-
First Read And Then Believe
Logically We must read the Quran first and then determine if this is word of God or not.
Okay, as you agreed before in last closed discussion that we have to read the Qur’an first. While we are reading it—and until something convinces us otherwise—we cannot assume that the Qur’an is the word of God.
It is just like when we are investigating a claim: until something convinces us that a person must be a thief, that person is not a thief yet.
You said: “The Qur’an is a book full of complex symmetrical knowledge.”
What symmetrical knowledge convinced you that this is the word of God?
You also said: “It came from a man of no knowledge.”
We know that the Qur’an is something, and logically, something does not come from nothing.
If it came from God and not from Muhammad, then the question remains the same:
What is in the Qur’an that convinced you it is the word of God?
You said: “The Qur’an is irreplaceable and preserved, as challenged.”
Challenged by whom?
You assume that this challenge is from God. But while we are still reading to determine whether this is the word of God or not, what convinced you that this challenge is from God?
Everything in this world has a cause. So if the Qur’an is irreplaceable or preserved, it must also have a cause.
How do you know that God caused its preservation and not Muhammad? Preservation is something any human can achieve by memorizing or writing something down. It could simply mean that someone convinced a large number of people to memorize it.
But again, the question remains: what convinced those people to memorize it?
You also mentioned that “the fate of Bani Israel has to follow the same pattern determined for them by God until today.”
How do you know it is determined by God?
These verses contain a prophecy about the fate of Bani Israel. Who made this prophecy?
If you say God, what convinced you that what is written is truly from God?
In any case, this is a prophecy—a statement about events that had not yet happened. If something has not yet happened, how can someone tell it in advance?
We have only two options:
A) Someone is guessing based on something.
B) Someone truly knows the event beforehand.
If someone knows the event exactly, then why is it not stated explicitly so that we have no doubt? Either the person making the prediction is guessing, or there may be another cause behind it.
If you say the other cause is that God does not want to reveal it explicitly, then you are again involving God. That means you are already convinced that this is the word of God.
So please answer clearly: what convinced you that this is the word of God?
-
6 Replies
-
First Read And Then Believe
updated 2 months ago
2 Members
·
6
Replies
-
This argument uses reverse reasoning. For example, if light is present, we conclude that there must be a source producing that light, whether or not we can directly see the source itself.
Similarly, since the Quran presents challenges, verifiable predictions, and other such claims, the one making these claims must possess true knowledge. Therefore, the claim to divinity would be considered valid, as it demonstrates involvement in and control over the external world according to a deliberate plan. If, after making these claims and statements, the Quran had attributed them to a jinn instead, we would have accepted that conclusion as well. Now they are attributed to God, we accep it.
-
”This argument uses reverse reasoning. For example, if light is present, we conclude that there must be a source producing that light, even if we cannot directly see the source itself”
Yes, it is logical to say that if there is light, there must be a source producing it. However, logically speaking, there could be multiple possible sources of that light.
If you explicitly claim with 100 percent certainty that the light is being produced by someone holding a torch, and that there is absolutely no other possible source, then logically we would ask:
How do you know that the source of the light is someone holding a torch?
Now, regarding the Qur’anic challenges and prophecies:
How can you be 100 percent sure that the source is God? You say that God made the challenge and God made the prophecy, but when we are reading the text for the first time, we have not yet determined that it is from God.
If we are reading the text first, how can you involve God in the explanation before establishing that the source is divine?
As for the verifiable matters, such as the preservation challenge and the fate of the Children of Israel (Bani Israel), it seems that you are mainly relying on these two points. Regarding other types of knowledge in the text, once someone has already made up their mind that the Qur’an is from God, they can interpret any knowledge as divine. But if we agree that we are reading the text first, without prior assumptions, then we are left mainly with two arguments: the challenge and the prophecy.
Regarding preservation:
Human beings have the ability to preserve texts, either orally or in written form. What is so extraordinary about preservation? Preservation must have a cause, but that cause could simply be the efforts of the person making the claim or their followers who were influenced by him. How do you know that the cause of preservation is from God?
Regarding prophecy:
This argument has some logical strength, because when a person makes a prediction, they are not necessarily controlling the events that bring it about.
So we are left with only one main argument: prophecy.
Do Do you agree that, logically and honestly, prophecy is the only independent basis for establishing that the Qur’an is the word of God? The other points, such as preservation or internal knowledge, could serve as additional supporting evidence — but only after we have already established, on some primary basis, that the Qur’an is from God. -
?
-
The scientific approach follows evidence-based reasoning. That is what we follow to determine that the claims made by the Quran are true; therefore, the author of this book is true, who is God.
There is no other way to learn about God. What you demand does not involve reasoning.
-
I believe in God because there is logical reasoning that clearly makes sense.
You said:“if light is present, we conclude that there must be a source producing that light, whether or not we can directly see the source itself.”
If you explicitly claim with 100 percent certainty that the light is being produced by someone holding a torch, and that there is absolutely no other possible source, then logically we would ask:
How do you know that the source of the light is someone holding a torch?
Just the same way, how do you know with 100 percent certainty that whoever is making the claim about preservation and the fate of Bani Israel is God and not Muhammad himself, when this valid possibility exists too? -
My demand clearly involves reasoning.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
