The Instigator
gr33k_fr33k5
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Fatihah
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
gr33k_fr33k5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,933 times Debate No: 22787
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

gr33k_fr33k5

Con



This debate is in response to a forum post made by Fatihah it is as follows:

Response: The fact that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah is proven scientifically, through the following tests:

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

Here we have test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur'an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur'an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur'an is without error, indecency, and immorality. The question still remains as to who is the author? The Qur'an answers this question with the following test. The Qur'an states:

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the a skeptic develops the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the Qur'an, let me further elaborate. The Qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, its intent is to inspire people to follow its teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something that is as inspirational as the Qur'an, for it is the inspiration of the Qur'an that is miraculous. And what is that miracle? The miracle is within the following:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is humanly impossible to use any speech or literature that goes against the majority and is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquer a nation. The skeptic still disagrees? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Try using a speech or literature that that does not agree with the likes of a majority of people that is an invention by a person/s. Then use that very same speech to inspire them to conquer a nation and see what happens. The challenge can even be simplified by asking a skeptic to just conquer the street that he or she lives on and see what happens. Yet the person will fail and fail miserably. No person will come close to achieving the challenge. Any individual, when taking the challenge, will have a first-hand eyewitness account from experience and observation that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when the person will learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Do the skeptics still disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. When the challengers fail, because they will, this will help to demonstrate that the Qur'an is of divine origin as proven by the scientific method itself because it provides a hands-on eyewitness account that producing something like the Qur'an is humanly impossible. If you read this, and you yourself disagrees, then take the challenge and prove differently.


Now, the real point of this debate is whether the challenge stated above scientifically "proves" that the Qu'ran is inspired by God.

If I can show that it is not, then I win

ordinary debate formatting is expected and since the above is technically Fatihah's opening argument I will begin my rebuttal in round two, this round is for acceptance.

Fatihah

Pro

As explained by my opponent, the topic of the debate is whether the Qur'an can be proven scientifically to be the word of Allah(God). My opponent has even taken the time to quote the exact scientific challenge (test) which I previously posted within the forums as the scientific test used to prove that it is the true word of Allah. That challenge, in simple terms is the following:

The qur'an has no errors or discrepancies. This does not prove that the Qur'an is from Allah in any way, but holds to demonstrate that whomever the author is is very much credible in the truth and in righteous intent since the qu'ran contains only the truth and teaches and promotes righteousness. For this to be incorrect, my opponent has the burden to prove an error or unjust teaching in the qur'an. Moving on, the actual scientific proof that the qur'an is the true word of Allah is in the following:

Hypothesis: "It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people. It is even humanly impossible to do so just to conquer the street you live on."

The Experiment: To attempt to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or just the street you live on, using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people to prove that such an act is humanly possible.

Conclusion: Human failure to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation or even your own street using human-made speech literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people serves as proof that such an act is impossible, thus proving that the qur'an is the word of Allah and not any human. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah.

The test proves that the qur'an is the true word of Allah scientifically, as the challenge provides a hands on-eyewitness account that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation, or just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against what the people want is humanly impossible, because anyone who takes the challenge will fail and not come close to answering it. And since it is clearly humanly impossible to use human-made speech/literature to achieve the act, then that means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation was not the invention of any human/s, but from one who has greater power and authority than humans, and that is Allah. The appplication of this test also helps to debunk the claims that Muhammad spread islam by any unjust force or coercion, as this test allows any definition of the word conquest.

My opponent now has the burden and responsibility to show that the following challenge does not prove that the Qur'an is the word of Allah.
Debate Round No. 1
gr33k_fr33k5

Con

Firstly, I will not argue whether there are errors in the Qur'an

Now for my rebuttal,

I will begin at the hypothesis:

This does not really prove anthing. Even if I could not find another human being who accomplished this (there are many) all it would prove is that Muhhammad was the first human to accomplish said goal. It is akin to stating that,

It is humanly impossible for a country to set off a nuclear bomb, America set of a nuclear bomb, therefore America gained the ability to set off a nuclear bomb via something not human.

Dont get too caught up on the above syllogism, its purpose is to merely show that IF someone is the first to accomplish something, it doesn't necessarily mean they were divinely inspired and there is no proof that humans are unable to "inspire" others to follow them.

The Experiment:

No problem with this

The Conclusion:

This is only a valid conclusion if I cannot provide a single example of a human being who inspired enough followers to "conquer" the street he lived on.

And so we come to the meat of my rebuttal,

In 2008 we had what I like to call a Presidential election in America. During this election the African American voting percenage surged

"Blacks ages 18 to 29 increased their voter turnout rate by 8.7 percentage points, from 49.5% in 2004 to 58.2% in 2008" http://pewresearch.org...;

So, Barack Obama managed to garner 8.7% extra black voters in his election, this is 8.7% that usually would not have voted and I guarantee this number is greater than the average number of people living on "the street he lives on." Not only that but he used his ability to gather the masses together to win the election and ultimately "conquer" America (albeit he didn't break nearly as many laws as Mohammad in doing so).


Lets go back a little further into history to an event commonly called the crusades. Namely, the childrens crusade. Modern scholars believe that a boy (age 12) named Stephan Cloyes gained popularity amongst the common folk and lead them towards the Holy Land. He had at its peak nearly 30,000 followers and number that dwindled greately before he even started his journey. How did he gain all this support? By claiming he had a letter from Jesus to the king. So, by the words of a 12 year old boy tens of thousands of people gathered together for a single goal, as ill fated as it was the even is remarkably similar to that of Mohammad.



History is FULL of examples of ordinary people rising up and gathering others to their cause. In both these events the experiment was a success, and unless you are willing to acknoweledge Allah's hand in the childrens crusade, and the 2008 presidential election you my good friend have been refuted.
Fatihah

Pro

As expected, my opponent dodges the challenge, thus confirming his denial to the fact that the qur'an challenge proves that it is the true word of Allah. For the challenge clearly states for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible. So has my opponent conquered a nation? NO. Has he conquered the street he lives on? NO. Thus my opponent has done absolutely nothing in answering the challenge and has been dodging it from the beginning. Again, my opponent's own ducking and dodging to attempt the challenge once again confirms his denial to the fact that the qur'an is the true word of Allah and supports the evidence that the challenge is scientifically valid.

Instead, my opponent tries to justify his dodging to answer the challenge himself by stating that history is full of examples of people answering the challenge, thus proving that the challenge is invalid. Yet such logic is clearly flawed. For if asked of what prof my opponent has that the alleged history is true, his logic boils down to "because a book says so". Such logic is clearly weak, for saying so is not proof that it is so. According to my opponent's logic, Big Foot exists. Why? Because a book says so. Any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic, thus proving nothing. Furthermore, such logic is hearsay, while the qur'an challenge provides a hands on-eyewitness account that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation, or just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against what the people want is humanly impossible, because anyone who takes the challenge will fail and not come close to answering it. And since it is clearly humanly impossible to use human-made speech/literature to achieve the act, then that means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation was not the invention of any human/s, but from one who has greater power and authority than humans, and that is Allah. A hands-on eyewitness account is more credible than hearsay evidence based on "it's true because a book says so". Thus the challenge that scientifically proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah is still valid.

Also, in an attempt to prove that the challenge has been answered, my opponent argues that the election of Barack Obama as president is proof that it is humanly possible to inspire enough followes to conquer a nation using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes of those people. Again, this example falls apart in several ways.

1. A component of the challenge is to use speech/literature that goes against the likes of the people and that such speech would be the reason why the person receives followers. Yet such was clearly not the case in the election of Obama, as people voted for Obama because they AGREED with what he said and liked it, not that they disliked it.

2. Obama does not have any followers that he inspired to conquer a nation for him to be President. Obama has no followers. He was able to be President based on the election process, a process that came into being not because of Obama, but from the consensus and agreement of the public and citizens. Therefore, the public and citizens are not followers of Obama since it was they themselves who's authority allowed Obama to be President. No one is a follower of Obama, but rather a follower of laws that they themselves agreed to and agreed to be governed by and enforced by elected individuals.

In short, my opponent has dodged the challenge to do it himself and tried to justify his dodging with flawed evidence. Yet as demonstrated, the evidence does not hold, thus the challenge that proves scientifically that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah is still valid.
Debate Round No. 2
gr33k_fr33k5

Con

You stand on thin ice my friend, and anyone who takes the time to read this debate fully will realize your argument is nonsense. Lets get to the rebuttal.

Your Challenge's Hypothesis:
"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

As the hpothesis, this is the logic defending the challenge itself. Without this claim being true your "challenge" is in effect void because the hypothesis that it is based off of has been proven incorrect.

For example, If I were to claim that I still believe in Zeus and Poseidon as Greek deities and the ultimate controllers of their respective elements/natural phenomena I would be mocked. This is because the hypothesis behind such a belief (that something as awesome as lightning and the ocean must be the work of the Gods) has been proven false.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As expected, my opponent dodges the challenge"

Indeed, I myself fail the challenge. However, in order for the challenge to prove anything the hypothesis must be valid. Even if you showed that millions of people fail this experiment it doesn't mean that the Qu'ran is inspired by Allah. All I need to show is that a single person has accomplished the goal in all of history other than Mohammad and your entire challenge has been debunked.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Instead, my opponent tries to justify his dodging to answer the challenge himself by stating that history is full of examples of people answering the challenge, thus proving that the challenge is invalid. Yet such logic is clearly flawed. For if asked of what prof my opponent has that the alleged history is true, his logic boils down to "because a book says so". Such logic is clearly weak, for saying so is not proof that it is so. According to my opponent's logic, Big Foot exists. Why? Because a book says so. Any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic, thus proving nothing."

You claim that my logic is weak because it is based off of history books. Well, DDO is not for you, its called sources. Me trusting what history books talk in detail about, what historical documents talk in detail about, what scholars far wiser and learned than me attest to, is not faulty logic. Furthermore, it is not saying "it's true becaseu a book says so" its saying "it's true becasue thousands of books on this subject in particular all agree that it is indeed a historical event." Your claim to the contrary is laughable, as is your example. Big foot has never been proven, the children's crusade has time and time again with extensive research. One is a tall tale, one is history and if you can't tell the difference I wonder why I'm having this debate. I'm assuming that the above is an attempted refutation of my childrens crusade example, seeing as it is full of holes my example stands and your hypothesis that "It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people." is still incorrect, as such your entire challenge stands on faulty ground and proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact that I'm not quite as good at manipulating people as Mohammad and the writers of the Qu'ran.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Barrack Obama, It did go against their basic "likes" in that hundreds of thousands more people voted for him in the black community than usually do. Regardless of whether they agreed with him or not, these people regularly fail to vote and yet he was able to make them go against their "likes" (or ordinary way of life) and actually vote. My opponent made two points. . . however really only the second stated anthing new.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"In short, my opponent has dodged the challenge to do it himself and tried to justify his dodging with flawed evidence. Yet as demonstrated, the evidence does not hold, thus the challenge that proves scientifically that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah is still valid."

Flawed evidence? I think not, seeing as wikipedia is an accepted source on DDO and that is what I used. Actually, I will point out that my opponent has put this statement in quotes from the beginning and never provided a source:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people. It is even humanly impossible to do so just to conquer the street you live on."


That being said, his entire challenge proves nothing scientifically because the hypothesis itself is untrue.

Vote Con
Fatihah

Pro

Once again, my opponent's dodging to answer the qur'an challenge itself once again supports the fact that it scientifically proves that it is the true word of Allah(God). Not only that, but these are the words of my oponent himself saying:

"Indeed, I myself fail the challenge".

Here, my opponent acknowledges that he himself failed the challenge. So from the mouth of my very opponent, his own words once again supports the fact that the challenge proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah, for his own failure supports the fact that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation using human-made speech literature that goes against the likes of those people is humanly impossible. Therefore, such failure confirms the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, as supported by my opponent's own failure and admission to do so, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah.

Yet my opponent suggests that despite his failure to answer the challenge, this does not confirm that the Qur'an is from Allah(God), because he has proof that at least one person has answered the challenge. His alleged proof is the election of Barack Obama and other historical figures and events. Yet once again, such logic is flawed. For the challenge itself provides a hands-on eyewitness account that the challenge is impossible, while his referring to history is hearsay. Simply put, hearsay is not more credible than a hands-on eyewitness account. This is simple logic. So it does not matter how many references, scholars, historians, or whomever you bring forward as evidence.

Let me make this as simple as possible. I come to you with a basketball and ask whether the ball can bounce on the ground or not. So as evidence that the ball can bounce, you present references of millions of historians, scholars, and even quotes and the inventor of Spalding as evidence that the ball can bounce. I present evidence as well. What is my evidence you ask? Simple. JUST TRY TO BOUNCE THE BALL. This is clearly the more logical proof, as such evidence will provide a hands-on eyewitness account as to whether the ball will bounce. There is no better way to know if the ball will bounce than to bounce it yourself. So you bounce the ball, and lo and behold, the ball does not bounce.

Now what my opponent is telling us is that despite the fact that he personally bounced the ball himself and after repeated attempts watched the ball never bounce, that it is more logical to conclude....THAT IT CAN BOUNCE. Why? Because he has references from millions of scholars that say that the ball can bounce.

Dear audience, any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic. It is very clear that the millions of credible scholars can not possibly be credible or right, because the fact that you personally saw the ball not bounce after attempting to make it bounce YOURSELF proves otherwise.

In short, my opponent's pleading arguments that history is proof that the challenge is possible utterly fails, as the qur'an challenge provides a hands on-eyewitness account that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation, or just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against what the people want is humanly impossible, because anyone who takes the challenge will fail and not come close to answering it. And since it is clearly humanly impossible to use human-made speech/literature to achieve the act, then that means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation was not the invention of any human/s, but from one who has greater power and authority than humans, and that is Allah. A hands-on eyewitness account is more credible than hearsay, thus debunking my opponent's claims that history and references from alleged scholars proves otherwise, and since my opponent himself admittedly acknowledges that he failed the challenge, then he himself is evidence that the challenge scientifically proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(God).
Debate Round No. 3
gr33k_fr33k5

Con

With all respect to my opponent, I am simply beating a dead horse. That being said this will be very brief . . .

He completely ignores my argument that by dispreving his hypothesis, I disprove the validity of his experiment, and hence disproving the "findings."

My opponent would have you doubt that Barack Obama was elected president. He would also have you doubt that the Children's Crusade happened.

Actually, according to my opponent, nothing you cannot prove through direct "hands-on" empirical evidence is valid. I have backed up my statements and claims with valid sources, hence they stilll stand.

He has failed to even attempt to disprove my Children's Crusade example and as such I will not provide any more evidence backing it up, wikipedia is a valid source according to DDO so deal with it, the child met and fulfilled all requirements of the challenge, and as such disproves the vey broad hypothesis put forward.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must prove that the Qu'ran is scientifically proven to be inspired by God. This means you must follow the scientific method. That being:

Formulate hypothesis
Test hypothesis
Formulate theory
Test theory
Formulate Law or conclusion

(the above is how it was laid out in my 5th grade science book, an apt description for the "level" of intelligence this debate requires)

I provided historical evidence (Children's Crusade) and modern evidence (Barack Obama's election) that the hypothesis was indeed incorrect. If the hypothesis fails, then the conclusion (in this case that the Qu'ran must be inspired by God) also fails.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the benefit of my opponent I will lay it out even simpler.

1) Formulate hypothesis: It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

2) Test hypothesis: It fails on account that by "humanly possible" it means in all of human kind is this possible. I gave to examples, whether you agree with the historical evidence behind my examples is irrelevant, by the rules of DDO they are not only viable but also reliable.

3) Never gets here and as such the theory, much less the law, that the Qu'ran is inspired by God should never even be proposed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

again, vote con, simply out of the fact that I have literally nothing left to say beyond what has already been said. I cannot believe that Pro hasn't brought any new points to the table in 4 rounds, he attempted one rebuttal of one of my arguments and decided to ignore the rest. After i refuted his rebuttal he ignored the refutation and simply restated a point I already refuted without attempting to explain why it is still valid. He was refuted fullly and never even attempted to recover.

Fatihah

Pro

Once again, my opponent tries to justify the fact that his own admission that he himself failed the challenge is not proof that the qur'an is the true word of Allah(God), despite his own admission that he has failed the challenge. Again, these are the words of my opponent:

"Indeed, I myself fail the challenge".

Thus we see above that my opponent himself is further evidence to the fact that the challenge scientifically proves that it is the true word of Allah(God), since he himself failed the challenge. Again, the challenge is for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible. My opponent admittedly states, as shown from his own words above, that he himself has FAILED THE CHALLENGE. So the debate is basically over. For my opponent is an eye and ear witness himself that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation, or just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against what the people want is humanly impossible. Therefore, this proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use human-made speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah.

The debate is over. Finished. Yet my opponent is willing to spend the next several rounds with hearsay arguments that the challenge is invalid and not impossible, despite admitting that he himself failed the impossible challenge!

Dear audience, what we are witnessing is clearly desperation from my opponent, with hopes to win a debate that he admittedly lost. In his attempt to do so, he presents the following strawman rebuttal:

"My opponent would have you doubt that Barack Obama was elected president. He would also have you doubt that the Children's Crusade happened."

This is an utter failure and a weak strawman to draw attention from the fact that my opponent admittedly acknowledges that he failed the challenge. For at no time have I ever stated tht Barack Obama was never President, supported by my opponent's inability to quote and prove otherwise. My opponent is desperately trying to show us that Barack Obama's election to office is proof that the challenge is invalid. If such is the case, then my opponent wants us to believe that:

"Obama became President after a bunch of his own followers conquered the US for him after being inspired by his speech that went against their own likes".

What? This is clearly flawed logic. For Obama does not have any followers, nor did he conquer the US., nor was he elected to office by people who were inspired by things in his speech that they DID NOT LIKE. This is clearly deluded logic and that history itself proves so. And after repeated attempts to present such a flawed argument as proof, my opponent has still failed to show that Obama has followers, that they conquered the US for him, or that their reasoning for doing so was after being inspired by words of the President that GO AGAINST THEIR LIKING. The Obama example utterly fails, thus proving nothing.

Obama became President after being elected to office. Since the law of electing a President is not Obama's idea, then his becoming President is not the result of his followers supporting his human-made speech/literature, as the challenge requires. Furthermore, the law itself came into existence after the public democratically agreed to it, which is a concept that they believed on their own. Therefore, the public and voters of a president are not followers of the president since the law to elect a president was not the president's idea. It's a public idea. So the public is following their own law, not the president's law.


The same applies for the example of the Children's crusade. This example uterly fails from the start, based on the simple fact that once again, Stephen Cloyes was never the leader of any nation, despite having many followers, nor were they following him because they were inspired by his words that went against their liking.

So the examples fails, while my opponent's own admission that he himself failed the challenge further supports the fact that Obama or the Children's Crusade is not proof that the challenge is invalid, because the examples are hearsay, while his own admission to failure comes from a hands-on eyewitness account. A hands-on eyewitness account is more credible than hearsay. So my opponent's own failure of the challenge proves that the challenge is humanly impossible, which means that his argument on Obama and the Children's crusade answering the challenge fails since he himself became an eyewitness to the fact that the challenge is impossible. Again, his own eyewitness account to failing the challenge as impossible proves that any hearesay that it was answered by Obama and the Children crusades is false, because hearsay is not more credible than a hands-on eyewitness account. Even my opponent himself has yet to deny this, thus further proving that the challenge does scientifically prove that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(God).

But my opponent does not finish there. He still wishes to justify his flawed logic and presents the following:

"I will not provide any more evidence backing it up, wikipedia is a valid source according to DDO so deal with it"

Another failed rebuttal. According to my opponent, the authority of whether something is factual or not is not based on true evidence, but whether DDO says it's o.k. This has to be the most unsound logic presentable. If such is the case, then according to my opponent. if DDO says that 2+2= 5, then it now because credible and right to say so, since DDO says so. Any reasonable person can see the absurdity in such logic. Proof is based on facts, not forum rules from a website owner.

My opponent finally concludes his rebuttal by stating:

"1) Formulate hypothesis: It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

2) Test hypothesis: It fails on account that by "humanly possible" it means in all of human kind is this possible. I gave to examples, whether you agree with the historical evidence behind my examples is irrelevant, by the rules of DDO they are not only viable but also reliable."

Above, we clearly see that my opponet himself says that in order to invalidate the challenge (hypothesis), you must test the challenge(hypothesis). So from the mouth of my opponent himself, the actual attempt of the challenge is the only credible proof. Yet as stated, when my opponent himself attempted the challenge the result from his own mouth is:

"Indeed, I myself fail the challenge".


So based on my opponent's own logic and words, one's own attempt to answering the challenge themself is the only credible proof, not hearsay and historical references that my opponent himself has desperately tried to use to justify his own failure of the challenge. So according to my opponent's logic, even his own examples of historical references, the children's crusade, and Obama's Presidency is weak evidence, since it is a reference to hearsay and not an actual attempt from one'self to answer the challenge hands-on by doing it yourself and since my opponent admittedly failed the hands-on challenge, then he himself stands as proof that the qur'an challenge scientifically proves that it is the true word of Allah(God).







Debate Round No. 4
gr33k_fr33k5

Con

Finally my opponent has addressed my examples and at least made an attempt at moving the debate along.


The fact that I cannot beat the "impossible challenge" is only important if said challenge were to scientifically prove anything. So, my job is as follows: prove the challenge is nonsense and proves nothing. If I accomplish said goal there is no point in moving foward with the debate.

Furthermore, you draw a flawed conclusion from my failure. Would you claim that a single person represents teh entirety of the human race? I would assume not, but if so I guess this point is moot. By viewing a single entity in the vastness of the human race one cannot draw a conclusion regarding the whole. However, this is exactly what you do, you say: "Again, the challenge is for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible"

so the experiment result is : you, yourself, cannot
the conclusion is : human kind cannot

along this same logic,

A paralyzed man cannot walk
therefore human kind cannot walk

another example. . .

A scientist looks at the characteristics of a single electron
Then draws conclusions regarding the chemical properties of gold

or maybe this is better . . .

A person has a malfunctioning cell
the doctor decides that all cells in that person must be malfunctioning.

lastly. . . (drumroll please)e
Me, myself, can swim the 50 freestyle in 23 seconds (or so I hear, I have to rely on heresay from a score board and touch sensitive pads for my time)
therefore, human kind can only swim the 50 freestyle in 23 seconds without divine help.

the conclusion should state "it is personally impossible for you to . . ."

Defense

Regarding the election of president Obama,
you state Obama "does not have any followers." I would beg the differ based on the definition of follower. You put no qualifications on what qualifies someone as a follower or not, Since this is the case, a voter = follower. If you are willing to vote for someone it means you have been convinced to "follow" them or make them your leader. Now, my evidence for this is hearsay, but, I believe that Obama is the President of the United States. As president he is the leader of this nation, the figurehead, the commander and chief. Can someone be the leader of a nation without having followers? May I remind the reader that all I need to prove is that Obama has the equivalent of 1 street's worth of voters (or "followers") who went agaisnt their "likes." My opponent claimed that they had to be inspired by things they "did not like." As stated before Obama's election answers this in that what many of his black followers "like/believe" is that voting is a waste of time (as proven by voting records and above cited material of an 8.5% increase in African American voting turnout). His literature/speeches surely did not claim that voting was pointless, and as such went against their likes/beliefs. Here are voting figures: http://elections.nytimes.com.... Notice the "first time voter" was won by Obama by 39 points. In 2004 the democratic nominee only garnered a 7 point victory. In the African American bracket Obama won by 90 points, while in the 2004 election the democratic nominee only garnered a 77 point lead. It follows that Obama was able to convince man first time black voters to follow him who otherwise wouldnt have. Remember, in order to debunk the challence I merely need to show that he got the equivalent of 1 neighborhood. According to the 2010 census (http://en.wikipedia.org...) the city of Nashville Tenessee has aproz. 600,000 people which is less than the corresponding increase in new voters that were also black. I cannot really show any clearer that Obama convinced at least 1 neighborhood of people to go against their normal voting habits ("likes") to support him using human made speech/literature.



My opponent claims that Obama didn't "conquer" America. Erradication was not a part of the requirements for the hypothesis/challenge and therefore Obama did indeed conquer America in modern terms. The method of conquering was never brought up beyond the fact that he must inspire followers. Remember, The challenge never required Obama to mimick Mohammad's methods but rather to conquer, the method was left up to the conqueror. Whether it was legal or not is irrelevant to the challenge.

I would ask the reader to remember what this "challenge" entails, namely, inpiring followeers, convincing them to do something they usually wouldnt (go against their "likes"), and conquering a nation, again, I have shown that Obama accomplished all these things.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"According to my opponent, the authority of whether something is factual or not is not based on true evidence, but whether DDO says it's o.k."

If you do not agree with the rules of debate set forward by the moderator/creator of this site, I would ask why did you agree to debate in the first place. I have cited all my information with valid sources. Your arguments about the validity of my examples are nonsense and yes, they are valid because DDO says so, if you don't like it find another debate website that more agrees to your tastes, or put forward the stipulation in round 1 of the debate as is the format of any proper debate.

You say "proof is based off facts" and what I say (with DDO to back me up) is that wikipedia and my other sources are valid suppliers of facts according to the rules of the debate. Nothing more nothing less.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The same applies for the example of the Children's crusade. This example uterly fails from the start, based on the simple fact that once again, Stephen Cloyes was never the leader of any nation, despite having many followers, nor were they following him because they were inspired by his words that went against their liking."

this is the entirety of my opponents rebuttal for my Children's crusade example. However, the challenge states that one must conquer your "neighborhood." There weren't neighborhoods back then as we know them so 30,000 followers will have to do (also the combined land owned by 30,000 people even if it as simply a hovel each would total more than enough land mass to equal that of a neighborhood). Did they go againt their "likes" well, people like to eat right? People desire to survive right? However along the way thousands died of starvation. He "conquered" more than enough people to be equivalent to a single neighborhood and they were willing to follow Stephen based off of a human-made letter until they died which isn't something the "liked", whether he conquered literal land is irrelevant, tyrants do that all the time and they aren't inspired by Allah. He fulfilled all the parts of the challenge and as such serves as historic proof that the challenge is invalid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A) I have shown again and again that my opponents 2 points

1) examples provided are invalid

2) sources used are less reliable than eye witness accounts

are invalid.

B) I have defended my examples showing that there are both modern and historic examples of ordinary human beings successfully accomplishing the challenge.

C) I have debunked the challenge itelf by showing that you cannot accurately speculate about the abilities of the whole by looking at a single part

clearly this challenge has not only been defeated but also the conclusion drawn from said challenge fails on account of basic logic.
Fatihah

Pro

We have reached the end of the debate, and still, my opponent's own fallacies in logic continues to support the fact that the qur'an challenge does in fact scientifically prove that it is the true word of Allah(God). As demonstrated, my opponent openly admits and acknowledges that he himself failed the challenge from his mouth himself. I quote his own words,

"Indeed, I myself fail the challenge".


Here, we see from my opponent's own mouth that the challenge is valid, for he himself admits that he failed the challenge, thus proving that it is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using human-mande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people. As a result, his own failure supports the fact that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah. Why? Once again, the reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use human-made speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah.

Yet my opponent persists on denying the obvious and in another attempt to justify his denial, he presents the following rebuttal:

"...you draw a flawed conclusion from my failure. Would you claim that a single person represents teh entirety of the human race? I would assume not, but if so I guess this point is moot. By viewing a single entity in the vastness of the human race one cannot draw a conclusion regarding the whole. However, this is exactly what you do, you say: 'Again, the challenge is for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible' ."

My opponent argues that despite his failure to answer the challenge, it is illogical to conclude that all of humanity will fail as well based on his own failure to the challenge because he is only one person. Yet such an argument is flawed. For the psychological and human nature of all humans are the same and similar in characteristics. Therefore, it is very much logical to conclude whether something is humanly impossible or not based on the test subject of one human since all humans are the same and similar in nature regarding their natural psychological characteristics. This is evident by the fact that being a psychiatrist is a credible profession, in which a psychiatrist helps their patients with psychological concerns with certain methods used for all of humanity. This could not be done if the human psychological nature of every person was different because that would contradict the fact that psychology is based on the psyche of all humans. Simply put, your own failure as to whether something is humanly impossible is a reflection of all of humanity. This is basic science. When a scientists discovers the psychological nature of a lion family or a lion, they do not test every single lion on the planet. They test one or a few. For such is enough to conlude the nature of all lions since all lions are the same and similar in their natural and psychological characteristics. If I cut myself deeply with a knife and bleed, is it illogical for me to conclude that every person who does the same will bleed as well? Of course not. Why? Because every human shares the same physical elements that makes up their skin. So since it is shared with all humans, then I can conclude that the result of myself bleding from a deep cut with a knife will happen to EVERY human.

Similarly, the failure of your own self or just a few people as to whether it is humanly possible to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes of those people is enough to conclude so for all of humanity since all humans are the same in human nature regarding our natural and psychological characteristics. And since the test itself provides a hands-on eyewitness account as evidence and not hearsay, then once again, your own failure to the challenge supports that fact that the qur'an challenge does scientifically prove that it is the true word of Allah. To prove otherwise would require other hands-on eyewitness accounts, rather than the hearsay arguments that my opponent has presented thus far, for hearsay is not more credible than a hands-on eyewitness account. Since my opponent has not, then such inability to do so supports the fact that the Qur'an challenge proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(God).

Then my opponent tries to justify the presidency of Obama as answering the Qur'an challenge by stating:

"You put no qualifications on what qualifies someone as a follower or not, Since this is the case, a voter = follower."

This is clearly flawed logic. Words are defined by their definition. So the logic that I am obligated to give a definition is flawed, Furthermore, not a single dictionary on the planet defines the word "follower" as "voter". So the claim that the voters of Obama are the followers of Obama is clearly absurd logic, thus proving nothing in answering the challenge. Again, voters of Obama are not folowers of Obama, as the Presidency of Obama was granted based on the law of election, which is a law that Obama did not create, but was put into practice based on the consensus of elected officials and the public. Thus the voters cannot be followers of Obama since the law to elect a president comes from the public themselves, not Obama. Thus the public is following their own democratic laws. Democracy is shared authority. No one is a follower of anyone, but rather authority is shared. Even the President cannot pass a law without the consensus of Congress, thus proving that Obama does not have any followers. It's a democracy. Another example of my opponent's failed rebuttals.

Unfortunately character limitation prevents me from further refuting the flaw logic of my opponent, so let me conclude by restating what he could not refute. Dear audience, if I came to you with a ball and stated that the ball will not bounce and presented scholars and historical references as proof and you yourself took the ball and bounced it yourself as evidence that the ball can bounce, which is proof that the ball can bounce? My scholarly and historical evidence, or the fact that you personally demonstrated from your own actions and witnessed with your own eyes from your own actions that the ball can bounce? Clearly the latter, since it is a hands-on eyewitness account.

My opponent's own admission that he himself failed the challenge further supports the fact that Obama or the Children's Crusade is not proof that the challenge is invalid, because the examples are hearsay, while his own admission to failure comes from a hands-on eyewitness account. I ask you, dear audience, which is more credible as evidence, a hands-on eyewitnes account or hearsay? The answer is clearly obvious that a hands-on eyewitness account is more credible than hearsay. So my opponent's own failure of the challenge proves that the challenge is humanly impossible, which means that his argument on Obama and the Children's crusade answering the challenge fails since he himself became an eyewitness to the fact that the challenge is impossible. Again, his own eyewitness account to failing the challenge as impossible proves that any hearsay that it was answered by Obama and the Children crusades is false, because hearsay is not more credible than a hands-on eyewitness account. Even my opponent himself has yet to deny this, thus further proving that the challenge does scientifically prove that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(God).









Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Fatihah 1 year ago
Fatihah
@Berend

When you say the claims of Islam is wrong with no evidence, your repeated failure supports the fact that that deductive logic based on science proves the claims are supported by science.
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
When Islam says "gravity" is invisible pillars holding the sky up, and that Muhammad flew on a winged horse, and sliced the moon in half, it's not scientific in any means of the sense.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
science didnt' exist in the way mean it now.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Its kind a ridiculas
Posted by gr33k_fr33k5 4 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
the debate is whether it is indeed a revelation from god and whether that has scientifically been proven it has nothing to do at all with the subject matter of the Qu'ran.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
you should have said there are scientific statements in the Quran not the Quran is scientifically proven! There is a huge difference between the two statements. How are you going to prove that Hell, paradise, and other things like angels exist with empirical evidence outside the Quran, it is impossible as of right now. The Quran is a revelation from God. He is telling us of things of which we have no knowledge
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
gr33k_fr33k5FatihahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: blah....felt sorry for pro.....
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
gr33k_fr33k5FatihahTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: .I agreed with Con both before and after the debate (this did not effect my choice, my history shows I have no problem voting for theists if their arguments are better) . Con had better conduct because Pro accused Con of being fallacious without warrant in kind of a disrespecting tone . Spelling and grammar were tied, didn't notice too many mistakes on either side . Con absolutely destroyed this debate, Pro has no good arguments and it was embarassing to read. . Sources Con
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
gr33k_fr33k5FatihahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO constantly misrepresented CON, and CON showed why the syllogism is invalid. There is nothing else to say, really, as the Obama contention was more or less ignored, although it was defended adequately. PRO, in fact, seemed to justify CON's arguments with many of his points, so CON gets the votes. Not the best debate, but it was limited to the level of discussion made.