To think that belief in Father Christmas is not comparable to religious belief.

[Throughthelongnight]

Just that really. I have noticed that the expectation is that we all go along with the pretence of FC for the sake of parent's children's sensibility, but the same is not afforded where religious belief is concerned.

Expertise in what? on what basis would they be examining it? Style of writing?

crescentmoon quoting the book might be interesting in itself. I've not studied it like I have the bible because until the last decade or so I've mostly encountered Christians, but it would probably not bring me closer to understanding why people believe it is true. It may well be an admirable literary work, but that doesn't really have a bearing on truth,

On the other hand perhaps it contains something that does prove it wasn't written by people. I have seen a claim that it contains knowledge unavailable to people of that time. Including apparently the speed of light. I've been meaning to look into that.

This s the criteria that needs to be met at producing a chapter - remember this can be just 3 sentences or longer if you wish.

1. Replicate the Qur’an’s literary form
2. Match the unique linguistic nature of the Qur’an
3. Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an
4. Select and arrange similar grammatical particles
5. Match the Qur’an’s superior eloquence and sound
6. Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices
7. Match the level of content and informativeness
8. Equal the Qur’an’s conciseness and flexibility

The quran condists of:
i. Eloquent use of language to please and persuade;

ii. Its perfect choice of words expressions with the best of verbal forms;

iii. Accuracy of meaning;

iv. Apt selection of pronouns and rhetorical devices;

v. Interrelation between style, structure and meaning.

The list above is not exhaustive and represents just some of the reasons why it has not been possible to emulate the Qur’an to this day.

If belief in god was comparable to belief in Santa I'd be all for it. I think the general message of "be nice to everyone and try not to hurt anyone" (I'll ignore all the nasty bits) is basically sound. I get weepy at school nativities because I think the Christmas story is a nice one.

If we came clean about god when kids reached "that age" and said look, there isn't really a man in the sky, it's all made up but we went along with it because it's a nice story and there is a nice message to be taken from it - now you know the truth, don't go spoiling it for the little ones" then you could compare god with Santa.

defuse all those are subjective. A matter of opinion, except perhaps for 'Accuracy of meaning'. By that would you mean "true"?

Oh and I forgot to ask. Where in the koran does it have that list of criteria ?

It's exactly the same, except that we are supposed to grow out of Santa.

Imaginary friend=16 characters
god=3 characters

That's not shorthand Curlew. If your intention is not offence why not just use the word god?

defuse what you are talking about is simply a book, which you consider eloquently written and says someone which resonates with you. You think that makes it the work of a god. I don't.

The same criteria of being considered to be eloquently written and resonating with the reader could be applied to The Communist Manifesto.

As for not being able to better it, you'll find plenty of people who will tell you no one has bettered Shakespeare or Jane Austen. Your explanation is just " just because" using more words.

Argh says something, not someone.

'Imaginary friend' can include all gods, pixies, fairies and devils. The ghost of your grandad or Napoleon who tells you where there's a good parking space. The spirit of the tree and the wind and anything else that you think communicates with you that you can't demonstrate exists.

crescentmoon sorry, but those verses are still just saying "but ours is different. It is true" which anyone can say. They might be interesting as a story and so is the bible in parts, but that's as far as it goes.

I don't really know enough about Muhammad to decide, but he might have been a good and sincere man. If Jesus existed (still not proven) then he might have been too.

I'm willing to bet that Muhammad said a lot of sensible and helpful things, but it changes nothing really.

The list above is not exhaustive and represents just some of the reasons why it has not been possible to emulate the Qur’an to this day.

Do you seriously think that your argument convinces anyone who is not already convinced of the underlying claim?

It is highly unlikely that you could write text that you claim to be by Shakespeare and have it fool scholars. The analysis now done is working very effectively to pick out bits of Middleton in Macbeth, bits of Shakespeare in Sir Thomas Moore, and so on. That's not to say that these conclusions are right in an objective sense, of course, but they have strong scholarly backing across most people working in the field, and a consensus is emerging.

The same would apply to attempting to write extensions to Bach's work: there's now sufficiently detailed analysis of Bach's work that it is unlikely you could pastiche it and not get caught (and it's not as though previously unknown Bach hasn't turned up and been authenticated quite recently).

The same's true, mutatis mutandis, for almost any good composer, writer or painter. If their work is available in sufficient volume to be analysed in detail, then the precise details of their style and technique will be known to a depth greater than the ability of anyone to forge it.

Neither Shakespeare nor Bach are divine, and their work is not the product of divine inspiration. It is highly unlikely, however, that you would be able to construct work purporting to be by them and not be detected. How does this differ from your claims about the Quran?

backonly. If you are truly interested in proving or disproving this challenge, then please go find an arab speaker or linguist or professional or expert and he/she will soon inform you about what is subjective and what is not.

You said that you could get someone to do it in 20 minutes. Have a try and i will be very interested to know what they say.

As i said, the challenge is there and it is not a trick question. It is there to ponder if you actually want to look into it.

crescentmoon I do think the 'miracles in the bible backfired. They look ludicrous now in the 21st century. It is better to use a more philosophical approach. The sense of wonder we feel at the universe around us inspires awe in everyone I'm sure.

For me though it doesn't require a creator to be beautiful and wonderful.

defuse you say "he/she will soon inform you about what is subjective and what is not.". That's not how it works.

If you are making the rules then you can decide it doesn't fit, but how about if I judge if it fits?

You are still getting humans to say that the book is divine. Surely you see how silly that is. First you must prove that these criteria are the ones Allah meant and then prove that your panel are guided by Allah. THEN you can use the panel to say that the book is true.

To me Father Christmas and god are both fictional characters who don't actually exist.
I really don't mind what other people believe though.

Another problem is that deists like to claim that it's offensive to say that they are stupid and gullible.

And then they produce arguments like "this book is true, because it says it's true" and "this book was written by God because it says it was written by God", and then look around them, astounded, when people aren't convinced.

It is offensive to call anyone stupid and gullible Friday. I am that you would need that pointed out to you.

DioneTheDiabolist, would you care to critique defuse's argument for us?

It is offensive to call anyone stupid and gullible

It's offensive to talk about gay people living a "deathstyle". And to publish articles starting:

"You know the end of Western civilisation is near when our elites, eggheads and rulers turn virtue into vice and vice into virtue. When they actually promote that which is not only morally wrong, but just plain deadly, then it really is the end of the world as we know it."

But that doesn't stop Christians doing it.

And that's just this week's example from "Anglican Mainstream", who are run by ordained vicars in the CofE. Other Christians say things like

"So even though homosexual desires feel natural, they are actually unnatural, because God says they are. He also calls all sexual involvement outside of marriage immoral. (There are 44 references to fornication—sexual immorality—in the Bible.) Therefore, any form of homosexual activity, whether a one-night stand or a long-term monogamous relationship, is by definition immoral—just as any abuse of heterosexuality outside of marriage is immoral."

The religious are perfectly happy to throw abuse about. They have incredibly thin skins when it gets slung back. Christians get to stop being called stupid and gullible when they tone down the abuse and hatred they direct at people whose sexuality doesn't match their bible standards.