Quote:
Originally Posted by scorcherjf
These type of "arguments" are used everywhere. I'm not discounting the mathematical properties of the Quran within the framework that it dictates. It's completely correct on the statistical probabilities and the arithmetic but that is no way of proving something. One simple assumption change like using base 8 instead of base 10 would nullify the whole analysis (but in all probability would create a new one!). There's infinitely many mathematical properties that can be applied to arrive at a conclusion that would seem statistically impossible but when you look at the statistical space you're working with, anything is impossible.
The same arguments are used to "prove" creationism is true and evolution can't be true. The probability that our species turned out the way it did today over so many millions of years if you assume a probabilistic model with regards to gene mutation would obviously give you an answer that would say it was virtually impossible. The problem is you're looking at the end point, which is one of infinitely many that could have occurred. So if, within a specific framework, something with exceptionally low probability is the basis of a proof that something happened or exists, then I'll leave you on your merry way.
I have no existing viewpoint with regards to the Quran nor do I intend to form one because it really doesn't matter to me. I just take issue with specific mathematical properties being heralded as "miracles" and being the basis of a proof that it couldn't have been written by any lowly human.

"Miracles" or the like are used mainly to convince ignorants of the existing of a deity.
Probably the guy that wrote it up was a math genius, thats all it proves.
Why would god need to make something rythme to make people believe?
I don't believe god needs to make people believe..