Early on in the 2nd video video they say something which I think is at the heart of our disagreement here. "Islam necessitates a person to believe in things that are beyond this material world and can not be empirically tested. When it comes to the big questions of life, concerning our meaning, our purpose and our reason for existence, these are outside of the scope of science. Science can not say there is no God, as God is a metaphysical entity outside the scope of scientific instruments."

Because God falls outside of the scope of scientific measurement, your claims that Islam is scientifically proven fall flat for me. I can't prove that Allah doesn't exist any more than you can prove he does.

To me it's that point that's been at the crux of nearly so many religious conversations I've had. For the claim of the Quran's holiness to be tested, there are scientific experiments that could be performed today where results could be measured in precise ways with scientific instruments.

Even if the Quran is accurate about embryology, that still isn't proof to me that God had anything to do with the book. Even if Jesus were born of a virgin, and it could be somehow proven, it wouldn't confirm to me that he was the son of God, or that the things he said were true. It's an incredibly difficult thing to prove that God exists, and I certainly can't prove the reverse.

I think our standards of proof vary. I can understand why you look at some of those commonalities between science and Islam and see confirmation of your beliefs. But it isn't the same thing as measuring God's existence and mathematically recording the results. It's what would need to happen for me to be fully convinced of God, or Allah, or any deity at all's existence.

For you, that 3:1 ratio point stands as something scientific. Most scientists would disagree with the idea that your interpretation is a scientific one. It's an assumption, but it's not a scientific conclusion that you're able to test and measure.

Most scientists don't fall into the Islamic religion, and that's a point which can't be walked around. If the science pointed toward Islam more than loosely, the scientific community would be overwhelmingly Muslim.

For you, their 7th century understanding that water is a critical part of life is proof that they had divine knowledge. But that there were plenty of people before them who had this understanding is a colossal hole in that idea.

I don't look at any of those examples you've provided and see the empirical proof that scientists look for. I don't see a more compelling understanding of the universe than that which the Greeks had hundreds of years prior. Aristotle, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, Euclid, Pythagoras and Archimedes are each examples of people who discovered previously unknown things about astronomy, medicine and natural world before the birth of Islam.

I don't know enough to know that Muhammad copied that older Greek knowledge, but it's something which many scholars seem to believe. To me, it's largely a question of which is more likely. Is it more likely that Muhammad's understanding of some of these issues was somehow built off of prior knowledge, or that he was in direct communication with God? It's obvious which is more probable. In a secular courtroom, there's just no way that the "I heard it from God himself" explanation would hold much weight.

The claim that God exists, and that it's the specific form of it that you believe in, would be staggeringly difficult to prove in the same way that scientific claims are tested and proven today.

You're right that bombing people isn't a Jesus-like thing to do. But if a zealot is combing through both the New and Old Testament in support of something which rationalizes that sort of violence, they'll likely find it. That it's a majority of Christians who support Trump is a telling proof to me of the danger of faith.

A point that I've struggled to get across here is that my specific interpretation of the Bible or Quran doesn't matter in this conversation. Whether I've read either book thoroughly has no bearing on what people do in the name of their holy texts. What's dangerous about faith is that people read these books and find divine rationalizations for their actions, regardless of which sects they fall into.