Scientific Objections. The Qu'ran makes several scientific claims but modern science has debunked it. For example the Quran claims that the moon split in two, that semen comes from between the backbone and ribcage, that the bone develops before the skin when a foetus is developing (modern embryology has debunked this). There are more examples which this video explains well. There Are NO 'SCIENTIFIC MIRACLES' in the Quran The second one is a moral objection. For one Muhammed's life was full of violence and sexual immorality. For example Muhammed married a 6 year old and today many Muslims defend child marriage (reference debate between Inspiring philosophy and Daniel Haqiqatou). The Quran tells Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to kill apostates. Women, Christians and Jews are seen as second class in Islam. Jesus v Muhammad | A 23 point comparison The Quran gets history wrong. Jesus was crucified and this is confirmed by Cornelius Tacitus who says that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate. The Bible says that Jesus was crucified but the Quran says that Jesus appeared to die (essentially that it wasn't Jesus but someone who looked like him). Here is a nice video from Testify that gives Muslims a dilemma that either Jesus didn't die and therefore wasn't a prophet (the Quran says Jesus is a prophet so this would mean the Quran is false) or that Jesus did die (making the Quran wrong). The Crucifixion Dilemma That DESTROYS Islam - YouTube

To add to Daniel's response. A contradiction is when you hold to p and not p at the same time and in the same respect. What premise 2 is probably saying is that we believe in the laws of science but we also believe in events that contradict those laws. But there is no contradiction in saying that on the Christian worldview God creates the world in an orderly way such that there are laws of nature and that God sometimes intervenes. This premise assumes that naturalism is true. Essentially what this will boil down to is two questions: 1. Can we trust the Bible? 2. Is there a God?/ Is Theism true?

@Danielle Robinson yes Brian mentioned that but that wasn't his point.

@Danielle Robinson The problem is if we say something ia unexplained, what principle allows us to posit no explanation when we usually like explanations. There has to be some principle otherwise positing 'no explanation' will be arbitrary. Read Tim's reply for further clarification

Mike licona's book: 'Jesus Contradicted'

For me, being able to read more advanced works such as Sijuwade's papers. This has really helped me to go beyond mere arguments and appreciate worldview comparison. I had a recent thought that relates to what Graham Oppy said about morality. He says, "My reasons for thinking that morality does not depend on God have nothing to do with internal difficulties that arise for worldviews which maintain that morality does depend on God; rather, my reasons for thinking that morality does not depend upon God are grounded in the worldview that I accept, a worldview which I think is more theoretically virtuous than competing worldviews." In his debate with Craig on the applicability of mathematics, he says, ": Because if you think about the goal of theorizing, what you're trying to do is strike the best balance between minimizing all of your theoretical commitments and maximizing the explanation that you can do......It just turns out that the naturalistic story, so, because this is the point, when you are formulating your theory, you said naturalist just have no explanation. That's not true, here is a naturalistic theory that does have an explanation. And what needs to be argued is about which one is the better theory, and that's not something that's settled by these considerations. It's settled by general considerations." So at the core, if we can show that theism is a more theoretically virtuous theory, then other phenomena (such as logic, mathematics, morality etc.) easily follow.