Your objection is a logical fallacy of the type that violates the relationship: all X are Y, not all Y are X. All Quran is words/language, not all words/language are Quran. If there is something miraculous about the Quran, it's because it's the Quran, not the translation of the meanings of the Quran into Urdu, or Farsi, or Swahili. It isn't the case that God MUST make such an example for you - logically speaking that isn't necessary and its a fallacy to insist this as a necessary aspect of God's reality. It also isn't the case that God must be capable of giving a miraculous book in all languages and for all dialects and for all private understanding - this is possible to represent as the logical fallacy of insisting that God be able to create a square-circle. Not all constructions of meaning are going to be miraculous, not all languages are going to be capable of a literary miracle, not all understandings are going to be able to appreciate the miracle. It is sufficient for someone to recognize the Quran as a miracle. Nothing more is logically required. You may want something different, but that is based on your personal feelings, not upon any logical necessity.Kane Augustus wrote:You haven't been clear, and my objection still stands.
Further, the miracle of language will always be preserved and it is possible to attempt to assess the validity of the claim. The evidence won't vanish. If you want to know the parameters that are discussed in such an assessment you can visit http://www.inimitablequran.com
I understand what you're saying about seeking out engagement in terms of a solid argument that can be addressed on its merits. Arguments only have merit to the degree that both parties understand the terms and agree upon the method of engagement. So I have made this post for you. It is in the form of an argument. Since it is an argument about arguments, I really need to understand how you address it otherwise nothing you proffer can be situated in a framework of understanding. The previous reply about "reason" is a precursor to that post and you never properly addressed it either.
Since I am putting forward a number of these kinds of arguments and not receiving a reply from you, all I can guess is that you are argumentative because you aren't addressing the fundamental basis of how to argue. I don't intend to just bat about assertions with you. You keep talking about reason. I've characterized what I think of reason. There is nothing reasonable to discuss until we can come to some common terms on this subject. The reason for my brief replies is because I was putting forth the bare minimum of meaning, since there is no point in a long-drawn-out argument that constitutes virtually nothing. The logical relationship I posted is what it is regardless of one's beliefs about reason. It was a reasonable attempt to address your post with the available tools I could use.