31 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI assume that a Supreme Being exists. I assume that He is charitable and compassionate
Are you assuming that the Christian/Muslim God exists or does not exist?
enough to interact with His faithful in a meaningful and reasonable way, that His will for us
is sufficiently well articulated enough that morons don't need molds that have a shape like
the Blessed Virgin or fish with 'words' on it to bring them to understand that will. I think
that any 'God' who would choose to be that absurdly obscure is either incompetent, foolish,
or spiteful -- three traits foreign to my belief in what that God is or ought to be.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
On the contrary, if Allah exists, he would be the Creator of the fish. As such, there is no reason to think He won't communicate by writing his name on a fish. If His name were to be observed on a fish (which implies that the observer could recognise "Allah" when he finds it, even if he isn't looking for it on a fish) there is no good reason to think it isn't a communication from Him when the observer believes in Allah.
As for the above nonsense, I don't see how you can claim rationality and assert that Allah is
speaking to His faithful in any sort of meaningful way by putting stripes on a fish in a pet
store in Liverpool. Could you flesh this out for me?
Nemesio
31 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesiothat His will for us is sufficiently well articulated enough that morons don't need molds that have a shape like the Blessed Virgin or fish with 'words' on it to bring them to understand that will.
I assume that a Supreme Being exists. I assume that He is charitable and compassionate
enough to interact with His faithful in a meaningful and reasonable way, that His will for us
is sufficiently well articulated enough that morons don't need molds that have a shape like
the Blessed Virgin or fish with 'words' on it to bring them to understand that will on a fish in a pet
store in Liverpool. Could you flesh this out for me?
Nemesio
Maybe some morons need moulds or fish to strengthen their belief. For those who don't, this is hardly going to cause them to jump ship.
think that any 'God' who would choose to be that absurdly obscure is either incompetent, foolish, or spiteful
It's not absurdly obscure. As Freaky pointed out, it's about as clear as a hand writing on the wall.
And, if true, how does it imply that God is incompetent, foolish or spiteful?
As for the above nonsense, I don't see how you can claim rationality and assert that Allah is speaking to His faithful in any sort of meaningful way by putting stripes on a fish in a pet store in Liverpool. Could you flesh this out for me?
If Allah exists, then this may just be His way of reaching out to humanity and saying "I AM". Sometimes you don't need any more than that. You might think it absurd, but if you already believe in Allah, this isn't going to disturb your belief in Him. If you don't think it absurd and believe in Allah, then it's going to strengthen your faith. If you don't believe in Allah at all, it's not going to make a difference. So if Allah wanted to zero in on a particular subset of Muslims, then there is nothing incompetent, foolish, spiteful or irrational about choosing such a route to do so. As I pointed above, it's not going to change things either way for the rest of the Muslim world (or, indeed, us).
EDIT: IIRC, it was Lancashire.
31 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYeah, to Beltzshazzar, King of Babylon, during a feast if I remember correctly. It was Daniel's comeback tour in Babylonian (short-lived) society.
Jesus, I guess you're right. I don't recall reading that before. Who knows how much other spooky stuff is in there that I've missed.
At any rate, if it's in there, it must be true. I suppose I must believe it too now, and by logical consequence...Praise be to Allah, he who has made himself known by the writing on the fish!
As fun as the early portions of Daniel are, it is hardly reasonable to believe them literally. Of course, if you start from God exists, then you can believe nearly anything, but then again you've surrendered reasonability from the get go. Presume God exists and anything can be believed (Well, except that God doesn't exist of course).
31 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionNo, you were (almost) right the first time.
Thanks for the counterexample.
Scratch "anything" and make it any logically possible thing.
If even one contradiction can be derived from the assumption that God exists, then any proposition at all, such as 2+2=5 can be derived and thus believed if the assumption is believed.
You were only wrong in finding that "God does not exist" could not believed.
31 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOnly if that God was in Bizarro world.
No, you were (almost) right the first time.
If even one contradiction can be derived from the assumption that God exists, then any proposition at all, such as 2+2=5 can be derived and thus believed if the assumption is believed.
You were only wrong in finding that "God does not exist" could not believed.
31 Mar 06
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerReread the thread. Here, as in numerous others, I have readily admitted that I was mistaken. I immediately acknowledged my error in thinking that the Bible did not include an account of a disembodied hand writing on a wall.
Apparently you and no1 have no troubles believing you're infallible; but the Pope is not.
No1 has also admitted mistakes. For example, in one thread he claimed that personhood, once attained, cannot be lost. I pointed out that it is lost at death, and he acknowledged his mistaken claim.
31 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEarlier posted by you:
Reread the thread. Here, as in numerous others, I have readily admitted that I was mistaken. I immediately acknowledged my error in thinking that the Bible did not include an account of a disembodied hand writing on a wall.
No1 has also admitted mistakes. For example, in one thread he claimed that personhood, once attained, cannot be lost. I pointed out that it is lost at death, and he acknowledged his mistaken claim.
"Jesus, I guess you're right. I don't recall reading that before. Who knows how much other spooky stuff is in there that I've missed."
Yep, clearly an admission of error.
31 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm happy to reformulate the admission in a different manner. How do you propose I word it so that it is unambiguously an acknowledgement of error?
Earlier posted by you:
"Jesus, I guess you're right. I don't recall reading that before. Who knows how much other spooky stuff is in there that I've missed."
Yep, clearly an admission of error.