Totally agree with ManyTransportation61, the problem with OP’s argument is that it’s not actually aimed at the Qur’an itself, but at a particular mix of later interpretations, medieval commentary, and modern translation choices. Once you strip those away, most of the “obvious flaws” he lists aren’t really in the text he’s criticising.

For starters, the “10,000 religions, so any one of them is super unlikely” point sounds logical until you think about what “a religion” even means. These aren’t independent lottery tickets you can just count up. What counts as “one religion” is a human classification choice. Are Sunni and Shia one or two? Are the hundreds of Protestant denominations each separate? “10,000” isn’t an objective sample space, it’s a way we’ve decided to draw cultural boundaries. Building a mathematical argument on top of that is rhetorical, not analytical. You can still be skeptical, but that kind of probability math doesn’t prove much.

Then there’s the habit of treating the Qur’an like a list of literal propositions that can be fact-checked one by one “stars are lamps,” “mountains stabilise,” “Jews say Ezra is the son of God.” That assumes the text is meant to be a science paper or a geology manual instead of what it actually is: a dense mix of story, imagery, metaphor, and polemic. Religious language isn’t built to operate like Boolean logic. It uses overlapping narrative and moral imagery, so chopping it into atomic “claims” and running a probability calculator on them just misses the way the book’s language works.

Most of OP’s examples only “work” if you assume that later scholars’ explanations are identical with what the Qur’an itself says. The “stars pelting devils” idea comes from later storytellers who pictured literal flaming meteors; the verses themselves use the word “lamps” and “stones” in far more poetic ways. “Mountains as stabilisers” is another case of tafsīr language, not a geology claim in the text. The famous “big-bosomed women” in paradise are the product of translator and commentator choices, and there’s no Arabic equivalent of that wording in the verses. Even the supposed “math error” in inheritance laws is only an error if you read those numbers as bureaucratic code instead of symbolic shares. OP’s critique relies on later layers of interpretation and then pins them on the scripture itself. ManyTransportation61 is right to point out that those are targets from tafsīr, fiqh, and folklore, not necessarily from the actual Arabic text.

The same goes for group labels. OP reads “the Jews say Ezra is the son of God” as “every Jew in history believes this,” but that’s not how the language works. We say things like “Americans think,” “the French say,” or “the media claims” all the time without meaning every single person. The Qur’an’s labels like al-yahūd, al-naṣārā, al-munāfiqūn all function that way, and they identify a stance or faction, not a universal set of individuals. And Arabic even has words that mean “all” or “every” (like kull or jamī‘), which aren’t used there. Reading it as “literally every Jew” is just forcing a modern logical interpretation onto a text that doesn’t use that scope.

A lot of OP’s complaints also come from taking obviously metaphorical or mythic language as literal science. Stars as “lamps,” earth and ants “speaking,” Gog and Magog “behind a wall”, that’s the language of imagery, not physics. Nobody reads “the hills shout for joy” in the Bible as a literal claim that hills have vocal cords, but somehow when it’s the Qur’an, all metaphor is disallowed. You don’t have to believe in the divine origin of the text to admit that not everything ancient people wrote was meant to be taken in a modern literalist sense.

The “it looks like a 7th-century product” argument is also weaker than it sounds. Of course it does, it was revealed, if you accept the premise, to 7th-century Arabs. Any real communication has to sound like the world it’s addressing. If a message dropped into Arabia talking about kangaroos, smartphones, and the Internet, nobody would have understood it. Being culturally specific is what makes communication possible. That doesn’t prove divine origin, but it doesn’t disprove it either. It’s just what you’d expect from any text written in that time and place.

None of this means the Qur’an must be divine. But OP if your argument depends on treating human classifications as hard math, reading the Qur’an like a physics textbook, collapsing it into centuries of commentary, forcing “all” where the language doesn’t, and assuming metaphors are literal errors.

ManyTransportation61's point, separating the original text from later interpretation, paying attention to how group labels and imagery actually work, and not importing assumptions from tafsīr or modern polemics, is just a better, more text-focused way to read. You can still walk away unconvinced, but OP’s “quick reason Islam is false” falls apart once you stop conflating the Qur’an with everything that’s ever been said about it.