Circular reasoning? I’m confused!

Ok so I’m a little confused about this.

Suppose someone says that “the Quran is so beautifully composed and heart-penetrating that it’s inimitable. It must be the true word of God” but then I ask that person, “but can you prove your theory and explanation about its beauty?” and he says, “What do you mean? Its beautiness and inimitablity IS literally the proof! Otherwise there would be no such thing as evidence because then we would have to discard that fossils are evidence for ancient species because well there is a possibility that aliens planted it and so it would be circular reasoning for every conceivable evidence ever. See the problem?”

What do you think? 

Just because a text is considered beautifully composed, doesn't mean it must be the word of God. This is a non sequitur

The rest of the person's justification falls apart as soon as we question the inference that beautiful design necessitates the involvement of God.

Again, this is a burden of proof issue.

When people are in a discussion, and one presents a proposition, unless it is one already agreed upon, the propounder carries the burden of proof to substantiate the proposition. This rule of logic has been around since Aristotle, or maybe Thales. 

I think it is obvious that unless one has evidence to believe something, there is no basis upon which to believe it. Hitchens’s razor puts it, “what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.” Carl Sagan added what has become the Sagan standard: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

So, when someone presents a proposition but no evidence, the proper response is not to believe it, point out the lack of evidence for the proposition, and ask the propounder to provide some evidence.

If evidence is forthcoming, then the burden of proof shifts to you. You can accept the evidence or, if you do not find the evidence convincing, it is your burden to explain why.

Don't get ahead of yourself in the discussion. 

The basic problem with the argument is that the Quran's beauty is subjective, not an objective fact while the Quran makes objective claims about the universe.  I don't think you can logically derive truth-claims from subjective preferences, you can't argue 'I like icecream therefore the tastiness of icecream is an objective truth of the universe'.

Objective claims require an objective basis I think.