The Qur'an and/or the Bible

Response: Amazing. You have also beautifully unanswered the question. The good thing about the thread is that it's in black and white for all eyes to see how the challenge posted in post#12 and further explained in post#17 is being danced around.

Response: You have beautifully unanswered the question.

Cults of the dead. Their masters long gone. Sheep wandering all over the hills.

Easily spooked too.

Belief is a dangerous thing. It is best to do away with it. The only way to dispel belief is with direct perception. Only then will you know what the word of God is.

You'll know it never comes from a book.



x

So I am to assume that you cannot back up the claims you make? You're the one that claims divine inspiration and power based off of a single book.

If not, then your claims are baseless. Just because a book say something does not make it so in any sense of the word. You need evidence, you need to be able to back up what you say.

So far, you have not. You have argued the same old tired logical fallacies that attempt to start with your preconceived notion and push the burden on others. You are the one that comes forth with a claim, it is you which must provide evidence to back up these claims. A single book by itself is by no means evidence, you need to be able to back up your claims with evidence that does not require this book, otherwise you fall into a circular argument... yet another logical fallacy.

Response: Your inability to answer the challenge presented in post #12 is no fault of mine.

Response: Your inability to answer the challenge presented in post #12 is no fault of mine.

It certainly is. You are using the book to validate the book. That's a circular argument. The only thing it shows is that you cannot validate your deity or text outside of themselves. This alone invalidates both.

There is no challenge, merely a fool's question, which speaks of the person presenting it.

You're going to have to try much harder than that.

Then what should I take it? That he cannot disprove your god and you cannot prove your god. If this the case then you are still greatly disadvantaged.

Response: And once again, you still haven't answered the challenge. Instead you have forced yourself into making it seem as if this simple challenge is illogical but the unfortunate part about that whole argument is that you can't produce any evidence as to why. So not only have you failed in the challenge but you also can't even produce any logical evidence as to why the challenge isn't substantial. That argument alone further proves the authenticity of the qur'an.

Response: Not at all. If you fail the challenge, then my case is proven correct. A great disadvantage on his part, not mine.

not disproven =/= proven

He doesn't get it... the scientific method of inquiry is a completely foreign concept to him.

It's not the scientific method, it's simple logic. I do not understand how he can beat upon the same drum when it has so many holes in it. I've point out to him the specific formal logical fallacy he's committed, and yet he dismisses it as if it were nothing.

The challenge isn't substantial because you have yet to show that something. Your book states something, but there is no other evidence to support this claim. It's that simple. I can produce a book that says I can fly, but until I actually take flight, it means nothing. I can provide books about dragons, unicorns and aliens, but unless I provide physical evidence of their existence, they are just that... books.

So, I need you to do a few things: tell me what was done and provide evidence for it outside of this book. If you can do that, then you have completed the challenge and the weight is on my shoulders.

You still have not, instead you repeatedly fall back on a logical fallacy, thus failing to prove the authenticity of your book.

Your challenge stating a verse of "Will they not, then, meditate upon the qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy" uses the book to attempt to validate the book itself. Again, this is similar to me providing a book saying I can fly, and then show you inside this book a like saying "If this book says he can fly, he can most surely fly!" - It doesn't work that way. Your challenge eats itself before it can be presented or answered.

Of course you have refused any other arguments, constantly falling back on your logical mismatch, using its circular loop fallacy as an escape. If you truly had any physical evidence that would validate your book or deity, you would have presented it.

Put simply: Your argument is illogical because the object being validated cannot validate itself, which you are attempting to do.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we're all laughing at you because of this.

not disproven =/= proven

Response: Exactly.