The Instigator
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
LoopsEye
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 5 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,659 times Debate No: 38068
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (142)
Votes (5)

 

NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Due to the nature of the debate, the burden of proof is solely on my opponent. I take the Con position as an agnostic on the issue. That is to say, my opponent has to provide only one scientific miracle in the Qur'an, and I have to disprove it effectively.

Scientific miracle: Accurate scientific knowledge revealed in the Qur'anic verses even though it was not present in that age. This scientific knowledge also needs to be supported by evidence beyond preponderance, so that it is not considered a Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy committed due to an intentional or non-intentional misunderstanding of a verse.

Note: I'm using the term "scientific miracle" as Muslims use it when they say "scientific miracles" in the Qur'an. I, by no means, mean that a miracle can be scientific. They just use that term to exaggerate what they think is revealed scientific knowledge in the Qur'an.

As a native Arabic speaker, I can easily determine if a verse is being mistranslated or misinterpreted, provided that I have read the Qur'an three times.

Rules:

1- First round is not for acceptance. Opponent has to start arguing from the first round.

2- Opponent can only say "As agreed" in the last round, so that I can respond to everything he/she presents.

3- The burden of proof is solely on Pro. It is not shared.

4- Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.

5- Pro has to accept that classical Arabic is almost identical to Standard Arabic, the formal Arabic I speak.

6-Both Pro and Con have to offer better translations if they reject any of the translations used.

7- Both Pro and Con should follow the rules and definitions presented here, or else they are penalized by the voters.


Info:

Rounds: 4.
Voting period: 10 days.
Time to argue: 72 hours.
Argument max: 8000 characters.

I wish my opponent the best of luck...
LoopsEye

Pro

In the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

"I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger."

Forewords:


I would like to Thank Con for Rising a debate on a really Important Topic of Today's Era!

I would like to clear.. I would have posted my argument 2 days ago but choices were so much I was not able to select which one I should bring forth!

As Con Claimed "ONLY ONE" Statement of Quran which is supported by evidence beyond preponderance, and a Statement which has no other source at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & was discovered recently with the Help of Modern Knowledge of Science!

image

Definitions:

Miracle: Webster defines: An extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.


TheFreeDictonary: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God

Allah: For this debate, is defined as The Creator of This Universe and All in it, He is Eternal All Powerful and All Knowing. The All-Knowing, Omniscient The All Aware, The First, The Beginning-less.

I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE OF DEBATE

_____________

The Glorious Quran:

"[O Pharaoh!] but today We shall save only thy body, so that thou mayest be a [warning] sign unto those who will come after thee: for, behold, a good many people are heedless of Our messages!" (10:92) (Compare Trans.:
http://goo.gl... )


To save you from Efforts I have taken the screen shot of Verse Word-By-Word as below.

image

The story of Pharaoh When he was following Children of Israel He was Drowned & There is no dispute in it!

When He Followed them Moses PBUH by The Help of Allah happen to pass through the Sea Miraculously and Pharaoh was Drowned! along with His Army!

The Story is found same in Bible but!!!!

"BIBLE OR ANY OTHER BOOK ON EARTH DID NOT CLAIMS THAT GOD SAVED PHARAOH'S BODY FROM DROWNING! AS A SIGN FOR PEOPLE!"

ITS A FACT WHICH ALL ARCHLOGLOGISTS BELIVE WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE

Lets meet one of the World's Famous Archaeologist who spent his life in Discovering the Hidden Secrets of Egypt.


Dr. Maurice Bucaille:

France
is known for its unique interest in archeology and heritage. Maurice Bucaille
was a French medical doctor, member of the French Society of Egyptology, and an author. Bucaille practiced medicine from 1945–82 and was a specialist in gastroenterology.[2] In 1973, Bucaille was appointed family physician to His Highness King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Another of his patients at the time included members of the family of then President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat. (Wiki)
He was The senior surgeon and the scientist in charge of the study on this "Mummy of the Pharaoh". http://goo.gl...


Let us see what Dr. Bucaille has to say after his detailed study of Egyptology & Views of History, Bible & Quran about it.

The words are from an Archaeologist who spent Major of His life in Egyptology

He was also well versed of Arabic Language.

In His Book(Download Here:http://goo.gl...)
He says:
(ALL ARE HIS WORDS NOT MINE)


"The text of Exodus is quite clear: Pharaoh was at the head of the pursuers. He perished because the text of Exodus notes that “not so much as one of them remained.” The Bible does not record what became of his body.

"It is difficult to imagine how 600,000 men plus their families could have stayed in the desert for a long time, as the Bible would have us believe.


"Thou has rebelled and caused depravity. This day We save thee in thy body so that thou mayest be a sign for those who come after thee.' But verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our signs.”

This passage requires two points to be explained:
a) The spirit of rebellion and hostility referred to is to be understood in terms of Moses's
attempt to persuade the Pharaoh.
b) The rescue of the Pharaoh refers to his corpse because it is stated quite clearly in
verse 98, Sura 11, that Pharaoh and his followers have been condemned to damnation:


Sura 11, verse 98

“Pharaoh will go before his people on the Day of Resurrection and will lead them to the fire.”


Confrontation Between Scriptural Data And Modern Knowledge:


The mummified body of Merneptah, son of Ramesses II and Pharaoh of the Exodus all the evidence points to this-was discovered by Loret in 1898 at Thebes in the Kings' Valley whence it was transported to Cairo. Elliot Smith removed its wrappings on the 8th of July, 1907(Book: The Royal Mummies (1912)) . At that time the mummy was in a satisfactory state of preservation, in spite of deterioration in several parts. Since then, the mummy has been on show to visitors at the Cairo Museum,


In June 1975, The Egyptian high authorities very kindly allowed me to examine the parts of the Pharaoh's body that had been covered until then. They also allowed me to take photographs. When the mummy's present state was compared to the condition it was in over sixty years ago, it was abundantly clear that it had deteriorated and fragments had disappeared. The mummified tissues had suffered greatly, at the hand of man in some places and through the passage of time in others.

Its discovery took place in the tomb of the Necropolis of Thebes where the mummy had lain for over three thousand years.

"At my suggestion, special investigations were made during this examination of the mummy in June 1975. An excellent radiographic study was made by Doctors El Meligy and Ramsiys, and the examination of the interior of the thorax, through a gap in the thoracic wall, was carried out by Doctor Mustapha Manialawiy What may already be derived from this examination is the discovery of multiple lesions of the bones with broad lacunae, some of which may have been mortal although it is not yet possible to ascertain whether some of them occurred before or after the Pharaoh's death. He most probably died either from drowning, according to the Scriptural narrations, or from very violent shocks preceding the moment when he was drowned-or both at once.



It is always desirable for man to apply himself to the preservation of relics of his history,
but here we have something which goes beyond that: it is the material presence of the mummified body of the man who knew Moses, resisted his pleas, pursued him as he took flight, lost his life in the process. His earthly remains were saved by the Will of God from destruction to become a sign to man, as it is written in the Qur'an.


Those who seek among modern data for proof of the veracity of the Holy Scriptures will find a magnificent illustration of the verses of the Qur'an dealing with the Pharaoh's body by visiting the Royal Mummies Room of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo!


An extremely important complement to the Bible was found in the text of the Qur'an on the subject of the history of the Exodus, where the two texts were very much in agreement with archaeological findings, in the dating of the time of Moses. Besides, there are major differences between the Qur'an and the Bible on the other subjects: they serve to disprove all that has been maintained-without a scrap of evidence-concerning the allegation that Muhammad is supposed to have copied the Bible to produce the text of the Qur'an.


( Wiki: The first Arabic manuscript called Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151, was created in AD 867 +235 years after Muhammad(PBUH) died )

He finally says:


In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science could have been the work of
a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place, on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and the presence in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human terms.

I RECOMMEND YOU DO READ HIS GREAT WORK.
Debate Round No. 1
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

To win the debate, Pro has to offer one scientific miracle in the Qur'an supported with evidence beyond preponderance. He has not done this so for.


Scientific miracle: Accurate scientific knowledge revealed in the Qur'anic verses even though it was not present in that age. [Agreed-upon definition]

Scientific knowledge: Knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principles[1].

Pro offered us instead the traditional "Pharaoh hoax" that was created by Islamist miracle-seekers to convince Christians of converting to Islam. It's only meant to work on Christians because of its first premise that considers the Pharaoh’s story in Exodus a historic fact and a starting point.

As an agnostic atheist, I don't see a good reason to accept what is written in the Bible, so such argument inherently fails to convince me as it relies on a biblical account.


Pro's argument can be summarized as follows...


P1- The story in Exodus in which a Pharaoh drowns is a historic fact. [Baseless assertion]

P2-
The Qur'an speaks of the same Pharaoh and tells us that his body was preserved.

P3-
That pharaoh is Merneptah.[Baseless assertion - Controversial point]

P4- Dr. Maurice Bucaille proved that Merneptah drowned, when he studied the mummy. [False premise]

P5- The Qur'an can not have included this if it was not revealed by God, given that the body-preservation information is not found in the Bible. [Non-Sequitur logical fallacy]

Conclusion: Therefore, the Qur'an contains a miracle.



I only need to refute one premise to demolish the whole argument. However, I'm going to show all the problems and fabrications in my opponent's argument.

Note: I’m considering this a scientific miracle-claim when it's more of a historic miracle-claim, to be exact. However, I don't want to struggle with petty semantics.

...


P1-The story in Exodus in which a Pharaoh drowns is a historic fact.

This might be accepted by some Christians, but definitely not by me. Unless Pro can prove that God drowned the pharaoh as the Qur’an and Bible say (and with overwhelming evidence), I see no good reason to accept premise 1. Hence, this is a baseless assertion that can't be used as a premise.


P2- The Qur'an speaks of the same Pharaoh and tells us that his body was preserved.

I have no objections to that particular premise, given that the two stories are similar. However, I would like to note that the Qur’an never mentions the Pharaoh’s name and doesn’t give any accurate dates of when the event happened.


P3- That pharaoh is Merneptah.

Pro has not offered us any evidence to prove that the drowned pharaoh is Mernepath. Many believers claim Ramses II was the drowned Pharaoh, including Muslims[2]. I haven't been provided any good evidence or reasons to accept that this is Mernepath, not Ramses II or another pharaoh. In summary, this remains a baseless assertion and a controversial point.


P4- Dr. Maurice Bucaille proved that Merneptah drowned, when he studied the mummy.

For a scientist to be taken seriously, he needs to have his research peer-reviewed and accepted among the scientific community. Pro has to prove that such a research is peer-reviewed and accepted.

It is quite shocking that Pro uses Dr. Bucaille as a credible scientist when he was the obedient scientist of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, an Islamic, filthy-rich monarch. I shall use Dr. Bucaille's actual “scientific” study to show how absurd and embarrassing it is for a scientist.

Dr. Maurice Bucaille says, "An excellent radiographic study was made by Doctors El Meligy and Ramsiys, and the examination of the interior of the thorax, through a gap in the thoracic wall, was carried out by Doctor Mustapha Manialawiy What may already be derived from this examination is the discovery of multiple lesions of the bones with broad lacunae, some of which may have been mortal although it is not yet possible to ascertain whether some of them occurred before or after the Pharaoh's death. He most probably died either from drowning, according to the Scriptural narrations, or from very violent shocks preceding the moment when he was drowned-or both at once."

I vote this to be the non-sequitur fallacy of the day...


Non sequitur: An argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises[3].

You don't have to be a specialist in forensics to realize that having lesions doesn't in any way prove that someone drowned. There is no way in logic where Dr. Bucaille's conclusion can follow the premises he offered. This is a textbook example of a non-sequitur.

A great review of the work with an emphasis on this point was written
In a New York Times in 1991 by Malcolm Brown, a science reporter[4]:

"... Dr. Bucaille asserts that results of a forensic examination of Merneptah's mummy are consistent with the biblical account of the pharaoh's death, in which the Red Sea, miraculously parted for the Hebrews, closes over the Egyptians. The author does not make it quite clear how a surge of water would produce the massive cranial trauma evident in the mummy, but never mind. This is but one of many questions the author leaves hanging.

...While Dr. Bucaille makes a good case that the royal mummies have been persistently ill used ever since their discovery, too much of his book is devoted to petulant criticism of Egyptologists and museum officials, notably Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, director of Egyptian antiquities at the Louvre. Dr. Bucaille's feuds leave little room for the mummies; his book badly needs rehabilitation by a professional writer or editor. "

This is yet another confirmation that Dr. Bucaile never proves that the pharaoh drowned.

In summary, P4 is not based on a peer-reviewed and professional, scientific work. I see no good reason to accept the premise.


P5- The Qur'an can not have included this if it was not revealed by God, given that the body-preservation information is not found in the Bible.

Even if we grant all the premises above, this doesn’t leave out the possibility that the body’s preservation was orally-transmitted through sources other than Mohammad’s encounter with the Angel Gabriel. I don’t see how the absence of body-preservation from the Bible gives any Muslim the confidence to conclude that such information could have only be revealed by Allah. There could be other possibilities of how Mohammad got such information. An example of those would be through a story orally-transmitted, provided that there were people who preserved the body and could have carried the story along.

The assertion that this could only be revealed by Allah is logically fallacious, provided that we are talking about a historic event and claiming there were eye witnesses who preserved the body or even have known the tomb after the body was preserved. The conclusion that this must have been revealed by Allah doesn't follow its premises and hence is a Non-Sequitur logical fallacy.

...

Pro doesn't have a chance in this debate, given that I gave four refutations that completely demolished his miracle-claim. It is important to note that I only need one of those refutations to win the debate.

In summary, Pro's argument is severely flawed given that (1) Premise 1 is only a Bibical assumption a Christian might accept, (2) Pro doesn't prove that the Pharoah in the scritpure is Merneptah, (3) Dr. Bucaille doesn't prove Mernepath drowned , (4) Pro commits a Non-sequitur in P4 when he says that since this information is not in the Bible, Allah must have revealed it.

[1] thefreedictionary.com/scientific+knowledge
[2] islamiclandmarks.com/egypt/body_of_firawn.html
[3] princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Non_sequitur_(logic).html
[4] nytimes.com/1991/02/03/books/all-wrapped-up-in-his-work.html‎
LoopsEye

Pro

image
I welcome all to this debate.

May Peace be upon all.

I testify that there is not god worthy of worship Except Allah, and Muhammad PBUH is His Servant and Messenger.

PREFACE:

Its very important to state some things to before continuing to the Topic.

Quran is the Final Word of God sent for All the people of All times So If It has such a claim It should pass the test of All Times.

Previously It was Era of Miracles! & Quran is Miracle of Miracles!

Then The Era of Poetry! Even Non Muslims poets agree that Quran is the Best Arabic Literature on the Face of Earth.

Now is The Era of Science! (Which may be in future some other Era) and Quran contradicts any PROVEN FACT we have today!

Quran is a Book of -S-I-G-N-S- not a Book of -S-C-I-E-N-C-E. It contains more than 6000 signs! As mentioned in Quran:

"These are the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, revelations, etc.) of God, which We recite on to you (O Muhammad) with truth. Then in which speech after God and His signs will they believe? "(1)

Out of 6000 there are more than 1000 which are related to the Scientific FACTS of Nature.

It’s a book to make believe everyone that it is the Word of God and for those who believe in Science it contains indications.

Allah again and again says “Do not they; see, understand, Realize, Pounder etc.” and then speaks about a Nature’s FACT.

The Scientific Facts it speaks about has been proven ONLY NOW due to advancement of Science Centuries after it was reveled.

Before Modern Era there were 100s of Stories, Tales, Myths, Theories and Hypothesis about The Natural Happenings but no proven facts. About Moon, Sun and Every other thing on earth.

Many Books & Scriptures were written but the myths mentioned in them we know today were just Fairy Tales. But Only Quran is the Only Book which contains something that is True Even Today.

This is the Knowledge which no one have known 1500 years ago! (As Pro’s Definition)

Quran says:

Every tiding [from God] has a term set for its fulfillment: and in time you will come to know [the truth]."(2)

That is why many of the verses Classic Translators could not understand and were confused about them they translated as it was written and tried their best to explain it to people. But only now we have come to know about the real meaning of verses!

REMEMBER:

MUHAMMAD(PBUH) DID NOT KNOW TO READ & WRITE HE WAS "UMMI"

ONLY WENT THRICE OUT OF MAKKAH (at age of 9,18,25)

HE WAS ALWAYS SURROUNDED BY 100s of "Hypocrites" hence can not firsltly gather things and copy them!

ARGUMENT:

It is Now Merely 300-400 Years ago we have come to know about the “Scientific FACTS” There were 100s of Hypothesis & Myths about everything but no one knew which one of them was True! That was the age when Quran was verbally reveled!

Keeping this in Mind Let us proceed!

Light of Moon:

History:

There were 100s of Myths about The Moon in Every Era of the World from Egyptians to Greeks Everyone had its own Story about the Moon! There was not Proven Fact at that time.

Chinese:there were twelve Moons as there were twelve months in one year. It was believed that the Moons were made of water.

Only 1 person: Anaxagoras (his theory was rejected) he said “moon shines sun and believed that it was inhabited.”

Inuit people believed Anningan chases his sister, Malina, the Sun goddess, across the sky, but forgets to eat, so he gets much thinner(The Moon)

Maya Myth: the Moon and the Sun were came from Earth!

In many primitive cultures there is a relationship among the Moon, the Rain and the Woman.

And there are many more stated in the following Ref. (5,6)

Science:

Around 1600s Galileo first time used Telescope to See Moon. And at that time Aristotelian Geocentric Theory was believed to be true that The Earth was the center of the universe.

And around this time it was Proven that Moon has Reflected Light there were 100s of Myths before but no proven fact:

If you read the old myths (Ref 5, 6, 7) we come to know some people believed Sun is Stationary! Some Believed Earth was Center of Earth and Everything Revolves around it etc. etc.

Quran:

He it is who has made sun a [source of] radiant light and the moon a light [reflected], and has determined for it phases so that you might know how to compute the years and to measure [time]. None of this has God created without [an inner] truth. Clearly does He spell out these messages unto people of [innate] knowledge: (12)

Blessed became He Who has set consolations in the sky and has placed therein a Lamp (light emitting Source) and a luminous moon (i.e. Reflecting Light). (8)

The Word Used in Quran for Sun is Always: Siraj; Wahaj; Shams etc.

But for Moon It always used: Munier (reflected Light) Noor (a Light) (Luminosity) and Qamar etc.


Not at a Single Place both referred as same thing or interchanged.

OUT OF 100s of MYTHS IT CHOOSES to Say Sun a Source of Light & Moon a Reflection.

Moving of Heavenly Bodies:

As I told above

“According to Aristotle, the Earth was the center of the universe. All heavenly bodies, including the moon, were perfect spheres that moved around the Earth” (7)

Again there was no Proven Fact! All were myths may be somewhere any rejected theory of them might be True but no one was sure and Prefect. Some believed that Earth do not moves some believed Stars do not move Others believed that Sun is Stationary! As lately as until 1980s it was believed that Sun is Stationary (9)


QURAN:

"The sun and moon follow courses exactly computed." (13)

and He has made the sun and the moon subservient; each one runs on to an assigned term. (13)

There are many more verse speaking about it clearly!

It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its own orbit. (21:33)

EXPANDING UNIVERSE

We have built the sky with might, and indeed it is We who are its expanders (Present Tense that means still expanding,constantly expanding it). (51:47) , alt.Trans. (Expanding it)

The Word “LA MOSIOON” from Root “Wao Sin Ayen” means excely to Expand!

And it is used in Present tense with “Lam” to add emphasis!

This is Just Recently Discovered Fact! That Universe is expanding… until 1600s Aristol’s belief was carried that Universe is Geo Centric. And referenced by Archimedes in his book ‘The Sand Reckoner’:

“His hypotheses are that stars are fixed and the Sun remain unmoved…” (9)

And there were again many many myths but Quran Chooses this out of all.

Embyology: All what we came to know about embryology is not more than 300-200 years before there were Drastic Myths about Embryology in past but nothing was confirmed!

Quran says:

Then We developed that sperm (Nutfa) into a clinging leech like substance, and We developed that form into a lump of flesh.(fig.1)

Quran says Sperms becomes a Leech like & is clinging! (Both are Google dictionary translations)

VIDEO 1 : LISTEN TO DR. WINSTON ABOUT EMBRYO; HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT ISLAM ITS HIS VIDEO ON EMBRYOLOGY

image

THERE ARE 100s of Facts about Science Mentioned in Quran My Space is Finished I cannot write them all…

Every time Quran chooses THE CORRECT ONE OUT OF 100s of MYTHS!

HOW??

CONCLUSION:

IF THYPOTEHICALLY I say

There are only 10 Facts written in Quran

(e.g Moon Light, Expanding Universe, Leech Like Embryo, All Heavens Orbiting, Water Cycle, Shooting Stars are not Stars!, Fingerprints, Sexes of Pants Etc.)


IF I ONLY CHOOSE 10 and For every Fact I say there are average 3 Myths.

Then By Portability:

10 questions, 1/3 chance for Each.. and all guesses are correct in One GO!

Using The Probability P(All ten Qs are correct)=(1/x)^10

is P(All 10 guesses Correct) = 0.33^10 = 0.000015

There are 0.0000015 chances that All 10 Guesses are right!

A Book 1500 Years ago guess 100s Facts 100% Correct.

DOES EVERY TIME QURAN GUESSES THE RIGHT ANSWERS AND CHOOSES THAT FROM 100s of MYTHs?

“THAT PROVES QURAN IS SCIENTIFICALLY A MIRACLE!”

It speaks about 100s of Things rightly when there were 100s of Myths about All of them!

All References: http://debatereference.blogspot.com...

Debate Round No. 2
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

After I provided four refutations for his argument , Pro used the "Gish Gallop" strategy to provide FOUR OTHER miracle-claims, whereby violating the rules and regulations of this debate.

R4- Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.

R7- Both Pro and Con should follow the rules and definitions presented here, or else they are penalized by the voters.

I take it that Pro automatically loses his Conduct point for violating the rules, and his Arguments' points for abandoning his main argument altogether.

Gish Galloping: The debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths and falsehoods that the opponent cannot possibly refute everything[1].

I included R4 in my opening statement to avoid having my opponent going into that many diversions. Unfortunately, Pro turned out to be someone who violates the accepted terms and conditions to convince himself that he lost the debate due to such violations, and not because he is utterly wrong about almost everything.

The topic clearly says, "There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an." This doesn't at all encompass whether the Qur'an itself is a miracle. Hence, Pro's new main argument is a red herring.

If you are reading only to vote, then you should read no further. I have already won the debate in Round 2 where I demolished Pro's main argument, the "Pharaoh hoax."

If you are reading out of interest and would like see my refutations, then continue reading.

The points below are not there to win me the debate; I have already won. I'm only presenting them because I'm not accustomed to avoid challenges.

I'll try to address the general arguments my opponent makes with a prior knowledge that I won't be able to refute every falsehood.


It is important to note that all the FOUR miracle-claims that my opponent offered can be used in Logic 101 as examples of the Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy.

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: A logical fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another[e.g Qur'anic verse and a scientific theory] are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern[e.g Scientific Miraculousness of the Qur'an].[2]


1- The Moon-light miracle in the Qur'an

Pro's essential premise is the following...

The Word Used in Quran for Sun is Always: Siraj; Wahaj; Shams etc.

But for Moon It always used: Munier (reflected Light) Noor (a Light) (Luminosity) and Qamar etc.


Muneir doesn't meen reflected light at all.; It is actually an adjective used on objects that emit light. A common phrase in Arabic is "Musba7 Moneir" which translates to "Light-emitting lantern." In Arabic, "Musba7 Moneir" is written as "مصباح منير" and this term could be found in many articles and poems. For instance, this is an excerpt from an Arabic poem posted in Al Arabi Magazine[3].

كويت المجد مصباح منير

أضاء بنوره لجج السواد


This translates to "Kuwait's glory is a light-emitting lantern lighting with its light the cluttered layers of darkness."

As a native Arabic speaker, I've never seen "Moneir" used to imply that an object reflects light. I take this as a fabrication on Pro's behalf.


2- The Celestial Movement miracle in the Qur'an

This doesn't even qualify as a scientific miracle because such information was known hundreds, if not thousands of years before Mohammad was born. Babylonian Astronomy(almost 1200 years before Mohammad) described planetary movement and the sun's declination circles and movement[4]. Furthermore, Hipparchus (ca. 190 – 120 BC) described with precision the movement of the moon and the sun around the earth and was very close to our present scientific knowledge[5].

Ergo, this is not a scientific miracle to begin with.

Pro uses a miracle-seeker's lecture as a citation for his claim that "until 1980s it was believed that Sun is Stationary." I find that laughable. Many ancient cultures such as Babylonians assumed that the Sun moved around the Earth.


3- The expanding universe scientific miracle

The universe in Arabic was referred to with "Samawaat" which means "Skies". However, the actual sky was called "Sama" in the singular form of the word. The verse my opponent provides doesn't say that "we are the expanders of the Samawaat." It says, "we are the expanders of the Sama."

Moreover, the word "expanders" in Arabic is not given a purely present sense as my opponent suggests. It can both refer to a past event, as in "we expanded once" or to a present event as in "we are expanding currently." I have no good reason to choose the second interpretation.



4- Clinging embryo miracle in the Qur'an

All what my opponent treated as "revealed knowledge" was already described and stated by others before Mohammad. The Jewish Talmud and Ancient Greek describe the Clinging-like embryo before the Qur'an.

"Rabbi Papa replied: From this it may be inferred that the embryo clings to the sandal at the middle of the latter which lies across the head of the former." [6]

Galen also speaks of this clinging ability, which means that such knowledge was known by both the Jews and the Greek:

“Since the fetus cannot yet either eat or drink, the matter of the mother, that in her veins, is its natural nutriment. It was necessary; therefore, that the fetus adheres to the mother, as the seed of the plant must adhere to the earth.”[7]


Pro then argues, "Quran says Sperms becomes a Leech like & is clinging!" This is false. Sperms never evolve into leech-like structures. Fetuses do. This just gives me a good idea on my opponent's understanding of embryology.


5- How can Mohammad choose the right myths?

The "miracles" presented here were meticulously chosen by Muslims because they were based on ancient myths that were scientifically accurate. That's why Muslims use them while avoiding the myths of the Qur'an that turned out to be scientifically false. Examples of those are semen production, Lucretius' cosmological theories, mountain's role in stopping earthquakes, etc.


6- How can Mohammad know all this knowledge?

We have no way of determining if Mohammad was illiterate or not. His illiteracy is a baseless assertion made by some Muslim. What we can determine, however, is the fact that natural explanations remain less improbable than supernatural explanations.

P1- If Muhammad had access to the information in the Qur'an, then there is a sufficient reason to reject any supernatural proposals.


P2- Muhammad did have access to the information in the Qur'an.

Conclusion: Therefore, there is a sufficient reason to reject any supernatural proposals.

The Evidence for P2 could ONLY be the existence of such information. If they exist, then it is less probable for a metaphysical entity to convey them to Mohammad than him getting access to them somehow. However, P2 is supported with more than that: Meccah which was full of travelling merchants and scholars, Mohammad's educated companions, cultural diffusion, etc.


7- Refutation of Pro's probability argument

This is one of the most hilarious arguments on DDO.

P1- Probability that a sample of 10 myths are all true is very low. [Limited sampling fallacy]

P2- Qur'an has 100 myths that are actually right. [Baseless assertion - Pro has to prove all those]

Conclusion: "THAT PROVES QURAN IS SCIENTIFICALLY A MIRACLE." [Conclusion doesn't follow premises - How is it scientific?]

...

Pro has failed to defend his previous main argument, and instead listed well-refuted miracle-claims and arguments with weak citations from Islamicaawakening.com. I've refuted all the miracle-claims and arguments he added, although I have already won the debate.

[1] rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
[2] Bennett, Bo (2010). Logically Fallacious.
[3] alarabimag.com/Article.asp?ART=593&ID=20
[4] Lambert, W. G.; Reiner, Erica (1987). "Babylonian Planetary Omens..."
[5] Lucio Russo, The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn, (Berlin: Springer, 2004)
[6] Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah. Folio 26a
[7] Galen, On Semen by Galen; Phillip De Lacy
LoopsEye

Pro

GREAT
DECEPTIONS!
No Rule Broken

I strongly Condemn Deception being played not only with Me but with Innocent Readers also! Con is trying to Play smart not only with Arabic Language and tried to allege a false claim of Logical errors but also He is trying to deceive people about sentence written in Simple English.

Topic was:
There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an

R4: Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.

No where in these statements make it Obligatory on me that My Argument should only be Restricted to 1 Claim only!

It simply says There exists a scientific miracle in Quran and to win this debate Pro has to Provide (at least) one scientific Miracle in Quran! i.e. pro has to prove only 1 Miracle to win this Debate.

There is nothing as such stated in R4 that I am "restricted to state only one Claim! and not allowed to write down more than one"

Hence this deception should be Strictly taken into consideration to understand Con's Psychology!
and His assumption that I broke any rule should be Ignored!

It can be seen that Pro's main aim is to Win the voters by Hook or by Crook thus He is trying to deceive with even simplest English! so his lecture on what I did should be ignored to establish Justice according to debate Rules!

TRICK BUSTED: Con (though failed) tried to Act smart by demanding single claim at a Time so He can easily refute it by saying that it was already mentioned somewhere in Historical Myth! Since I stated many Scientific Statements its very logical a person can never Plagiarized 100s of Statements from 100s of Myths 100% and Everytime Choose the Correct One!

This is still upto Con to Answer How Muhammad PBUH chosen the Right one out of 100s of Myths and everytime accurate?

Contentions:

Firstly it is Quiet Strange what Con is trying to Convey with his illogical statements such as "Pro has to accept that classical Arabic is almost identical to Standard Arabic, the formal Arabic I speak."

I would ask Con on behalf of readers How do we know which Arabic you speak? According to His argument We should Ignore all "41 Translators of Quran in English" and Scores of Other Language Translations and should only listen to him and what he thinks should be the translations... very "Mary-go-Round" I would leave Con to Explain this to us move ahead.

Con Claims: I have already won the debate in Round 2 where I demolished Pro's main argument, the "Pharaoh hoax."

Is that so? We were not told any that Rule that I am only abide to present One Proof!

Instead He Himself claiming that he is an agnostic and would not accept it as evidence, what I present He labled a "Hoax" without citing any evidence of His Claim "Pharaoh hoax was created by Islamist miracle-seekers to convince Christians of converting to Islam."

Ignoring all what I presented Con stated an allegation that It is "Texas S.L.F." but If one reads a Short note on this Fallacy(a) you will realize his Trick.

(There is not a Single Statement in Quran that says something against "Proven" Science! Its a Challenge to Him to Provide me with "ONE UNSCINETIFIC STATEMENT OF PROVEN SCIENCE" in a New Debate...it would be out of Context here!)

Because in spite of there being 100s of Statements which speak about Scientific Facts in Quran revealed in the Arabian Deserts there is not a single statement which says something that is against proven science! that is The Scientific Miracle of Quran No book 1,500 Years ago could speak about 100s of Scientific Statements without any Technology and made not error speaking about them!

Con's Strong Deception about Arabic!:

C1:

This shows how Con is trying to Deceive Non-Arabic Speakers with His Tricks He clearly rejects that the word "Munir" means reflected Light without sufficient proof (1)

image
The Word Munir is from Root word Nor which means Light and it means with light full of light etc. Google Dictionary Perfectly Translates it (2)&(3)

image

Con ignores the fact (Tricks Readers) that in Arabic words are formed by the Roots! and one word can have many meanings I have Illustrated an Example in The Fig. Below form Lecture of Famous Arabic Teacher and Instructor of Classic Arabic You can listen him in English in Short Vid1

;

image

Hence Munir also can have a lots of Meanings as DICTONARY states (NON-MUSLIM DICTONARY)

It should be strongly noted that Con has tried to deceive not only me but Non-Arabic Readers also!

C2:

Answer is given by Con himself
“Many ancient cultures such as Babylonians assumed that the Sun moved around the Earth.”

But Quran does not say that unlike Aristotle unlike Babylonians unlike Greeks unlike any other Clearly Quran says every heavenly body is revolving in its own orbit! (21:33)

C3:

My Arab Native Con again fails to realize that the Verse uses VERB.

"The Arabic Word used by Allah is MOUSI'OONA (موسعون expanding) in 51:47, which is a verb of the noun WAASI'A (واسع vast)."

Hence he has to believe that it says Universe is Expanding!

And Word “Sama” can also have meaning Heaven and Universe. and Quran refers to whole Universe while stating the fact (see Ref#A10) (11)

C4:

It was my mistake to directly write it sperm due to less space but it also means Diploid cell Zygote “female+male sperms” which formed Fetus in next stages.

As from below dictionaries.(4,5)

image

C5:

Illogical statements of Con.


I did not deny that the Myths were not present in the Past but...

Con Fails to Realize that all the Knowledge was "UNPROVEN MYTHS" and without citing single evidence that the knowledge written in Quran "was proved and was scientifically accurate" He makes an assertion:

"The "miracles" presented here were meticulously chosen by Muslims because they were based on ancient myths that were accurate…"

Con has merely made a point without citing any Evidence about How Muhammad PBUH has plagiarized "ONLY TRUE FACTS" out of 100s of Myths Well this was injust we can see History when was " something Proved to be True" while before that it was one out of 100s of Unproven Myths which were as worst as Habitation on Moon, Sun being Stationary! Rain due to Oceans, Moon was like plain ball, Before converting to Human fetus its an Animal Fetus (Its Aristotle), Geo Centric Earth and +1000 more.

Let us assume all knowledge was available somewhere invisible in MYTHS as you cannot deny the fact it was all unproven with 100s of Myths which has proved just recently +1000 Years after Quran and other 100s of Myths are rejected(except the Proven Facts) about phenomenas of Nature!

Still unanswered:

How can Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) speaks 100s of Scientific Statements about something which is Now Proven to be True more then 1000 Years after His Claim? and what is said is 100% True and accurate.

Whereas Bible, Rabbi, Buddha and Others have such absurd concepts which no one will ever accept

I AGAIN CHALLNEGE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE UNSCEINTIFC STATEMENT IN WHOLE QURAN (This will be Our Possibly Next Debate if Con wills since its out of context here)


but if we come to those Myth Tellers of Bible and Rabbi and Aristotle we find them filled with 100s of Myths which are PROVEN WRONG TODAY!

Hence my Claim of "Mathematical Sciences of Data Analysis (Probability)"

Stands unrefuted because no one on earth without a Divine help 1,500 Years ago claim 100 statements about science and they are 100% to be true!

C6:
P1 & 2 NO EVIDENCE CITED! Instead Non-Muslims Historians write He was “Ummi” surrounded by Spies!(8)

C:

We have many statements made in Quran which no one could make 100% accurate +1300 years ago and Muhammad was “Ummi” Hence It is a Miracle!
C7:

P1: Increasing Samples will make My Points More stronger instead of Con’s claim hence not “Limited Sample Fallacy” (9)

P2: Con made this point because it is very obvious it cannot be proven in single debate but If He wills we can have separate debate on each Topic I challenge Him.

CONCLUSION:

Con being Deceived us with ENGLISH, ARABIC and LOGICAL FALLACIES

It should be Noted Strictly!

Ref: http://debatereferencesforcon.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 3
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

I apologize to the readers for my opponent's lack of intellectual honesty, refined manners and debating etiquette. In my final round, I shall simply defend myself against the sludges of distortions and baseless accusations that were directed against me. It is important to note that I have already won the debate in Round 2, but continued out of courtesy to refute my opponent's claims.

I presented this rule/condition in my opening statement...

R4- Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.

I also wrote in my opening statement, "That is to say, my opponent has to provide only one scientific miracle in the Qur'an, and I have to disprove it effectively."

Pro in Round 1:

"I would have posted my argument 2 days ago, but choices were so much I was not able to select which one I should bring forth!

As Con Claimed "ONLY ONE" Statement of Quran which is supported by evidence beyond preponderance, and a Statement which has no other source at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & was discovered recently with the Help of Modern Knowledge of Science!"

Pro agreed with me that he has to offer ONLY ONE miracle-claim, and he did offer the Pharaoh miracle-claim in the first round, confessing that he was confused which one to choose.

Pro in Round 3:

"No where in these statements make it Obligatory on me that My Argument should only be Restricted to 1 Claim only!"

"There is nothing as such stated in R4 that I am "restricted to state only one Claim! and not allowed to write down more than one"

Hence this deception should be Strictly taken into consideration to understand Con's Psychology! and His assumption that I broke any rule should be Ignored!

It can be seen that Pro's main aim is to Win the voters by Hook or by Crook thus He is trying to deceive with even simplest English! so his lecture on what I did should be ignored to establish Justice according to debate Rules!"

---

This accusation just backfired on my opponent, because such distortion is probably going to cost him a seven-point loss. Let me repeat the rule and its explanation in my opening statement...

R4- Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.

I wrote in my opening statement, "That is to say, my opponent has to provide only one scientific miracle in the Qur'an, and I have to disprove it effectively."

Either I'm hallucinating or my opponent is intentionally lying to the readers.... Because he seems to be changing stories.

---

Now please, allow me to continue burying my opponent in his hole.

1- The Expanding universe miracle-claim

Pro claims... "The Arabic Word used by Allah is MOUSI'OONA (موسعون expanding) in 51:47, which is a verb of the noun WAASI'A (واسع vast)."

Almost everything in this definition is false. The Qur'an doesn't use "Mousi'oona." It's "Al-Mousi'ona." The difference is that the "Al-" prefix in Arabic is the equivalent of saying "The"[1]. Moreover, the "Al-" can't possibly come before verbs as one should believe to side with Pro[2]. Pro claims that it does come before a verb, when that is utterly false and grammatically incorrect.




Notice the last word in the verse above. It doesn't say "موسعون" as my opponent claims. It says "لموسعون" and this is because in such a grammatical position "Al-Mousi'ona" loses its first letter (the A) and becomes "L-Mousi'ona." Even though it changes it is considered to be a variation of the original which is "Al-Mousi'ona" but with a shortened prefix.

Needless to say, the Qur'an uses the *noun* which means "expanders".

Pro then translates "Wassi'a" to "Vast" and claims it is a noun (although it is obviously an adjective to every English and Arabic speaker). This brings into perspective my opponent's knowledge of the English and Arabic languages.


2- The Moon-light miracle in the Qur'an

Pro has not proven that 'Mouneer" means "reflected light." Pro's response(with graphics) was that it means "light" and claimed that I lied when I said it doesn't mean 'reflected light.' This is a non-sequitur fallacy. How does "light" mean "reflected light?" Moreover, we have already established that "Mouneer" is commonly used on objects that emit light such as lanterns and light-bulbs. Why can't we assume the same on the moon?


3- The Sun-Moon orbit miracle in the Qur'an

Pro's response was that my sources didn't say planets and stars revolved around orbits. This is false. Babylonian Astronomy(almost 1200 years before Mohammad) described planetary movement and the sun's declination circles(aka circular orbits)[3]. Hipparchus (ca. 190 – 120 BC) described with precision the elliptical orbits of the moon and the sun and was very close to our present scientific knowledge, especially in his description of lunar and solar cycles[4]. Pro completely ignored the sources.

4- Clinging Embryo Miracle in the Qur'an
[Pro here concedes with me this is not a miracle.]


5- How did the Prophet plagiarize one hundred accurate myths?

A hundred accurate one? Pro claims that is "out of the scope of the debate" for me to offer the inaccurate myths, and yet makes the baseless assertion that there are 100 accurate myths in the Qur'an. In his words, "its very logical a person can never Plagiarized 100s of Statements from 100s of Myths 100% and Everytime Choose the Correct One!"

Pro has not proved any of the 100 to be true in this debate. Why should we believe there are one hundred myths that are correct?

6- How did the Prophet access the already-present information?

Pro treated this as an unanswered question when I clearly answered beforehand and even provided a deductive argument for my position.

P1- If Muhammad had access to the information in the Qur'an, then there is a sufficient reason to reject any supernatural proposals.

P2- Muhammad did have access to the information in the Qur'an. [Point of agreement]

Conclusion: Therefore, there is a sufficient reason to reject any supernatural proposals.

Pro has not even attempted to refute this. The underlying assumption is that it is more probable for Mohammad to get the information through foreign scholars/travelers/translated books/educated companions/cultural diffusion than it is for an Allah to exist and reveal such information to a merchant in a cave. What part of this doesn't my opponent understand?

Was the Prophet illiterate? Pro has not offered us one peer-reviewed, historic citation on Mohammad's illiteracy, but a weak citation on "all non-Muslim scholars" that took me to Islamicawakening.com(a non-trusted source). Truth of the matter, Muslims publicly claim that they think Mohammad is illiterate because of Qur'anic sources[5]. I think I made it clear that I don't accept such accounts as historic facts....

---

Pro has not fulfilled his BoP in providing a scientific miracle with evidence beyond preponderance.

I've already won the debate in Round 2, where I demolished my opponent's Pharaoh miracle-claim with four refutations and classified it as a Hoax. That forced Pro to Gish Gallop and present four other ones (in violation of R4).

Pro clearly violated the accepted and terms and conditions of this debate, even when I specified that he would be penalized by voters for such violations.

---

Before I forget, I shall remind the reader of R2...

R2- Opponent can only say "As agreed" in the last round, so that I can respond to everything he/she presents.

I'm only saying that again so that Pro is discouraged from doing what he did to R4.


I thank everyone who read this long debate to the very end.

---

[1] Lambert, W. G.; Reiner, Erica (1987). "Babylonian Planetary Omens..."
[2] Lucio Russo, The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn, (Berlin: Springer, 2004)
[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-
[4] Arabic for dummies, page 36.
[5] submission.org/Claim_of_Muhammads_illiteracy.html
LoopsEye

Pro

"AS AGREED"
Debate Round No. 4
142 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
its great than
thanks
:)
Posted by retroman000 3 years ago
retroman000
"it matters for u.
it doest not matter for us who is Muslim or atheist.
but for u it matters.
u directly call us violent.
are we violent.
u should say some muslims are violent.
coz we have old kids and womens.
and here are many educated who only wants debates.
but see what u do with us."

First of all, I never called you a vote bomber. I don't think you are, but I was talking to loopseye. Going by his logic, if he considered Magic's vote to be a vote bomb, then yours would as well. Second of all, on that debate, I was on the CON side, meaning I was arguing that Muslims AREN'T more violent than other religious followers.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
thanks again brother.
it was just and nice gesture.
:)
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
I don't think makhdoom's vote was a votebomb. I've talked to him privately and he got good reasons to vote like he did.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
well now i have updated the RDF.
and i guess the con is also agreed with me about it.
and there is no more complain.
i guess naqash u will tell the board as well.
thanks a lot to all of u.
Posted by ScorpioHammer 3 years ago
ScorpioHammer
I clearly see biased votes here its not a "Win"
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
well magic ur RDF is reasonable.
as my opinion.
as u mention much but i dont wana say any thing any more.
well.
i want NiqashMotawadi3
to help me here.

for me
i shall be so much thank full to him, as he said in other debate this.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 16 hours ago
NiqashMotawadi3
@makhdoom5

"Votebomber" is not an insult. It was an accusation on the previous debate which I made when I didn't know you as I do know. Now I know that you didn't intentionally votebomb, so I withdraw my accusation which was the result of our inferential difference(disagreement in outlooks). You had personal reasons to vote that way, and I believe you somewhat misunderstood what LoopsEye did to pull an intellectually dishonest trick. So I've reached the conclusion that you're "not a votebomber." Just someone with a different mind-set and behavior.

Moreover, even if I'm disrespectful to you, Islam doesn't allow you to be disrespectful to me. There are many hadeeths on Prophet Mohammad being disrespected and remaining respectful to others. I remember the story about his Jewish neighbor and those who threw things at him when he was praying.

So even if I were disrespectful, it's quite non-Islamic of you to be also disrespectful.

plz nawash brother confirm it here as well.
that u accepted my vote.
and that was not vote bombing.
its about my credibility.
plz u have to help me.
as u accepted.
i told u ur debate overall was good.
but the pitfall which i pointed were are just.
on which my vote was based.
can u help me here.
plz
thank u so much.
representative from board is asking me to put new RDF.
which i will do.
Posted by ScorpioHammer 3 years ago
ScorpioHammer
Though I am a Christian but I do not like illogical atheism "Beliefs"
Posted by ScorpioHammer 3 years ago
ScorpioHammer
"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon.

(I would wait for your vote in next debates)
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
It's also unnecessary to have made a forum post about it.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
NiqashMotawadi3LoopsEyeTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "If you are reading only to vote, then you should read no further. I have already won the debate in Round 2 where I demolished Pro's main argument, the "Pharaoh hoax." If you are reading out of interest and would like see my refutations, then continue reading" my vote is based on this statement. this is: Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an. this rule no 4. the word is used only provide but not provide only. which is qute different. techinecally. when the first argument was refuted. the fast automatically fall out of scinetific miralce. so the rule 4 did not applied. coz the con never mention that if the argument is refuted than he cant add any more. she said he has ro provide one scientific miracle. which means that mummy argument was not scientific miracle. and do not fall in rule no 4. only scientific miracle fall in rule no 4. plz for rule no 4 and conduct. read also the RDF of rross and TheHitchslap respectively. coz no space here i
Vote Placed by retroman000 3 years ago
retroman000
NiqashMotawadi3LoopsEyeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con could have made the rule of only one miracle being presented more clearly explained, conduct goes to him due to how Pro quickly resorted to Ad Hominem. Pro seemed to have a... less then sufficient grasp of the English language, one could say. As well, Con refuted Pro's claims, while Pro simply said that Con's claims were false without giving any evidence as to why.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
NiqashMotawadi3LoopsEyeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con. Pro broke rule 4 and he Gish Galloped. Pro opened up with an argument from the Qur'an being historically accurate. Con successfully refuted this argument. Pro's initial argument then fades away. Pro never responded to Con on that argument, therefore Con deserves the argument point as well. Pro did not refute Con's claim that "Mouneer" doesn't necessarily mean reflected light. He just showed it meant light and claimed Con is using deception tactics. Nor did Pro refute Con on heliocentricism. Con pointed out many cultures described planetary motion just like how the Qur'an states. Pro doesn't offer a coherent response to Con's rebuttal on embryology. Pro didn't respond to Con's argument that Muhammad had the knowledge around him, thus it is not a miracle. Nor did Pro prove Muhammad was illiterate. Con wins on the initial argument and secondary arguments.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
NiqashMotawadi3LoopsEyeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro, con makes several snide remarks to his opponent which were uncalled for. Calling his argument hilarious for example. S&G to Con, Pro made a ton of errors, sources to Con, Pro seems to rely only on the Quran and flawed inquiries launched by people seeking to confirm their own biases as Con points out. Pro never really rebuttal that. Arguments to con: Pro's arg uses the texas sharpshooter fallacy, circular reasoning (of course the quran claims it's true, no one wants to be a liar), and the shotgun strategy. He makes new claims mid way through and tries to throw out so many incoherent/non following arguments to appear as though he refuted but never really did. Pro has to eliminate every single other possibility that Muhammad was told, and he simply cannot do so because we lack information able to make that judgement. Con won before this even started. Sorry pro. Good try though.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
NiqashMotawadi3LoopsEyeTied
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: Thank you for this interesting debate. I think the rules were unclear in relation to providing only one example. Especially since Pro's first example failed, I think it's fine for him to attempt a new argument. I don't think the rules forbid it - Con may have intended them to, but he didn't articulate it clearly enough, IMO. Con conceded that Munir has several meanings, only one of which is reflected light. This does not constitute "evidence beyond preponderance" of a scientific miracle, and the other examples were similar. Pro's argument of 100s of scientific facts in the Qur'an was not supported by evidence within the debate. I really liked Pro's arguments, but they were thoroughly rebutted by Con and so arguments go to Con. I didn't check the sources, so I haven't scored it. At first glance though, both sides seemed impressive on sources.