1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Link, Jun 15, 2021.

  1. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    13,336
    Ratings:
    +3,478
    Religion:
    Islam
    What is the objective framework and where does it come from in relation to this thread you have not even clarified clearly?
     
  2. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    1,318
    Ratings:
    +757
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    Logic is the basic set of rules for reasoning. Are you not familiar with how reasoning works and what logic is?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    13,336
    Ratings:
    +3,478
    Religion:
    Islam
    So with reasoning and logic, can you tell me why you insist God doesnt exist in a thread that is made to methodological assumption?

    Why not ope a new thread for your topic?
     
  4. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    10,711
    Ratings:
    +8,605
    Religion:
    Atheist
    This is hilariously embarassing.

    Here's @A Vestigial Mote , giving you a detailed analysis of the OP, point by point, while inviting you to point out where his supposed "misunderstanding" is.

    He likely spent at least 30 minutes writing this up.
    And what do you do? You wave it away at face value with a one liner in which you simply repeat your bare assertion that he didn't understand.

    So embarassing.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    10,711
    Ratings:
    +8,605
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Now who is arguing strawmen.....................

    He didn't say, nore did he insist, that "god doesn't exist".
    Instead, he merely questioned the assumptions of the OP and pointed out that they are baseless. ie, not in evidence.

    Why? What is wrong with questioning the assumptions and premises of an argument posited in the OP?
     
  6. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,752
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Christian
    Exactly, and if someone says that there is human communication more eloquent and splendiferous than the Quran you'll just label them as less capable at detecting.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,484
    Ratings:
    +4,460
    Religion:
    ?
    Here's the quote I was referring to:
    So, you claim you didn't say that I hadn't "looked at it" in reference to the "thesis the OP is proposing." You didn't say that? Is that right? Then what's that bit on the end of your quote there? Can you, please, for the love you have for Allah, PLEASE answer this? You're really, REALLY falling down in my eyes right now. Not that you need to care about that - that's not what I am saying, but you are a representative for Islam right now, whether you like it or not - and while you might not care about what I think about you personally, I am sure you care a bit more about the face Islam gets based on ridiculous antics like this. All religion, honestly. I see this exact kind of stuff far too often from theists. Far too often. It is sad, and makes me lose faith in humanity. Just being 100% honest here. This is disgusting.

    If that was truly what is at play here, then the OP needs to be addressed differently. It just does. The first sentence DOES NOT SAY "If we assume God exists." It doesn't. It just states something about God as if it were an undeniable fact. And again - this is the type of behavior I am also talking about that gives religion and theists a bad name. Shenanigans. Trying to pre-pollute the discussion so it is harder to take them to task if we have already "accepted" certain premises. You want to have a discussion assuming that God exists first? Then phrase it that way. Don't say things like "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." you say instead "For this conversation, let's assume that God can speak in a way humans cannot." This protects you from people like me. This is for your own benefit that I am telling you this. You don't like being verbally smacked around? Then mind your P's and Q's. Don't - and I will be all over you.

    Alrighty then. No problem whatsoever. Watch this smarty pants.

    @Link - please read through my point-by-point assessment of the OP in post #136 and let me know where I am misrepresenting you or misunderstanding what you have said.

    Besides this... let's not forget this post of yours:
    I asked you many multiple times what it was I was misunderstanding - and you have failed to provide any answer. You very much seemed to have some idea that I was misunderstanding things - so you should have been able to answer to that. But you chose not to for whatever reason. Perhaps @Link can. And if your objection is just with the idea that the OP wanted to start a discussion under the assumption that "God exists" THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?! Damn man. Why is this so difficult?

    As I explained, even in the case that we assume God exists, and He comes to us asking that we re-create a "mood of eloquence" like the Quran has or, if we can't, we must necessarily infer that He was the ultimate author (even though humans wrote it), this itself is God requesting that we accept this sort of non sequitur (a fact about such a request I have already provided ample evidence for) as evidence that He authored the Quran through humans. This is even given we assume that God exists. So the request/challenge/whatever STILL isn't rational, or fair, etc. So if your only objection was to the idea that I wasn't in the mind-set of assuming God's existence, I have ALSO already replied sufficiently to the points/questions from the OP from that standpoint as well! I've got you covered on all sides. Unless @Link comes up with anything that knocks me down, you're BOTH out for the count.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,484
    Ratings:
    +4,460
    Religion:
    ?
    Even I am embarrassed, and I am not even responsible.
     
  9. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    10,711
    Ratings:
    +8,605
    Religion:
    Atheist
    In flemish, we have an expression for that feeling. It's "plaatsvervangende schaamte". I didn't have a clue how to say that in english.
    According to google translate, that would be "vicarious shame"
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    13,336
    Ratings:
    +3,478
    Religion:
    Islam
    Read there full sentence. It says "The thesis of the OP". Not just "The OP". So, though I know you are dying to insult someone to feel good, but your misrepresentation was a strawman.

    Simply, ask for the thesis prior to dismissing what would be because of where it comes from. Its a genetic fallacy.
     
  11. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,484
    Ratings:
    +4,460
    Religion:
    ?
    Again here though, you are assuming that I completely missed the point of the OP - yet have failed to provide any evidence that backs this idea up. The only thing you have made mention of is the idea that the OP was requiring that we start from a point of "Assuming that God exists..."

    @Link - please weigh in here and let me know what I have misunderstood about the OP, if I have mischaracterized any of its parts, etc. @firedragon keeps insisting that I have misunderstood it, or not even looked at its "thesis", but fails to commit to providing me any useful feedback that indicates what it is that I have been remiss on. I am not quite sure how he can keep insisting that this is the case but refuse to answer questions about it - but that's where we are at. I am more than willing to try and make up for such deficiencies (provided they exist), so please, please let me know. And lastly - provided that the item I missed is that I should have answered from a "God exists" frame of mind, then please see my final paragraph of post #147 and let me know what you think of this as well. I feel that I have clearly pointed out how such a request from God would be a an appeal to a complete non sequitur. If you disagree, please bring forward your argument against such. Thanks for your time gentlemen. Buyah.
     
  12. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    13,336
    Ratings:
    +3,478
    Religion:
    Islam
    Again, I didnt say that.

    You have not understood the "THESIS of the OP". It is not there. You dismissed it without it.
     
  13. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,484
    Ratings:
    +4,460
    Religion:
    ?
    And this thesis is that we assume God exists throughout the discussion? Is it?

    Again... why is this proving so hard to get you to come to an answer here?

    And at any rate, my entire first post is STILL entirely applicable, even from within a framework where we assume God's existence! YOU seem to have missed that little thorn in your side. Let's review, shall we:
    Assuming God's existence, if He came forward with a "challenge" that humans produce works on par with the eloquence of the Quran, else they must necessarily infer that God had a hand in its crafting, EVEN ASSUMING GOD EXISTS, my post indicates WHY that expected inference (that God had a hand in the crafting of the Quran) is not rational/fair/valid/etc. EVEN GIVEN GOD'S EXISTENCE as an accepted premise what I have been arguing this ENTIRE TIME is that it is still not rational to push such a non sequitur upon someone - insisting that they "must accept" that God had a hand in crafting the Quran if they are unable to muster eloquence of the same caliber.

    My initial post works entirely in the capacity to make that point. Look at the question I raise at the end of the third paragraph: "Would it be that God had to have revealed those equations to Einstein if there are no others up to the challenge?" And then in my last paragraph: "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" That's true WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS! That's what I have been saying this whole time. And yet YOU purposefully misrepresented me by saying over and over and over again that I was claiming that God does not exist.

    What say you now @firedragon?
     
  14. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    10,711
    Ratings:
    +8,605
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It kind of sounds like his "evidence" is merely the fact that you don't agree with the OP.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  15. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,484
    Ratings:
    +4,460
    Religion:
    ?
    I believe very heartily that this is exactly where the issue started.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    13,336
    Ratings:
    +3,478
    Religion:
    Islam
    Why dont you ask and clarify rather than guessing AVM?

    Answer to what? What is your question? Are you asking from me? Please clarify.

    But you still have not analysed or understood the thesis in order to revert to it. You are still dismissing it due to the source. Thats a genetic fallacy.

    You are still making your own guessing.

    Alright. Let me ask you a question. What is this "eloquence" that the OP is talking about? If you know it well, can you explain it?
     
  17. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,484
    Ratings:
    +4,460
    Religion:
    ?
    I have asked. Multiple times. I already alluded to this. You just have not answered with any sort of clarity. Here is the question, in plain English, and direct:
    What is it, in YOUR estimation, that I missed or misunderstood within the OP?

    Here it is again:
    What is it, in YOUR estimation, that I missed or misunderstood within the OP?

    Absolutely false. I have demonstrated that the inference being demanded as the result of a failure to rise to the "challenge" put forth in the OP is a non sequitur at best - and therefore not rational. You still haven't even addressed this at all. Another dodge from you, if I had to guess. AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE ME "GUESSING" THEN CLARIFY for goodness sake! As it stands you're doing NOTHING except coming back at me, stating again that I "don't understand" or I am committing some fallacy or another. You had better explain yourself, otherwise you're not saying anything at all. Coma back at me, and explain how expecting an inference that God has a hand in writing the Quran when no other humans can rise to the challenge of producing something of equal eloquence is not a non sequitur. And while you are at it, please explain why it makes sense to claim that God must necessarily have had a hand in crafting blades of grass if a human being cannot produce something of equal caliber to a blade of grass themselves - because this is an entirely equivalent claim/exercise for all intents and purposes. Do something more than just keep coming back at me with minimalist sentences and further claims that I am not understanding. You're not saying anything at all of worth here. Not in the slightest.

    Then set me straight. I am daring you at this point!

    Eloquence in general is the usage of words in a way that is pleasing to the intellect and sense of aesthetics. Perhaps having to do with the cadence, rhythm, rhyme or word-choices made that convey multiple meanings that are all applicable, or the use of particular vocabulary that is at once sophisticated and entirely apt. It may also have to do with apparent profundity expressed succinctly or with what may be described as the very best words for the purpose ("perfect").

    However, the eloquence itself should not be thought of as something impossible to achieve. Indeed, there are people the world over who are "the best" in any sort of category. And this leans into my original point. Let us instead say that there is a man who is the best at wielding an axe to chop down trees. Of all men, he can do it in the fewest chops, and all his chops seem to release the most wood from the tree that they possibly could given the strength and ability of a human. Would it be "fair" or "rational" for God to show up and state that He was behind this man's ability, and if none among the other humans of the world could match this man's ability to swing that axe and chop those trees, that they must then admit that God Himself was behind this ability? If that sounds strange, or not quite right when the target is tree chopping- then why is it suddenly "so right" and "so rational" when the target is instead "eloquence" and "the Quran?" Can you answer this question for me? Can you? Again - I dare you. It seems you need quite a bit of prompting to simply answer questions. I answer the ones put to me from you - I do, and I am not afraid. If you don't like me guessing at fear being the cause that you don't answer, then please - dispel all plausibility of me holding that notion AND ACTUALLY RESPOND.
     
    #157 A Vestigial Mote, Jun 17, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  18. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    1,318
    Ratings:
    +757
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    First quote any post of mine where i declared that any arbitrary god doesn't exist.

    What topic? I merely pointed out a logical flaw in the opening post, and successive posts, that assumes a God exists. You really should be 1) demonstrating a god exists outside of human imagination, or 2) acknowledge the flaw that assuming a god exists as part of an argument.
     
  19. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    1,318
    Ratings:
    +757
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    You're Belgian?
     
  20. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    1,318
    Ratings:
    +757
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    I think part of the dilemma of the poster is to avoid the implication, or concession, that a God is assumed to exist. The wording seems to require responders accepting a God exists, because the aim of the post is inevitably confirming the Quran is divine, miraculous, and most certainly a result of God existing. The argument is incoherent IF we are asked to assume a God exists, and that's because there is no condition where we reason through evidence to make a conclusion that a God MUST exist in order for the Quran to be as special as it is. As has been explained the OP is vague and subjective, and it offers no groundwork for there to be a debate and a sound conclusion.

    So to me it's funny that including "assume a God exists" would not improve the OP, but actually make it worse. I think this is an intentional game that theists do in debate. They overestimate their own ability, and underestimate the intellectual capacity of atheists. I suspect they are surprised by the response they get. Let's note that Link has abandoned this discussion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...