One thoughtful question

Michael said:
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?
Click to expand...
Funny but in a sense one must have a rather complete knowledge of universes to know the answer. Perhaps it will turn out that it is impossible to have a universe without a God.

Possibility generally means - given what we know can this or that happen.

But it also is used to mean - can this or that happen, period.

I think your question is often answered as if we know the answer to the second question, which we don't.
 
Doreen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Like I said before "perfection" must first be defined which we can't really because of various aspect to perfection. I never said that you can't improve communication but the improvement must come from the communicator and not the language. You may be a 5th grade speech writer and someone else may write speeches at the college level- the difference is not that they use a "different" language but that they use the language 'differently'. What a language can not do is not because the language is not perfect but because those things are not part of the code.

Its like this: Alphabet is A-Z which you need to use. What if my alphabet was only A, the fact is that I can not communicate B-Z but the point is that the language doesn't even have B-Z, and so it is limited. But in its limitation it can PERFECTLY communicate A (of course if the communicator uses the language correctly). I am talking about perfection with limitations but the sense I get from you is that perfection must come without limitations.

I am talking in very abstract terms of what "language" is. Anyways I think this discussion is basically pointless because the concept of "perfection" is not defined.

Forget it...

Peace be unto you :)
 
786 said:
Like I said before "perfection" must first be defined which we can't really because of various aspect to perfection. I never said that you can't improve communication but the improvement must come from the communicator and not the language. You may be a 5th grade speech writer and someone else may write speeches at the college level- the difference is not that they use a "different" language but that they use the language 'differently'. What a language can not do is not because the language is not perfect but because those things are not part of the code.
Click to expand...
Then it ain't perfect for the task. Also I cannot separate out language from its users - note the misleading metaphor. As if language were perfect in some abstract or Platonic realm, but then users mess it up. Language is a portion of life and always in play, in process in living beings. And it ain't perfect.

Language can also mislead. Language has built in philosophy that distorts experience, in fact it can keep us from experiencing things. Most people do not realize how metaphorical language is and how this distorts their experience.

Its like this: Alphabet is A-Z which you need to use. What if my alphabet was only A, the fact is that I can not communicate B-Z but the point is that the language doesn't even have B-Z, and so it is limited. But in its limitation it can PERFECTLY communicate A (of course if the communicator uses the language correctly).
Click to expand...
Yes, but it will call B some form of A, and this is imperfect. Or it will train children to stop seeing B or to think that B is a form of A.

I am talking about perfection with limitations but the sense I get from you is that perfection must come without limitations.
Click to expand...
Limitations is one issue. Distortion and masking are others.
 
Doreen said:
Then it ain't perfect for the task. Also I cannot separate out language from its users - note the misleading metaphor.
Click to expand...

I think this is it. You can't separate them but I can see them separately. Not saying that I am right and you are wrong but basically since it is a matter of perspective there is no reason to further debate this.

Peace be unto you :)
 
786 said:
I think this is it. You can't separate them but I can see them separately. Not saying that I am right and you are wrong but basically since it is a matter of perspective there is no reason to further debate this.
Click to expand...
Whatever you are seeing separately is not language.
 
Doreen said:
Whatever you are seeing separately is not language.
Click to expand...

lol..... I see language written all over it... :D I'll try to get lenses maybe then I can see it like you :bugeye:

I'm done with this topic unless something of interest comes up...

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
lol..... I see language written all over it... :D I'll try to get lenses maybe then I can see it like you :bugeye:

I'm done with this topic unless something of interest comes up...

Peace be unto you ;)
Click to expand...

I wonder where you see it in the absence of humans. How do you see it without understanding it as a human and without being there yourself?
 
Doreen said:
I wonder where you see it in the absence of humans. How do you see it without understanding it as a human and without being there yourself?
Click to expand...

I'm done with this... but since you asked I will say this on a FINAL note; I see language in every particle

Peace be unto you :)

PS: (Language Job Offer: Humans Not Wanted :eek:)
 
786 said:
I'm done with this... but since you asked I will say this on a FINAL note; I see language in every particle

Peace be unto you :)

PS: (Language Job Offer: Humans Not Wanted :eek:)
Click to expand...

So you are using the word 'language' in a way no one else does. This could be where the confusion is coming in. I would say your language use is less than perfect on this point.
 
Doreen said:
I wonder where you see it in the absence of humans. How do you see it without understanding it as a human and without being there yourself?
Click to expand...

He's talking about language as a construct. Does a language exist if anyone no longer speaks it? But I think the question of the OP itself is faulty, since perfection is relative and we are not told what this perfection is supposed to define.
 
786 said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you what was the probability. I asked if the possibility exists the Qur'an is not perfect. You said yes. Is this still your answer?

Doreen, your answer to my second question is interesting. What about you 786? Does the possibility exist that there is no God?
 
Michael said:
I didn't ask you what was the probability. I asked if the possibility exists the Qur'an is not perfect. You said yes. Is this still your answer?

Doreen, your answer to my second question is interesting. What about you 786? Does the possibility exist that there is no God?
Click to expand...

Some questions don't have a simple "Yes" or "No" as they can be misleading.

For example: What if the White House aired on CNN, there is a possibility that all of our major cities will be bombed with nuclear weapons. Everyone will be scared to death and there will be great panic.

The fact is the possibility is there. BUT the second part of this is also important. What if there are NO nuclear weapons at the time. You mislead using "possibility" but the fact is the probability actually is more important.


There is a possibility that if you step out of your house someone will stab you, maybe you should stay in your house but what if you are the only one in a deserted Island? Maybe you won't give a shit about the possibility then would you?

You are purposefully posing questions, here and the other thread, so that it is a forced "path" to your conclusion. This is far from being "thoughtful"!

Peace be unto you :)
 
S.A.M. said:
He's talking about language as a construct.
Click to expand...
You mean like differences in ink densities in paper?


Does a language exist if anyone no longer speaks it?
Click to expand...
No. (nor reads, writes, etc. implicit)


But I think the question of the OP itself is faulty, since perfection is relative and we are not told what this perfection is supposed to define.
Click to expand...
Hard to define perfection in imperfect language.
 
Doreen said:
So you are using the word 'language' in a way no one else does. This could be where the confusion is coming in. I would say your language use is less than perfect on this point.
Click to expand...

Ya.. I'm working on it :D

Peace be unto you :)
 
786 said:
Some questions don't have a simple "Yes" or "No" as they can be misleading.

For example: What if the White House aired on CNN, there is a possibility that all of our major cities will be bombed with nuclear weapons. Everyone will be scared to death and there will be great panic.

The fact is the possibility is there. BUT the second part of this is also important. What if there are NO nuclear weapons at the time. You mislead using "possibility" but the fact is the probability actually is more important.


There is a possibility that if you step out of your house someone will stab you, maybe you should stay in your house but what if you are the only one in a deserted Island? Maybe you won't give a shit about the possibility then would you?

You are purposefully posing questions, here and the other thread, so that it is a forced "path" to your conclusion. This is far from being "thoughtful"!

Peace be unto you :)
Click to expand...
You first answer YES there is a possibility you then USE MATH and CALCULATE a probability. If you conclude NO then there's no point attempting to calculate a probability. In your own examples you did this!!!!

As I doubt the math needed to provide a probability is at hand, we'll just stick to the first answer.

As for you "feeling" I am painting you into a corner - I am not.
If I were to ask you this: Does the possibility exist that God exists? You would happily answer YES. You would not see this as painting you into a corner or forcing you to make a YES/NO answer. That's because I am not painting you into a corner and you are happy to answer with a YES or a NO.

So you said that YES it is possible that the Qur'an is not perfect.



Lets continue:

Does the possibility exist Xenu exists?
Does the possibility exist Xenu does not exist?


Does the possibility exist God exists?
Does the possibility exist that God does not exist?


Thanks,
Michael


Note: Xenu is an intergalactic warlord worshiped by millions of Sceintologist (some of whom used to be Muslims funny enough).
Note2: I'm not asking you to calculate the mathematical probability for Xenu or God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top