Is the Quran really from god?

Many muslims give a large variety of arguments trying to prove the Quran is not man-made, but rather, from God. But we are not going to focus on the muslim argument because many are invented concoctions. One example is scientific miracles. There is nowhere in the Quran which says 'science proves Islam or the... show more Many muslims give a large variety of arguments trying to prove the Quran is not man-made, but rather, from God. But we are not going to focus on the muslim argument because many are invented concoctions. One example is scientific miracles. There is nowhere in the Quran which says 'science proves Islam or the Quran'.

But we are going to address arguments straight from the Quran. These are direct arguments in the Quran for evidence of Islam.
Contents
[hide]

[edit] Evidence number 1

The First piece of evidence can be found in chapter 2 verse 23 of the quran which states:
And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.
Qur'an 2:23

Here the Islamic god is challenging mankind to produce 1 chapter like the Quran and goes on to say:
But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.
Qur'an 2:24

So the main message is 'these words are obviously divine, so that is proof this is from god'.

But this is not a good argument. It's the same as a rapper saying 'you can't flow like me, so i'm the best'. Essentially the Quran is proving itself.

But are the Surahs (chapters) of the Quran so amazing only a deity could have inspired it? Let's take one of the shorter chapters of the Quran as an example...

Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
Qur'an 109:1-6

The above chapter is called Al-Kafiroon. Do you see anything divine or amazing about it? Off course not. Any human could come up with these verses since it is everyday conversation. Chapter 109 of the Quran is everyday conversation, whether between Hindus and Sikhs or Catholics and Protestants. But even if this chapter was unique. Does that prove an omnipotent deity was behind it? If so, it would mean that Einstein, Shakespeare etc. received divine inspiration too doesn't it?

[edit] Evidence number 2

The other evidence of the sacred nature of the Quran comes from chapter 4;82 of the Quran. It implies that the Quran does not contain any contradictions and therefore, it must be from god.
Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
Qur'an 4:82

Do you think that's a good argument? If you create a self-proclaimed divine book and say "this is from God" and when asked for proof you say "there are no contradictions", is that sufficient? Either way, this argument is still invalid as muslim scholars themselves are aware of contradictions otherwise they wouldn't have created the abrogation ruling. The abrogation ruling means that if a contradicting verse supersedes something prior, then the latter verse is applicable. If that does not convince you we have created an article full of Quran contradictions on the following page:

* Contradictions in the Quran

[edit] Evidence number 3

The other main argument is not much different from all other theists. It is a first cause argument;
Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.
Qur'an 52:35

But don't all religions use this argument? Is the god of the gaps argument any good? The phrase God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge. An example of the line of reasoning starts with the position that early religious descriptions of objects and events (such as the Sun, Moon, and stars; thunder and lightning) placed these in the realm of things created or controlled by a god or gods. As scientific explanations were found for observations in the realms of astronomy, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology, the use of supernatural explanations for phenomena was progressively reduced, occupying smaller and smaller 'gaps' in knowledge. The God-of-the-gaps view has been criticized for implying that people perceive that God only acts in the gaps, and that God's activity is restricted to such "gaps".

It could also be argued that poor design points against the existence of God. For example:

* The existence of the blind spot in the human eye
* In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregn
Update: * pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother. * Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective. Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. * The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds,... show more * pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
* Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective. Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death.
* The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches

The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of god is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. This points out that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.
12 answers 12