• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You can take a class on eloquence. Let me know what you think if there is objective criteria or not after that class.

Is that your way of admitting that no such criteria exist?

It must be. Why else wouldn't you just list them.........................

All hail Eric Clapton!
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The level of eloquence being observed, would help facilitate understanding. That's what that thread is about. And I'm trying to make a cumulative case. We have to start with just scratching the surface approach.


No. First and foremost, you have to start by listing objective criteria by which this stuff is supposed to be measured.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Okay I will show you some difference between eloquence and non-eloquence in terms of speech. We will see objective criteria about it. I will make a thread about this.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
We have a sense that detects eloquence.

Yes. We call it "opinion".

Which is why I appreciate Eric Clapton while a buddy of mine thinks the world of Jimi Hendrix.

It's not totally subjective nor totally objective

So far, it looks to be 100% subjective, since you failed miserably at even only hinting at a single objective criteria to measure "eloquence".

And not because of lack of asking. I asked you about 10 times by now.

, it's a middle ground, but God can show through that to all humans, signs of eloquence with whatever taste they have in them for it.

Eric Clapton disagrees.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Okay I will show you some difference between eloquence and non-eloquence in terms of speech. We will see objective criteria about it. I will make a thread about this.
As I said, this information is essential to the OP of THIS thread.

Why would you post it in another thread?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As I said, this information is essential to the OP of THIS thread.

Why would you post it in another thread?

Because most people believe in eloquence and levels of it. It's hard when people begin to say things like all morality is subjective or all eloquence is subjective, they are ignorant when they say things like that. So we will make a thread just about whether there are objective ways of measuring eloquence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Because most people believe in eloquence and levels of it

I don't care what people "believe".

You asked a question in the OP. You ask if it is a "fair" challenge. You refuse to share the essential information which is required to be able to establish if it is "fair" or not.

It's upto you off course.

So let's cut this short, because clearly it's not going to go anywhere if you continue to be this stubborn.

The answer to your question is: NO, it is not fair. It is deeply fallacious and illogical. And the reason for that is that there are no objective criteria to establish if the challenge was met or not.

When it all comes down to mere personal opinion, then there is no "challenge". Then it's just a matter of opinion.

In which case, Mohammed is an imposter and Eric Clapton is god. Why? Because it is my opinion.
If it's good enough for the quran, then it should be good enough for Clapton as well.

It's hard when people begin to say things like all morality is subjective or all eloquence is subjective, they are ignorant when they say things like that.

The post the objective criteria by which eloquence is to be measured.
Failing to do so, leaves only subjective criteria as the alternative.

So we will make a thread just about whether there are objective ways of measuring eloquence.


I predict that, just like in this thread, no objective criteria will be established at all. Not in this thread, not in the next thread. Just like it wasn't in all the threads and conversation that came before it.

This is not my first time playing this silly game. I know how it goes by now.
Many a muslim has issued this "challenge" to me. Not a single one could provide the objective criteria by which the game should be played.

I don't expect you to do better.


I would love it if you did though. But I have little hope. You would have listed the criteria by now, after being asked a couple dozen times, if you could.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
We've had threads discussing the existence of God. This thread is not about whether God exists nor about whether he has sent Prophets, but particularly looking at a claim and if it's rational. Rational, not as in if it's true, but if it's rationally coherent and possible to claim writing as miracle by challenging others to bring the like of it in which all humans and Jinn fail too. It's not even about whether it has happened or not, nor about the content of the miracle (Quran), but just that claim.

I don't know why people have to mix all topics into one thread all the time.
If you are going to make a vague post about miracles then you leave the door open to others to ask questions. You don't even bother to explain what a miracle is, or how a person tests for this. If you want to debate whether the Quran is a miracle then design an argument that can take facts and allow you to make that conclusion. If you begin with assuming a God exists, well all you have to do is point to that assumption and declare the Quran is miraculous.

I read claims about the Quran having scientific or factual details about reality that wasn't known at the time. This is probably your best avenue to make a case. If you succeed then you can make a case for a divine and then for a God.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Okay let me spell it out.

If there is no God, this claim is bogus.
If there is no criteria to measure greatness of a writing or eloquence, this claim is bogus.
If there is no criteria to measure guidance of Quran, that claim towards bringing something more guiding is bogus as well.

So we agree?

I believe:

(1) God exists.
(2) There is objective criteria to measure eloquence and I believe Quran has highest eloquence among speech and writing..
(3)There are insights to see the guiding nature of Quran and it's way of augmenting itself and it's reader, and doors opening other doors, and all this is objective.

I guess this topic can be concluded.

Since we disagree on fundamentals like whether there is a god or not or there is objective way to measure eloquence. The topic conclusions are that is inconclusive for those reasons, yet, I believe for people who study (1) (2) and (3), they will find that it's reasonable that Quran challenges humans to bring like the Quran, if for anything, to take Quran seriously and study it, which can bring about guidance and insights to the person.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
(1) God exists.

I'll bend over backwards and accept this baseless assumption for the sake of argument.
However, I'll only accept in a generic fashion. So there is "some" deity. This deity can be Jupiter, Odin, Allah, Jawhe, Visjnoe,..... or none of the above and some completely different god that no human has come up with. It can also be a deity that kickstarted the big bang and then forgot about this space-time and everything it contains.

So that leaves the door open for you to "prove" that the quran is divine and that this god is allah.
Because obviously, if we are going to assume that this god is allah and the quran his book, then the entire thing is just a useless fallacy engaging in an assumed conclusion.

(2) There is objective criteria to measure eloquence and I believe Quran has highest eloquence among speech and writing..

Cool.

List these criteria.

(3)There are insights to see the guiding nature of Quran and it's way of augmenting itself and it's reader, and doors opening other doors, and all this is objective.

Objective, how?

Be specific.

I guess this topic can be concluded.

Huh? So this topic was just about you stating your faith based beliefs and then running away?

Since we disagree on fundamentals like whether there is a god or not or there is objective way to measure eloquence

If there are objective criteria to measure something, it should be trivial to list them.
Why do you insist on us just believing you that they exist without actually sharing them?

This is the gaping hole in your entire argument. Well, that and the unsupported premises off course - but I'm willing to led that slide just to be able to zoom in on your actual argument of this quranic challenge.

After all, if the challenge is shown bogus, then the whole thing (including your unsupported premise) falls apart anyway.

The topic conclusions are that is inconclusive for those reasons

Actually, it is only inconclusive because you are stubbornly withholding crucial information.
You can't just claim that objective criteria to measure a certain thing exist and then refuse to list them.

Surely you can understand how that simply doesn't fly................

, yet, I believe for people who study (1) (2) and (3), they will find that it's reasonable that Quran challenges humans to bring like the Quran, if for anything, to take Quran seriously and study it, which can bring about guidance and insights to the person.

And by "people who study 1,2 and 3", what you really mean is muslims who don't just already believe all this stuff, but who follow a religion that requires them to believe all this stuff.

So what this means to me, is that these claims of yours can't stand on their own merrit.
You need to already believe them in order to feel justified in believing them.

Hopelessly circular nonsense, is what that is.



PS: I must admit though, this thread is great fun. So in that sense, you made a great OP :p
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
There are those scientific facts in Quran, but I believe it's not a proof because it can be Aliens or Jinn who knew these things.

Or just humans who copied everything you call "scientific miracles" from neighbouring cultures and from the ancient greeks, including all the mistakes they made.

But that is truly for another thread.

Tell you what, how about you create a thread and pick a SINGLE "scientific miracle" from the quran. Make it the one you find to be the MOST impressive. And let's discuss! :)
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You have not understood the thesis the OP is proposing because you have not asked for it, nor looked at it.
I haven't looked at it you say? Hmmm... I wonder how I crafted my first response then? What was I replying to, do you think? I remember reading it... some parts of it multiple times.

Well, hey - there is one way to actually resolve this! I will take a look at the OP point by point, assess and write up my understanding of each one, and then we can juxtapose that with my initial reply and see how well it stands up! What do you think? I think its a bang-up idea - and then you can specifically point to where you think my understanding if deficient (And finally answer my question! Won't that be nice?). Here we go!

PARAGRAPH1:
Link's OP said:
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.
Here we start from the assumption that God exists. This paragraph sets up the idea that God can communicate in ways that human beings cannot produce - and implies that we might be able to discern when God's abilities in this arena are being put into play, and states that this is "rational" because we can see variance in humans capability to produce texts/writings/speech with what is here being termed "eloquence." I would here like to contend that the idea that we can "See" God at work in the heights of "eloquence" could not possibly be rational solely because we can see variance in what humans themselves can produce. What can I say - that just doesn't follow. It is a non sequitur if I have ever seen one. This paragraph basically states: "Because not everyone can produce text with the same eloquence, we can therefore assume that some text is that which God produces or inspires, and that it is beyond the capability of humans."

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 1 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

PARAGRAPH 2:
Link's OP said:
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.
This paragraph is kind of funny, when you think about it. So, God is somehow there, before us, presenting us with this challenge to produce something God-like if we don't believe that the text was revealed by God. So, God is basically there, proving He exists as He is presenting the challenge in this scenario, and unfortunately for the intended seriousness of this point, the nonbeliever would be far more impressed with the presence of God (confirming His existence) than they would be worried about whether or not He inspired or wrote some text or another

Anyway - besides that little aside on this, the problem is that this basically lays it out like God states it this way: "You humans who do not believe I wrote the Quran, listen up! Prove to me that you can write in the same caliber as I, God, can, and when you can't, you must then believe that it is revealed by me, God." Even if the humans can't produce writing of the same caliber as the Quran is written (the "high level" of this caliber I would argue is actually subjective in nature), it doesn't necessarily follow that it means the text was "revealed by God." That's another non sequitur. This time being perpetrated by God Himself in this scenario. it is just like the earlier example I brought up where someone commands me to "make a blade of grass", and when I can't, I am then supposed to admit that God had to have done it. If you can see how those two things just do not follow, then how is it that you get all tripped up when it is the Quran and God's revelation as the 2 things?

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 2 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

PARAGRAPH 3:
Link's OP said:
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.
Here, an appeal is made to how great a fellow human's works were, but that it is believed that those works are beyond "normal humans" (whatever these are), and that the Quran is even further beyond even that guy's works. Once again, I would appeal here to the subjective nature of the descriptor "beyond" or "better." Eloquence is a thing that actually changes over time (believe it or not!) because what is "eloquent" to one time-period, may not be so to another. Like reading Shakespeare and the interesting turns of phrase he uses, and then comparing to what is considered eloquent in modern times. Two completely different things - and it makes sense that it would be so. And so when comparing texts written from two completely different time periods, you aren't comparing apples to apples. Certain turns of phrase or clever literary tricks simply aren't prudent for modern use, or wouldn't be employed because they are lost to that other time (not to mention that to use them now would simply be plagiarizing). But rest assured this time has its own turns of phrase and tricks - some that may even be admired thousands of years down the road. Times change, in other words. And to state that something is definitively "the best" that we will ever see (especially when that thing is regarded as an art work) is myopic at best.

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 3 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

PARAGRAPH 4:
Link's OP said:
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.
This paragraph basically lays out the idea that there is no hope for anyone to produce to the level of the Quran, because they can't even replicate the stylings of someone called "Ahlulbayt." Oh, and in the last sentence, we see again the assumption that God exists, and claims that the Quran is, definitively (with no qualifiers) "signs from God in the forms of speech." Another one of the reason's I responded by asking that we take all this "back to formula" and start with the proposition "God exists."

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 4 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

PARAGRAPH 5:
Link's OP said:
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.
So, in this paragraph, we see the same sort of thing, but the challenge then becomes that we bring something to the table even "more guiding" than the Quran if we believe that God was not the ultimate generator of the text - and the implication is most certainly that, if we can't do so, then we must infer that God exists and authored the Quran. This, again, is entirely subjective. Entirely. And I can literally prove it. The idea of something being "more guiding" first requires a goal as to what we are being guided toward. As a really simple example, if we are defining something being "more guiding" as whether or not it produces the desired results in a vast majority (if not all) cases, then I would say that, by that criteria, LEGO assembly instructions are vastly "more guiding" than the Quran can ever hope to be. Boom.

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 5 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

PARAGRAPH 6:
Link's OP said:
Both challenges are fair from my perspective.
I'm not quite sure what there is to even misunderstand here - but I would just like to say that I don't think these "challenges" are at all rational, let alone "fair," and for the reasons covered in the aforementioned points.

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 6 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

And my ultimate point in the very first post I made in this thread (the only one before you started up with me @firedragon):
A Vestigial Mote said:
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.
My pointing out the various non sequiturs being employed in the OP is sufficient enough to explain my stance on this - and as you can see, I did read the OP, and my first comment STILL STANDS.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
As a really simple example, if we are defining something being "more guiding" as whether or not it produces the desired results in a vast majority (if not all) cases, then I would say that, by that criteria, LEGO assembly instructions are vastly "more guiding" than the Quran can ever hope to be. Boom.

That was both hilarious as well as a slam-dunk example!

:D
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I haven't looked at it you say?

Nope. Didnt say that. I can't understand the reason to make up straw men even for something as simple as that.

Here we start from the assumption that God exists.

Yes. If you dont believe God exists, since this thread begins with that thread, either you have to do it methodologically or its not relevant to you.

This paragraph is kind of funny, when you think about it. So, God is somehow there, before us, presenting us with this challenge to produce something God-like if we don't believe that the text was revealed by God. So, God is basically there, proving He exists as He is presenting the challenge in this scenario, and unfortunately for the intended seriousness of this point, the nonbeliever would be far more impressed with the presence of God (confirming His existence) than they would be worried about whether or not He inspired or wrote some text or another

Anyway - besides that little aside on this, the problem is that this basically lays it out like God states it this way: "You humans who do not believe I wrote the Quran, listen up! Prove to me that you can write in the same caliber as I, God, can, and when you can't, you must then believe that it is revealed by me, God." Even if the humans can't produce writing of the same caliber as the Quran is written (the "high level" of this caliber I would argue is actually subjective in nature), it doesn't necessarily follow that it means the text was "revealed by God." That's another non sequitur. This time being perpetrated by God Himself in this scenario. it is just like the earlier example I brought up where someone commands me to "make a blade of grass", and when I can't, I am then supposed to admit that God had to have done it. If you can see how those two things just do not follow, then how is it that you get all tripped up when it is the Quran and God's revelation as the 2 things?

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 2 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

Yep. You have not understood anything because you have not got the details from the author.

Here, an appeal is made to how great a fellow human's works were, but that it is believed that those works are beyond "normal humans" (whatever these are), and that the Quran is even further beyond even that guy's works. Once again, I would appeal here to the subjective nature of the descriptor "beyond" or "better." Eloquence is a thing that actually changes over time (believe it or not!) because what is "eloquent" to one time-period, may not be so to another. Like reading Shakespeare and the interesting turns of phrase he uses, and then comparing to what is considered eloquent in modern times. Two completely different things - and it makes sense that it would be so. And so when comparing texts written from two completely different time periods, you aren't comparing apples to apples. Certain turns of phrase or clever literary tricks simply aren't prudent for modern use, or wouldn't be employed because they are lost to that other time (not to mention that to use them now would simply be plagiarizing). But rest assured this time has its own turns of phrase and tricks - some that may even be admired thousands of years down the road. Times change, in other words. And to state that something is definitively "the best" that we will ever see (especially when that thing is regarded as an art work) is myopic at best.

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 3 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

Yep. You have not understood anything because you have not got any clarification from the author.

[QUOTE="

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 4 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

PARAGRAPH 5:So, in this paragraph, we see the same sort of thing, but the challenge then becomes that we bring something to the table even "more guiding" than the Quran if we believe that God was not the ultimate generator of the text - and the implication is most certainly that, if we can't do so, then we must infer that God exists and authored the Quran. This, again, is entirely subjective. Entirely. And I can literally prove it. The idea of something being "more guiding" first requires a goal as to what we are being guided toward. As a really simple example, if we are defining something being "more guiding" as whether or not it produces the desired results in a vast majority (if not all) cases, then I would say that, by that criteria, LEGO assembly instructions are vastly "more guiding" than the Quran can ever hope to be. Boom.

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 5 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

PARAGRAPH 6:I'm not quite sure what there is to even misunderstand here - but I would just like to say that I don't think these "challenges" are at all rational, let alone "fair," and for the reasons covered in the aforementioned points.

Please indicate any lack of understanding I am display here, and if you agree with @Link's paragraph 6 once you have cleared up any misunderstandings.

And my ultimate point in the very first post I made in this thread (the only one before you started up with me @firedragon):
My pointing out the various non sequiturs being employed in the OP is sufficient enough to explain my stance on this - and as you can see, I did read the OP, and my first comment STILL STANDS.
[/QUOTE]

I will cut to the chase and say that you have not understood because you have no details. So maybe you should clarify without doing a genetic fallacy.
 
Top