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.

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

I don't think it's offensive to call somebody gullible. Anyone can be gullible- we all are sometimes. It's part of the human condition. Stupid, I agree, is offensive. But what if somebody has said something which shows that they are both stupid and gullible? Does the fact that they have been stupid and gullible over a matter of religion make a difference?

would you care to critique defuse's argument

Wouldn't that involve her making one?

As Dirac is supposed to have said, "it's not even wrong".

Backonly,

You made claims that anyone who speaks arabic can write a chapter like the quran in 20 minutes. Go and do it. Then come back and tell me how easy or difficult it was.

The panel is not there to say whether the quran is the word of god or not. The panel is not sitting there commenting on the divinity of the quran. It is there to analyse whether your chapter follows the 'flow' of the quran. The panel/scholars/experts (muslim and non) maintain that nobody has been able to imitate the style of quran.

defuse genuine question is the Koran never translated? If it is what is the genuine version?

I'm sorry your arguments far from convincing me are making me even more sceptical.

So let me get this right....i have said that there is a challenge in the quran. You have not met that challenge, but have decided to start go on the defensive. You have claimed that you can submit a piece in 20 minutes, but havent submitted one. You have called it easy but havent produced it.

Then friday pops up with an argument that it not being offensive calling people stupid and then goes onto comment on my lack of argument!

They can write a chapter in 20 minutes. I could if you would be willing to translate it into arabic.

The hurdle is 'can they do it in a way that proves to your panel that it is the same style as allah uses' and I've seen no proof that it has to be in the same literary style yet, or that your panel or any panel has the divine knowledge to judge that.

Here you go.

Chapter XX.1 "and allah created the world because his xbox was broken and he was bored"
Chapter XX.2 "and he messed it up so he drowned it and started again"

It is there to analyse whether your chapter follows the 'flow' of the quran. The panel/scholars/experts (muslim and non) maintain that nobody has been able to imitate the style of quran.

They're hardly disinterested observers, are they?

And in any event, as I pointed out already, the same holds for attempting to write music in the manner of Bach which will fool a panel of Bach experts. That doesn't make Bach divine. How is this different?

But surely it's completely beside the point whether the style of the koran can be replicated or not. As people have already said, there are plenty of known human literary (and musical) styles that can't be replicated. It proves nothing either way.

Caitlin, the quran is translated into many languages. The original language is arabic.

Caitlin, i am not here to convince you or anybody else. I know that these attempts can be futile. I have merely posted a challenge. If you want to take it up, then fair enough, but nobody has actually proven me wrong as yet and actually come up with a chapter like quran.

What makes the Quran stand apart is that it is impossible for a human being to compose something like it, as it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language. The productive capacity of nature, concerning the Arabic language, is that any grammatically sound expression of the Arabic language will always fall with-in the known Arabic literary forms of prose and poetry. All of the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted and yet its literary form has not been matched linguistically.

Back, I haven't read it. I have only read little posts today. I am in too much pain to concentrate.

This is an interesting change in tactic, 'proving' a religion by an obscure challenge that would take years of study even to have the information required to undertake it. Sort of like claiming "There's a little alien who lives in a cave in Antarctica" - it could be proved long, but nobody is really going to be arsed to do it, so in the meantime the claimant says their position is solid.

I agree Friday, but I'm not sure why you think bigotry is any better than homophobia.

Defuse, it's not possible to prove you wrong because we can't criticise the Quran, can we?

Cheval, i am glad you acknowledged that a challenge like this would involve some form of study. Study is not a bad thing and there are many, many people out there who like to study things that which you may not feel inclined to.

Studying is never a bad thing, no matter how long it may take - be it about anything - linguistics or the black hole. Or alternatively, we can continue to call anybody who is not an atheist stupid or closed minded and at the same time claim that one cannot be 'arsed' to study or explore a different avenue because it may take too long - and therefore justify to themselves why they are right - because they couldnt be 'arsed' to get up and learn.

Kitten, the challenge was not to criticise, offend, insult.

Please study something that is more useful than a faith.
How many angels fit on the head of a pin, anyway?

I don't understand. Why challenge not to criticise offend or insult?

Defuse, I spend a lot of time studying, but I like my study to ultimately be useful and learning arabic and studying arabic styles of writing in order to prove religion that is almost certainly false to actually be false according to an arbitrary self-designated test is not a worthwhile use of my study time.

Anybody can issue an arbitrary vastly time consuming challenge, it doesn't mean it's worth anyone's time to answer it - especially one with so subjective a way of judging the response. You'd think if there is an almighty being somewhere with super powers they'd be capable of coming up with a more accessible test.

How do you know that for example Christianity is not the right answer? Have you studied it enough?

Wow, so many excuses.

Learning is always useful.

Btw, this was not a 'change in tactic' as you said earlier cheval. The challenge has been there for centuries.

Defuse
You avoid all of my points. I challenge you to answer them.

What I fi d really hard to believe is how some of you posters have the patience to try and argue rationally with someone with such nonsense arguements as defuse

Honestly. How do you do it?

I really admire you.

Lol, call it 'excuses' if you like, but the human lifespan is very limited, and spending years of it trying to establish if Islam is in fact real (by a very dubious methodology), seems like a waste. Islam is only one of thousands of religions, how is it possible to spend years of study on each to establish the correct one, if indeed there is a correct religion?

What do you say about the more problematic verses crescent moon. I think you know what I mean.