Yes to all recent posts...I am often short on time so my answers are condensed and not fully explained. I should, perhaps, have specified the Abrahamic religions as opposed to West/East.
LIteralism is often found among the adherents of at least the Abrahamic religions and as such those people defend as literally true what is demonstrably not provable nor based on anything other than a source of information which is no less authoritative than another source of information which may contradict it. Since we can play no favorites with any source of information proof lies best in reproducible or connectively reproducible experience. Science is, of course, best at this and any literalistic belief which runs against the scientific grain shows itself to be anti-proof.
There are ways of God proving his religion. We have to see religion in two ways:
(1) Abstract Religion
(2) Specific instance of the abstract
The question is if you can prove (1), can you prove (2)? Of course, if you prove (2), you can prove (1), because (2) becomes an authority on what is (1). But I think first is first, prove (1), then seek to know through those proofs for (1), what (2) is.
I believe Quran has proofs for (1), and in the way it proves (1), it proves (2). It also has proofs for (2) in terms of eloquence superiority, but this is not the only proof, but Muslims are only familiar with that. The problem with the latter, is you need to be immersed with Quran and Arabic to know this divine miracle.
So I propose much of the Quran is about proving what is (1), and if you can prove it, I believe you can narrow the potential instances of it to the specific, as nothing can be an instance of the abstract one but the concrete one from God in theory.
What do I mean by abstract. For example, the concept of a reminder. There is the concept, and there is the very instances of it (Quran). Can argue the need of a divine book without knowing the right one? I think we can.
Another example, is the concept of family of the reminder, in terms that chosen guides and teachers come in form of groups knowns as a family, there is the general concept than there is specific cases in the past, like family of Abraham, and the question is what is the purpose of such a family and is there need of one in current time.
Another example, is one generic founder and another generic founder from God, do they need a constant number in terms of succession? I think in abstract they do. Then we can research what is the only potential number historically and now? The number is Twelve.
There is of course the general concept of connecting to God and praying to him, and as abstract concept the idea of ritual of that which humans can unite on and have inward realities in drawing us closer to God. There is the general concept and specific.
So in proving these general concepts (need of kings from God for example), we can start to look what meets that criteria.
