Why logical arguments for Messengers don't work.

[The Grand Nudger]

You seemed to have trouble with the words "argument", and "true" up there bud. A numbered list of your faith declarations counts as neither.

[Mudhammam]

The argument above can be paraphrased that for all we know it's perhaps true that a writing cannot be known to be God's miracle in that no other being human or otherwise, can create that literature and quality. Given that is true, then arguments for religion and it's reasoning, as to why God would send Messengers are negated by that, by the issue that there would no everlasting proof of these Prophets. Since that reason being taken account would negate all arguments for Messengers being sent independently of the issue, all arguments not addressing this issue would be irrelevant to the issue of revelation and Prophethood and religion.

The following argument seems true to me:

1. There are good reasons to assume God exists and he would send Messengers or appoint Guides if and only if he can prove their divine authority. (undisputed assumption by the anti-religion argument)

2. God could send continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age. (undisputed assumption).

3. God has not sent continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age (observation).

4. Since God could of sent that continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age but didn't, it's safe to assume there are is alternative way to prove his religion and guidance.

5. The only present and through out for quite some time claim to prove religion is true a book who's literary quality is claimed to be sufficient as proof for it, and that humans and Jinn cannot bring the like of it. The book would be the best in guidance and contain the best sayings.

6. It's safe to assume given there is no alternative proofs to religion right now, that God somehow proved his religion through the best book, in which no human can replicate or be the like of.

7. It's safe to assume humans can then recognize a book is revealed by God if God makes it of a certain quality beyond creation capabilities.

8. It's logical the book would emphasize on it's higher quality nature and challenge humanity to do their best to bring the like of it, confident that people would fail.

9. There is only one religion with such a book (ie. with claims it's highest quality, best in guidance, best sayings, and that humans cannot bring the like of it's chapters).

10. Therefore that religion (ie. Islam) is true and that book is proven to be true given we assume God exists and there is good reasons for him to send guidance to humanity.

"The best book"? Even if you included additional categories, as the Qur'an is disputably neither of "high quality" nor includes the "best guidance" (one might rightly think that should be obvious by now), such as style, rhetoric, scientific enlightenment, ingenuity, or morality, how can you establish a standard that renders the Qur'an (the motherfucking Qur'an?!?) to be "the best book," to say nothing of "divine"? Shouldn't we have other examples of the kinds of books a god might write, so that we know what marks to look for? And the Qur'an is that book? Based upon what? Hold on...

Lolololololol.

Err, ahem. It seems to me that many would justly omit the Qur'an from all of these categories even if the list was titled "THE 1,000 GREATEST BOOKS EVER WRITTEN."

[Mystic]

Nestor. I wasn't make the argument:

Quran is the best book, therefore divine, therefore Islam is true.

Read the argument. It's specifically to refute the argument in the OP.

The argument in the OP is on the lines of:

The arguments and reasons for God to send revelation and Prophets and Guides are perhaps refuted by the possibility that revelations cannot be recognized to be words of God as opposed to fabrications of humans.

It's a refutation to that.

As for the specifically Islam, it's because it's the only book to emphasize that it contains the best of sayings, emphasize it is the best in guidance, and emphasize it is unique in literary form and eloquence such that it challenges all humans to bring the like of one of it's Surahs.

So if there is good reasons to believe God would send guidance, the rest seems to follow.

[ignoramus]

MK, you're a good person.
There is no good logical argument one could use to prove the existence of any god(s).

Everything you write is genuine and from the heart but very fallacious.
You seem half intelligent. Do they have any critical thinking classes over there?

Take care matey.

[Mudhammam]

So if there is good reasons to believe God would send guidance, the rest seems to follow.

If that were the case, I sure as hell wouldn't look to Muhammad. People like Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Leibniz, Newton, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, on the other hand...

[Minimalist]

As for the specifically Islam, it's because it's the only book to emphasize that it contains the best of sayings, emphasize it is the best in guidance, and emphasize it is unique in literary form and eloquence such that it challenges all humans to bring the like of one of it's Surahs.

Confirmation bias
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm

MK, I'm curious.  Who are you trying to convince?  Us ( don't waste your time ) or yourself?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Mystic, you seem to be suggesting that the apparent perfection of a particular artifact, in your example a book, can only be explained as Divine. For the sake of argument, I'll assume that the Koran is the best example of poetic expression in all of human history. From my perspective many of the greatest human achievements seem incredible such as, the Sistine Chapel, the collected works of Shakespeare, the music of J. S. Bach and Mozart. Yet each of these is a testament to the amazing capacities of truly remarkable people.

[Minimalist]

I gotta admit it, Chad.  It doesn't happen often but when you're right, you're right.

[Mystic]

Minimilast, obviously I'm not trying to convince Atheists of Islam with this argument, because it's contingent on two assumptions.

1) That there is good reasons to believe in God (which Atheists reject).
2) That there is good reasons to believe God would send Prophets and appoint Guides if and only if he can prove that guidance.

I know Atheists don't believe in either of these two. What I was refuting was an old argument I did to suggest Deism is plausible and arguments for Messengers don't take account the factor that revelations maybe non-proven.

I also believe with added premise:

"The book would emphasize on it's unique higher nature and challenge humanity to bring a like of it's chapter" is logical to assume given that the premises before suggest God would want to prove his religion through such a book and so should emphasize on it's proof. Adding that premise in, and it seems Islam holds a unique stance.

However this is simply to refute an old argument I made in the past.

[Mystic]

Mystic, you seem to be suggesting that the apparent perfection of a particular artifact, in your example a book, can only be explained as Divine. For the sake of argument, I'll assume that the Koran is the best example of poetic expression in all of human history. From my perspective many of the greatest human achievements seem incredible such as, the Sistine Chapel, the collected works of Shakespeare, the music of J. S. Bach and Mozart. Yet each of these is a testament to the amazing capacities of truly remarkable people.

No you misunderstood the argument. I was suggesting in the beginning that perhaps revelations no matter how great cannot be recognized to be divine. However, I showed if this was the case, and the arguments that God would send Messengers or appoint Guides still holds true, then he can have a Guide in each present among the people performing miracles. In other words it's not necessary rationally that God does this by an lasting revelation. However observation shows that God didn't do this. However if we assume (1) God exists (2) he has good reasons to send guidance in form of appointed authorities and guides he chooses if and only if he can prove such guidance..then it follows that there is a way to recognize a writing is God's and beyond human capability. And given that is true, the only religion emphasizing on this would stand to reason, to be true religion. If we assume (1) God exists (2) he has good reasons to send guidance in form of appointed authorities and guides if and only if he can prove such guidance and authority on their part.

If there is no everlasting book that we can see is from God and not from humans and their capability, then it would stand to reason God would in this day and age, and through out the years, have an apparent guide performing miracles to prove his authority.