One thoughtful question

[iceaura]

There are infinite possibilities for the Quran to be perfect, not perfect, and anything else people want to add, but the probability of anything except perfection is 0.

The presumption that a particular product of a human being - such as a recitation or book in a human language - is "perfect" in a religious sense, has a name: it is "idolatry".

The Quran is in Arabic. Therefore, it is imperfect, flawed, etc, as the language itself is flawed and imperfect.

 

[786]

The presumption that a particular product of a human being - such as a recitation or book in a human language - is "perfect" in a religious sense, has a name: it is "idolatry".

The Quran is in Arabic. Therefore, it is imperfect, flawed, etc, as the language itself is flawed and imperfect.

Actually no. Language is simply what it is. Language's don't have imperfections. They may have inconveniences but seriously they do not have imperfections. They are simply a tool used to code something that makes sense.

For example the "numbers" used in math is a language. There is no "imperfect" number, but you can use those numbers to create an imperfect meaning for example 2 + 2 = 5 . The "number" 2 is perfect the symbol "+" is perfect the number "2" is perfect , the symbol "=" is perfect and the number "5" is perfect, what is imperfect is how you use it.

But then again you have to define perfection and when you define it that definition itself will be imperfect (following your line of thought), so when you can't even define something correctly don't tell me that something in imperfect.

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

Actually no. Language is simply what it is. Language's don't have imperfections. They may have inconveniences but seriously they do not have imperfections. They are simply a tool used to code something that makes sense.

They don't "code" perfectly. They have limited and inexact vocabularies, structures that rail thought along certain lines, and so forth.

Nothing in a human language perfectly expresses any given thought meaning. You can see this by translating from one language to another, the same thought. It doesn't come out the same.

That's why you don't like the Quran in, say, Chinese. For all you know, it expresses Allah's actual meaning much better than the Arabic version, but you prefer the Arabic version. The Chinese version does not say things quite the same as the Arabic version.

The Quran was made by human beings, written in a human language. It is therefore imperfect, and flawed. Worshipping the creations of human beings is idolotry.

 

[786]

They don't "code" perfectly. They have limited and inexact vocabularies, structures that rail thought along certain lines, and so forth.

Nothing in a human language perfectly expresses any given thought meaning. You can see this by translating from one language to another, the same thought. It doesn't come out the same.

That's why you don't like the Quran in, say, Chinese. For all you know, it expresses Allah's actual meaning much better than the Arabic version, but you prefer the Arabic version. The Chinese version does not say things quite the same as the Arabic version.

The Quran was made by human beings, written in a human language. It is therefore imperfect, and flawed. Worshipping the creations of human beings is idolotry.

I think you didn't understand what I said. And I can tell that by you using the example of me not like the Quran in chinese, which is called "translation", that is going from 1 code to another.

I said a "code" (language) is perfect within itself that is the number 2 is perfect as the number 2 was meant to be 2, it is kind of like saying a language is what it is. You may find the sentence structure and other "problems" with it, but that is because the code was not made to be used in a certain way. For example Microsoft creates Windows but it has a lot of bugs. The fault is not of the individual code (a, b, c, d) but the fault is of the coders who didn't follow the coding rules correctly like they but the d before c.

When one can not get what they want from a code they invent a new one or add on to it. But this only shows why a code is "imperfect" because it doesn't satisfy some need of our but as a code in itself it is perfect. It is what it is. Again we must first define perfect and that is why I feel that it is stupid to continue this thread.

Peace be unto you

 

[S.A.M.]

The presumption that a particular product of a human being - such as a recitation or book in a human language - is "perfect" in a religious sense, has a name: it is "idolatry".

The Quran is in Arabic. Therefore, it is imperfect, flawed, etc, as the language itself is flawed and imperfect.

How many languages do you speak?

 

[Doreen]

I was asked for one thoughtful question by 786.

My question is pretty simple:
Does the possibility exist the Qur'an is not Perfect?

Seems like a good starting point.

Michael

Sure. Let's say God communicated. We have language - a fuzzy, floppy thing. The culture and biases and expectations of the 'listener' - also adding layers of fuzziness and floppiness and related to language but not completely covered by it. Then we have the psychology and sex of the 'listener' which adds more biases.

Likewise the Bible and other religious texts.

 

[Doreen]

Actually no. Language is simply what it is. Language's don't have imperfections. They may have inconveniences but seriously they do not have imperfections. They are simply a tool used to code something that makes sense.

For example the "numbers" used in math is a language. There is no "imperfect" number, but you can use those numbers to create an imperfect meaning for example 2 + 2 = 5 . The "number" 2 is perfect the symbol "+" is perfect the number "2" is perfect , the symbol "=" is perfect and the number "5" is perfect, what is imperfect is how you use it.

But then again you have to define perfection and when you define it that definition itself will be imperfect (following your line of thought), so when you can't even define something correctly don't tell me that something in imperfect.

Peace be unto you

Language is not the experience. It is about experiences or elicits them. It does not do this perfectly. If I see a specific woman, my experience of seeing her will not perfectly translate into words. I know this because if I describe her to you, you will notice when you see her, that she is not quite how you imagined.

Your number analogy is a poor one since numbers are so abstract.

 

[786]

Language is not the experience. It is about experiences or elicits them. It does not do this perfectly. If I see a specific woman, my experience of seeing her will not perfectly translate into words. I know this because if I describe her to you, you will notice when you see her, that she is not quite how you imagined.

Your number analogy is a poor one since numbers are so abstract.

I think you answered it yourself. "Language is not the experience"-- the Language is perfect but what the language conveys is the experience which is imperfect, but the conveying of this experience is dependent upon the user and NOT the language! If a language can not convey something use another code, but whatever the code can be used for it is perfect in that. Again we must first define perfect, is perfection that a single code can convey EVERYTHING? A code conveys what it can, if it doesn't then you some other language. That is why people use HTML and Javascript in conjunction- each has specific ways it can be used and in specific ways it conveys the message.

I could say I have a "red car" but there are many shades of red. The code is perfect but our understanding of it is not!

Numbers are abstract but language itself is also abstract unless you apply meaning to it. I never said the meaning was perfect, I only said the "code" was perfect.

 

[Michael]

OK so we all agree that the possibility exists that the Qur'an is not perfect.

Good.


Second question: Does the possibility exist that there is no God?

 

[lightgigantic]

OK so we all agree that the possibility exists that the Qur'an is not perfect.

Good.


Second question: Does the possibility exist that there is no God?

by logic alone, anything is tenable as long as it doesn't violate the presuppositions.

For instance there exists the possibility that

1. you are actually a devout theist who simply poses as an atheist to play devil's advocate in religious discourse
   
2. you are President of the united states and taking shelter of the anonymity and whimsy of online forums as a means of seeking relief from your stressful career
   
3. that consumption of red jelly threatens to turn the planet into a radioactive wasteland within the next 100 years

there is however no possibility of

1. you being a married bachelor
   
2. your partner being half pregnant
   
3. your garden being in the shape of a round square.

ok?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

by logic alone, anything is tenable as long as it doesn't violate the presuppositions.

For instance there exists the possibility that

1. you are actually a devout theist who simply poses as an atheist to play devil's advocate in religious discourse
   
2. you are President of the united states and taking shelter of the anonymity and whimsy of online forums as a means of seeking relief from your stressful career
   
3. that consumption of red jelly threatens to turn the planet into a radioactive wasteland within the next 100 years

#1 & 2 statements are possible because one person knows the actual truth as to their validity and that is one more person than knows the truth about your favorite sky being.

#3 because of its time limit will prove itself right or wrong in 100 years. So in essence the truth is or will be known about those 3 interesting little attempts at humor. Unfortunately in 100 years, no make that a 1000 years or maybe an eternity, the same can't be said for God.

there is however no possibility of
you being a married bachelor
your partner being half pregnant
your garden being in the shape of a round square.

These are also true. So in all 6 statements, there is a varying level of truthfulness. At minimum, one person knows the truth about all 6.

What is your point?

 

[Michael]

by logic alone, anything is tenable as long as it doesn't violate the presuppositions.

Many Theists are not logical.

 

[786]

OK so we all agree that the possibility exists that the Qur'an is not perfect.

Good.


Second question: Does the possibility exist that there is no God?

And why did you answer this question by yourself especially with the "we". Also I will agree with your statement only if you wrote it completely as to what I said.

My answer was:

Yes there is a possibility that the Quran is not perfect, but with 0 probability.

Peace be unto you

 

[lightgigantic]

Many Theists are not logical.

many atheists too.

Infact anyone who stands divorced from a few rudimentary philosophical issues in the presentation of their arguments is much the same ....

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

#1 & 2 statements are possible because one person knows the actual truth as to their validity and that is one more person than knows the truth about your favorite sky being.

#3 because of its time limit will prove itself right or wrong in 100 years. So in essence the truth is or will be known about those 3 interesting little attempts at humor. Unfortunately in 100 years, no make that a 1000 years or maybe an eternity, the same can't be said for God.

hence because all 3 statements could possibly be right or wrong, they are all possible.

(even if Michael was to adamantly suggest that, truthfully, he isn't in fact the president we could always quip in with the ol atheist one liner "you're just saying that because you are deluded")

These are also true. So in all 6 statements, there is a varying level of truthfulness. At minimum, one person knows the truth about all 6.

What is your point?

actually if you pay a bit more closer attention to the last three points you can see that they all contain information that is mutually exclusive.

For instance, a woman is either pregnant or not. A man cannot be both married and not married. And a square can not possess the shape of a circle.

hence they are not possible.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

hence because all 3 statements could possibly be right or wrong, they are all possible.

The first two were addressed to Michael, only he knows the truth about them. For the rest us it is "I don't know'. There isn't one person alive that knows the truth about God. Every religious book in the world falls under the dubious category, including the Quran. People worship texts that no one can verify. You of all people should know the implications of such a thing. A perfect religious book is a book that everyone knows is proven to be true and most of all has the authentication of its main character'

It is a perfect book for confusing the masses but unless it can be notarized then it will continue to provide me with toilet tissue for my tender derriere.

 

[Ophiolite]

there is however no possibility of

1. you being a married bachelor
   
2. your partner being half pregnant
   
3. your garden being in the shape of a round square.

ok?

I hold a bachelor's degree and as such I am defined as a bachelor. I am also married.

When my daughter was in my wife's womb. My wife was pregnant. After the delivery she was not pregnant. It seems quite logical to say that when my daughter was half way from my wife's womb that she was half pregnant.

Square's are often areas free of buildings in an otherwise built up area. Such squares can be round.

 

[lightgigantic]

I hold a bachelor's degree and as such I am defined as a bachelor. I am also married.

then, by semantics, you are using the word bachelor in a manner different than what was intended

When my daughter was in my wife's womb. My wife was pregnant. After the delivery she was not pregnant. It seems quite logical to say that when my daughter was half way from my wife's womb that she was half pregnant.

if she was only half a daughter at that time, who was responsible for parenting the other half aside from yourself and your wife?

Square's are often areas free of buildings in an otherwise built up area. Such squares can be round.

feel free to provide visual documentary

 

[lightgigantic]

The first two were addressed to Michael, only he knows the truth about them.

not really because the possibility, as any atheist will aptly remind you, exists that he is deluded.

For the rest us it is "I don't know'. There isn't one person alive that knows the truth about God.

Since the possibility exists that you have not verified the claims of knowledge of every person on the planet, alternative points of view exist on the subject ....

Every religious book in the world falls under the dubious category, including the Quran. People worship texts that no one can verify.

Or more correctly, people apply teachings in scripture that you feel more comfortable to criticize while sitting on your laurels

You of all people should know the implications of such a thing. A perfect religious book is a book that everyone knows is proven to be true and most of all has the authentication of its main character'

You of all people should know that proving, particularly in the arena of proving to one's self, is accomplished by application.

It is a perfect book for confusing the masses but unless it can be notarized then it will continue to provide me with toilet tissue for my tender derriere.

On the contrary, the best form of your argument seems to be "my propaganda is better than yours" .... needless to say, it doesn't make for a convincing argument

 

[Doreen]

I think you answered it yourself. "Language is not the experience"-- the Language is perfect but what the language conveys is the experience which is imperfect, but the conveying of this experience is dependent upon the user and NOT the language! If a language can not convey something use another code, but whatever the code can be used for it is perfect in that. Again we must first define perfect, is perfection that a single code can convey EVERYTHING? A code conveys what it can, if it doesn't then you some other language. That is why people use HTML and Javascript in conjunction- each has specific ways it can be used and in specific ways it conveys the message.

I could say I have a "red car" but there are many shades of red. The code is perfect but our understanding of it is not!

Numbers are abstract but language itself is also abstract unless you apply meaning to it. I never said the meaning was perfect, I only said the "code" was perfect.

Can one not improve communication? Can one not weed out errors inherent in language? Or fill in the gaps in language? Or notice the gaps, but not have a way aruond them? I have had these experiences. I see no reason to say language is perfect. What is it perfect at?