Nope. Didnt say that. I can't understand the reason to make up straw men even for something as simple as that.
Here's the quote I was referring to:
You have not understood the thesis the OP is proposing because you have not asked for it, nor looked at it.
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.
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.
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.
Yep. You have not understood anything because you have not got the details from the author.
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:
So again, you are just dismissing it without understanding it.
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?
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.
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.