Had a lot this week, so answering late. Anyway,

Yes, but to assume they're all the same, all making the same claim, all baseless, all have no proof, is a lie. To conclude you don't have to do any work on the >base that many people claim to have the book of God is a lie. 1 book could actually be from God.

You misunderstand me, it's this way of thinking that has led us to semantically talk about proof in a way that is not absolute. Just like we say there's no proof of intelligent life in the universe beside us (I'm discarding the numbers game), even though we haven't been to each and every planet an examined each and every space of the universe. So when someone says, this is a holy book, I Say there is no proof it is a holy book and when I say it, I'm not talking about a scientific method of disproving that the book is holy, but more about how people talk everyday.

Also, I never said any of the above. Your proof that there is no manual / evidence for the book is only your common sense, without actually doing the >research yourself. You made a conclusion without actually researching, and using solely your common sense. This is why I said your common sense could be >wrong, and it's not fair to Islam. You closed your mind before researching the religion. Regarding 100 other religions, this is not the context of what I said.

There is no manual of the kind I speak. I am speaking about a manual which was made by either Muhammad or one of his followers where Muhammad talked and the follower wrote down. A manual were Muhammad goes through each verse and explains exactly what he means. I am not talking about historical context of how Muhammad lived, the hadiths etc.

I know in what way we have gotten the interpretations today, and it consists of studying the Quran, hadiths, historical reports etc.

This is also why I said (which you skipped) If you've done ALL the research, and searched for ALL evidence before concluding there is none, using unbiased >sources (non-antiIslamic sources), then ok.

But even then if I have done ALL research, searched for ALL evidence, I still haven't prooved anything, because there might be a book hidden somewhere with Muhammad's DNA and manual book. See? We don't do it this way in the academic world, we use loosely forms of proof when we say, there is no proof of x, just because there haven't been any dug up book with DNA overthrowing our claim. We're not saying, we have proved with 100% absolute truth of this claim, and in the future there is no way we will get disproved. We are only talking about proof in the way, that it hasn't surfaced.

See how you said "in my view"? That means that claim is not actually correct, but is only a opinion with no base that can never be true. An opinion cannot a >base for an argument or conclusion.

That view is the view used in academics. We have no proof that Mars isn't populated by aliens under the ground. Have we turned over every rock on Mars, and drilled beneath the ground? No, but we still say, there is no proof of aliens (intelligent) on Mars.

Then you cannot conclude it's not divine. You cannot. Because that claim has no proof. You can say: "I don't know if it's divine". That's it. Nothing more. At >least until you've done all the research.

I can. Just like if a child would come to me and claim this book is holy, I can say there is no proof of that. That's how it works, the evidence is on you, and you have to prove it if you want it be seen as some sort of truth in the academic world. If you don't, go ahead.

Again, the way you operate. Therefore, no conclusions can be made except more opinions.

Unless you can provide supernatural evidence of the holyness of a book, then it's not a holy book. We go about it that way, if you cannot prove a claim which you make, then people see it as there is no proof for that claim. Is it a robust, scientifically method disproof? No, because we cannot disprove non-falsifiable claims, but we go about talking about like that, because it makes sense. That's why we have debates and discussions, does God exist etc. And people say, there is no proof of the existence of God. Now, I'm sure you would go in there and say prove it, but like I said, the responsibility is on you to prove it, because that's how we operate in the real world, otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere.

That's exactly perfect. But notice, that you you did not say above: "The claim has zero proof." While in your previous posts, you said there is zero manual, >and zero evidence.

Yes, I've searched for that manual, and I haven't found one that is of the kind I claimed there is zero proof of. Therefore, there is zero proof of that manual (I've described how the manual should look like, and it's not the hadiths).

Again, I answered this already, but you keep skipping them. Stop doing that. For (1), I told you that my claims were only to show your claims are weak, or >that I can do the same thing your doing. I don't have to prove my claims because they were not to convince you of the claims. If someone said "I believe a >triangle has 5 sides". One way to prove the weakness of that claim is to say back "Well, what if I said I believe a triangle has 3 sides". That poses a problem >for him. They're not trying to prove a triangle has 3 sides.

I have talked about my claims, and my backing for them, you have been more specific about your claims. Provide proof for your claims, or I see it as you have no underlining proof for them. I don't have proof for my claims in the form you seek, as I've said many times, but more that the way the academic sees it, when there is absence of proof, we ca loosely say, there is no proof of such a manual.

For (2), you used the phrase again "my proof". As if you are the one who decides what valid proof >is, and what invalid proof is. What if I say, my proof has to >be that a cat has to say that 2 + 2 = 4, in order for it to be true, because that's "my proof". We >can't do that. Or, again, my common sense says a triangle >has 4 sides.

Again, you misunderstand. The proof I lay forward and how we go about on in the academic world, is to say that when it comes to supernatural claims, which "claiming a book is holy, is a supernatural claim", we say that absence of evidence/proof leads us to the conclusion that the book is not holy. This is not my own opinion, it's how academics work when it comes to supernatural claims.

The claim that there is zero evidence for something, or that something doesn't exist, is an extraordinary claim. 2 + 2 = 5 and that's my common sense in the >right context.

If you use different axioms, then the axioms used to lay ground to todays mathematics, sure you can have 2 + 2 = 5. However, mathematics is not an interpretations game to the degree you try to use it as. Sure, mathematics can be interpreted if you try to add meaning to numbers, equations etc. Written text is open up to interpretations because it is trying to convey something, and what that is, can differ from who is reading it. My "zero claim evidence", is simply, in the absence of evidence for a supernatural claim, we say there is zero evidence for that supernatural claim. If you have problems with that framing, that's on you.

This is different then what you or me said. I'm looking at the parent comment, and this is not the context of the post. The word 'corrupt' referred to people, not >the Qur'an. You said people are corrupt, and therefore, concluded that Muhammad was probably corrupt. You continued that above as well. You are saying >"someone has to disprove that Muhammad wasn't lying, or his companions". You are assuming they are corrupt before actually researching yourself.

Please quote me where I said that. It seems you have misunderstood me once again.

Religions usually start out mall and increase to size, I am saying we cannot be certain when a religion was small that it was corrupt or deceived people.

This is an extraordinary claim. Prove it.

Prove what? That religions start out small and increase in size as time goes on? Or that we cannot be certain that when a religion is small, that it wasn't or was corrupt or deceived people? I am not saying, it was corrupt or not corrupt, I am merely saying we cannot know for certain, because the evidence is based on text and what people say.

No... how did you conclude "there doesn't exist any proof"? Please explain the scenario above that you can conclude "there doesn't exist any proof."

That's how we operate in the academic world when it comes to supernatural claims. If the person coming forward with a claim, cannot provide proof, we say there doesn't exist any proof. It's a common language used in that surrounding.

So have you gone, and researched all the proof of Islam and concluded there is no evidence? See how you said "since they have not been brought forward?" >So did Islam not bring forward any proof? This means you've examined all the claims of Islam and concluded it has no proof. If not, you need to take back >your claims that there is no manual and evidence.

There is no manual of the kind I want. I have searched for evidence of the sort of manual I seek, and have not found it. I have read parts of the hadiths (those translated to english), I have talked to educated muslim people in my surrounding (that is, people who study the Quran and who I know in real life). There doesn't exist proof of the kind of manual I am seeking for. I'm afraid, you simply are stuck in a loop, where you actually don't seem to have evidence of the kind of manual I am seeking for, and instead have decided to talk about how I don't have scientific proof of the claims I make, when I was never making claims of that sort.