Monday, February 4, 2013

Qur'an's Error: Sura 4:82 "If [Quran] had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction"

Sura 4:82 would be found in the average Islamophile's list of favorite verses. It is often quoted in the form of a challenge to Skeptics and others. 

Sura 4:82 states the following; (http://quran.com/4/82)


Sahih International
If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.
Muhsin Khan
Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.
Pickthall
If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.
Yusuf Ali
Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.
Shakir
And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.
Dr. Ghali
And if it had been from (any where) other than the Providence of Allah, indeed they would have found in it many difference (s).


Utilizing this verse, the Muslim apologist will demand reasonable individuals to show an error in the Qur'an. They will also state with exuding confidence that no one in 14 centuries have been able to show an error in the Quran.

Such a conversation usually unfolds in 2 ways; i) the Skeptic ignores the apologist or ii) the Skeptic shows some of the errors in the Quran (creation from blood clots, setting of sun in a muddy spring, seminal fluid from the back, flat earth, denial of human evolution etc).

Whenever ii) occurs, the apologist will usually dismiss any evidence and can be seen asserting his literary liberty to interpret the sentences however he wishes to. Given the spectacular vagueness of much of the Qur'anic statements, the conversation almost always reaches an impasse with each side rejecting the other's interpretation (and perhaps moving on to a round of creative insults).

However it seems to be the case that neither the apologist nor the Skeptic has reflected carefully on the challenge itself. The great irony of the Qur'an is that the very verse that issues this challenge also meets the challenge i.e. Sura 4:82 is an error on its own since it constructs a false conditional statement.

The verse states that if the Qur'an was from a source other than Allah, then it would contain many errors or contradictions.
Now consider this question, is it possible for a man-made work to contain no errors or contradictions? This should be uncontroversial. There are countless human texts that would be free of any errors, specifically falsifiable or 'findable' errors.
Then, if it is the case that it is possible for man-made works to be free of any errors, then it is also possible for the Qur'an to contain no errors and be man-made i.e. be from a source other than Allah.
Given the above possibility, Sura 4:82 constructs a false conditional for it is easily possible for the Qur'an to be "from other than Allah" and yet contain no errors.
Thus, Sura 4:82 is an erroneous statement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is recommended that the following videos (about "conditional statements") are watched;

Philosophy: Conditionals Parts 1-4 by Justin Khoo, Asst. Professor of Philosophy at MIT


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

In Logic, certain statements are called "conditional statements" when it consists of a relationship between 2 (or more) atomic statements where one is the antecedent and the other is the consequent. These are usually denoted as "If ... then" statements. For example;

"If John is a human, then John is a mammal"

The antecedent in this case is "John is a human" and the consequent is "John is a mammal". In logic, this statement is equivalent to it's "contrapositive statement" which in the above case would say;

"If John is not a mammal, then John is not a human"

In Formal Logic, any conditional statement can be symbolized in the following manner;

"P --> Q"
=(this is equivalent to its contrapositive)=
 "~Q --> ~P"

P symbolizes the antecedent; Q symbolizes the consequent; '~' symbolizes negation (i.e ~P means "not P" or "P is false"); '-->' symbolizes the conditional relationship (i.e. "~Q --> ~P" means "IF not Q THEN not P)

A fair knowledge of these simple concepts alone are sufficient to examine the Qur'anic statement in Sura 4:82. Consider the verse,

"If [Qur'an] had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction"

The verse expresses a conditional relationship between two atomic statements. The antecedent is the atomic statement "The Qur'an is not from Allah". The consequent is the atomic statement "many Errors will be found in the Quran" (Verse rephrased for simplicity). Thus the verse is stating the following relationship;

"If the Qur'an is not from Allah, then many errors will be found in the Quran"

Let A = "The Qur'an is from Allah". Thus ~A = "The Qur'an is not from Allah" (which is the antecedent above).
Let E = "many Errors will be found in the Quran" (which is the consequent).
The above statement can be symbolized as

"~A --> E"

As stated above, this statement is logically equivalent to it's contrapositive statement which would state the following;

"~E --> ~(~A)"
==
"~E --> A"
==
"If many errors are not found in the Qur'an, then the Qur'an is from Allah"

For those who were unable to spot the mistake in the original verse, its contrapositive statement should certainly render the issue clearer. A conditional statement is false if it is possible for the antecedent to be true and the consequent still false. Such is the case for this verse.

Take the original verse for example, it is possible for the antecedent to be true and yet for the consequent to be false i.e. for the Qur'an to be not from Allah, and at the same time be free of errors. Likewise, for the contrapositive statement, it is possible for there to be no errors in the Qur'an and yet at the same time, not be a product of divine intelligence.

It would clearly be absurd to state that any piece of text that does not contain errors is from Allah and yet this is what the Qur'an claims by logical extension. Certainly, for the Muslim apologist (especially ones acquainted with the principles of Propositional Logic), this is an irrefutable error in their Holy Book. Their only option to rescue the Qur'an is to show that it is impossible for the Qur'an to not be from Allah if it had no errors in it. Of course, this is not at all a tenable position as Humans have produced countless texts with no errors in it.

Thus, offering one of the greatest unintentional ironies, the very verse that challenges one to show errors in the Qur'an is on its own an irrefutable error.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The argument in its simplest form can be symbolically represented in the following way;



Translation:

1.  If there are no errors in the quran, then it is true that “If the quran is not from god, then there are errors in the quran”
2.  For all X, it is not true that “if there are no errors in X, then X is from god”
3.  For all X, if there are errors in X, then X is not from god
4.  SHOW: There are errors in the quran
5.               ASSUME there are no errors in the quran
6.               SHOW: Contradiction
7.                             If the quran is not from god, then there are errors in the quran
8.                             If there are no errors in the quran, then the quran is from god
9.                             It is not true that “if there are no errors in the quran, then the quran is from god”
10.                           Contradiction (8, 9)
11. If there are errors in the quran, then quran is not from god
12. The quran is not from god 

                         

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Possible Objections from Muslims

1) The verse actually means "Since Qur'an is from Allah, no errors will be found in the Quran."

Reply: Such an objection is tantamount to claiming that the Qur'an meant to say "X" but instead said "Y". Even if this is what the Qur'an meant by the verse, it has no bearing on the argument above. The argument above is based on the structure of the statement in the Qur'an. It is the structure that is at fault. For example, consider the verse again

"If the Qur'an is not from Allah, then errors will be found in the Quran"

Let A = "The Qur'an is from Allah". Thus ~A = "The Qur'an is not from Allah" (which is the antecedent above). Let E = "Errors will be found in the Quran" (which is the consequent). The above statement can be symbolized as
"~A --> E"


If instead, the Qur'an were to say "If the Qur'an is from Allah, then no Errors will be found in the Quran" (i.e. "A --> ~E), then the conditional relationship would be correct. However, as it is currently found in the Qur'an, the conditional relationship is false.

2) The verse is an example of Abductive Reasoning

Reply: First and foremost, it should be noted that Abductive logic does not absolve the false relationship constructed in a conditional statement. Thus, this is an absurd and misinformed use of the term "Abductive Rasoning". 

A false conditional is a false statement i.e. it is an error in the truth of the statement. This is not an error in deductive logic for it to be reconciled with inductive or abductive reasoning. To state so, is to show an utter misunderstanding of the argument presented in this blogpost as well as ignorance of formal Logic.

Secondly, abductive reasoning could only have been utilized if the conditional statement had been in the form of a true conditional, as found in objection 1,  i.e. "If the Qur'an is from Allah, then no Errors will be found in the Quran". However, this would still be a very weak case of abductive reasoning.

Abductive Reasoning can be defined in the following way; it is a form of reasoning that allows one to reasonably hypothesize an inconclusive statement from a known event. For example, consider the following conditional

(1) "If there is fire, then there is smoke"

In formal logic, based on the above conditional, it is fallacious to conclude there is fire if there is smoke (Since that is not what the conditional states; this commits the fallacy called Affirming the Consequent). However, if one were to see smoke, it is certainly reasonable for one to assume or hypothesize that there is fire (even if the fire is not visible). Such a form of reasoning is called Abduction (as opposed to deduction or induction).

On the other hand, consider this conditional statement;

(2) "If it is night, then John is asleep"

Unlike example (1), it is not as reasonable to assume that it is night just because John is asleep as he could be sleeping during daytime in this particular instance. This would constitute a weak case of abductive reasoning.

However, consider a conditional such as this,

(3) "If Obama is living in Mars, then Obama is breathing"

Based on this conditional, it would in fact be unreasonable to abduce from the fact that Obama is breathing, that he is living in Mars. However, note that the conditional is a true statement i.e. if Obama were to be alive on Mars, he would have to be breathing. Yet it would be unreasonable to state that he is on Mars merely because he is breathing. This would constitute an absurd case of abductive reasoning. 

Likewise, even if the Qur'an contained no errors, it would not be reasonable to state that the Quran is from Allah. To establish such a form of reasoning, the Muslim would have to take on the absurd task of showing that any text that is free of errors are from Allah. Of course, this is false as countless human works contain no errors or contradictions etc.

3) Special Pleading: The Qur'an is special for reason 'X', therefore any human author would produce many errors.

Reply: Such an argument is a textbook case of the fallacy of special pleading. Some of the reasons given by apologists are the following;

1) The Qur'an is considered sacred by over a billion people.
2) The Qur'an is considered the best Arabic work.
3) The Qur'an is the basis for the Arabic language.

These are some of the reasons given by apologists to argue that the Qur'an is special enough that if it were the product of a human being, they would make many errors. What the apologists fail to do is to demonstrate how such reasons entail that the text cannot be the work of a human being, even if it is accepted that such reasons make the Qur'an "special" or "unique".

The reasons given by apologists revolve around the following two facts; i) The Qur'an has importance to Muslims and ii) The Qur'an is important for the Arabic language.

Neither fact requires supernatural interference. It is very understandable, for reasons all too human, how anything from an idol to a person to a book to a sport can be influential for people and communities, and even be turned into divine symbols; especially if the said people or communities are prone to superstitions or gullibility.

Likewise, the next fact about the importance of the Qur'an in the Arabic language is also understandable for the same sociological reasons. The great Arab civilizations of the past that produced its writers, linguists, poets and litterateurs lived in Islamic nations that consisted of the same people and communities mentioned in the previous paragraph.

This idea is well stated in the words of E.H. Palmer, who says,

"That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur’ân itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Mohammed and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the prophet the style was natural, and the words were those used in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style is imitative arid the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence."

Thus, attempts to save the Qur'an by invoking it's subjective religious influence or its historically contingent linguistic influence are guilty of the fallacy of special pleading. These characteristics of the Qur'an do not explain why such a text, with the vast majority of its statements having no falsifiable information, should contain "many errors if it were the product of a human being."

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


In conclusion, by constructing a false conditional statement in Sura 4:82, the Qur'an has committed an irrefutable error. The irony of the fact that this erroneous Qur'anic verse challenges skeptics to show a Qur'nic error is, almost divinely, priceless.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

There seems to have been a debate about this issue on youtube between a Skeptic and a Muslim apologist. The apologist, apparently did the unthinkable, by stating that any book that does not contain errors are from a divine source. For such unfortunate souls, the skeptic, who goes by thinker1, has created (sorry, it was revealed to him) a book that is i) free of errors and ii) claims to be from God. Here you go,

http://infaliblebookfromgod.blogspot.com/


80 comments :

  1. I ran into this blogpost that is meant to be a humantext free of errors and also claims to be from God. Qur'anic logic dictates this has to be from God. It was written as a counterexample to the conditional in sura 4:82. It is funny, I have to say

    http://infaliblebookfromgod.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Captian!

    Did you steal my argument from YouTube, dude?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I only became aware of it after dfh's comment. Besides, this was a pretty simple error. I just don't understand how it survived all this time.

      Your book was humorous btw

      Delete
    2. Well just so were clear that i came up with it first about 3 months ago on YouTube. :)

      And yes, i felt the same about having missed that error for so long too when it hit me.

      Im glad you made the argument more academic.

      I belive the same is true of the Quran's main argument on inimatability.

      i.e. Just because something cannot be replicated/reproduced by anyone else does not = divinity.

      Delete
    3. Well then the credit belongs to you :)

      I am actually going to put a link to your post; it's comic value alone makes it worth it.

      Regarding Inimitability, I should righteously direct you to the blog of this man;

      rationalislam.blogspot.com
      http://rationalislam.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-quran-new-literary-form.html

      Delete
    4. Thanks Captian.

      Btw, in case you are unaware a new Sura on Sex has just been reveled to me the other day in response to a Muslims questions on YouTube [that's the Asbab Al -Nuzul :)],so i have updated the Holy Book.

      Delete
  3. You said the following " Sura 4:82 constructs a false conditional for it is easily possible for the Qur'an to be "from other than Allah" and yet contain no errors."

    The Quran clearly state in 2:24 "and you will never be able to" i.e bring a chapter like a sura of the Quran. The "IF" in the verse is referring to something that will never happen. YOU need to prove that it is possible for someone other than Allah to produce something like the Quran prior to dicussing if one can produce it with or without error.

    The Quran was spoken speech. Name one masterpiece of literature that was spoken rather than composed and edited and reedited by scholars of literature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you could start off with the two Homeric epics that arose out of the Bardic tradition; Beowulf, the Icelandic sagas, more or less the entirety of the Zoroastrian corpus that we possess....I could go on, but it would be labouring the point.

      Delete
    2. And are by their very nature considered to be complete works of fiction... and are not akin to the Quran. A better answer would have been the Vedas.

      Delete
  4. LQA learn some basics of formal logic and logical fallacies before making such silly comments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Notice I didn't say your analysis regarding logic was incorrect. What I criticized was your assumption that something like the Quran can be produced by other than Allah without inconsistencies. You have assumed it can be produced in your analysis. so unless you can show the evidence of your assumption then your argument fails. That's simple logic also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look up the "special pleading" fallacy. That's the simple logical fallacy from you

      Delete
    2. Also, there was someone else who was trying to advance the same bad point you are arguing for in the comments of the following post,

      http://rationalislam.blogspot.com/2013/02/qurans-error-sura-482-if-quran-had-been.html

      Several others and I have made many remarks there. This certainly is a silly point but I suppose a special pleading fallacy is all that a Muslim can hide under now.

      Delete
  6. You've made errors in your analysis. Notice the ayah say that if the "Quran" was from other than Allah. you on the other hand said the following :

    "is possible for man-made works to be free of any errors"

    you equated Quran and Man made works as one and the same thing. So your the one doing the "special pleading" fallacy which you accused me of doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is not an error at all.

      Special pleading? In fact I am doing the opposite of special pleading. I making the argument for the general case from which anything specific (including the Quran) would automatically follow. Do you even know what you are doing?

      The point behind the statement, "is possible for man-made works to be free of any errors" is to show that Humans are also capable of producing error-free works. If humans can produce error-free works, then it is false that authors "other than Allah" cannot produce error-free works. So since it is possible for the Quran to be authored by a Human(s) and be error-free, then sura 4:82 expresses a false conditional statement.

      The argument is also independent of who the author of the Quran is whether it be a human, god, zeus, a cow, alien whatever. This is irrelevant.

      Again, do yourself a favor and think harder. May be seriously get a book on logic and start studying

      Delete
  7. CaptainDisguise: what do you understand the word "Quran" to mean? If you understand it to mean a book or piece of writing then your have misunderstood the whole verse. This is not surprising since you don't even know arabic.

    I think you should stick to the bible since it is available in your language i.e. the KJV. Leave the criticisms of the Quran to arabic scholars.

    Imagine a Chinese linguist who didn't know English was doing literal criticism of English literature and relying on bad Chinese translations. Would anyone take him seriously?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The arabic copout! You really should know that that is sound of you admitting defeat.

      Regardless, the argument is also independent of the language or whatever magical literary genre you think the Qu'ran belongs or doesn't belong to.

      It is independent because the argument only takes into question the logical consequence of a statement in the Qur'an.

      The same statement could have been expressed in any spoken language or sign language or braille or whatever other form you can think of. It could have been expressed in poetry, prose, haiku or whatever you think the Quran is. IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG!

      Simple logic!

      And of course, keeping up with the Muslim tradition of coming up with bad analogies, you have one here too.

      I have not once ever tried to comment on the literary merits of the arabic Qur'an. So your analogy goes right out of the window.

      What I do generally of course, is verify the claims made by (dishonest) apologists. That can be done by anyone provided they have some basic critical thinking skills.

      So to change your analogy, if a chinese person who did not speak english wanted to investigate the alien abduction hoaxes in America, he can do so by relying on the chinese translations or reports even though the original was in English. Better yet, if he worked with a group of English-speakers, then he can simply consult them.

      And if some kind of 'English-supremacist' decided to not take the Chinese person seriously, not due to his arguments or evidence, but because of his language, then the 'English-supremacist', (like the "Arabic-supremacist" you are) is simply an IRRATIONAL BIGOT. The real question why the bigoted idiot should be taken seriously?

      Likewise, when Muslims keep attempting hoaxes, anyone could verify them, especially myself given that I have many Arabic speaking Exmuslim friends that I consult with.

      In the case of the above argument course, the case is much simpler. All one needs is a basic understanding of logic which I am afraid you do not have.

      Now of course, if the meaning of the verse 4:82 is something different, by all means, do give the right one? (Of course, we both know that is a facetious attempt)

      Delete
  8. I'll ask again because you skipped over my question:

    what do you understand the word "Quran" to mean regarding 4:82?

    and my second question which I will add, which is related:

    what do you understand in saying " bringing something like the Quran"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I generally skip over silly questions but for the sake of your petulance, here it is,

      I understand the Quran to mean regarding 4:82 to be the book that muslims hold sacred i.e. the content of the book.

      I am guessing this is where you play the gotcha game of hey "The book is only a mushaf and the actual quran is the uncreated speech of god blah blah". Yeah sure! Been there done that

      I understand the saying "bringing something like the Quran" to be an illogical statement that Muslims unfortunately have to desperately signify all the while making themselves appear silly.

      Okay that is me being facetious. Here is an expanded view of my understanding of the illogical challenge, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCZTBX_tK_8

      (NOTE: there will be a future blogpost that will provide formal proof that the inimitability challenge is illogical)

      On another note, can I invite you to join our chat group on skype. There are many people who would love to hear you try to defend the Quran. Give it a shot. Send me a PM on youtube if you are interested.

      P.S. I am simply going to ignore the fact that you have skipped over just about every question I have ever asked you. It is okay. I understand that you cannot have good answers. Perhaps that is the reason you resort to deleting/ censoring comments. Oh well!

      Delete
    2. How sad that right when I provide you with an opportunity to discuss your arguments directly over skype with us, you decide to disappear! Shame

      Delete
    3. I will disappear soon because I really don't have time to waste talking to someone who is not man enough to admit the fallacies in his arguments.

      I think you hit the nail on the head when you said " the content of the book"

      The content, which you seem ignorant about is in Arabic, not English. You claimed many times you know know the language yet you are able to "understand" what the Quran is. What frustrates me is that you can't at least admit your limitations. If you were sincere in finding the truth you would at least consult arabic and Quran experts on the matter.

      Just Imagine if someone criticized the works of Shakespeare without studying English literature. Who would take him seriously. I definitely wouldn't.

      Quran 4:82 is explaining that if any human(s) came to produce the likes of the Quran there would be many inconsistencies. So your job is simple, to explain an inconsistency in the Quran based on proper scholarship and an open mind.

      The only work that I know of of trying to produce something like the Quran is a work by some fundamental arabic Christians who produced a work called "The True Furqan". It is riddled with inconsistencies in more than one way. The authors also plagiarized from the Quran in a number of verses they concocted.

      I which you the best in next life and don't say I didn't warn you!

      Delete
    4. You comment is 1 lie or falsehood after another. Let me list every single mistake in it;

      1) There are fallacies in my arguments.
      2) That I claimed I knew Arabic
      3) The false analogy (again) regarding Shakespeare and English literature (despite being specifically corrected in a previous post).

      On top of this you still display that you are incapable of the simply logical argument presented in the blogpost. Sura 4:82 is an inconsistency i.e. it is an erroneous statement. I am not surprised you don't get it given that you have demonstrated you lack basic logical skills.

      As for 1), please I welcome you to spot any fallacies in my arguments. I would love to correct them if there are any but given our past interactions, it will most likely turn out to be the case that you simply do not know what you are talking (as demonstrated in the 'special pleading' accusation in previous posts).

      As for 2), where?

      As for 3), I am starting to think you are not even reading what I am writing. Since you are repeating, let me do so as well. Here is what I stated when you made a similar analogy before,

      "And of course, keeping up with the Muslim tradition of coming up with bad analogies, you have one here too.

      I have not once ever tried to comment on the literary merits of the arabic Qur'an. So your analogy goes right out of the window.

      What I do generally of course, is verify the claims made by (dishonest) apologists. That can be done by anyone provided they have some basic critical thinking skills.

      So to change your analogy, if a chinese person who did not speak english wanted to investigate the alien abduction hoaxes in America, he can do so by relying on the chinese translations or reports even though the original was in English. Better yet, if he worked with a group of English-speakers, then he can simply consult them.

      And if some kind of 'English-supremacist' decided to not take the Chinese person seriously, not due to his arguments or evidence, but because of his language, then the 'English-supremacist', (like the "Arabic-supremacist" you are) is simply an IRRATIONAL BIGOT. The real question why the bigoted idiot should be taken seriously?"


      So there you are, running in circles, engaging in red-herring, copouts, and strawman.

      Who knew getting obsessed with the quran would turn someone like you into such a cowardly man always wary of battling his cognitive dissonance?

      P.S.- The offer for the skype-chat it still open. Given that the "Arabic copout", is something you like to hide behind a lot, you can discuss all this with various Arabic speaking Exmuslims who would love to hear you try defending your arguments.

      What is the matter? Too cowardly and would rather "disappear"? Suit yourself

      Delete
  9. lets use the same example and change it a little:

    If a Chinese person who did not speak English wanted to critically analyse a classical work available only in English, where an inferior English translation exists in Chinese. This person then took this translation and criticised it based on Chinese grammar and linguistic rules.

    Do you believe there is the possibility of mistakes in this Chinese person's analysis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh! It is like you are completely incapable of comprehending what is said.

      Third time around, I am not analyzing or critiquing the literary qualities of the arabic Quran. So for the third time, your analogy fails right away.

      What really is the case here is that I debunk hoaxes made by muslims, using logic, science, history and lexicons and muslims unable to defend their arguments resort to fallacies, falsehoods and copouts.

      P.S. I guess you are too cowardly to come on skype. So be it.

      Delete
  10. Alright, well first off I need to make mention that a "false conditional" (and conditionals in general) do in fact rely on what the conditions entail and the definitions being used. That is why I find your first counter argument to "possible objections" to be a little oversimplified.

    The ayah in question is as such (once again): "Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy." (Al-Qur'an 4:82)

    The "it" here refers to the entirety of the Qur'an itself. So first we need to understand what the Qur'an claims. The Qur'an is not just any book (according to its own definition), but purports to tell about things unknown to human beings, like the "unseen" etc. As such, in this case, I do not find a "false conditional" in the statement. Naturally human beings can create books with no errors. I could write a book with all of the English alphabet therein (ABCs) and obviously, that is a book "without error", but to suggest that's the same as a history book (where the possibility of error would increase dramatically) is misleading.

    The statement infers that had human beings written it, there would be many errors. In fact, that is nothing, but true, given that human beings would not know the content of the unseen world or other things mentioned in the Qur'an (like the corrections of Divine history). As such, there is no false conditional here.

    Now, you COULD argue that there are in fact "errors" or that people would have not know if there were given that they cannot have knowledge of the afterlife, but it would still not make the statement a matter of faulty logic.

    - Asadullah Ali

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alright, I take several issues with your analysis.

      1) Misunderstanding the 1st counter argument in "possible objections"
      2) Special-pleading
      3) Question-begging
      4) General epistemic problems

      1) Misunderstanding the 1st counter argument in "possible objections"

      Of course conditionals rely on the definitions used as well as any other statement it logically entails. I never stated otherwise and that is not the objection.

      If you followed the post, you will see I have represented the sentence in the Qur'an as (1) “~A --> E”. The possible objection is a Muslim saying that even though the Qur’an says (1) “~A --> E” , it actually means or it should be read as (2) “A --> ~E”. I am sure you realize that (1) and (2) are inverses of each other and not equivalent.

      My counter-argument, then, is saying that the statement, as it is found in the Qur'an is not in (2) but in (1) which I argue is a false conditional statement.

      2) Special-pleading

      I appreciate that the special-pleading you attempted was not the crux but more of a side-remark. Nevertheless, I though I’d comment. You started by saying “The Qur'an is not just any book” but then I could not find any justification in your comment as to why the Qur’an isn’t. Your attempted justification is that it speaks of “the unseen” (or as I call it, “the imaginary”) which is (by definition perhaps) unknown to human beings. I’d like to think you are not saying that a piece of writing which includes anything about “the imaginary” or “the unseen” or “the unknowable” somehow qualifies as a “special” book in any meaningful sense; especially not one special enough to be exempt from false conditionals.

      Regardless, since this wasn’t your main objection (unlike many other Muslims), I won’t say much more on it. But I do want to say that I will be (in part 2 to this post) arguing that the Qur’an is the kind of book where “the possibility of error” is minute and thus making it a very easy product for a human being to produce.

      Cont'd

      Delete
    2. 3) Question-begging

      I will give you some credit for thinking this up but unfortunately you have not thought it through. I had already thought of a similar objection myself and I had to wrestle with it for a bit before a friend of mine (that too a theist) pointed the problem. Let me briefly discuss the objection I raised before moving on to yours.

      The objection that I thought of was as follows; 1) If the Qur'an does not contain errors (~E), then every claim in the Qur’an is true. 2) If every claim in the Qur’an is true, then its claim to be from Allah is true (A). 3) Therefore, if the Qur’an does not contain errors, then it is from Allah (~E --> A).

      (~E --> A) is logically equivalent to the conditional in sura 4:82. Given that it is a valid argument and the premises seem correct, I was uneasy with the conclusion as I felt like there was something wrong with this objection. Then my friend pointed out that the argument was merely begging the question.

      The argument can be summed up as saying “If the Qur’an’s claim to be from Allah is true, the Qur'an is from Allah”. Yet this antecedent is hidden among phrases like, “if every claim in the Qur'an is true” or “if the Qur’an does not contain any errors”. Similarly, you are also using the phrase “human beings written [a book mentioning the “unseen”]...” to cover up your circularity.

      Your argument is as follows; 1) If Humans produce a book mentioning what is “unknowable” to them, then humans will produce errors in the book. 2) The Qur’an mentions the “unseen”. 3) The “unseen” is unknowable to humans. 4) If humans had produced the Qur’an (mentioning the “unseen”), then humans will produce errors in the Qur’an.

      After stating that the Qur’an talks about the “unseen”, the next step you took was to define the “unseen” as something that only Allah can talk about accurately. This entails that humans cannot accurately talk about that which only Allah can talk about accurately. To say that humans cannot accurately talk about the “unseen” is the equivalent of saying humans will produce errors when talking about the “unseen”.

      Thus what you mean when you say, “had human beings written it, there would be many errors” is effectively the following; “If humans talk about that which only Allah can accurately talk about, then humans cannot accurately talk about that which only Allah can accurately talk about.”

      I really hope I don’t have to make this any hairier for you to see the circle in your argument.

      Cont'd

      Delete
    3. 4) General epistemic problems

      On another note, one could disagree with your premise 1. For example, assume that the answer to how the Universe began is “unknowable” to humans. However, many humans have produced books discussing possible answers to this question. Assume that one person got the right answer. Even though there may not be any way of empirically verifying it, in this scenario that person would have produced a book mentioning what is “unknowable” and yet without errors. Thus, your central premise can be called into question. I also think various other issues can be raised regarding the truth value of your premises; however I don’t think it is necessary given that it has been demonstrated that your argument is circular.
      Regarding your very last statement, I agree with you that whether there actually are errors in the Qur'an or not is not relevant to the truth value of the conditional in 4:82. However, you might want to reconsider the next part of your statement.

      Let me remind you what you said yourself, “[Conditionals] do in fact rely on what the conditions entail and the definitions being used.

      As such you might want to consider what kind of definitions you are using to avoid the problem that has been raised here. The verse states that if the Qur'an had not been from allah, then one would “find” many errors in it. Right before the verse, the Qur'an laments that people are not “pondering” over it?

      One can see the clear inference in that normal people are asked to “ponder” and “find” errors in the text. Now ask yourself how sensible it is to then define the “errors” as the kind of claims that are “unfalsifiable” or “unknowable” or “indistinguishable from imaginary”.

      It is even more nonsensical given that the so called “unseen” (i.e. Allah, angels, genies etc) formed a part also of the Pagan or Christian beliefs and they themselves may not find it erroneous.

      If you are able to question your hidden assumptions and think of the verse sensibly in terms of “verifiable” errors, then ask yourself if you really think the following statement is accurate in any way;

      “If a book has no (verifiable) errors, then the book is from God”

      Overall, I am sorry to say that I am a bit disappointed with your response. Your basic response was that ‘the Qur'an was asking people to find errors that are “un-findable”. However, I am glad you raised this objection. I had wanted to write the similar counter-point up when I thought about it a few months ago but never got around it. This may help putting it up sooner.

      End.

      Delete
    4. Captain,

      That's quite a bit of writing.

      What I think you aren't understanding is the actual objection you've made and then you veer off into things being "special pleading" and "question begging".

      Once again, for a false conditional to be as such, definitions and conditions must warrant it as false. The problem is purely logical and has nothing to do with whether or not the Qur'an ACTUALLY is this or that. The definition of the Qur'an INCLUDES information about the unseen etc. If you are not willing to include this in the conditional, then naturally it comes out as wrong to you. I don't have to PROVE that the Qur'an is or isn't this or that because its not necessary to refute the argument -- as I stated before -- given that this issue is purely regarding logic and not the soundness of the premises/conclusions themselves.

      If you want to argue about this being a "false conditional" then please understand that the truth value of the definitions/conditions does not somehow render your objection as a valid one. That's not what the accusation of a "false conditional" is supposed to do. Its precisely a problem when the conditions, based on the objects (as defined) being compared, doesn't match up.

      In this case, everything is fine and regardless of its ordering it still states the same thing.

      End.

      Delete
    5. Dawahfilms,

      I apologize for the length of the comment. I personally prefer to be complete with my responses and not gloss over or generalize for I consider them to unproductive for any sincere discussion. As evidence is your comment where you do not address what I have stated, but repeat yourself. I consider such approaches unproductive and unfortunately this discussion seems to headed that way from your end.

      It would be nice if you could elaborate on what I have not understood regarding the "actual objection" I have made.

      As already noted, the "special-pleading" section is only a comment on what I considered to be your side remark and was left there. However, the "question-begging" directly addresses your main objection. That really was central point I wanted to hit home and it is unfortunate you decided to gloss over it.

      Formally, a conditional statement is only false when the antecedent is true and yet it is possible that the consequent remains false (Look it up in any introductory book on Logic). I disagree that the argument is "purely logical" and certainly has real implications for the Qur'an.

      I have not excluded the "unseen" as a part of the definition of the Qur'an and it this definition is consistent with all the points raised in all the sections.

      In point 4), I discuss the implications of what you say and how it renders the verse nonsensical. This only happens towards the end; I have addressed your actual object head-on in the previous points and it is unfortunate you could only misrepresent what I have stated.

      Anyways, I see nothing new in your comment; your objection has been addressed in the previous comment and I await a fair response.

      End

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Captain,

    Looking through introductory logic, its noted that for something to be a "false" conditional -- per even your own definition -- "if it is possible for the antecedent to be true and the consequent still false."

    (~A => C)

    No where does it state that the antecedent must be PROVEN true. The logical construction here is working with the definitional content of the things by which the conditions are based. Your accusation of "question begging" is irrelevant to what makes conditionals valid or not. If you wish to argue about whether the Qur'an is from God or not, then so be it, but to claim its not on the basis that "books can be without error if they are written by man" without taking into account what type of books we're talking about here (not just any books), and then claiming it therefore to be a "false conditional"...is a misuse of logic.

    Even you go on to say:
    "Formally, a conditional statement is only false when the antecedent is true and yet it is possible that the consequent remains false"

    When the antecedent is "true"? That contradicts the definition in your blog post where it says "if it is possible for the antecedent to be true..." You are taking the word "true" here too literally in your second statement. So in actuality it's you who is begging the question while not understanding how logic works. Logic is merely a framework -- in cases where conditionals are involved -- it doesn't determine the truth value of the things themselves being represented symbolically.

    I could say "Had the milk been from other than a pink unicorn, it would have had many germs in it". This is a totally fantasy conditional here. However, you are asserting, outright, that because there are is no milk from pink unicorns that therefore its a "false conditional". That's basically what you're arguing, which is completely wrong because the reality of milk from pink unicorns isn't what determines the nature of the conditional (logically speaking). What determines whether the conditional is false is precisely what the definition you listed prior entails:

    "A conditional statement is false if it is possible for the antecedent to be true and the consequent still false."

    In other words, the antecedent and the consequent are taken AS GIVEN, else its pointless to put them in the formula to begin with. So once again, in fact, it is YOU who is question begging and then projecting that misuse of logic on to your detractors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will give it one more try for I have a feeling you are failing to understand what I am stating on purpose.

      Let me begin with your (not-so accurate) analogy. Thank you for using it as it most clearly demonstrates you have not understood my argument. "Had the milk been from other than a pink unicorn, it would have had many germs in it" This is the same as saying, "If there are no germs in the milk, the milk is from a pink unicorn."

      What I am NOT arguing : That this conditional would be false because "there is no milk from pink unicorn".

      What I am arguing : That because non-pinkunicorn milk can exist without germs, it demonstrates that any milk having no germs in it does not necessitate that it came from a pink-unicorn i.e. since it is possible for 'milk without germs' to come from non-pinkunicorns, it is false that 'milk without germs' can only come from pinkunicorns.

      (DISCLAIMER: I am not actually saying there are no germs in milk).

      This is as simple as it gets. Let me bring this back to the verse. I am making a pedantic modification to how I represented the conditional in the post just so that it further demonstrates how your objection does not work and it perfectly does away with such circular objection.

      Sura 4:82 - If the Quran is not from Allah, then people can find errors in it.
      OR
      Sura 4:82 - If people cannot find errors in the Qur'an, then the Quran is from Allah.

      (The Qur'an specifically used the word find ( لَوَجَدُوا) in it. This does away with all such circular responses)

      What I am NOT arguing: That this conditional would be false because "there is no book(s) from Allah". With your analogy, you make it clear that this is what you think I am arguing and thus demonstrating you don’t know or have deliberately misrepresented my argument.

      What I am arguing: That because non-divine books can exist without errors, it demonstrates that any book having no errors in it does not necessitate that it came from Allah i.e. since it is possible for 'book without errors' to come from "other than Allah", it is false that 'book without errors' can only come from Allah.

      I have NOT said that "the antecedent must be PROVEN true". I am NOT arguing for the truth values of the antecedent or the consequent. I am in fact, arguing that the relationship between them is not accurate; which is exactly what one looks for in conditional statements.

      The question-begging is practically the only point that is relevant to your objection now as everything else you have tried to say about my argument are blind misrepresentations (as clearly demonstrated in your analogy above).

      I am taking the antecedent and consequent AS GIVEN (more so than you now).

      Now I would have liked to ask where I have begged the question or where I have misused the logic but at this point it seems clear that you are projecting; so much so that you are projecting the fact that you are projecting on to me.

      Third time around, you have failed to understand what I am saying (your analogy demonstrated that beautifully). Third time around, you have failed to address my response to your objection. Third time around, you keep misrepresenting what I am saying and then argue against the misrepresentation leaving me with job of correcting you at every turn rather than having a meaningful discussion..

      If this is what is going to continue, I really don’t think there is any point in discussing with someone who is incapable of proper analysis or getting to the point.

      Delete
  13. Captain,

    Sorry for the late response, but I was contemplating whether I should continue arguing against your constant moving of the goal-post. No offense, but it appears that way to me.

    Let's take your recent objection of "what you're really arguing" and just move from there. I will simply admit to having misunderstood you for the sake of moving this discussion along.

    You state:
    " What I am arguing: That because non-divine books can exist without errors, it demonstrates that any book having no errors in it does not necessitate that it came from Allah i.e. since it is possible for 'book without errors' to come from "other than Allah", it is false that 'book without errors' can only come from Allah."

    And that's precisely what I was arguing against to begin with because the "it" being spoken about here isn't a "non-divine book" by definition. The "it" specifically mentioned in this ayah refers to the Qur'an. Had the Qur'an -- a divine book -- had errors in it, then it would not be from Allah (and therefore not divine). Claiming that the conditional also refers to non-divine books is the mistake on your part. I pointed this out in my very first response, to which you then responded to me by suggesting I was "question begging" etc. Your objection can only work if the conditional includes books of a non-divine nature. Since the conditional does not, your objection doesn't work either. Really, Im not arguing here to be difficult. Its that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now, if you wish to claim that Im "begging the question" in reference to the Qur'an being "divine", because a man could have written the Qur'an without any errors, then I think you're biting off more than you can chew.

    The Qur'an tells us things outside of the knowledge of men (afterlife etc.), so if you can tell me how this is a false conditional by virtue of a supposed fact that men can know so much about many of the things spoken about in the Qur'an, then please, be my guest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me reply to both of your posts here.

      You must have a very liberal definition of what constitutes as “moving the goalpost”. You sound much like the YT atheists who, for example, accuse the Kalam argument of “moving the goalpost” due to the phrase “begins to exist”.

      In this particular case, I am modifying the conditional for 1) reflecting the verse more accurately & 2) doing away with pointless objections. Such modifications happen all the time in argumentation as it is used to strengthen the argument. This move is hardly worthy of such an accusation.

      Sorry but for whatever sake it is, the fact that you described my argument ( “A book w/o errors does not entail divinity”) with the analogy “there is no milk from pink unicorn” explains beyond any reasonable doubt that you haven’t understood what I am arguing. More importantly, your latest post demonstrates you have not understood the verse either.

      This is simple enough now. Here are your 2 mistakes;

      1) You state “Had the Qur'an -- a divine book -- had errors in it, then it would not be from Allah”.

      Yet as already pointed, this is not what the verse is saying. What you think the verse says is the inverse of the what the verse actually says.

      What you think the verse says: If the Qur'an had errors, then it is not from Allah. (E-->~A)
      What the verse actually says: If the Qur’an had no (findable) errors, then it is from Allah. (~E-->A).

      I would have expected you to have the necessary background in formal logic to not make such elementary mistakes; but if you are unable to understand why they are not logically equivalent statements, then let me know and I will elaborate.

      Moreover, this was addressed in objection 1. I wonder how long we will continue in circles

      2) You state “Your objection can only work if the conditional includes books of a non-divine nature.”.

      This is not at all the case and you are repeating the same mistake as LQA above. In fact, the authorship of the book is irrelevant to my argument. The Qur'an could be authored by Allah or Zues or an alien or a camel and it will not change the fact that 4:82 is a false conditional.

      Neither is it the case that my objection will “only work” with the inclusion of “non-divine” books. The mentioning of the man-made books in the post has only been to establish the rule for the general case (which will include books by humans, gods, aliens and whatever else you fancy) from which any specific individual case would follow. My objection does not need the verse to be talking about anything other than the Qur’an.

      Given your misunderstandings Ali, it makes sense why you were unable to see the circularity in your objection. Hopefully, it makes sense now. I completely agree that it is not at all difficult. You just need to think it through.

      Now if you want to take on the job of explaining how one not finding errors in the Qur’an necessarily entails that the Qur’an is from Allah; be my guest. That is how one would actually bite more than one can chew.

      Delete
  15. Thanks captain disguise this ayah 4:82 gave a slap for my thoughts and I ended up believing that certainly Allah is the creator in other words I understood the ayah is saying to us bring a book which will guide the human better than this because no man of other religion can show light to Islam in any terms I'm saying this because I realized this. All set of solutions givenin Qur'an for problems in our life is just awesome, realizing this I read this ayah then I cannot say anything except to submit to the words

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you rephrase your objection more formally please? I fail to see anything objective in your emotional appeal.

      Delete
  16. Captain, couple of problems I am seeing your logic. First and foremost you assume that men are perfect and not prone to errors just like Allah. Therefore the text they may be able to create are error free just like Allah. That particular verse 4:82 emphasises that since Allah is flawless, his words and his book is flawless too. Since he is perfect, his book is perfect too. Humans may write a book and may or may not make a mistake, depending on what they write about. Can you name one greatest scientist in the world who published his works without going through the trials and errors in his thesis and discovery? Yet that condition of trial and error is not applicable to Quran. Secondly, human knowledge is limited and based on empirical evidence, divine knowledge of Allah is beyond the unseen. Human knowledge is acquired and based on observations, knowledge of Allah is eternal and absolute. My 10 year old daughter can write a comic book and make it an error free in concept and ideas from a worldly perspective using her Microsoft Word with the spell and grammar checker. But can she write or can anybody write a complex set of rule of divine guidance that will be applicable for entire humanity till the day of judgement? Also, can you please provide me the name of one religious book other than Quran that claims to be from God and challenges people to find discrepencies in it? Juxtapose Quran with any other so called man made set of guidance in the same context as of Quran and than we can have a discussion, whether man can create a flawless book or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment, however I have to correct a point;

      1) I have not assumed men are perfect and not prone to errors.

      Secondly, I see two main arguments in your comment;

      1) You are repeating the same objection I discuss under "possible objections"; the one titled, "The verse actually means "Since Qur'an is from Allah, no errors will be found in the Quran".

      I don't think I need to address that point further.

      2) Your second argument is merely that Qur'an is the kind of book that a human could not easily produce without making errors; and you use the comparison of a science text as opposed to your 10 year old's comic book.

      Such an argument is both special pleading and is based on a false analogy. The Qur'an is a book that scriptural in nature; it does not go into detail about any empirical or historical phenomenon like a science or history text would. So the comparison is not accurate.

      To be more accurate, your Qur'an is a lot closer to your 10 year old daughter's comic. The content of the Qur'an mostly varies from saying "worship Allah", "Muslims are the best" "non-muslims are the worst", "hell" "heaven", "genies", and then a few brief accounts of stories from the bible. Thus, the Qur'an should rank easily among such books that a human can easily produce without errors (please do note that I am not saying Qur'an does not have errors).

      I will be writing up the "Special Pleading" objection soon as it seems it is the only idea they are able to hide behind.

      Delete
  17. the problem is here that the Quran is a speech that came in the form of lines and snipets over the course of 23 years, the lines had to do with certain circumstances mainly, and were revealed when needed by an illiterate man who as you contend i assume, is entirely out for personal gain of some sort. if a person such as this, was to make a book like this, following what is established as to how it was revealed, it would be necessarily full of self serving junk, and tons of contradictions. it would not piece together as such as it is at the end, and it would be quite evident it was created by man to serve whatever desires or motivations he had. the fact you have to pick through it to find an example such as this is evidence in itself of that fact that it is not like anything such a man could make. if it was made by man there would be plenty of problems arising simply from how long it took to put together , the situations they were in and how it would have to jump all over to cover his ass, and the fact he is illiterate in the first place. need i mention when this was revealed the ppl who heard it thought he was a sorcerer or bewitched?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comment even though it is riddled with enough contentions that I would have to write entire blogposts to dismantle it.

      But for the sake of brevity, I am going to ignore much of your presumptions (both on your part and those you projected on to me) and simply focus on your contention that is relevant to the topic of the blogpost.

      Your contention, as far as I can gather, is;

      1) Muhammad did not act for personal gains.
      2) Quran is not a book authored by someone acting for personal gains.
      Therefore, the Quran is not by Muhammad but Allah (thus sura 4:82 is correct by default).

      I am not even going to comment on the fact that being a political leader with a huge cultish following that will do anything on your order is as good as a personal gain as it can get. Neither will I comment about the many self-serving verses in the Qur'an (such as 33:36-37,50).

      Instead let me, for the sake of the argument, assume with you that 1) Muhammad was wholly-sincere in all his actions and 2) Qur'an does not have any self-serving purpose.

      This does not entail that the false-conditional in sura 4:82 is not erroneous. In fact, your contention is wholly irrelevant and this is merely a red-herring. Thus you contention is not a logically valid argument.

      Now given your comment was not well put out, I may have misunderstood what you are saying here. So please feel free to articulate your contention more coherently.

      Delete
  18. hahaha, what a description! if the quran contains stories from bible, where does the bible fallacies go, that earth is standing in pillars?
    quran makes scientific statements and those are rejected because, skeptics believe the are by chance, what they tend to forget is that this book doesn't make statements which were also common beliefs but were completely illogical if considered in this era. so to you Muhammad PBUH spent his life with telescopes to see how the universe began, microscopes to see how embryo forms, rapid aeroplanes to take him to notice clouds and rivers, and selected the all accurate things to put up in this book, for a reason not identifiable.he was able to isolate the sexual organs from the bee and after confirming that it is female, put them up in his book LOL. and then after doing so and so, claim that yeah come on, find an inconsistency,
    yet, skeptics would say he was a schizophrenic, LOL, whattay challenge Quran is to you guys, carry on the hardwork :) i am sure a normal human being wouldn't get what is he even saying about the ayat LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the heck are you going on about? Everything you said is irrelevant to the post here. Regardless

      "hahaha, .... standing in pillars?"

      I have no clue what you are saying here. Please rephrase what you are trying to claim.

      "quran makes scientific ... find an inconsistency,"

      This is a huge strawman. Skeptics like claim that the dawahgandists arguments about scientific miracles commit the fallacy of equivocation or the fallacy of undistributed middle or are just based plainly on historical errors.

      Besides, only naive and gullible Muslims use such claims. More disciplined Islamic scholars reject such silly claims - See http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/2013/01/muslims-against-science-in-quran-claims.html

      "yet, skeptics would say he was a schizophrenic, LOL,"

      That is one possibility inferred from the accounts of other schizophrenics

      "whattay challenge Quran is to you guys"

      The quran is hardly a challenge to us. It reads exactly like the book of an unenlightened person with no deep philosophical insights.

      If anything the real challenge is to get through to the extremely gullible Muslims.

      "carry on the hardwork :)"

      Again, isn't much of a hardwork. (Perhaps it looks that way to you due to your own insecurities and naivety)

      "i am sure a normal human being wouldn't get what is he even saying about the ayat LOL"

      I am only normal human being after all. So if you super-humanness would like to elaborate on the given verse, please feel free to do so

      Delete
  19. I don't get it. The ayah is asking them to contemplate about a type i.e. The Quran and then it constructs the argument

    Had this book (the Quran) been from other than Allah then you would have found many discrepancies.

    It does not follow from that, that the argument is implying

    The Quran is free from error

    therefore it is from Allah.

    This would imply that the conditional is necessary and sufficent. We do not need this to be the case for the conditional to valid

    Let me give an analogy.

    Someone places a manniquin under water in a swimming pool(a very life like one at that). People start entering the pool and they see him recording the time this manniquin is spending underwater. He is shouting out 45 minute and 3 seconds it is a world record.

    Rubbish, someone cries out. It is a manniquin! Had it not been a human manniquin he or she would need to breath

    Right? In other words this conditional is implying had it been a human it would need to breath.

    Does this imply that the person is saying thst only humans breath? No it is implying that in order to be human you have to breath

    Similarly let us look at the argument from the Quran

    Had it been from other than Allah they would have found many errors.

    In other words, anything with an error in it is not from Allah.

    The is last point does not imply that only Allah produces documents without errors.

    Bad logic on your part.

    All humans breathe

    This cat breathes

    Therefore the cat is human

    All divine books are free from error

    This simple maths book is free from error

    Therefore this maths book is divine.

    This argument would only work if the predicate is necessary and sufficent






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said, "Had this book (the Quran) been from other than Allah then you would have found many discrepancies. It does not follow from that, that the argument is implying The Quran is free from error therefore it is from Allah."

      Actually it very much does necessitate that. As explained in the post, it is the contrapositive statement of the sura 4:82.

      Sura 4:82 is saying, "If quran is not from Allah, then you will find many errors in the Quran".
      The contrapositive of this statement is "If you don't find many errors in the Quran, then the quran is from allah".

      The two statements are logically equivalent.

      As for the rest of your post, I must admit I don't entirely follow the way you have used the terminologies of formal logic so please rephrase if you can.

      But as for your analogy, it does not apply to the argument above and I can only conclude that you have neither understood the verse nor the argument presented.

      In your analogy you make the following statement (rephrased); "If it was not a “human mannequin”, it would need to breathe".

      This has no comparison to the conditional statement in sura 4:82 (if you think otherwise, please elaborate).

      Secondly, I must point out a few errors in your logic regarding your analogy.

      You state the following regarding your analog statement, “Does this imply that the person is saying thst only humans breath? No it is implying that in order to be human you have to breath”

      Of course, it does not imply that only humans breathe because the statement does not even mention humans (as it only mentions a human mannequin). Likewise, your statement (by itself) also does not imply “that in order to be human you have to breathe”. There is nothing in the statement that even attempts to define or characterize what it is to be “human”

      You are taking such statements from your a posteriori knowledge rather than logically entailing it from the analog statement.

      Ironically; your analog statement is also a false conditional statement because “not human mannequin” will also include other lifeless things that don’t need to breathe. I really suggest you think this through once again.

      Regardless, the analogy does not apply to the verse under discussion.

      So when you say that the verse is actually implying, “anything with an error in it is not from Allah.” you’ve got it wrong since the verse actually implies its inverse statement, (as explained above) that “anything without an error is from Allah”.

      This, as I argue in the post, is a false statement.

      Delete
  20. Sura 4:82 is saying, "If quran is not from Allah, then you will find many errors in the Quran".
    The contrapositive of this statement is "If you don't find many errors in the Quran, then the quran is from allah".

    I think you have misunderstood the analogy I gave but I will try to explain it more simply by clarifying this point here. The analogy might have been a bit confusing anyway.

    I am paraphrasing from the ayah

    Do you not ponder, had not the Quran been from Allah there would be many errors.

    The inverse of this statement is If the Quran is from Allah there would not be many errors

    That latter statement is an obvious "platitude" of sorts. If I do claim to have divine revelation then I would expect not to have many errors in my revelation.

    That is an obvious necessary condition but not a necessary and sufficient condition

    The contra positive would be There would not be many errors if the Quran had been from Allah

    Now nowhere do I have this implication

    If what I say is free from error therefore it must be from Allah.













    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are wrong about a few technical details of formal logic. SO let me explain in detail;

      Suppose you have a conditional statement: If P then Q (a)
      The contraposition of this statement: If NOT Q then NOT P (b)

      (a) and (b) are logically equivalent. For example, think of the statement "If John is a human, John is a mammal" (a) and "If John is NOT a mammal, then John is NOT a human" (b).

      On the other hand, the inverse statement of (a) is : If NOT P, then NOT Q (c)

      (a) and (c) are NOT logically equivalent. For example, while it is true that "If John is a human, then John is a mammal" (a); it is NOT true that "If John is NOT a human, then John is not a mammal" (c) as John could be a cat or dolphin or some other mammal.

      Rethink what you are saying by understanding these technical definitions because you are visibly & blatantly wrong in your conclusion (why do you think the Muslims above I argued did not dispute my logic but instead resorted to "special pleading").

      Let me break this down for you; please answer these 5 questions and then we will take it from there;

      1) Do you accept the verse is making the following conditional; "If the Quran is NOT from Allah, then one will find many errors in the Quran" (a) ?

      2) Do you accept that the contrapositive of (a) is "If one does NOT find many errors in the Quran, then Quran is from Allah" (b) ?

      3) Do you accept that (a) and (b) are logically equivalent? If NO, then why

      4) Do you accept the inverse of (a) is "If Quran is from Allah, then one does NOT find many errors in the Quran" (c) ?

      5) Do you accept (a) and (c) are NOT logically equivalent? If NO, then why

      Delete
    2. Also to point out, you are wrong when you say "The contra positive would be There would not be many errors if the Quran had been from Allah"

      You have confused logical syntax here. If P then Q can alternatively be written as Q if P

      The two aren't contrapostives of each other BUT they are the exact same sentence written differently in English.

      For example, the sentence "IF John is human then John is a mammal" is the exact same sentence as "John is a mammal IF John is a human". They aren't contrapositives

      So what you should have had is the following; "If there are not many errors in the Quran, then the Quran is from Allah"

      This, it seems, even you understand is a false statement.

      P.S. Can I suggest you read through this book. It is an introductory textbook on formal logic made available for free by its author. http://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/text.htm

      Delete
  21. Before I reply further may I ask why the atomic statement many errors in the Quran becomes errors in the Quran. Why is the latter the atomic statement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't understand your question. By all means, put the word "many" into the statement. It wouldn't make a difference.

      Could you please answer the 5 questions above.

      P.S. The "many errors" has a discussion on its own apart from this argument. For example, does the verse imply, that Allah could make 1 or 2 errors or as long as it is not "many"? But we will forget that for now. Please answer the 5 questions

      Delete
  22. MUSLIMS PLEASE!

    All this quibbling over the what the 'logic' of Sura 4:82 implies or does not imply is irrelevant.

    That fact is (as mentioned in Captain's original article) a book from God that PROVES the Quran wrong HAS already been revealed and published online here:

    http://infaliblebookfromgod.blogspot.co.uk/

    Now if you think this book is not from God, then find me a single error in it.

    For a surety, you cannot!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well that was the point and that is why I am asking about how he derives atomic sentences. I am claiming that the logic is wrong and I am claiming the question is deflated. I am also claiming this with this counter positive reconstruction

    If there are no errors in the Quran then the Quran is from Allah.

    Let me help you guys out with another analogy as well for an alternative view (there could be more than one way to look at this)

    Had it not been for God you would have not passed your exams

    Does that really imply that if anyone passes his exams it would have been from God ?

    Would it not be more reasonable to assume that in this particular circumstance God intervened ?

    That is not, and I repeat not a case of of special pleading

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are going around in circles while consistently misunderstanding simple logical definitions.

      Just so that I can demonstrate what you are missing, I am asking again, could you please answer these 5 questions.

      "1) Do you accept the verse is making the following conditional; "If the Quran is NOT from Allah, then one will find many errors in the Quran" (a) ?

      2) Do you accept that the contrapositive of (a) is "If one does NOT find many errors in the Quran, then Quran is from Allah" (b) ?

      3) Do you accept that (a) and (b) are logically equivalent? If NO, then why

      4) Do you accept the inverse of (a) is "If Quran is from Allah, then one does NOT find many errors in the Quran" (c) ?

      5) Do you accept (a) and (c) are NOT logically equivalent? If NO, then why"

      Delete
  24. Sorry, wrote the sentence too quickly. Had it not been for God, you would have failed your exams.

    Does it imply that if anyone passes his exams it would have been from God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am asking you again to answer the 5 questions posted above. This way, both of us can get to the root of the problem to where the difference actually exists.

      But since you insist, let me address your new analogy just for the sake of it

      You said "Had it not been for God, you would have failed your exams."

      This is proposing the following conditional relationship, "If it was NOT due to God, then you would NOT pass your exam"

      The contrapostive of the sentence is "If you would pass your exam, then It was due to God"

      So yes, it is imply that anyone who passes their exam is because of God.

      However, this is not analogous to sura 4:82 because this is an unfalsifiable claim. Anyone could simply claim that everyone passes their exam because of God and there wouldn't be anyway to disprove it.

      However, sura 4:82 provides an objectively falsfiable sentence, ""If the Quran is NOT from Allah, then one will find many errors in the Quran" "

      Delete
  25. I would like to see your understanding of quantifiers in logic before we proceed. That is why I asked the initial question. You will also the see the reasoning later on. Secondly the questioning you provide is a red herring of sort. Nobody disputes the basic laws of logic around conditionals. What I ,and other Muslims, are saying is that you are misconstructing the conclusions. We have a specific conditional about the Quran and you generalise it and I think you fail to understand the term "special pleading". In fact, I would be more than happy to construct the logical formalities at a later point. Don't you worry about that! In the end, it will be shown we have no false conditional.

    Furthermore, let me help you with my example. I do not think you understood my point. In the example above

    "Had it not been for God, you would have failed your exams."

    We have a statement from someone that has access to, let us say, knowledge of all possible worlds. In this particular statement it would not be generalised to anyone. It would not therefore follow that anyone who does pass his exam has had divine intervention. If constructed as a particular, that individual person had divine intervention (as claimed by the "prophet") but it would not be apply to anyone. Understand ? Interestingly, it would not be a proof on its own, if you only take the word of the Prophet for it (and that would be it) but it would not be logically false. Get it? You may require extra proof but that statement on its own would be a necessary "condition" of sorts. After all, you would have to claim access to divine knowledge for the procedure to start.

    Anyway alot more to talk about. Please be patient as I construct the proper logical format. Anyway to upload pdf files?





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said "We have a specific conditional about the Quran and you generalise it and I think you fail to understand the term "special pleading"

      So that is your objection (pretty much the same as everybody else). Alright then, this is much simpler but you will have to elaborate on how I have failed to understand what special pleading is. Nevertheless, What you are objecting to is that I have generalized the relationship in the verse while it is specifically referring to the Quran.

      But what you should understand is that the relationship in the Qur'an can only be true BY VIRTUE of the truth of some universal statement.

      For example, consider the statement, "If John is a human, then John is a mammal".

      This is a true statement. but WHY is it a true statement?; It is true by VIRTUE of the truth of the universal statement "All humans are mammals".

      On the other hand, the statement "If John is a human, then John is bald" is false because the corresponding universal statement "All humans are bald" is a false statement (since there are humans who are not bald).

      Likewise for the conditional relationship in the Qur'an, "If one does not find many errors in the Quran, then the Qur'an is from Allah".

      For this statement to be true, it has be true by virtue of the following universal relationship; "If one does not find many errors in a work, then that work is from Allah". This I have argued is a false statement.

      The only thing left for you to do is somehow qualify what kind of work is referred to here but it better relevant or it will merely amount to special pleading.

      I still don't follow your explanation for your new analogy and more importantly don't see how you think it is analogous to sura 4:82.

      Leaving analogies aside, your second objection seems to be "you would have to claim access to divine knowledge for the procedure to start."

      I disagree with this criterion of yours (if I understood it correctly but I may have not) and I would even say it is hypocritical of you to even assert such a copout.

      Consider this, you believe it to be true that the sun will rise tomorrow, NOT because you have foreknowledge of your future or all possible worlds and what not BUT you believe it due to the inductive strength of the sun rising tomorrow.

      No one accepts that one needs to have omniscience to claim any kind of knowledge and if you are going to assert such a criterioun, it would merely by self-defeating as you yourself do not have omniscience to assert the knowledge of such a criterion.

      Moreover, if such a criterion were accepted, then anyone could claim anything and people would not be able to say whether it is true of false. I can claim that "If I count from 1 to 10, then I am a prophet of God". Such a statement (which you KNOW is false) could be argued by myself to be true using your epistemological criterion. In other words, if anyone including yourself took your criterion seriously, All Hell Breaks Loose. (i.e. if I understood you correctly)

      P.S. You can upload a PDF to scribd.com or if it is just for me, you can email me at "captaindisguise@gmail.com"

      P.P.S. I don't like leaving debates hanging but please understand time is valuable for everyone. While I enjoy these discussions, if it just goes on in circles with one side refusing to answer the directions question of the other, it gets a bit frustrating. So I'd still like it if you answered the 5 questions. They are only Yes/No questions so I don't even know so why you refuse to do so

      Delete
    2. Academic Assassin,

      Sorry to interrupt your dialogue with CaptainDisguise, but please can you address my point that no Muslim to-date has?

      As mentioned in Captain's original article, a book from God that PROVES the Quran wrong has already been revealed and published online here a year ago:

      http://infaliblebookfromgod.blogspot.co.uk/

      Now if you think this book- that claims to be from God- is actually not from God, then please find me a single error in it.

      Thank you

      Delete
  26. Can I also request that those who are replying to comments, use the "reply" button rather than publishing it as a new comment. That would make it easy for the readers to continue along

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that is the point! You may claim it is in light of a universal statement but logically we have no reason. We are talking about the structure only.

      Let me get back to my previous analogy! Please spare the accusations of hypocrisy, without a logic construct. Thank you. There is nothing structurally wrong in this "Prophet" specifically (understand?) claiming that this person would not have passed his exam had it not been for Allah. He is a Prophet and that is the type of claim he makes. In fact, I can think of a very large number of similar claims. Secondly it is specific because it is a knowledge of "possible worlds" (not in the David Lewis sense obviously). Finally the structure of the sentence does not imply a universal criteria. It maybe "question begging"(is it?) but it is not a false conditional! So this where the analogy applies. The structure of the he Quranic sentence is specific. The onus is on you to provide proof that the Quran intends a universal criteria. Sorry you logic is false. More interestingly, if we follow through the claim for the Quran, the claim of a lack of errors implies that all it's claims and conditions in the Quran are error free as well. Understand ? No the argument is not "question begging" or "circular".

      and for the second time, I have no problem with counterpositives(I am going with your construction) I don't think anyone does.

      Now for the second time on my part, as my time is certainly precious as well, answer the following questions

      1- How do you classify quantifiers in logic in logic?

      2- What type of logical system do you prefer ?

      3- Would you be kind enough to define "special pleading", "question begging" and "circular" in a formal sense thank you!

      Delete
    2. Sorry, a question or two are being asked for the first time. And Thinker1 why should I answer your proposal when I am even debating the proposal itself ?

      Delete
    3. You said, “You may claim it is in light of a universal statement but logically we have no reason .... the structure of the sentence does not imply a universal criteria. ... The onus is on you to provide proof that the Quran intends a universal criteria.”

      Sorry to say but it seems like you are utterly confused. It seems to me you are under the impression that I am claiming that the specific statement in the Qur’an “structurally” (as you put it) entails or implies the universal statement.

      OF COURSE, NOT nor have I said anything of that sort. I am not deriving/entailing the universal statement from the verse in question. You are looking at this backwards. The universal statement exists independent of the verse, and I am analyzing the universal in order to determine the truth value of the specific.

      Hopefully you will understand through this example, when I make a statement such as, “If John is a human, then John is a mammal” (1); this statement does not “structurally” (as you put it) state or entail the universal statement, “All humans are mammals” (2).

      (2) was not derived or “generalized” (in the sense you think) from (1). Maybe the way I explained it gave that sense to you but then again I have never seen or known anyone get confused about this.

      The universal statement is simply called upon from our a priori or a posteriori knowledge independent of what ever specific instance one is dealing with.

      So for instance, if I say the specific statement, “If John is a human, then John is a Reptile”; of course, it can be said that I am not “structurally” saying or entailing the universal statement “All humans are reptiles”.

      However, in order to establish the truth value of the specific statement we analyze the truth value of the universal statement. If it is true that “All humans are reptiles” then it would also be true that “John is a reptile”. However, we know that it is FALSE that “all humans are reptiles”. Moreover, we can also analyze the universal statement, “All humans are not reptiles”; this we know is a true statement.

      Thus, we can conclude that the specific statement is false. The universal statements are not “structurally” entailed or implied or derived by the specific statement but they are independently analyzed in order to verify the truth value of the specific statement.

      So sure, you are right in your rather facile point that the universal statement is not directly expressed in the Qur’an. THAT WAS NOT THE POINT. The point is that for the specific conditional relationship in the Qur’an to be true, it is NECESSARY that the universal relationship is also true.

      I really hope, for your sake, that you understand this because I have never seen anyone make such confused mistakes on this topic. Also, for the third time, your analogy presents an unfalsifiable claim unlike the verse in Sura 4:82 and thus it is not an analogous discussion. So move on or find an accurate analogy; how about this one “If I run a mile, then my father is Superman”

      Delete
    4. Now, to your questions, this is the first time I am seeing/noticing them and I am answering them right away Even though you still refuse to answer my yes/no questions, let me not do the same and waste your time. So, to answer your questions,

      1. Assuming you are referring to Universal and Existential quantifiers, I don’t know what you mean by “classifying them”. Please elaborate

      2. No preference. I didn’t even know this was a matter of preference :). Newer Logical systems were developed because of the limitations of older ones. So as far as I am concerned, it is a case of the more you know the better you are since more complicated arguments need complex systems.

      I am very familiar with syllogistic, propositional & predicate logic and also have basic understanding of modal logic.

      3. The definitions you will find in this website are apt. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
      I would also add the info in this site for question begging vs. circular - http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/404-phil/Summer-99/Handouts/Philosophical/Circularity-and-Begging-the-Question.htm

      P.S. Now do you think you can return the courtesy and stop wasting my time and answer the simple Yes/No questions I asked (you can elaborate on them as you wish). Since you refused to answer all this long, I would also like to add a 6th question.

      6) Could you give me any example of a specific conditional statement that is false? What makes it false according to you? (This one I am just curious to see how consistent you are)

      Delete
    5. You said, “More interestingly, if we follow through the claim for the Quran, the claim of a lack of errors implies that all it's claims and conditions in the Quran are error free as well. Understand ? No the argument is not "question begging" or "circular".”

      I think this was addressed above in some comment!

      And no; Sorry this would make it circular to the core.

      If you put it all together, it would ultimately be making the statement “If Qur'an is from Allah, then Qur’an is from Allah” Well DUH!

      Now if that is how petty and meaningless the verse has to be turned into, it too can debunked by a bit more nitpicking on the verse.

      The Qur’nic statement specifically, mentions the term “wajaduu” which is the 3rd person perfect conjugation of “wajada” (meaning “to find”). So the verse is not making a closed self-referential circular sentence; but in fact it is making an open empirical remark about people from the outside finding (or not finding) errors in the Qur’an.

      After that nitpicking, it’d no longer possible to tweak a non-existent circular statement into the verse.

      P.S. Really? This is where we are now? You had to turn the verse into a meaningless circular statement in order to keep away from the problem of the actual verse. I suppose it is like the lesser of two evils to you...

      P.P.S Can I remind you to answer the six questions for 4th or 5th time? Please?

      Delete
    6. You should definitely, if you like, answer Thinker1's question; ironically it would probably do you a lot more good than this confused debate you are having with me.

      In case you didn't understand what he is proposing; According to Thinker1, a book (lets call it IBG) has been written, sorry, "revealed" to him by God.

      He is making the following statement to you, "If one cannot find any errors in IBG, then IBG is from God." . Do you believe this is a false conditional?

      Since you think the same statement is true regarding the Qur'an, do you also think it is true for IBG? Why ? Why not? How are you being consistent and not merely special pleading?

      Do engage w/ this, it will be fun

      Delete
    7. Destroyer,

      << Thinker1 why should I answer your proposal when I am even debating the proposal itself ? >>


      Allow me to rephrase.

      I have linked you to a book that claims to be from God, and has no errors in it.

      What makes the Quran's claim to divinity more valid and convincing than the claim of that book?

      It's a simple question, so I'm hoping for a straightforward answer.

      Delete
  27. Can I also request that those who are replying to comments, use the "reply" button (that too under the corresponding comment instead of any random one) rather than publishing it as a new comment. That would make it easy for the readers to continue along

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't really understand how you used your logic. You said that it is possible that the Quran is not from Allah and still contain no errors. How do you know this. What proof do you have? The Quran is not talking about any book, its talking about itself. That's like me saying that if this unique unicorn (lets call him klipklop) was not mine it would have black spots. I understand that this is equivalent to me saying klipklop has no black spots therefore it is mine. But then, you say that other animals don't have black spots, klipklop is an animal, therefore it is possible for klipklop to have no black spots, and still not be mine. How do you know that it is possible for my unique unicorn klipklop to have no black spots and still not be mine?That does not make sense to me. I'm not well-versed in formal logic, so I would please like an explanation if my analogy is wrong in any way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One does not need formal training in Logic to understand the argument because it is very intuitive. Formal logic just, especially some of the terms and definitions, makes the explanation a lot easier to do. In fact, more important than being versed in formal logic is one’s ability to think abstractly. Unfortunately there is very little emphasis on abstract thinking these days and more weight is given to memorization of facts and computational skills.

      I am going to modify (in fact completely change) your analogy to one that is more relevant and similar to the argument presented. (This comment section is full of people coming up with absurd analogies that aren’t similar or relevant to what I am saying).

      To begin with, try to understand what a “conditional statement” is. When one makes the claim, ”If P then Q”, what one is saying is that if P is true, then Q is necessarily true. It also follows from this statement that if Q is false, then P is necessarily false. This is what makes a “conditional statement” true.

      On the other hand, a “conditional statement” is false, if it is the case or if it is possible that P is true yet Q is false. Think about it, when one says “If P then Q”, one is saying that when P happens, Q also happens; but if it turns out that when P happens Q does not happen, the very causal relationship that has been proposed between P and Q is not true.

      An important point to remember is that when dealing with conditional statements, we are not asking whether P is true individually or Q is true individually. But RATHER, we are asking if the proposed causal relationship between P and Q is true or false

      To give you a simple example, let P = John is a father and Q = John is a male.

      Suppose I make the statement, “If John is a father, then John is a male.”

      It should be obvious, without any explanation, that the statement is true. But if I were to ask you why the statement is true, the answer is that ”all fathers are male”. Similarly, if I were to tell you that John is not a male , then you can also conclude that ”John is not a father” because there is “no fathers who are not males.”

      NOW suppose that I instead make a slightly different claim, “If John is a male, then John is a father.”.

      Now perhaps you know this person called John; you know he is a male, and you also know that he is a father. Does that make the statement “If John is a male, then John is a father.” true ? TO say it is true, what then are you saying? You would be saying, that just because John is a male, John is also necessarily a Father. In other words, you are implicitly making the claim that “All males are fathers.”

      But then I could turn to you and say, I am a male and I am not a father therefore it is not true that “All males are fathers” and therefore the statement “If John is a male, then John is a father” is FALSE

      So from this example, I hope you have an understanding about the truth value of conditional statements. I hope you understand why “If John is a father, then John is a male” is true while “If John is a male, then John is a father.” is false. Again, we were not examining whether John was indeed a male or John was indeed a father. But RATHER, we were examining the proposed causal relationship between being a man and being a father and vice versa.

      (1/2)

      Delete
    2. (2/2)

      Turning to the Qur’an then, I hope it is clear to you that the verse is making the conditional statement, “If one does not find any errors in the Qur’an, then the Qur’an is from God”

      Let P = “one does not find any errors in the Qur’an”, & Q = “Qur’an is from God”

      What I am arguing, simply put, is that the relationship constructed b/w P and Q is false. Just as in the previous example, “being male” does not necessarily entail “being a father”, similarly, “being error-free” or “having no findable errors” does not entail “being from God”.

      Let me explain with a more accurate analogy. Suppose, I come to you and say “If I run very fast, then my father is Superman”; how would you respond to such a claim? Would you accept it? If then I run very fast in front of you, would you then believe my father is superman?

      OR would you question my claim regarding the proposed relationship b/w “running fast” and “being the son of Superman”? You could then analyze my claim and see that for my statement to be true, it would have to be also true that “Anyone who runs fast is the son of Superman”. But then you realize you know or have seen or heard of plenty of people who are fast runners and are the children of human beings. Therefore, you realize that since the sons of human beings can be fast runners, it is NOT TRUE that merely me running fast means that I am the son of Superman.

      So having examined my claim, you could tell me my conditional statement is false and that just because I can run fast does not mean that my father is Superman.

      Now suppose, then I come to you and say “Wait, but the claim is only specific to me and nobody else in the world. If anybody else runs fast it does not mean they are the son of Superman, but if I run fast, then I am the son of Superman.”

      How would you respond to that? You could realize that the “specific claim” can only be true by virtue of the truth of some universal relationship. Since in your examination, it was realized that the universal statement is not true i.e. it was realized that all who are fast runners are not the sons of Superman; you can then conclude the specific relationship that I am claiming is also false.

      Besides, it seems pretty obnoxious, irrational and stupid to say that a relationship that is universally false is only true for me due to some arbitrary irrelevant reason or no reason at all. In fact this would be a textbook example of the special pleading fallacy.

      Anyways, I’ve written too much. And I possibly have missed a few points here and there. I am bit tired of explaining basic principles of logic to people over the last few days so forgive me.

      If you did not follow or agree with the above, please elaborate but before doing so please answer the following question;

      “What is your understanding of a “conditional statement? Could you give me any example of a conditional statement that is specific to a persona or a thin and is also FALSE? What makes it false according to you?”

      Thanks

      P.S. If you are interested in learning Formal logic, these are some good resources
      http://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/text.htm
      http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4B8A8476E860BB69

      Delete
  29. I think what you are missing is maybe the context of the statement. According to all logic, the Quran should have a ton of errors and contradictions if it was not from Allah. Let's say a crippled boy was healed and he ran fast. So the conditional statement would be If he had not been healed he would not be able to run fast, which is equivalent to saying if he runs fast then he is healed ( i hope Im right so far). I dont think this is the same as saying all those who run fast are healed, because that is not true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are 2 points I'd like to raise but can I please ask you AGAIN to answer the following question;

      "What is your understanding of a “conditional statement? Could you give me any example of a conditional statement that is specific to a person or a thing and is also FALSE? What makes it false according to you?”

      Now to your comment;

      1) You said, "Let's say a crippled boy was healed and he ran fast ... I dont think this is the same as saying all those who run fast are healed, because that is not true"

      First of all, this is not analogous to conditional in the verse but nonetheless.

      You are right that it does not mean all those who run fast are healed because you have already qualified your universe of the statement to be about cripples. So the corresponding universal to your conditional would be "All cripples who are able to run fast are healed". Of course, this universal would have to be true for your conditionals to be true.

      If I said, "If John is a father, then John is a male". The corresponding universal is "All fathers are male" and not anything. I can't generalize more and say things like "All humans are male" etc (that is what you did.)

      2) But more fascinating is your statement "According to all logic, the Quran should have a ton of errors and contradictions if it was not from Allah."

      First of all, I do believe there are many errors in the Qur'an so that is a discussion on its own but ignoring that WHY do you think the Qur'an should have "tons of errors and contradictions" if it was not from Allah.

      I am really intrigued that you think Qur'an not having errors is like a cripple running really fast (so then do you think Wilma Rudolph had the legs of God? :) )

      Please do elaborate on WHY you think Qur'an should have errors if it were by a human being?

      Because the way I think about, the Qur'an is a very small book, talking about mythical beings like Allah, angels, Jinns that are unfalsifiable. Then it talks about stories from the bible and other legends (like that of Alexander) that were around at the time. Then there are a lot of moral platitudes and commandments; the truth value of which are not universal and thus their proponents can simply claim they are right. Then there are a few teleological arguments (the kind of arguments that say "look at the camel therefore God").

      Why exactly should such a book have "tons of errors and contradiction"? If it were a rigorous book on science or mathematics or history one could then expect that there are a few or many errors here and there but the Qur'an is quite the opposite.

      In fact, even the very errors that I believe exists in the Qur'an could have been easily avoided if Muhammad had simply stuck pointing at stars and camels rather than talking about what mountains do are how reproduction works etc.

      So please elaborate on why you think the Qur'an should have "tons of errors and contradictions if it were not from Allah"; why couldn't a 7th century religious leader produce a book that have next to no falsifiable claims so that, by definitions, there are no findable errors in it?

      Also, please answer the Question I asked at the beginning.

      Delete
  30. The book claiming to be free from error, has to FIRST be claimed to be from God. Then you could say if it is free from dispute, it is from God.

    Is there any such book?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here you go --> http://infaliblebookfromgod.blogspot.com/

      But in seriousness, the argument is not about claiming to be free from error BUT claiming that "if Quran is free from error then it is from God" and that is a false conditional statement.

      Delete
  31. Your whole arguments are made on assumptions. Go ahead read Quran further and find other errors. Certainly you would and if you wouldn't, I am pretty sure you will make one by yourself.. Lets
    A=B & B=C so A=C this is what you are trying to say and finally you said A=apple, B=Ball &C=Cat
    So Apple=Cat. Is it make any sense here though it makes complete sense in matematics, but not here

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you clarify your objection? I didn't really follow what you said nor how it relates to the post above.

      Try to be specific in your comments

      Delete
    2. If I am going to guess what your objection is, (again I am not sure whether this is what you are saying), your objections seems to be that I am analyzing the verse with Formal Logic or Mathematical Logic.

      But if you have studied these subjects you will be more than aware that this is perfect way of analyzing the logic of statements; especially conditional statements & such.

      Even the example you provided is wrong; you said, "Lets A=B & B=C so A=C this is what you are trying to say and finally you said A=apple, B=Ball &C=Cat So Apple=Cat."

      If A = B and B = C then A = C is true anywhere and everywhere.

      However in your example of apples and balls and cats, A is NOT equal to B and B is NOT equal to C. Therefore, the condition "If A = B and B = C then A = C" does not apply here since the antecedent is not true.

      The case presented in the post above has no such problems and if you think it does please argue for it specifically.

      Delete