The Instigator
Pase66
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,977 times Debate No: 84255
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (50)
Votes (2)

 

Pase66

Pro

It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God

Definitions

Qur'an- The holy book of the religion Islam.

God- Allah

Revelation- The divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence or the world.

The BOP

The BOP is shared. Pro must establish that it cannot be shown that the Qur’an is a revelation from God. Con must establish that it can be shown that the Qur’an is a revelation from God.

Structure

Round 1
Pro: Introduction
Con: Opening Arguments
Round 2
Pro: Opening Arguments
Round 4
Con: Closing Arguments
Round 5
Pro: Closing Arguments
Con: Forfeiture

No additional arguments may be introduced in the Closing Arguments. Also, no "Shotgun" Argumentation.

Conclusion
By accepting this debate, Pro and Con agree to all the conditions put above, and any conditions broken with be an automatic win for the opposite side. I would like to thank Con for this debate, and wish them the best of luck.
ssadi

Con

I want to thank the Instigator for this very interesting topic and giving me opportunity to discuss it.

I will use Allah to specifically mean The God according Islam.

INTRODUCTION

Firstly, I would like to introduce a way (out of many) how it can be shown that the Qur’an is indeed revelation from Allah. I will call this method as “Common Sense Argument”. It is very simple and can be confirmed by logic and common sense. Let me give an example to show how this method works. Imagine that a lost wallet is found and there are many who claim to be the owner of that wallet. How can we find out who the real owner is? Here are two ways (out of many) how you can find out whose wallet that really is.

1. You ask each of them to write a message to you about the wallet. The message which accurately talks about or describes some specific things about the wallet, that nobody can know other than its owner, is surely the message of the owner of that wallet.

2. You open the wallet and try to find something, like an ID card, that shows that the wallet cannot belong to anyone else except a particular person.

COMMON SENSE ARGUMENT – 1

We “found” the universe and wonder who its owner is. We have a message called Qur’an and is claimed to be from Allah (i.e., the owner of the universe). We apply the first way, discussed above, to find out if this claim is true or not. To do so, we will compare some specific things written about the universe in the Qur’an that nobody other than the Owner, the Creator, and the Ruler of the universe could know when (and where) the Qur’an was revealed/written and to see if they match or not.


1.
Motion of Celestial Bodies and Dark Matter

Until recently it was believed that the planets, stars, galaxies etc. were moving in free/empty space or vacuum. Then, in 20th century, we discovered that there is dark matter which constitutes about 85% of the total matter of the known universe. The discovery was simply as follows; the matter we knew was insufficient to account for motion of stars and galaxies. Since the observed motions require more matter, then there necessarily exists some other type of matter that couldn’t be observed and they called it as “dunkle Materie”, i.e., “dark matter”. Now let’s see if the Qur’an talks about/gives any sign to dark matter.[1]

“... and all swim in an orbit.” (Quran, 36:40)

In the context the Quran is talking about the Earth, the sun, and the moon. …and all is a generalization for all of Earth-like (i.e., planets), sun-like (i.e., stars), and moon-like (i.e., satellites) objects. ...an orbit is translation of falakun which means each of those objects has a separate/different orbit.

In history of science we see first geocentric model (i.e., Earth doesn’t move) and then heliocentric model (i.e., sun doesn’t move) etc. It is also believed once that the sun and the moon share the same orbit (e.g., in flat Earth model). But Qur’an in this verse clearly states that each of them moves and has a different orbit, which was not known when the Qur’an was revealed.

There is another outstanding sign in this verse. Swimming can be explained as the motion of something inside a “less solid” material, like liquid. Therefore, the above verse also has a meaning that all of those objects move inside another matter, not in completely empty/free space. Or it has a meaning like “their motion is like the motion of an object inside another material like liquid, not in real vacuum”. This is exactly how the dark matter was discovered, the motion of the stars and galaxies show that they are not moving in a free space, but inside some other material which constitutes about 85% of the known universe. We named that material as dark matter. (Allah knows best.)

Now the question is Who could possibly know such information with such specifications 14 centuries ago other than Allah? Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or anyone else at or before His time could not possibly know such information. Then according to our test above, this must be from the Owner of the universe (remember the test above), who we call as Allah in Islam.

2. Universe is Expanding

In 20th century it was discovered that the universe is expanding with a positive acceleration, i.e., with an increasing speed. Since the universe is expanding, then if we went back in time we would expect a smaller universe. If we went more back, we would expect even smaller universe. If we went back for about 14 billion years, we would see the whole universe compressed in a very tiny point. So, the universe started from a very tiny point and expanded until became as big as it is today and is still expanding. That is the point where EVERYTHING; time, space, laws of physics etc. emerged from. In other words, that is the beginning/birth of the universe and everything in it.[2]

Let’s see if Qur’an says anything about it, which we know for sure that nobody could possibly know about 14 centuries ago, except of the real Owner of the universe.

And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. (Qur’an, 51:47)

The word for expander in the verse is lamoosi’oon which is from the root waasi’. Here are the meanings of waasi’ (see also ref. [3]):



The parts of the word la-moosi’-oon mean very-expander-(gives a meaning of plurality for We). Note that We in the verse is plural of respect. So this verse is literally informing us about the expansion of the universe. This was not & could not possibly be known by anyone about 14 centuries ago where they didn’t know anything about general relativity, relativistic Doppler Effect etc. Therefore, it cannot be the word of anyone other than the Owner of the universe, i.e., the word of Allah.

3. Position of the Stars

Nay, I swear by the places of the stars. And lo! That verily is a tremendous oath, if ye but knew. (Qur’an, 56:75-76)

The word translated as places is mawaaqi’ in Arabic which is the plural of mawqi’. Here is what mawqi’ means (see also ref. [4]):



One reason why Allah vows with things in the Qur’an is “to indicate the importance and value of these beings for men and draws attention to them.”[5] Let’s explain a few things about the stars to see if their places have any importance at all.

i. The stars around the center of a galaxy are held in an orbit with gravitational force of the central mass of the galaxy. The stars (astronomically) close to each other also have gravitational effects on each other. The balance between these forces, to keep them in an orbit around the center of the galaxy, is the result of balance between all those forces, which is obviously very complicated. A slight (astronomical) change in the position of a star could bring chaotic results for the galaxy. For example, if a star moved away from its orbit, breaking the balances, it could go and collide with other stars within the galaxy. Just imagine how chaotic would that be, if that star was close to our solar system. This implies that the positions of stars in a galaxy are not just random positions. Therefore, obviously the positions of the stars are tremendously important.

ii. We see everything through light that is either emitted from or reflected by them towards our eyes. The light has a limited speed and the stars are very far away. There are stars that are hundreds or thousands of light-years away from us. This means that, we would never know where the actual (today’s) location of a star is.[6]Therefore, it would be tremendously important if someone could somehow know about the actual locations of the stars.

iii. The Black Holes are also stars which have so strong gravitational force that even light cannot escape it, therefore we can’t see them. Therefore, knowing the position of black holes is at least as important, if not more, as the places of other stars.

You can extend the list by examining some other properties of the stars, but these are enough to give us an idea about how their positions are important. Think about the information that people had about the stars in 7th century, they had no significant importance at all at that time. Therefore, this cannot be the words of anyone other than the Owner of the Universe, i.e., the word of Allah.


4.
Fingerprints


Does man think that We will not assemble his bones? Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips. (Qur’an, 75:3-4)


In 19th century it was discovered that everyone has unique fingerprints. Even proportioning his fingertips obviously gives us a sign that there is something special, like fingerprints, about the fingertips. It was impossible for people of 7th century to know anything special enough about fingertips as it is impressed in the verse. Then the verse is obviously giving sign to something very special at least like fingerprints. (Allah knows best). Therefore, this words cannot belong to anyone other than the Creator of whole humanity that could know uniqueness of their fingerprints at 7th century.

I could bring many more examples if there wasn’t a limit in characters. I showed that he Qur'an gives specific information about the universe that nobody other than its Owner, Allah, could know at its time of revelation. Therefore, according to our test method 1, the Qur'an is for sure revelation from Allah.

I would like to finish my arguments on R1 with the following verse from the Holy Qur’an.

We will soon show them Our signs in the horizons and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. (Qur’an, 41:53)

I hope this will be a very enjoyable and fruitful debate.

I wish Pro best of luck!

Debate Round No. 1
Pase66

Pro


I would first like to note that, as per the conditions set, I will not be rebutting to Pro in this round, but will rather be providing an opening argument. Also note that when I say “you”, I’m referring to both Con and the Audience.


Opening Argument


1.) The Existence of Many Religious Texts


I would like to begin by asking you to consider the vast amount of religious texts that exist in the world today. Just to name a few, The Old Testament, The New Testament, The Vedas, The Tao Te Ching, The Qur’an, The Book of the Dead, and the Book of Mormon, just to name a few. I would like you just reflect on the probability that, out of all the religious books in existence, The Qur’an is the only one revealed by god. Now, it must be an either- or situation, because all religious texts make claims that aren’t mutually exclusive. For instance, The Qur’an claims that Jesus wasn’t crucified, in contrast to the Biblical narrative of the crucifiction of Jesus.


“...They said, ‘We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God.’ They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man (and they killed that man)...” (Quran, 4:157)


http://www.islam-guide.com...


“32 As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. 33 They came to a place called Golgotha (which means ‘the place of the skull’). 34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. 35 When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. 36 And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. 37 Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is jesus, the king of the jews.” Matthew 27:32-37


https://www.biblegateway.com...


And I hope it’s needless to say that the idea of Jesus is incompatible with Judaism, as a tenant is that the messiah hasn’t even come yet! Also, I hope that I don’t need to draw comparisons between The Qur’an and the religious texts of the East, as I hope you realize that they are very mutually exclusive. So I ask again, how can it be that The Qur’an, out of all the religious texts in existence, is the only one revealed by god, while all the other texts that claim to be revealed by god aren’t? Isn’t the possibility very low?


2.) Finding True Statements in the Qur’an


This is an argument I find many apologists for religions use in their arguments. “X and Y are true, and our religious text says so, thus our religious text must be true!” Or “X and Y are true, and no one knew it was true before our religious text, thus our religious text is true!” (I’m assuming that I don’t need to argue that in order for text to be revelation from god, it must be true; thus setting the requirements of its status as revelation being dependent on its truth). I hope to expose the problem with these lines of reasoning. Regarding the first statement “X and Y are true, and our religious text says so, thus our religious text must be true!”, there is a major problem in it. Let’s travel to a library and pick up Tolstoy’s War and Peace. Now, since the book is historical fiction, it describes a great number of things accurately.


https://en.wikipedia.org...


But, all because the novel contains true parts to it, doesn’t make it a recitation of history, nor does it validate the truth value of the novel. The same logic can be applied to religious texts. Now, some might claim “well, because there is truth in a religious text, it must make it somehow divine?” Well, not really. A science textbook contains many, many things that are true. Yet, does that make a science book divine (this is a rhetorical question)? Now, onto the second statement, “X and Y are true, and no knew it was true before our religious text, thus our religious text is true!” It confounds me as to how this can be considered an argument. I say this because, at some point or another, discoveries/ facts will be put on to paper. For example, Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica contains many things that are true, for Newton discovered a lot of them first (and I’m well aware of the tension between Newton and Leibniz). But, even though some of the book is true, all of it isn’t; for after the theory of relativity, many of Newton’s discoveries became obsolete and false. Also, if no one knew about something before it was published in a book, doesn’t mean it’s revelation from god. All it means is that, hey, you discovered something new!


3.) The Eloquence of Arabic/ Not Being Able to Produce a Surah from the Qur’an


This is an argument I see propagated by many apologists. The first one is the “beauty of Arabic”. First of all, beauty is subjective. Eloquence is subject. Let me prove it right here. I think Arabic is an ugly language. There, see, it cannot be shown that Arabic is objectively a beautiful/ perfect language. Also to the point of producing a Surah from the Qur’an. Now, let’s create a hypothetical program which generates phrases of increasing complexity using pre-programmed Arabic characters. Thus, it’s easy to reason that, at one point or another, the program will generate a phrase which is a Surah from the Quran. In fact, it would generate the entire Qur’an. And all of this from the work of man, not god.


Conclusion


I would like to thank con for this very exciting debate, and wish them luck in the next round.



ssadi

Con

I thank Pro for posting his arguments in R2.


INTRODUCTION

Note that I will use PA and CA as defined below:

PA (Pro’s Argument): “It cannot be shown that the Qur’an is a revelation from God.”

CA (Con’s Argument): It can be shown that the Qur’an is a revelation from God.”


SHORT REBUTTALS

In his 1st argument Pro tries to show that there is a low possibility (i.e., not impossibility) for the Quran to be the only revelation from God (which is not what he must establish). Hence, it is clear that this argument doesn’t prove PA (will be described in more details under DETAILED REBUTTALS).

In 2nd argument Pro brings evidence (namely 2-Finding True Statements in the Qur’an) for Qur’an being revelation from God and then tries to refute them. His 2nd argument is only a rebuttal to an argument that supports CA, not direct refutation of CA itself or direct proof of PA. I will show that it neither refutes CA nor does it prove PA (will be described in more details under DETAILED REBUTTALS).


VERY IMPORTANT

I will show how Pro violates the rules he established in R1 by showing that his 2nd argument (i.e., 2 – Finding True Statements in the Qur’an) is not an argument which establishes PA, but it is a direct REBUTTAL to my arguments in R1. Here is what Pro tries to refute in his 2nd argument:

“X and Y are true, and no one knew it was true before our religious text, thus our religious text is true!”

Pro doesn’t bring a direct argument here to establish PA. He rather tries to refute the above argument, which is (almost) the equivalent of my arguments in R1 which I have concluded as follows:

I showed that the Qur'an gives specific information about the universe that nobody other than its Owner, Allah, could know at its time of revelation. Therefore, … the Qur'an is for sure revelation from Allah.”

Pro says that the above argument is used by many apologists (where my argument makes me one of them) and informs that he will refute it. This clearly makes his 2nd argument a REBUTTAL to my arguments in R1 which is an obvious violation of conditions he established in R1.

Therefore, Con automatically wins this debate (as per conditions set)!



SHORT CONCLUSION

Announcement to voters:

Pro has lost the debate due to his violation of rules set by himself in R1! Now it is up to you whether you just vote according to this violation or also consider our arguments in succeeding rounds. Both is OK for me.

Detailed explanation of how Pro’s 2nd argument is a REBUTTAL to my arguments in R1 is given under DETAILED REBUTTALS.

=> BUT, this topic is very exciting and we can continue if Pro wishes. I assume that Pro wants to continue. Let me now bring my detailed rebuttals to Pro’s arguments.


DETAILED REBUTTALS

1.) Existence of Many Religious Texts

IMPORTANT!

Please note that Pro must prove PA = It cannot be shown that the Quran is a revelation from God.

->Pro argues that since many books, which are claimed to be divine, contradict each other on many issues then they cannot all be revelations at the same time.

I agree!

->Pro’s argument is shortly as follows:

Isn’t the possibility very low” that “out of all the religious books in existence, The Qur’an is the only one revealed by god?

=> First, it is a MUST for Muslims to also believe in the Books (revelations from God) revealed to some other prophets before prophet Muhammad such as to Moses, David, and Jesus (peace be upon them all). The Quran itself mentions and commands Muslims to believe in revelations to other prophets. Therefore, Pro's argument is pointless.

=> Second, what we don’t accept is that, for example, the Bible is the pure and unchanged revelation to true prophets of God such as Moses, David, and Jesus Christ (peace be upon them all). Its discussion can be made, but it is out of our debate topic.

=> Third, low possibility doesn’t mean impossibility. Therefore, it doesn’t prove PA.

=> Fourth, this argument is not about even if Quran is a revelation from God or not, but it is about low possibility (not impossibility) of Quran being the only revelation from God. Therefore, it doesn’t prove PA.


Conclusion – 1

Pro’s 1st argument fails to establish PA to be true (or CA to be wrong).


2.) Finding True Statements in the Qur’an

Let me now show how Pro’s 2nd argument doesn’t prove PA (or doesn’t disprove CA).

Consider the following imaginary debate:

CA’: There is at least 1 person (human) in a room.

PA’: There is nobody (human) in that room.

A’: We are hearing a voice of a human coming from that room.

B’: The voice we are hearing is a recorded voice and is being played in a computer in that room.

C’: We found out that a person was seen while s/he came out and then re-entered the room and hasn’t come out yet.

Note that A’ seems to prove CA’, B’ seems to refute A’, and C’ seems to prove CA’, without saying anything about B’ and independent of A’. Hence, if only C’ is true then, regardless of what B’ says, CA’ is true (thus PA’ is wrong).

Then for the above example, we have the following results:

1. Even if B’ is true, it doesn’t necessarily prove PA’ or doesn’t necessarily refute CA’, but it ONLY refutes A’.

2. THEREFORE, B’ IS ONLYA REBUTTAL TO A’, NOT AN ARGUMENT/PROOF FOR PA’!

Why am I writing these? You will see why, after you see that Pro did the same in his 2nd argument.

CA: It can be shown that the Quran is revelation from God (Con must establish!).

PA: It cannot be shown that the Quran is revelation from God (Pro must establish!).

A: There are true statements in the Quran about things which nobody knew before it.

B: True statements in a text, e.g., Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which were not known before, don’t mean that it is revelation from God (Pro’s 2nd argument).

Note that A, B, CA, and PA for Pro’s 2nd argument are similar to/presented in the same way as were A’, B’, CA’, and PA’ in my example of a person in a room, respectively. In other words,

CA -> CA’,

PA -> PA’,

A -> A’, and

B -> B’.

Since they are similar to each other, as explained above, we have the same results of that examplefor Pro’s 2nd argument, as follows:

1. Even if B is true, it doesn’t necessarily prove PA (which Pro must establish) or disprove CA (which Con must establish).

2. THEREFORE, B IS ONLY A REBUTTAL TO A, NOT AN ARGUMENT/PROOF FOR PA.


Conclusion - 2

The first result clearly shows how Pro’s 2nd argument doesn’t necessarily prove his claim PA.

The second result, however, clearly shows how B (Pro’s 2nd argument) is a REBUTTAL to A (my arguments in R1). In other words, B of Pro is;

(1) – not an argument for PA,

(2) – a rebuttal to A, and

(3)A is (almost) exactly my Common Sense Argument – 1 in R1.

This can be easily justified by putting my arguments (e.g., “Universe is Expanding” and “Position of the Stars”) instead of X and Y in Pro’s 2nd argument to see if that is the conclusion of my arguments in R1.


3.) The Eloquence of Arabic/ Not Being Able to Produce a Surah from the Qur’an

First, only the eloquence/beauty of Arabic is not a sufficient evidence for Quran to be revelation from God. Otherwise, thousands of books written in Arabic would be also claimed to be so. Nobody claims such a thing and that doesn’t make sense.

Therefore, Pro’s argument is pointless.

Second, there is a challenge in the Quran which is not about the eloquence of Arabic, but about the eloquence of the Quran itself (being in Arabic is only one “dimension” of that eloquence). It would be nonsensical to challenge Arabs to write something in Arabic, wouldn’t it?

First of all, this is just a claim, not a proof. Pro has first to prove that such a program can be made! Further I would like to ask the followings regarding his claim:

As it is clear, Pro is not establishing PA, rather he is making claims which also need to be proven.


Conclusion - 3

Pro tries to refute an irrelevant argument which he claims that many apologists use for Quran. Further he makes a hypothetical that can generate phrases with increasing complexity. It would be exciting if Pro gave more information about how it could be. It is also not defined what he means by complexity and what relation that has with Quran and its Surahs. Shortly, his 3rd argument doesn’t prove PA.


REBUTTAL TO REBUTTAL OF PRO


I showed that Pro’s 2nd argument wasn’t an argument for PA, rather it was a rebuttal to my arguments. Does that really refute my arguments? No, it doesn’t. Remember the key points in wallet example I gave and try to understand why that test determines the owner of the wallet without any doubt.

Pro makes a comparison between arguments like that of mine and scientific discoveries. But my argument is not quite similar. Simply, I showed things in the Quran that nobody knew before, at the time of (including himself), and (for about 1200-1300 years) after prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and nobody COULD POSSIBLY KNOW. This is one of the key points to be considered in my arguments. This makes my arguments quite different than the discoveries Pro is talking about.

He says that if a part of a text is correct, it doesn’t mean that the whole is also correct. I agree, but note that it doesn’t also mean that there are incorrect parts in that text.



CONCLUSION

I showed that Pro has violated the rules. In addition I showed how his 1st and 2nd arguments don’t establish that “It cannot be shown that the Quran is revelation from God”. Further I refuted his argument 3 and provided a rebuttal to his 2nd rebuttal/argument.

In the next round I will provide more evidences that Quran cannot be from anyone else but Allah. I will also provide rebuttals to Pro’s arguments if he brings any..

I wish Pro best of luck!

Debate Round No. 2
Pase66

Pro


I would like to thank Con for their rebuttals.


Rebuttal- Opening Statement + Claim of Rule Breaking


Claim of Rule Breaking


The first claim that I would like to address is Con’s claim that I broke the rules during my opening statement by providing a rebuttal to his opening statement. The only reason I had included the argument (which Con shows in the previous round) is because it’s a very common line of argumentation that I encounter in these types of debate. In fact (I cannot substantiate this, but it’s not very important), I didn’t even read Con’s opening statement when I started. Plus, to quote from Con, “He rather tries to refute the above argument, which is (almost) the equivalent of my arguments in R1 which I have concluded…” Notice the word ‘almost’? This shows that my argument wasn’t a rebuttal of Con’s, for my argument didn’t fit as a rebuttal for his argument. Also, my argument didn’t address the claims made by Con, as I didn’t argue as to the validity of those specific claims. As you see, saying “X and Y are true, and no one knew it was true before our religious text, thus our religious text is true!” doesn’t address the specific claims by con, regarding his claims about the universe, fingerprints, and so on. So in conclusion, although a very cheap tactic used by Con, I hope to show how my opening statement wasn’t in fact a rebuttal, but was an argument addressing a common line of argumentation made by many theists.


Common Sense Argument-1


Con states “We found” the universe and wonder who its owner is.” Here, Con is assuming that there is an owner in the first place, an assumption con has yet to substantiate.


Motion of Celestial Bodies and Dark Matter


For clarity, the whole verse Con refers to is Surah 36:40, which goes as such:


It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming.


http://quran.com...


Neither does it lie in the sun's power to overtake the moon35 nor can the night outstrip the day.36 All glide along, each in its own orbit.


http://www.islamicstudies.info...


Asad : [and] neither may the sun overtake the moon, nor can the night usurp the time of day, 21 since all of them float through space [in accordance with Our laws].


Malik : Neither it is possible for the sun to overtake the moon, nor for the night to outstrip the day: each floats along in its own orbit.


Pickthall: It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.


Yusuf Ali: It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon nor can the Night outstrip the Day: each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law)


http://www.alim.org...


I have provided six different translations for Surah 36:40, for in the third source I provided translations by four different Islamic translators and scholars. Now, a line that is very similar in all of the verses are It is not possible for the sun to overtake the moon. In fact, it is possible for the sun to overtake the moon. When looking at the cycle of any star, one will notice that there’s a phase where the sun turns into a red giant, or into a super red giant (basically the expansion of the sun). So, when that happens, the earth and moon will be enveloped by the sun, resulting in a very fiery death for this planet. Or, if we somehow survive that, there’s the possibility of the sun becoming a black hole. And I truly hope that I don’t need to explain what happens when a black hole is formed.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...


I would also like to focus on, what Con talks about, the Qur’an referencing dark matter. Con asserts that the Qur’an talks about dark matter due to it using the (Arabic equivalent) word “swimming”. Now, let’s suppose that we discovered that celestial bodies orbit around each other because the universe is made out of water. Yes, water. Here, the word swimming would apply. Now, let’s suppose that we found out that they move through a material called “the ether”. Here, again, the word swimming would apply. Or we could even say, without dark matter, that the motion of orbit by celestial bodies can be described as swimming, or floating, or many other verbs. You see, the example Con gave was merely the classic case of taking a small detail in a book, and then doing some logical gymnastics or drawing false analogies between an obscure phrase and what is actually in real life. Here, let me show you an example; I predict that, in the future, The United States of America is going to go into another war. Now, if (or rather, when) this prediction comes true, does that mean that I can see into the future? That I’m somehow divine? That I revealed some enormous truth? No. I just made an obscure prediction about the future (for example, war could be extended to mean a number of things. It could be used in both contexts of war in Afghanistan and war on drugs; both mean different things, yet the word war is applicable in both).


The Expansion of Space


Here, I would first like to cite verse 51: 47 from different translators.


Sahih International: And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.



Pickthall: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).



Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.



Shakir: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.



Muhammad Sarwar: We have made the heavens with Our own hands and We expanded it.



Arberry: And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide.


http://corpus.quran.com...


Now, in these multiple translations, we have the words vastness and expand used predominantly. What I would like to point out is that all the translations that use the word vastness (“we created the vastness of space”) occurred before Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe, and all the translations that use the word expand came after Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe. Although there would be a lot to cite here, I encourage you all to go out and see for yourself. In particular, I got my information from biographies of the translators, and the time period in which they lived. Now, of course you will find translations that use the word expand before Hubble, but there also was the usage of the word vastness too. Interesting how there was a consensus among scholars about using the word expand right after Hubble, now, isn’t there?


Position of the Stars


I find it truly amazing how, given the verse Nay, I swear by the places of the stars. And lo! That verily is a tremendous oath, if ye but knew. (Qur’an, 56:75-76), people can somehow connect this to black holes. Yes, black holes! From Allah swearing on the position of stars! Here’s a test/ question you should conduct/ ask yourself whenever someone claims their religious book revealed something regarding science that no one knew until it’s actual discovery: could you draw the same conclusion given no information other than the one verse? If Allah revealed x to us, why didn’t we discover x much earlier on than we discovered it? Also, I want everyone to do what I said. Take the verse Nay, I swear by the places of the stars. And lo! That verily is a tremendous oath, if ye but knew, and using no other scientific information that was available at that time, come to the conclusion about the existence of black holes. Go on, do it. You see, this is yet another case of people changing the context of their religious texts just to confirm their bias that it’s true. What you should do is, instead of working from what we already know, and then giving context to the Qur’an, look at the actual verses of the Qur’an, and then see what they tell us about the universe. Nothing much, now, do they?


Fingerprints


Using the verse Does man think that We will not assemble his bones? Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips. (Qur’an, 75:3-4), let me attempt to come to a different conclusion than what Con came to. It talks about fingertips because they are very small, and thus are talking about how “they” assembled everything in the body, from the large (the skeletal structure) to the small (the fingertips). And notice how the verse doesn’t say anything about fingerprints. It just talks about fingertips. Yet another example of how people extend/ change the context of verses to make it appear true in light of modern science.


Conclusion


Although I’m aware that I barely addressed Con’s rebuttals, I intend to do so in the next round. I would like to thank Con and the audience, and wish Con the best of luck in the next round.


ssadi

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his rebuttals in R3.

INTRODUCTION

I will use CA and PA as I defined in R2.

I will provide some other evidences for CA and try to refute Pro’s rebuttals.

NOTE 1: In R1 I was trying to show that there are specific signs in the Quran about the universe that nobody could possibly know when Quran was revealed/written other than the Creator, Ruler and Owner of the universe, concluding that the existence of Quran in 7th century requires the existence of someone who knows such information about the universe at that time and it only belongs to Him.

NOTE 2: Quran is not a book of science to give detailed explanations. Rather it is a book of signs. Look up what sign means to properly understand what I am doing in my arguments in Ref.[1]

NOTE 3: Here I will bring evidences for different types of characteristics which prove that the Quran is revelation from Allah.

NOTE 4: The verses of Quran are not limited to one meaning.[2] Hundreds of huge tafsirs (exegesis) on Quran and multiple different interpretations of a single verse in each of them clearly show how extended are the meanings of verses of Quran are.[3]

EVIDENCES FOR CA

There are different types of evidences that prove CA. I gave 4 examples for one type of evidences in R1. Now I will give only 1 example for some different types.

1. Preservation of Pharaoh’s Body

“So today We will save you in body that you may be to those who succeed you a sign. And indeed, many among the people, of Our signs, are heedless” (Quran, 10:92)

This was said to Pharaoh (Ramesses II) of the time of Moses (pbuh) when he drowned (Quran, 10:91). In 20th century a body was found, and it is now in a Cairo Museum in Egypt. Dr. Maurice Bucaille lead a team of scientists and analyzed the body. This body, despite being drowned in the sea, was quite different than other mummifications (no other mummy is preserved this much). When he found out that this was foretold in the Quran 14 centuries ago, he admitted that Quran was revelation from Allah. Because it is impossible for anyone on Earth to know 14 centuries ago that a body drowned about a thousand years ago will be preserved and found about 1400 years later. Note that the preservation part is not mentioned in any other scripture.

Therefore, Quran cannot be the word of anyone other than Allah, i.e., the Ruler of the universe. Detailed explanation of this is given in Dr. M. Bucaille’s “The Bible, the Qur’an and Sciene (pp. 157-175)” where he compares the story both in Quran and in Bible with modern science.[4] [5]

2. Eloquence of Quran

The Balaaghah (eloquence) of Quran is beyond the human capacity. For detailed description of eloquence of Quran please visit Ref.[6]

I will just explain one of its aspects which is to use few words to express a lot about something. For example:

“..and (they) spend out of what We have provided for them.” (Quran, 2:3)

This is a part of the verse and is composed of only 5 Arabic words;

wa - and

min - from

maa - what

razaqnaahum - We have provided for them

yunfiqoon - (they) spend out / give charity.

It is explaining a virtue of righteous people that they spend out / give charity. But the wording is chosen in such a way that the verse also gives 5 conditions for the infak (charity) to be accepted. It must be given;

1. in such a way that one won’t become in need himself; it is marked by “min”, a small part from what we provided, not all of it.

2. not from something that is taken from someone else by unfair means, i.e., by tyranny; it is marked by “razaqnaahum”, “rizq” is what is provided by fair means.

3. in Allah’s name without leaving one under any obligation; it is marked by “razaq-naa-hum”, We provided for them.

4. not given/spent unnecessarily; it is marked by “yunfiqoon”, they give it as charity to those who are really in need.

5. from anything that is provided for them; it is marked by “maa”, so charity is not only givin money, but anything such as knowledge, help etc.

As it is seen, such an eloquence cannot be provided by any human. The scholars and experts on eloquence have witnessed such eloquence in all of the verses of Quran and proved this giving many evidences for different verses. One such scholar is Badiuzzaman Said Nursi.[6] So, there is no doubt that that Quran is from Allah.

REBUTTALS TO REBUTTALS OF PRO

Common Sense Argument-1

Pro: “Con is assuming that there is an owner in the first place, an assumption con has yet to substantiate.

This assumption is already made by Pro in R1 by defining God as Allah (i.e., the God in Islam) because Allah is the Owner of the Universe in Islam.

Dark Matter

*Pro is building his rebuttals on translations of the Quran, but we are discussing the Quran itself, not its translations.

Swim

Analogy (in Logic): A process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.[7] [8]

For more information about “analogy” visit the link in Ref.[9]

Swim (v): to move, rest, or be suspended in air as if swimming in water.[10]

(Compare: as if they swim in a matter called as dark matter!)

In the verse [36:40] the word “swim” is used to make an analogy to explain the motion of celestial bodies. The word used in Arabic is “yasbahoon”, which is translated as “(they) swim”, and this word means motion of something within another matter, not in free space. The sign here is about space being filled with some matter, what was our discovery that; yes, the space is not as free as it was thought before (the discovery of dark matter). “Dark matter” is just a name given by scientists to that invisible matter.

Overtake the moon

First, the verse [36:40] is talking about everyday conditions of the sun and the moon, not necessarily including what will happen in far future.

Second, Pro is talking about some possibilities that the sun can one day overtake the moon. There are many possibilities both for it to happen and not to happen. For example, just an un-expected guest (e.g., a huge asteroid) could and can come and hit the moon to take it out of its orbit towards the sun (to happen) or away from sun’s position (not to happen).

Third, If we think about the far future of the moon, again both cases are possible, considering the scientific discovery that the moon is moving away from the Earth for about 3.8cm every year.[11]

Fourth, Pro implies that the sun will overtake the moon, finally, when the sun becomes a black hole, if not before. That is only a possibility, if the moon was still available in solar system by that time.6 Therefore, Pro’s rebuttal fails to refute my argument.

Fifth, I would like to hear Pro’s opinion on what happens when the sun becomes a black hole. (Hint: Consider the huge black hole in the center of our galaxy!)

Predictions

Pro gives a very general prediction example as a part of his refutation to my argument on the signs in the Quran about celestial bodies.

My arguments in R1 are not predictions (i.e., foretelling the future) in Quran, rather they are explanations of SIGNs in the Quran about the universe which were also present in 7th century when Quran was revealed/written. So, his refutation is dismissed.

Expansion

- Pro builds his rebuttals completely on translations, not on Arabic Quran which we are discussing.

- He is questioning why the more commonly used word vastness was replaced by the word expand after Hubble’s telescope.

First, that this is just a question, not a rebuttal.

Second, the word in the Quran was and islamoosi’oon” for 14 centuries.

Third, it comes from the root word “wasi’” to which I gave translations in English.

Fourth, that is just different choice of words by different translators.

Fifth, note that both “vast” and “expand” are compatible with the universe, since the universe is both vast and expanding. (You weren’t expecting this, were you?)

Position of the Stars


Pro is amazed by how I made a connection between black holes and the verse where Allah swears by the position of stars. The answer is simply because black holes are also (theoretically) stars that light cannot escape them, as I explained.

Fingerprints

Pro argues that the verse about fingertips does not necessarily mean fingerprints and what I did was extending/changing the context of the verse to make it appear true in the light of modern science.

First, both my and Pro’s arguments can be easily explained by comprehensiveness of words of Quran, without contradicting each other (NOTE 4).

Second, the key word in verses [75:3-4] is proportioning, which implies difficulty/complexity in sensitivity of proportions of fingertips as compared to other bones. So, it is addressing any complexity of fingertips that are different than other bones.. We discovered that one of significantly different complexities in proportions of fingertips as compared to other bones is the complex and unique patterns in fingertips. There are smaller bones than fingertips; therefore the verse must be talking of something more special and specific such as fingertips. So, this sign of the Quran was disclosed after discovery of uniqueness of fingerprints. Remember the verse [41:53] I gave in R1.

Debate Round No. 3
Pase66

Pro

I would like to than Con for their arguments.


Rebuttal


Note 4


Here, I would like to focus on note 4, as part of the introduction in Con’s Round 3 argument. To quote from Con, “The verses of Quran are not limited to one meaning.[2] Hundreds of huge tafsirs (exegesis) on Quran and multiple different interpretations of a single verse in each of them clearly show how extended are the meanings of verses of Quran are.[3]”. Let me ask a RHETORICAL question; how convenient is it that there are many different interpretations of single verses in the Qur’an? You see, if I say that one verse is empirically wrong, all Con merely has to say is that I didn’t take the verse in its proper context, or the meaning I gave isn’t the “right” meaning. You see what this implies? That the verses in the Qur’an are ambiguous to begin with, as they don’t convey any proper meaning. If they did, Con wouldn’t have stated that there exist many meanings/ interpretations to a single verse.



Preservation of Pharaoh’s Body


“This was said to Pharaoh (Ramesses II) of the time of Moses (pbuh) when he drowned (Quran, 10:91).”


When he drowned? According to modern historic sources, Ramesses most probably died from old age or heart failure.


http://www.ancient.eu...


http://www.ancient-egypt-online.com...


The very fact that Con claims Ramesses II was drowned goes against what many professionals believe as to Ramesses II dying due to old age and a lot of health conditions (the man had arteritis, among many things!) Also, the Qur’an states that there were five plagues that occurred in Egypt (http://www.islam-guide.com...), but, you see, there is no record of there being those plagues! All in all, I don’t even know how this argument helps Con’s case, as it goes against modern history and what we know about Egyptian civilization.



Eloquence of Qur’an


I have heard this argument hundreds of times before. “The Qur’an is SO eloquent that it must be from Allah!” And what’s the basis of this claim? “No human could make anything so eloquent!” Now, suppose I were to make something as eloquent. Would an Islamic apologist admit that it’s as eloquent as the Qur’an? Of course not! Also, eloquence is a very subjective thing. Here, let me give an example; I, Pro, don’t think that the Qur’an is eloquent at all. In fact, I think that it’s the worst written, ugliest book of all time. There we go. Eloquence is a matter of opinion, as it’s relative to the person making the claim of eloquence. So, due to the Islamic apologists having a grandiose sense of the Qur’an, they believe it to be the most eloquently written book ever. You know who else was very eloquent in their writing? William Shakespeare. And to date, no human being has been able to come close to his writing style/ fame. So, does that mean that Shakespeare is Allah? I don’t think so.



Common Sense Argument- 1


No, I didn’t assume Allah existed. If I were assuming that, I would have clearly written that in the rules. I just said that when talking about god, I was talking about Allah. Nowhere in the rules did I state that we were assuming that Allah existed.



Dark Matter


First of all, translations matter. And I took my translations from Islamic Scholars who translated the Qur’an, as well as Islamic sites who have translations of the Qur’an on their site (please, check my citations: I tried to use sources that were Pro-Islamic, so that the translations I used wouldn’t have any anti- Islamic bias). You see, Con is merely trying to say that his translation is the only one that’s correct, and you can ignore all the other translations made by all the other Islamic Scholars. Plus, my argument still stands, as Con merely stated that “The sign here is about space being filled with some matter”, and if it turned out, again, that space was somehow filled with water, or Jell-O, or a lot of particles, the word swim would still apply. Again, nothing really special here. It’s just a case of apologists bending the meaning/ contexts of phrases/ words to make their text seem true. On a side note, the word swim would even apply when not talking about any matter- it could be used just to describe the motion of celestial bodies. And finally, ask yourself this: if we didn’t know all that we knew today, and all we had was that one Qur’an verse, could you come to the conclusion regarding the existence of dark matter? No, you could not. If you could, we would have learned about the existence of dark matter a long time ago.



Overtake the Moon


“First, the verse [36:40] is talking about everyday conditions of the sun and the moon, not necessarily including what will happen in far future.”


Again, I seem to be coming back to this point: Islamic apologists will change the meaning/ context of verses just to fit their agenda of it being true. The sun won’t overtake the moon, but the Qur’an isn’t talking about so far into the future, it’s just talking about the present (although the Qur’an never states that regarding this passage; also, won’t the Qur’an still apply millions of years from now, or is it just a 21st century thing?) Secondly, all the verses fall along the line of “it’s not possible for the sun to overtake the moon”. Yes, it’s possible. I’ve shown that. When the sun expands to become a Red Giant, it’s possible for the sun to overtake the moon. The Qur’an states that it’s NOT possible (check my citations of the verse in my previous argument). Also, when if the sun becomes a black hole, it would exert the same amount of gravitational pull on the earth as it does now. http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...


But when the sun expands to a Red Giant, it will consume the earth. http://www.universetoday.com...



Expansion


Again, Con is stating that the translations I used are wrong because they disprove their case. Also, I asked a rhetorical question, expecting it to be obvious given the context of my sentence. But I’ll state it here: I asked a rhetorical question, a tool many people use when writing. Secondly, I encourage you to check back on the sources I gave: vastness and expanding are two different words. For example, if I say “The universe is vast”, it’s different from saying “The universe is expanding”. And it seems that before Hubble’s discovery, the former was predominantly used, and after Hubble’s discovery, the latter was predominantly used. Now, Con states that there are particular translations of words and verses. But, isn’t it true that Con also stated that there are many meanings and interpretations to verses? So, why is it that we must accept Con’s translations as being the only, legitimate translations? Why not the translations of Islamic Scholars, Islamic websites, and other sources? Again, Con is merely just referring to his own “authority” in order to skew the facts. You see, that’s why I used multiple translations, instead of just using one, in all of my arguments.



Position of the Stars


My challenge still stands. Don’t use anything that was discovered after the Qur’an. Just using that one verse, show me how one can conclude the existence of black holes. In Con’s explanation, they used the definition of a black hole to come to that conclusion. Don’t use the definition of a black hole, or anything after the Qur’an, and then tell me how you were able to come to the conclusion of black holes. As such, my argument still stands.



Fingerprints


“First, both my and Pro’s arguments can be easily explained by comprehensiveness of words of Quran, without contradicting each other.”


There we have it. It proves my point. One can take verses from the Qur’an to mean entirely different things. This goes back to apologists changing the contexts of verses to make them appear true, when it reality, the verses say absolutely nothing. Also, regarding the word proportioning, the fingertips are really small. The verse could mean that it’s very hard to make something as small as the fingertips, and implies that complexity in the human body even goes down to the fingertips. Yet again, I arrive to a different conclusion than Con (and a valid conclusion by Con’s concession), which goes to show that the Qur’an reveals nothing.



Conclusion


I would like to thank Con and the audience, and would like to wish Con luck in their closing argument (in which I would like to remind Con, as per the rules, no new arguments may be introduced in the closing statement).



ssadi

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his arguments in R4.



SOME MAIN CORRECTIONS:

1. 3rd detailed rebuttal (eloquence…) in R2:


“First of all, this (that a program can be made that could write a text as eloquent as Quran) is just a claim, not a proof. Pro has first to prove that such a program can be made! Further I would like to ask the followings regarding his claim:


2. Under “EVIDENCES FOR CA” in R3:

“Now I will give only 2 examples for some different types.


3. Last paragraph in R3:


“There are smaller bones than fingertips; therefore the verse must be talking of something more special and specific such as fingerprints.



INTRODUCTION

pbuh - peace be upon him.

I will still use CA and PA as I defined in my Introduction in R2.



REBUTTAL TO PRO’S REBUTTALS IN R3


1)
NOTE 4

Pro quotes what I wrote:“The verses of Quran are not limited to one meaning.[2]”and then builds his arguments on what he understands from it without referring to the reference [2] I gave to see what I meant.

Note that the hadiths (narrations of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) are the second (after other verses of Quran itself) main instructions for how to interpret a verse of Quran. The following is a hadith mentioned in that reference:

Each verse has an outer meaning, an inner meaning, a limit, and an aim, and each has roots, and boughs, and branches,”[2]

Several examples are given in that source from Quran to show how that hadith is true. Therefore, this aspect of Quran was known since the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), it is not a new thing.

Pro asks a (rhetoric) question: “how convenient is it that there are many different interpretations of single verses in the Qur’an?”

A detailed answer was given in that reference, but only if Pro read it:

all the aspects and meanings which are found acceptable by the science of semantics, and appropriate by the science of rhetoric, and desirable by the science of eloquence, may be considered among the meanings of the Qur’an.”2

To give an example for what “not limited to one meaning” compare the followings:

1. He is starving.

2. He is hungry.

Note that 1st sentence has also the meaning of 2nd, but is not limited to it. It provides further information about how hungry he is, which is not given in 2nd sentence.


2) PRESERVATION OF PHARAOH'S BODY

Pro wrote: According to modern historic sources, Ramesses most probably died from old age or heart failure.”

What is the actual cause of his death? Historic sources make that conclusion because the man was old and ill. BUT, is there any rule that a man who is old and ill cannot be drowned?

Pro wrote: “Also, the Qur’an states that there were five plagues that occurred in Egypt, but,you see, there is no record of there being those plagues.”

Not having record of something doesn’t mean that something didn’t happen. Refer to reference [2] I provided in R3 for more information on the subject.

Please note that my main argument was about 1 - preservation of the body of Pharaoh, 2 - the body being a sign for future generations (it is in a museum in Egypt now, open to tourists to come and see it), and mainly 3 – these events being mentioned in Quran. Pro hasn’t provided any rebuttal for these yet. However, I showed how his rebuttals fail to refute anything mentioned in Quran.



3) ELOQUENCE OF QUR'AN

Pro wrote: “… eloquence is a very subjective thing.I, Pro, don’t think that the Qur’an is eloquent at all. In fact, I think that it’s the worst written, ugliest book of all time…”

This is a pure subjective argument that eloquence is a very subjective thing! No evidence, no proof, nothing more than a claim! Apparently Pro hasn’t any knowledge of (quite objective) science of eloquence in literature and especially when Quran is considered.[3]

Pro wrote: “Now, suppose I were to make something as eloquent. Would an Islamic apologist admit that it’s as eloquent as the Qur’an?”

I would suppose he fails until he really tries to. But if he really brought something, then we would compare and see if his claim was right or not. Nothing is provided yet.

Pro wrote:“And to date, no human being has been able to come close to [Shakespeare’s] writing style/ fame.”

Any evidence though?

Many experts who have knowledge of both Shakespeare and Rumi admit that even the translations (where most of the time the originality, taste, eloquence, rhythm, etc. are lost) of Rumi’s works into English are, at least, easily comparable with that of Shakespeare.[4] There are many others in Persian literature that can easily be compared with Shakespeare such as Hafiz, Sa’di, Khayyam, etc. (the reason for me to give examples from Persian literature is because my mother tongue is Persian).[5][6] This is not to say that Shakespeare is not a great author in this field, but only to say that there are also others, at least, comparable with him.


4) ASSUMPTION OF GOD'S EXISTENCE

Pro didn’t also write anything that we have first to prove God’s existence and His ownership of the universe. What he wrote to define God is: God - Allah i.e., God in Islam (this part was discussed in comments section). Since God in Islam is the Owner of everything, including the universe, then it is automatically assumed. Otherwise this debate would turn into debate of existence of God.


5) DARK MATTER

Quran doesn’t give a name. What I showed were that 1 - all celestial bodies (including Earth and sun) move, 2 - each in an orbit, and 3 – within another matter i.e., not in vacuum.Swim” gives the meaning that “they move inside some other matter, not in vacuum”. I said that “motion within another matter” is a direct sign to existence of what we call as dark matter.

Pro asks why dark matter? It can mean anything else, how can one conclude that it is about dark matter?

I totally agree, it can mean water, oil, etc. But the point of my argument is that “it cannot mean in vacuum (i.e., space unoccupied by matter)”.

Note that what science discovered was that the space is not as free of matter as we thought before, there must exist another matter that approximately makes up 85% of the matter of known universe. That is all about scientific discovery; the rest is just naming that yet Unknown Matter as Dark Matter.


6) OVERTAKE THE MOON

We can understand that the verse is mainly talking about everyday conditions of sun and moon not only in 21st century, but for billions of years and will continue this way until the end of the world. One reason for this is that the tense used is Present Simple Tense (It is not permitted for the sun…). Even if it was about final fate of the moon, there is nothing that can disprove it. I explained it in details in my arguments in R3.

Pro admitted that nothing different than now would happen when the sun becomes a black hole. Yet he argues that “when the sun expands to a Red Giant, it will consume the earth.” Interestingly, the link he provided for this claim writes: “Although it’s science fiction, the authors suggest that future technologies could be used to speed up the Earth’s spiraling outward from the Sun.”[7]


7) EXPANSION

I wrote: “Fifth, note that both vast and expand are compatible with the universe, since the universe is both vast and expanding. (You weren’t expecting this, were you?)”

After “reading” the above Pro wrote: Again, Con is stating that the translations I used (for the word vastness) are wrong because they disprove their case.”

Case Closed!


7) POSITIONS OF THE STARS

Pro wrote: “My challenge still stands… Just using that one verse, show me how one can conclude the existence of black holes.

Pro’s challenge is irrelevant to my argument because my argument was not about the existence of black holes. Note that my argument applies EVEN IF BLACK HOLES DIDN’T EXIST (by just considering what I discussed in i. and ii.). Pro is misinterpreting my argument.


8) FINGERPRINTS

Pro objects about "comprehensiveness of words of Quran". I re-explained it under Note 4 above (R4).


9) RULE BREAKING (rebuttal to Pro’s arguments in R3)

I couldn’t include it in R3 due to exceeding the character limit. I am giving it here.

Let XY be what Pro claimed to be a very common line of argumentation for establishing CAas follows:

XY: X and Y are true, and no one knew it was true before our religious text, thus our religious text is true!”

I don’t argue that Pro chose his 2nd argument in R2 intentionallyas a rebuttal to my arguments in R1. I only tried to show that his 2nd argument is a rebuttal to my opening arguments, intentionally or not.Pro wrote:

1.The only reason I had included the argument … is because it’s a very common line of argumentation that I encounter in these types of debate.”

Note that his second argument is not an evidence for PA, it is rather a rebuttal to “a very common line of argumentation” for CA. He adds:

2.“In fact, … I didn’t even read Con’s opening statement when I started.”

But he had to, before providing a rebuttal to a very common argumentation, to make sure that I, also, have not used that, in order not to break the rules he himself established in R1.

I used the word almost to note a difference between them and took it under parentheses to show the insignificance of that difference, concluding that they were equivalent:

Difference: Pro didn’t mention the name of my arguments in XY, instead he used X and Y which are generalizations to any such argument.

Equivalence: Only replacing any two of my arguments in R1 with X and Y is sufficient to make XYexactequivalent of my arguments. Therefore, the above difference is insignificant.

Furthermore, is only replacing the names of my arguments with X and Y sufficient to make his 2nd argument not a rebuttal to my arguments?



CONCLUSION

I would like to thank Pro for instigating this interesting debate and wish him best of luck in his closing arguments.



SOURCES:

[1] Quranic verses: http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 4
Pase66

Pro


I would like to thank Con for their closing arguments.


Claims of Rule Breaking


Again, as I already pointed out, in my opening statements, I did not address even a single claim that Con made. I was merely addressing a common line of argumentation that I encounter in debates of this nature. Also, my arguments didn’t try to argue about the validity of Con’s claims. For, after my opening statements, Con’s claims still stood unchallenged. It’s my personal belief that the only reason Con is pursuing this argument is because they view it as a real threat, and thus want to remove the merit it has by claiming that it’s a violation of the rules (which I have already shown that it’s not).


Speaking of Rule Breaking…


In the rules, I also stated that, in the closing arguments, no new arguments would be presented. If one would notice, in Con’s closing arguments, they provided a section dedicated to the rebuttal of my arguments, and introduced many new arguments (which I won’t address, as I would have to break my own rules in order to do so). Thus, I ask the reader to penalize Con for this disregard of the rules, and in order to maintain a fair debate, disregard the rebuttals they presented in their closing arguments. For the purpose of the closing arguments are to reiterate main points made in the debate, and not introduce new ones.


In Conclusion


I will keep my conclusion short, as I believe the rest of the debate speaks for itself. A main point that I would like to reiterate on is that of claims made by religious texts in regards to “revealing” certain facts that were unknown at that time. What I want everyone to ask themselves is, given ONLY the verse which apologists claim reveals something previously unknown, ask yourself this: could you have come to that same conclusion given only that verse, and nothing else? Of course not, as I have shown in my arguments above. Also ask yourself this: of all the religious texts out there claiming to be true, which is more likely? That none out of all the mutually exclusive texts are true, or that a divine being (whose existence wasn’t even established by Con in this debate, as I say previously) just picked one text out of all of them? Obviously it would take quite a leap in logic to believe the latter, rather than the former. Now, while I made many more arguments, these are the ones I would like to draw specific attention to, as they address not only The Qur’an, but also any other religious book any apologist claims are “true” or “divine”.



In conclusion, I would like to thank Con for this very fun and interesting debate, and would like to thank the readers for reading, and the voters for voting. Vote Pro!


ssadi

Con

I forfeit this round, due to conditions set!

(I would like to thank Pro for this very hard and (I hope) fruitful debate for instigating it and for his participation in all rounds.. I thank the readers for taking their time and read it. I would also like to thank voters in advance for taking their valuable time to review and vote.)
Debate Round No. 5
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

I found this debate to be a somewhat frustrating read. Pro's arguments seemed to focus on expansions of translated statements made in the Qur'an, and Con's points focused almost entirely on whether or not those points were valid on the basis that multiple translations could occur. I'm going to address my views on that point, then render a decision on the basis of the arguments that survive it.

There's a problem with the argument that you can simply pluck out a definition of a given word when there are several and say that that definition proves your points true, even if you're going through the extra work of explaining how you came to that definition. So long as Con admits that many of the words he relies on have multiple definitions, he admits that they aren't necessarily signs of what's to come in terms of scientific discovery.

Let me explain.

If all definitions are correct, then why should I or anyone else assume that the definition we should be moving forward with is the one that shows that the Qur'an had the right of a given scientific fact? Why shouldn't I just assume that one of the other definitions is what the original authors meant? When Pro shows me, for example, that vastness changed to expand with time, it shows me that there's a confirmation bias when the scientific data supported a certain conclusion. That bias appears to clearly exist and isn't rebutted by Con. So why, then, should I assume that the words chosen at the time that the Qur'an was written match the words we translate them to today?

I can't make that assumption. I can't just assume that, when the Qur'an was written, all possible definitions of a given word were considered to be accurate at any time that a word was written. That's just too large of an assumption for me to buy.

So this means I'm dismissing many of Con's major points, which focused on a single meaning of a word being an accurate sign of later scientific findings.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

That's not to say that the debate ends here. Not all of Con's points fall victim to this problem, and Pro's own arguments all basically constitute pre-rebuttals save the first, which basically gets dropped and left for dead. So Pro still has to win on every single argument given by Con in order to have a chance at the debate.

Part of the reason for that is that I don't have a clear idea of what it means to be "shown that the Qur'an is Revelation from God". Does that mean prove? Should I interpret shown as proof? And if so, what standard of proof should I apply? Pro simply leaves off without explaining any of this, and in fact tells me that the burdens are shared. That's really problematic for him, because it means that anything that Con tells me that has me slightly leaning in his favor is a point I must consider. The only thing that Pro has going for him on offense is a turn on one of Con's arguments, where he talks about the eventual possibility of the sun overtaking the moon. It's not a great argument, but it does give him something to swing the balance in his favor if there's a tie.

Swinging that pendulum back in the other direction, though, there's a lot of points I'm not buying from Con. I'm not buying the fingerprints argument because a) there's too much of this back and forth on fingertips vs. fingerprints, and it's never clarified to my liking, b) it doesn't really show some great scientific discovery, since point is based on a more recent conventional wisdom rather than a scientific finding, and c) it's actually wrong, as it's been found that fingerprints are actually not unique (same as snowflakes, for that matter). The position of the stars point begs a lot of questions for me, since it just assumes that since they said the position of the stars was important, the author must have been aware of the delicate balance of celestial bodies. It's not very convincing when the line of text you're using doesn't state anything about said balance.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

I'm hesitant to buy both the pharaoh's body and elequence of Qur'an arguments because I don't find the logic for either of those very compelling, though admittedly Pro's responses left something to be desired. Either of these points could potentially have shifted the balance in Con's favor, and Pro addressed the first very poorly (focusing on the drowning and not on the quote given), and the latter with an incredibly subjective and not at all convincing rebuttal.

But thankfully, I don't have to vote on either of those arguments. I vote on the very first contention, the motion of celestial bodies. Admittedly, I didn't find THIS very compelling either, but at least this one made more sense. Con tells me from the outset that there was a very commonly held belief that celestial bodies existed in a vacuum. I think Pro could have cut the legs out from under this point simply by pointing to an example of another person in antiquity who thought that there was something more beyond those bodies (I'm sure such an example exists), but that didn't happen, so I'm forced to accept that this was pervasive. For the Qur'an to go against that, and to so clearly argue that these celestial bodies "swim in an orbit" does set Con up rather well with his argument. Pro's response that this didn't imply dark matter is, as Con stated, beside the point " whatever matter was there, the Qur'an appears to have predicted its existence. Pro does eventually state that "swim" could be used "to describe the motion of celestial bodies", and I agree that that's the case, but that needed a lot more explanation and a direct rebuttal of Con's claim that swimming requires moving within some matter. I could view swimming in a more metaphorical sense or even in a sense of just passing through a space under some force, but I need to know why that view is preferable to Con's, and I just don't get it.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 4)

So while I could potentially dismiss much of the rest of the arguments made in this debate, this one just stands out to me. It overpowers the overtaking the moon argument, which at worst may only happen in the very distant future and would therefore be a minor oversight. Pro certainly could have won this debate if he'd set a higher burden of proof on Con (I don't think Con really proved that the Qur'an is revelation from God, he only suggested that based on the quotes he provided), but that wasn't the case, so I vote Con.

Note: I'm not a big fan of voting based solely on breaking the rules, and I don't think that happened here anyway. While Pro's C2 could have been perceived as rebuttal (and it kinda was), I'd interpret it as weak pre-rebuttal, one that was meant to apply to any case that utilized that type of argument. I don't think that kind of tactic is very effective, and it certainly wasn't here. As for Con's new responses in the final round, I did end up ignoring those. As those rounds were meant solely for conclusion, all of those new rebuttals shouldn't have been there.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Dear @Balacafa, can you vote, please?
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
That is noted! Thank you for correction, sincerely!
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
you shouldn't have said that you forfeit due to the conditions set. You could have pass or waive this round but upon first glance it looks like you forfeited the debate or at least that debate round.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Readdressing already given arguments to refute opponent's arguments/rebuttals are not ADDITIONAL/NEW arguments.

BTW, it seems you are right about voting :) . Anyways, I enjoyed it because I struggled gathering information, organizing and presenting it.. I don't think that I did that well though, but at least I tried. :)
Posted by Pase66 1 year ago
Pase66
@ssadi
According to the rules we BOTH agreed to, no additional/new arguments would be presented in the closing arguments. Besides, it looks like no one will vote anyway.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Dear @Pase66,

Can you please provide evidence that we cannot provide REBUTTALS in "Closing Arguments"?

Here are only two links that show that we can:

1 & 2 under Part 3 of 4: Attacking the Opposition's Case:
http://www.wikihow.com...

Concise Rebuttals in following link:
http://www.ehow.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Pase66ssadiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments, on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Vote Placed by UtherPenguin 1 year ago
UtherPenguin
Pase66ssadiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is a tie as both sides were equally civil, so are sources. Arguments: My vote here comes primarily with the burden of proof in teh first round. In Pro's turn, he had made multiple arguments directly addressing hence proving his position (The movement of celestial bodies, expansion of the universe et cetera) Con showed how his arguments directly connected to and proved his position. With Pro's turn, much of his arguments did not fully meet the BoP, his arguments involved the existence of other religious texts, the validity of statements in the Quran and uses of the Arabic language in the Quran. He did not directly connect his argument to the resolution, or sufficiently explain why these arguments prove his position. As stated in the acceptance round, the BoP was equally on both sides. However, Con?s argument did not fully meet said burden. If you have any problems with my vote, feel free to pm me so I can re evaluate.