Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Irrefutable.refutation@gmail.com
The most emphatic, logical refutation of any world religion.
would be an emphatic disproof of the divinity of the Quranic challenge, if not the entire revelation. 2. THE WORST ERRORS TO FIND The Quranic challenge contains the worst errors imaginable: logical errors. Logical errors are worse than any other type of errors because (1) logic is indubitable. Logic cannot be doubted, it has no grey area and it is as certain as 1+1=2. Thus, if we find a logical error in the Quranic challenge, that error is 100% certain. (2) Logic is a priori. Basically, this means that to find out whether something is logical or illogical does not require any observation or experimentation; it can be done in the comfort of an armchair, with your eyes closed. (3) Logical errors more directly attack rational intelligence of the author/creator of something, more so than any other type of error. (4) Logical intelligence is the most important part of human or divine intelligence. No type of intelligence means anything without the ability to think logically. (E.g., a person with great computational intelligence but little logical intelligence is called an idiot savant.) CONCLUSION: Logical errors are certain, they do not require any empirical research and they directly attack God's rational intelligence in a way that no other errors can. No error is more unforgivable for God than a logical error or errors. If a person, who claimed to be the traditional God (all-powerful, all-wise, all-good, etc.,) made a logical error, that would be an emphatic disproof of divinity. Similarly, if a revelation contains a logical error, that is also an emphatic disproof of the divinity of the
LOGICAL ERROR 1
INTRODUCTION: The following error is one of the simplest, most incontrovertible, and most serious of errors in the Quranic challenge. An error is the violation of a law or rule. Thus, to prove that an error exists, we must prove: (1) That the rule exists and (2) that the rule has been violated. RULE: The rule, in this case, is simple and indubitable: in order for the conclusion of an argument to be proved, the premises must all be true. THE VIOLATION: Premise 1 of the Quranic argument is, inimitability proves divinity. This premise is really the essence of the Quranic challenge and it is provably false. In order to prove this premise is false and that inimitability does not prove divinity, we merely have to prove that inimitably might prove something else; that inimitability might prove divinity or something else. If inimitability might prove something other than divinity, then inimitability does not prove divinity. I believe there are two very reasonable alternative explanations of divinity. FIRST OPTION: The fact that no human beings can imitate the Quran does not prove that the Quran is divine, because humans and God are not the only potential authors. We must also consider that angelic beings, such as demons, or the devil 2 himself, might have written the Quran. This is an option that no thinking person can ignore. After all, if we are going to allow that a book was written by one divine being (God), we cannot then rule out the possibility that it was written by another divine being (a rogue angel, a demon, or the devil). (The most obvious objection to this option is to say that the Quran does not look as though it was written by demons, or the devil. However, it might be in the devil's interest to make his false revelation look good, for certain reasons.) SECOND OPTION: The second option is that the Quran might 4 be man-made. If there is ever been anyone who was the best at something, then that person has been inimitable, to some 3 extent. It is likely, that in rare circumstances, a person with a rare talent, might work extraordinarily hard, and might create
something with a high degree of inimitability; that is, they might create something which might not be imitated (even nearly) for a thousand years, or ever. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable option. On the other hand, for the Muslim to rule out this option, is very difficult: to rule out this option, the Muslim would have to prove that human inimitability does not exist; that is, that no human achievement is inimitable. Thus, to rule out this option, the Muslim must imitate at least some of the greatest human achievements. Since it is unlikely that this will be possible, the second option remains a valid option. CONCLUSION: Thus, if these options cannot be ruled out (and they cannot) then inimitability does not prove divinity, to any certainty, and the first premise (the essence of the Quranic challenge) is false, the challenge is invalid, and there is no point in even trying to imitate the Quran. The failure of this premise constitutes the failure of the entire challenge. This is an error which might disprove divinity in any verse, in a verse in which any error might disprove divinity. This is a clear violation of a basic indubitable logical law and is indubitable as a result. (The simplicity of the law/rule and the obviousness of the error makes the error more 2 inexcusable.) This is an (emphatic disproof) .
LOGICAL ERROR 2
INTRODUCTION: The following error is really more of a shortcoming than an error, but it is just as serious. An error is the violation of a law. Thus, to prove that an error exists, we must prove: (1) That the rule exists and (2) that the rule has been violated. RULE: The rule, in this case, is simple and indubitable: in order for the conclusion of an argument to be proved, the premises must all be true. VIOLATION: The second premise is, the Quran is inimitable. (The premise is loosely based on the phrase,
LOGICAL ERROR 3
INTRODUCTION: The following error does not strictly affect the functioning of the challenge, but might be of interest nonetheless. To prove that an error exists, we must prove: (1) That the rule exists and (2) that the rule has been violated. THE RULE: The following rule is also a simple and indubitable logical rule: For the conclusion to be proved, a premise cannot be the same as the conclusion. When a premise is the same as the conclusion, this fallacy is called a circular argument. THE VIOLATION: The challenge tells us, that we can ask for anyone's help, except for God. The implication is that God will not help us, because God wrote the Quran and he will not help anyone to imitate it. Thus, the challenge assumes the very thing it is trying to prove (that God wrote the Quran) and this is a well-known logical fallacy. CONCLUSION: The error might not directly affect the functioning of the challenge, but it is still an error that might disprove divinity in any verse, in a verse in which any error 2 might disprove divinity. This is an (emphatic disproof) .
PRACTICAL ERROR 2
SUB-STANDARDS: What does each inimitable feature consist of? There are many potential sub-standards. (rhythm, rhyme, meter, word choice, literary devices, turn of phrase, etc.) Inimitable features might consist of any combination of sub-standards. (And there are many possible combinations.) Without knowing what each inimitable feature consists of, no one can be sure how to judge a submission. Thus the challenge cannot run its course in the real world, and is, therefore, essentially a false, deceptive challenge, which essentially tricks people into believing Islam, but has no right to do so. PROOF: The reader can easily verify the truth of the above propositions. If the reader investigates further, in Muslim sources, they will find a complete absence of even proposed sub-standards (except perhaps when it comes to literary inimitability, where the reader will find a variance of sub-standards and no method of deciding between them). The reader will find no exceptions to these propositions whatsoever, making these propositions completely certain. CONCLUSION: This point alone will make judging a submission a unclear issue; something it is impossible to do with certainty. This makes the practical challenge (the challenge which should be perfect), practically useless, and effectively deceptive. This omission should make us seriously question the divinity of the challenge.
PRACTICAL ERROR 1
INTRODUCTION: The following error is not a logical error, it is a practical error, but the reader will find it as serious, if not more serious, than any logical error (if that is possible). To prove that an error exists, we must prove: (1) That the rule exists and (2) that the rule has been violated. THE RULE: For a practical challenge to work, it must be practically possible. For the challenge to work a submission must be judged (and found inferior). On the basis of this, belief in the divinity of the Quran would increase. If a submission cannot be judged (and found inferior) because of some shortfall in the challenge, then the challenge does not work and any increase of belief in the divinity of the Quran, on the basis of this challenge, would be unfounded. The challenge would, then, essentially be a false, deceptive challenge, since it increases belief, but has no right to do so. THE VIOLATION: There are three basic omissions or points of uncertainty in the challenge, which make judging a
AN ADDITIONAL PROBLEM
The challenge lacks inimitable features, sub-standards and judgment criteria and methods. All this vagueness leads to the additional problem, that the challenge can be used deceptively. Every uncertain part of the challenge can be exploited. Because of the vagueness of like, a person might alternate between the strong and in-between version when it suited them. Because of the vagueness of inimitability, people might alternate between the mathematical miracle of the Quran, to the medical miracle, to the literary miracle, etc., when it suited them. Moreover, because of the absence of sub-standards people might choose whichever standards suited them and a different set of standards when the first set failed. The challenge has enough latitude to defend even a bad book indefinitely. Would an all-wise God use a proof which could be used deceptively, to deceive people into believing the truth? It is highly doubtful that God would attempt to prove the divinity of his revelation with such a dubious argument.
CONCLUSION
The most crucially important logical utterance that God ever spoke; the apex of God-authored apologetics, is riddled with clear, embarrassing, debilitating errors. It is the perfect storm: the worst place to find errors, and the worst errors to find. The mind reels to comprehend such staggering blunders: a practical challenge, with logical underpinnings, fails logically and practically, in a way that is clear, indubitable, complete and, frankly, embarrassing. This is a superabundant disproof of divinity; this is overkill. A greater collection of errors, in a more significant passage of scripture, is unthinkable; we could hardly have invented more serious collection of errors if we had tried. Whoever wrote such a error-filled proof, is clearly not worthy to be called, God. Strictly, these errors only invalidate the Quranic challenge. However, this indirectly impacts on our view of the entire Quran and the author of the Quran: the idea that an all-knowing, all-wise, all-good God would allow the pinnacle of Muslim apologetics to be corrupted so thoroughly, so that his religion could be emphatically disproved, is absurd and untenable. It is far more likely that the entire revelation is false and has no connection to an all-knowing, all-wise, all-good God. People will react to this essay by saying that it is arrogant to assume that a short essay can conclusively invalidate a world religion on the basis of the criticism one or two verses. However, this essay is bold only in proportion to the boldness of the Quranic challenge. If it is possible to prove a religion with one verse, then it is also possible to disprove a religion with one verse. The arrogance of this essay is made possible only by the absurd ambitiousness of the Quranic challenge.