements from me before I dismiss the OP outright.

of course you dont care to discuss. But you care to make logical fallacies.

I am trying to understand this necessity some people have.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not at all. As a topic it is very much a subject to discuss.

We can also discuss why fairies might like to fornicate under mushroom tops without first having any idea that fairies exist at all. Wouldn't that be productive?

It is just that maybe you have a need to turn everything into a discussion about the existence of God.

Yes, because as I have stated, this is square one. You want to talk about the attributes or activities of God? First you must prove His existence - without it you may as well be throwing around conjectures on fantasy.

So now you have to retort angrily with some insults and attempts at some profanity.

Of course you would focus on "anger" or "profanity." As if those made any difference to the points being made. You'd like to think they do, because then it makes your impossible job possibly a little easier. If you can just discredit the nonbeliever, or bring into question their character... then you might have a chance. Hahaha... no. No... you have no chance with the evidence you have in your corner. It is currently a pipe dream.

This kind of act is religious fanaticism.

Says you. Like I care at all. Call it what you will. Point is - I don't believe any of the implications being made in the OP. None of them... and the evidence provided in the OP isn't going to cut it. You don't like it? Find better evidence.

I dont know. Who assumed? Are you claiming unicorns exist? Okay. So start a new thread to discuss the existence of unicorns. Interesting.

I am assuming the non-existence of unicorns until such time as there is evidence to suggest the contrary. Any talk of unicorns is entirely rhetorical. It is specifically to point out that the default position is to not consider something as evident until it is evidenced.

You are claiming no God exists without evidence. The typical ad hominem will not avoid that emptiness.

Where did I claim that no gods exist? Where did I do that? Please point me in the direction. All I said is that I don't believe anyone who says it does exist, and that I need better evidence in order to believe. Why would I tell you to go get better evidence if I truly believed that God didn't exist? Get better evidence. Get better evidence. Get better evidence. Get better evidence.

"The Quran exists." Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

of course you dont care to discuss. But you care to make logical fallacies.

I am trying to understand this necessity some people have.

You still haven't told me what it is about the OP I am missing or misunderstanding. You made the claim that I don't understand something. Please enlighten me. My guess is that you are purposefully dodging the point. If you truly want to discuss, then let's do it. Forget all this other noise and tell me: what is it I am missing or misunderstanding?