tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post663104525696344465..comments2023-05-22T05:34:20.133-07:00Comments on Anwar Bilal's Blog: Qur'an's Error: Sura 4:82 "If [Quran] had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction"CaptainDisguisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-53196120104066820212014-06-07T15:18:52.672-07:002014-06-07T15:18:52.672-07:00And are by their very nature considered to be comp...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. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14561874445076130285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-24778557030527495982014-05-15T08:46:09.053-07:002014-05-15T08:46:09.053-07:00If I am going to guess what your objection is, (ag...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Even the example you provided is wrong; you said, <i>"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."</i><br /><br />If A = B and B = C then A = C is true anywhere and everywhere.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The case presented in the post above has no such problems and if you think it does please argue for it specifically.CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-40563092074052441722014-05-15T08:37:44.893-07:002014-05-15T08:37:44.893-07:00Could you clarify your objection? I didn't rea...Could you clarify your objection? I didn't really follow what you said nor how it relates to the post above.<br /><br />Try to be specific in your commentsCaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-49939458139819402412014-05-14T21:02:33.731-07:002014-05-14T21:02:33.731-07:00Your whole arguments are made on assumptions. Go a...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 <br />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<br />So Apple=Cat. Is it make any sense here though it makes complete sense in matematics, but not here<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-18289637435252423762014-05-08T16:48:30.635-07:002014-05-08T16:48:30.635-07:00Here you go --> http://infaliblebookfromgod.blo...Here you go --> http://infaliblebookfromgod.blogspot.com/<br /><br />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.CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-17285437723190792352014-05-08T15:07:55.031-07:002014-05-08T15:07:55.031-07:00The book claiming to be free from error, has to FI...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. <br /><br />Is there any such book?Ahmednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-52122751406030290782014-03-16T12:54:46.793-07:002014-03-16T12:54:46.793-07:00There are 2 points I'd like to raise but can I...There are 2 points I'd like to raise but can I please ask you AGAIN to answer the following question;<br /><br /><b>"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?”</b><br /><br />Now to your comment;<br /><br />1) You said, <i>"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"</i><br /><br />First of all, this is not analogous to conditional in the verse but nonetheless.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />2) But more fascinating is your statement <i>"According to all logic, the Quran should have a ton of errors and contradictions if it was not from Allah."</i><br /><br />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 <b>WHY do you think the Qur'an should have "tons of errors and contradictions" if it was not from Allah.</b><br /><br />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? :) )<br /><br />Please do elaborate on WHY you think Qur'an should have errors if it were by a human being?<br /><br />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"). <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />Also, please answer the Question I asked at the beginning.CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-49718490700108926472014-03-16T11:17:26.318-07:002014-03-16T11:17:26.318-07:00I think what you are missing is maybe the context ...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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18411068883570869013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-48598294507827198382014-03-15T16:23:29.774-07:002014-03-15T16:23:29.774-07:00(2/2)
Turning to the Qur’an then, I hope it is cl...(2/2)<br /><br />Turning to the Qur’an then, I hope it is clear to you that the verse is making the conditional statement, <i>“If one does not find any errors in the Qur’an, then the Qur’an is from God”</i><br /><br />Let P = “one does not find any errors in the Qur’an”, & Q = “Qur’an is from God”<br /><br />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”.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If you did not follow or agree with the above, please elaborate but before doing so please answer the following question;<br /><br />“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?” <br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />P.S. If you are interested in learning Formal logic, these are some good resources<br />http://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/text.htm<br />http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4B8A8476E860BB69<br />CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-15559713953722826452014-03-15T16:22:55.908-07:002014-03-15T16:22:55.908-07:00One does not need formal training in Logic to unde...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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />To begin with, try to understand what a “conditional statement” is. When one makes the claim, <i>”If P then Q”</i>, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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 </b><br /><br />To give you a simple example, let P = John is a father and Q = John is a male. <br /><br />Suppose I make the statement, <b><i>“If John is a father, then John is a male.”</i></b><br /><br />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 <i>”all fathers are male”</i>. Similarly, if I were to tell you that <i>John is not a male</i> , then you can also conclude that <i>”John is not a father”</i> because there is “no fathers who are not males.”<br /><br />NOW suppose that I instead make a slightly different claim, <b><i>“If John is a male, then John is a father.”</i></b>.<br /><br />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 <i>“If John is a male, then John is a father.”</i> 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.”<br /><br />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 <i>“If John is a male, then John is a father”</i> is <b>FALSE</b><br /><br />So from this example, I hope you have an understanding about the truth value of conditional statements. I hope you understand why <i>“If John is a father, then John is a male”</i> is true while <i>“If John is a male, then John is a father.”</i> 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.<br /><br />(1/2)<br />CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-55131950169504791432014-03-15T01:42:24.373-07:002014-03-15T01:42:24.373-07:00I don't really understand how you used your lo...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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18411068883570869013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-77239833484612685902014-03-14T12:02:59.228-07:002014-03-14T12:02:59.228-07:00Destroyer,
<< Thinker1 why should I answer ...Destroyer,<br /><br /><< Thinker1 why should I answer your proposal when I am even debating the proposal itself ? >><br /><br /><br />Allow me to rephrase.<br /><br />I have linked you to a book that claims to be from God, and has no errors in it. <br /><br />What makes the Quran's claim to divinity more valid and convincing than the claim of that book?<br /><br />It's a simple question, so I'm hoping for a straightforward answer.Thinker1https://www.blogger.com/profile/02228901639845104834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-69732143848515347292014-03-13T12:32:48.877-07:002014-03-13T12:32:48.877-07:00Can I also request that those who are replying to ...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 alongCaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-27751497821460135812014-03-13T12:30:43.422-07:002014-03-13T12:30:43.422-07:00You should definitely, if you like, answer Thinker...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.<br /><br />In case you didn't understand what he is proposing; According to Thinker1, a book (lets call it <b>IBG</b>) has been written, sorry, "revealed" to him by God.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Do engage w/ this, it will be funCaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-49688382232606419102014-03-13T12:23:53.159-07:002014-03-13T12:23:53.159-07:00You said, “More interestingly, if we follow throug...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".”<br /><br />I think this was addressed above in some comment! <br /><br />And no; Sorry this would make it circular to the core. <br /><br />If you put it all together, it would ultimately be making the statement <b>“If Qur'an is from Allah, then Qur’an is from Allah”</b> Well DUH!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />After that nitpicking, it’d no longer possible to tweak a non-existent circular statement into the verse. <br /><br />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...<br /><br />P.P.S Can I remind you to answer the six questions for 4th or 5th time? Please?CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-61402377298293283952014-03-13T12:22:35.712-07:002014-03-13T12:22:35.712-07:00Now, to your questions, this is the first time I ...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,<br /><br />1. Assuming you are referring to Universal and Existential quantifiers, I don’t know what you mean by “classifying them”. Please elaborate<br /><br />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.<br /><br /> I am very familiar with syllogistic, propositional & predicate logic and also have basic understanding of modal logic. <br /><br />3. The definitions you will find in this website are apt. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/<br />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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br />CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-901982100347225582014-03-13T12:21:58.747-07:002014-03-13T12:21:58.747-07:00You said, “You may claim it is in light of a unive...You said, <i>“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.”</i><br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /> Hopefully you will understand through this example, when I make a statement such as, <i>“If John is a human, then John is a mammal”</i> (1); this statement does not “structurally” (as you put it) state or entail the universal statement, “All humans are mammals” (2).<br /><br />(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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br /> 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”. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />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 <b>NECESSARY</b> that the universal relationship is also true.<br /><br /> 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”CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-55195746320174653792014-03-12T23:53:49.183-07:002014-03-12T23:53:49.183-07:00Sorry, a question or two are being asked for the f...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 ?Academic assassinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06834140430051555509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-61895126311842922932014-03-12T23:47:36.221-07:002014-03-12T23:47:36.221-07:00But that is the point! You may claim it is in ligh...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.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />and for the second time, I have no problem with counterpositives(I am going with your construction) I don't think anyone does. <br /><br />Now for the second time on my part, as my time is certainly precious as well, answer the following questions<br /><br />1- How do you classify quantifiers in logic in logic?<br /><br />2- What type of logical system do you prefer ?<br /><br />3- Would you be kind enough to define "special pleading", "question begging" and "circular" in a formal sense thank you!<br />Academic assassinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06834140430051555509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-7763765684282339442014-03-12T13:40:13.158-07:002014-03-12T13:40:13.158-07:00Academic Assassin,
Sorry to interrupt your dialog...Academic Assassin,<br /><br />Sorry to interrupt your dialogue with CaptainDisguise, but please can you address my point that no Muslim to-date has?<br /><br />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:<br /><br />http://infaliblebookfromgod.blogspot.co.uk/<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Thank youThinker1https://www.blogger.com/profile/02228901639845104834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-42404733406051384152014-03-12T13:06:40.129-07:002014-03-12T13:06:40.129-07:00Can I also request that those who are replying to ...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 alongCaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-41392032839442690242014-03-12T12:09:45.945-07:002014-03-12T12:09:45.945-07:00You said "We have a specific conditional abou...You said <i>"We have a specific conditional about the Quran and you generalise it and I think you fail to understand the term "special pleading"</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />For example, consider the statement, <i>"If John is a human, then John is a mammal"</i>.<br /><br />This is a <b>true</b> statement. but WHY is it a true statement?; It is true by VIRTUE of the <b>truth</b> of the universal statement <i>"All humans are mammals"</i>.<br /><br />On the other hand, the statement <i>"If John is a human, then John is bald"</i> is <b>false</b> because the corresponding universal statement <i>"All humans are bald"</i> is a <b>false</b> statement (since there are humans who are not bald).<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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 <b>work</b>, then that <b>work</b> is from Allah". This I have argued is a false statement.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Leaving analogies aside, your second objection seems to be <i>"you would have to claim access to divine knowledge for the procedure to start."</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <b>inductive strength</b> of the sun rising tomorrow. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <i>"If I count from 1 to 10, then I am a prophet of God"</i>. 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)<br /><br />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"<br /><br />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 <b>Yes/No</b> questions so I don't even know so why you refuse to do so<br /><br />CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-84458345348194680642014-03-12T10:37:08.123-07:002014-03-12T10:37:08.123-07:00I would like to see your understanding of quantifi...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.<br /><br />Furthermore, let me help you with my example. I do not think you understood my point. In the example above <br /><br />"Had it not been for God, you would have failed your exams."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Anyway alot more to talk about. Please be patient as I construct the proper logical format. Anyway to upload pdf files? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Academic assassinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06834140430051555509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-51262832259288871012014-03-12T09:12:00.586-07:002014-03-12T09:12:00.586-07:00I am asking you again to answer the 5 questions po...<b>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.</b><br /><br />But since you insist, let me address your new analogy just for the sake of it<br /><br />You said <i>"Had it not been for God, you would have failed your exams."</i><br /><br />This is proposing the following conditional relationship, <i>"If it was NOT due to God, then you would NOT pass your exam"</i><br /><br />The contrapostive of the sentence is "If you would pass your exam, then It was due to God"<br /><br />So yes, it is imply that anyone who passes their exam is because of God.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />However, sura 4:82 provides an objectively falsfiable sentence, <i>""If the Quran is NOT from Allah, then one will find many errors in the Quran" "</i><br /><br />CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5210332264994734242.post-57457278330597553952014-03-12T09:02:08.061-07:002014-03-12T09:02:08.061-07:00You are going around in circles while consistently...You are going around in circles while consistently misunderstanding simple logical definitions.<br /><br />Just so that I can demonstrate what you are missing, I am asking again, could you please answer these 5 questions.<br /><br />"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) ?<br /><br />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) ?<br /><br />3) Do you accept that (a) and (b) are logically equivalent? If NO, then why<br /><br />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) ?<br /><br />5) Do you accept (a) and (c) are NOT logically equivalent? If NO, then why"CaptainDisguisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00426652177631313145noreply@blogger.com