Thanks for your feedback. I greatly appreciate it.
I could respond to your argument by saying that there are objective ways to measure the uniqueness and 'inimitability' of the quran. Many (muslim) scholars have pointed to the word order and/or how the quranic words are placed in order to form a whole literary structure which cannot be imitated. This unique literary structure, which also enables rhyming and has a powerful and unique rhythm, also tie in with its unique literary structure that cannot be imitated. Also, reportedly many Arabic people and Arabic (orientalist) scholars have tried to imitate the rhythm and structure of the quran, but have failed. There have been recorded attempts, but none have managed to meet the quranic challenge of producing something like it, with the power, rhythm, unique structure, etc. I would say that the criteria are at least to a point objective, so I don't think it's completely subjective. There's even also a famous poem which talks about elephants, it is a failed attempt to imitate the quran. You can look it up online, if you would like.
I have also heard that the style of the quran is in such a way as to make the descriptions of hell fire seem as if the reader is experiencing them. I am not sure if this is the case, as I have heard if from Muslims, but I do not know.
So, taking this supposed inimitability of the quran into account, I could then say that gambling on the bet that islam is the truth would be the best bet/gamble, and so from there I could take my chances. Since no other religion has a scripture which is inimitable and which has objective evidence in support of that respective claim.
Arabic is a human language so inimitable is just an argument from incredibility. As Arabic is a human language it is entirely possible for any human with knowledge of this language to have created the Quran without divine aid. This is no more unique than someone creating a masterpiece in English, Latin, French, etc. We do assign the concept of inimitable to art work all the time. In fact there is a whole profession dedicated to this field. Yet we do not assign a divine nature to art as people do with the Quran.
The issue with inimitable is that Muslims are the judges. Now since inimitable is part of religious doctrine very few will ever admit if someone matches or surpasses this standard. Also I have to point of there are a number of examples on this forum in which someone created a Sura, presented it to Muslims and these people thought it was from the Quran. Only when told it was not did they reject the challenge to inimitable doctrine. These people proved that this challenge is doctrine only.
I could also point out that figures such as Moses are not historical fact but mythology. Moses is largely rejected in archaeology, my field, and assumed as a narrative created later. Much like Uncle Sam of America. Now putting aside inimitable arguments. If a text uses myth to justify it claims than by default this is not from divine origin but merely great fiction mixed with non-fiction.
Also I have to point out Islamic scholars are theologians, not critical scholarship. Much like Biblical scholars which are theologians. These scholars already hold the view that Islam is correct and are unable to challenge their bias. Much like some "scholars" assume a young earth, creationism, etc. When scholarship is done in a secular environment progress is made. When done in a religious one it is only done to confirm their presupposition.
Topic: Pascal's Wager and Quranic inimitability