Islam is fundamentally incoherent.

@Bonaventurian,

I don't believe that your stated understanding of Islam is all that thorough or correct, especially considering the lack of scholarship of Islam at the time of Bonaventure. Do you really regard Bonaventure as someone that the 21st century, 800 years later, can accept as an authority on Muslim theology?

Perhaps you'd be well served to ask Muslim theologians if your basic assumptions are correct to begin with, let alone whether they are coherent or not.

In fact, I'd strongly encourage you to find a Muslim forum and ask the question (though without a pretext that their religion is incoherent -- you're not going to make friends by doing that).

@Bonaventurian,

In any case, I'm going to ask straight out:

Presupposing that Muslims believe in 1, 2, and 3, do you admit that 1, 2, and 3 are inconsistent?

A funny thought: I posted this same thread on a subforum of a theology board, and was told that it would have been better had I posted it on a philosophy board. Haha!

@Bonaventurian,

Taking them into consideration with what knowledge we have they are inconsistent. I want to add though they might not be inconsistent due to lack of knowledge on our part...I might just be dumb but would it be illogical to liken it to polar bear fur? I've heard that polar bear fur is transparent....but it looks white. On the surface that doesn't make sense but with a further knowledge of science we understand what makes it look white when in truth, it isn't.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

and between what is physically possible and physically "normal (men generally don't rise from the dead, but there's no law of physics which says that this Man cannot rise from the dead)."

If you don't believe men can rise from the dead, but believe that man rose from the dead, you're contradicting yourself. Sure, there's no 'law of physics' dealing with people rising from the dead (could there be?), just as there aren't any fundamental rules/laws dealing with unicorns existing ...Do you need one for goblins, too? I'm sorry to inform you, you are contradicting yourself. Same goes with that piece of wafer you believe is the 'Body of Christ'. It's a wafer, you know this, and yet you feel that particular wafer is something mystical. Do you go around blessing your eggs, toast, and sausage in the morning thinking they're reincarnations of your favorite deity? Highly doubtful, you know these are just food items. You're contradicting yourself when you walk into church and start consuming ShopRite grape juice poured into a chalice thinking it's the 'Blood of Christ'.

You can't just reason your way into trying to prove a religion you don't enjoy is contradictory, whilst twisting your own illogical convictions into something coherent. It seems to me like you're trying to justify your own convictions by basting them in this 'coherent' light, when, as Aedes notes, coherency isn't even a standard by which a religion should be judged. I'm not attacking your beliefs: I'm attacking your attacking of others' beliefs. And, frankly, from the three points you made, I don't see much of a contradiction. At least not any more than in any other form of mysticism.

@Zetherin,

Bonaventurian, the whole argument is nonsense.

"The most perfect conceivable expression of God's Goodness is an entire communication of the Divine Substance in a new hypostasis."

In other words, unless X religion expresses God by way of the Trinity, X religion is incoherent if it accepts the first three premises. Well, if that is the case, then Christianity prior to the Trinity was an incoherent religion, a religion impossible to believe in. Thus, Jesus taught a false faith (as he did not preach the Trinity) and it took the musings of three Turkish Church fathers (who invented the Trinity) to correct the Messiah's most egregious mistake.

Wait a second... if Jesus was mistaken, that means, assuming that Jesus is God, that God must have, at least once, been mistaken. Well, I guess the only logical conclusion is that God is fallible and, as we have already shown that Jesus preached a false faith (as Jesus did not preach the Trinity), we must accept the truth: that Christianity is a false faith that worships an imperfect God.

Excuse me, I'm off to convert to Islam. Thanks, Bonaventurian for showing me the way to Allah Akbar.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

If you don't believe men can rise from the dead, but believe that man rose from the dead, you're contradicting yourself.

If I did believe that, and then said that, then I agree, I would contradict myself. As it stands, I never said that. I said that men generally don't rise from the dead, just as meteors generally don't fall from the sky and obliterate the majority of life on earth. Yet, just as that meteor exterminated the dinosaurs, so too did this man rise from the dead.

There's no contradiction in me saying "this man rises from the dead." No man says that it's necessarily the case that men cannot rise from the dead.

Quote:

It's a wafer, you know this, and yet you feel that particular wafer is something mystical.

I say that it is not a wafer.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Thus, Jesus taught a false faith (as he did not preach the Trinity)

Clearly, I disagree. As far as I can see, Christ taught the Blessed Trinity. He commanded His apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...not in the names.

In any case, this thread isn't about Christianity. This thread is about Islam. No matter what your opinion of Christianity, the point still stands that the second and third propositions contradict the first proposition.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

No man says that it's necessarily the case that men cannot rise from the dead.

In a world of pure logic, no, no one says that. In a world of empirical observation, a great many people would say that men cannot rise from the dead.

Bonaventurian wrote:

I say that it is not a wafer.

Then you are fooling yourself. I've taken communion many times: it's a wafer. That wine? It's still wine. These things may symbolize something else, but that does not make the wine and wafer something other than what they are.

Bonaventurian wrote:

Clearly, I disagree. As far as I can see, Christ taught the Blessed Trinity. He commanded His apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...not in the names.

Just as I might say: 'In the name of my mother, father and brother...' to say name instead of names does not, in any way, imply that my mother, father and brother are the same person.

Sorry friend, but the Trinity was not taught by Jesus. The Trinity was invented by three Turkish Fathers, two of which were Bishops. You can check up the history for yourself if you like. Seriously, I think you should.

Bonaventurian wrote:

In any case, this thread isn't about Christianity. This thread is about Islam. No matter what your opinion of Christianity, the point still stands that the second and third propositions contradict the first proposition.

I am a Christian. My opinion of Christianity is quite high.

More importantly, this thread is, as you say, about Islam. Which is exactly why I bring up Christianity. You happily criticize a faith you do not practice yet want to ignore the application of your own logic against your faith. I can't let you off that easy, friend.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

In a world of pure logic, no, no one says that. In a world of empirical observation, a great many people would say that men cannot rise from the dead.

Then herein lies your error. You are confusing logical consistency (which I am arguing) with induction (which I am not). Furthermore, if you know anything about philosophy, the first thing that you ought to know is that induction isn't perfect. By definition, it carries a degree of uncertainty.

Quote:

Then you are fooling yourself. I've taken communion many times: it's a wafer. That wine? It's still wine. These things may symbolize something else, but that does not make the wine and wafer something other than what they are.

How do you know it's wafers and wine? You are confusing substance and accidents. I really must direct you to the wax example in Descartes' second Meditation. This piece of wax has a set of properties. I melt it. It has a completely different set of properties, and yet it is the same piece of wax. The thisness of the wax, indeed, the waxiness of this piece of wax does not come from the accidents, or the properties, but from the substance of the thing.

The dog sees the wax first hard, and then melted, and is not aware that the wax is the same. Yet, with our intellect, we judge that it is the same.

Likewise, the waferness or lack thereof of the Host does not lie in the properties. It lies in the substance. I say that even though the accidents are those which generally are found in bread and wine, I say that the substance of the thing is neither bread nor wine, but Our Blessed Lord.

How can you know otherwise? You are confusion induction with certainty.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Just as I might say: 'In the name of my mother, father and brother...' to say name instead of names does not, in any way, imply that my mother, father and brother are the same person.

Sorry friend, but the Trinity was not taught by Jesus. The Trinity was invented by three Turkish Fathers, two of which were Bishops. You can check up the history for yourself if you like. Seriously, I think you should.

Clearly, I disagree with you. I say that even if the belief was not explicit in Christ's teachings (and it was explicit), it was certainly neither excluded, but rather was present at least implicitly even from the first moment of Chrsitianity. I say this about every matter of doctrine in the Catholic faith.

Quote:

More importantly, this thread is, as you say, about Islam. Which is exactly why I bring up Christianity. You happily criticize a faith you do not practice yet want to ignore the application of your own logic against your faith. I can't let you off that easy, friend.

That's fine. I just want to make certain, however, that our understanding of "logic" is in the strictest sense, that is to say, of possibility and necessity, and of non-contradiction.

You can say that some of my beliefs are whacky and wrong (you'd be wrong, but let's say you do), but you cannot say that my belief system is internally inconsistent. I am saying that the Muslim ideaology is contradictory.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

Then herein lies your error. You are confusing logical consistency (which I am arguing) with induction (which I am not). Furthermore, if you know anything about philosophy, the first thing that you ought to know is that induction isn't perfect. By definition, it carries a degree of uncertainty.

No, I'm not actually. I'm making it clear that logical consistency, which you argue, has nothing to do with reality.

Bonaventurian wrote:

How do you know it's wafers and wine?

As I've said, I have taken communion. I've consumed the wafers and wine. Many times.

Bonaventurian wrote:

You are confusing substance and accidents. I really must direct you to the wax example in Descartes' second Meditation. This piece of wax has a set of properties. I melt it. It has a completely different set of properties, and yet it is the same piece of wax. The thisness of the wax, indeed, the waxiness of this piece of wax does not come from the accidents, or the properties, but from the substance of the thing.

The dog sees the wax first hard, and then melted, and is not aware that the wax is the same. Yet, with our intellect, we judge that it is the same.

Likewise, the waferness or lack thereof of the Host does not lie in the properties. It lies in the substance. I say that even though the accidents are those which generally are found in bread and wine, I say that the substance of the thing is neither bread nor wine, but Our Blessed Lord.

And the substance of the wafer and the substance of the win are not magically changed when the priest mutters a few special phrases.

@Didymos Thomas,

Bonaventurian wrote:

Clearly, I disagree with you. I say that even if the belief was not explicit in Christ's teachings (and it was explicit), it was certainly neither excluded, but rather was present at least implicitly even from the first moment of Chrsitianity. I say this about every matter of doctrine in the Catholic faith.

If you say this about every Catholic doctrine, then you are making up history to suit yourself. Have fun.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

No, I'm not actually. I'm making it clear that logical consistency, which you argue, has nothing to do with reality.

By definition, logically inconsistent propositions cannot be concurrently true in reality.

Quote:

As I've said, I have taken communion. I've consumed the wafers and wine. Many times.

And the substance of the wafer and the substance of the win are not magically changed when the priest mutters a few special phrases.

How do you know this? Because you've tasted the grapey fermented flavor of the contents of the chalice? Because you've felt the consistency of the Host? This is to say, because you've tasted, felt, touched, smelled, and looked at these things? So what? The objects of sense perception are non-substantial. They are accidental.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

By definition, logically inconsistent propositions cannot be concurrently true in reality.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that logically consistent propositions can be false in reality.

Bonaventurian wrote:

How do you know this? Because you've tasted the grapey fermented flavor of the contents of the chalice? Because you've felt the consistency of the Host? This is to say, because you've tasted, felt, touched, smelled, and looked at these things? So what? The objects of sense perception are non-substantial. They are accidental.

Because I know that a priest uttering some magic words cannot change the substance of something. I know that a priest uttering some words and the whole pageantry can have great symbolic meaning, and in that way I like the idea of communion, but I'm not foolish or silly enough to believe in literal transubstantiation.

Even according to the Council of Trent the bread and wine are still bread and wine "the species only of the bread and wine remaining". The only change is the injection of symbolic meaning.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

How do you know this? Because you've tasted the grapey fermented flavor of the contents of the chalice? Because you've felt the consistency of the Host? This is to say, because you've tasted, felt, touched, smelled, and looked at these things? So what? The objects of sense perception are non-substantial. They are accidental.

And how do you know they have changed? Are you saying that empirical observation and testing, while having a degree of uncertainty, doesn't hold more weight than the ramblings of a priest? Sure, I could say right now I'm speaking to a unicorn to my left: Noone can prove that I'm not, right? Come on now, that's dismissing rationality completely. Your argument isn't valid.

Bonaventurian wrote:

By definition, logically inconsistent propositions cannot be concurrently true in reality.

I can come up with any fantastical story I'd like and make sure it's consistent, so what? There's no more value placed upon your religion because it may be slightly more consistent. Once again, coherency should not be a standard by which religions should be judged.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So what? That doesn't change the fact that logically consistent propositions can be false in reality.

I agree, but that isn't the point of the thread.

Quote:

Because I know that...

How?

Quote:

Even according to the Council of Trent the bread and wine are still bread and wine "the species only of the bread and wine remaining". The only change is the injection of symbolic meaning.

The Council of Trent teaches that the substance changes, and only the accidents of bread and wine remains.

Wikipedia entry on 'Transubstantiation' wrote:

The Council of Trent defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".[4]

"Species" here is meant in the Latin sense of "stuff to be spotted," ie, appearances.

Zetherin wrote:

And how do you know they have changed? Are you saying that empirical observation and testing, while having a degree of uncertainty, doesn't hold more weight than the ramblings of a priest? Sure, I could say right now I'm speaking to a unicorn to my left: Noone can prove that I'm not, right? Come on now, that's dismissing rationality completely. Your argument isn't valid.

I believe the matter on faith. I am merely saying that A) transubstantiation is logically consistent and B) it can't be empirically falsified. That is to say, I believe that it occurs, and there is no way that you can demonstrate otherwise.

The Muslim belief, on the other hand, is not even logically consistent. It's logically inconsistent. The Muslim can't say "I believe this on faith." By definition, he can't, fully understanding what these propositions imply, believe all 3 of them concurrently.

Quote:

I can come up with any fantastical story I'd like and make sure it's consistent, so what? There's no more value placed upon your religion because it may be slightly more consistent. Once again, coherency should not be a standard by which religions should be judged.

Consistency is a bare minimum in my book. To be consistent means to be possible. My religion might be wrong (it isn't). But it can be right. The Muslim faith, on the other hand, is necessarily wrong. It can't be right.

@Bonaventurian,

And the unbaptised child remains in limbo? This religious zeal needs attention.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian wrote:

Consistency is a bare minimum in my book. To be consistent means to be possible. My religion might be wrong (it isn't). But it can be right. The Muslim faith, on the other hand, is necessarily wrong. It can't be right.

Your religion isn't any more 'right' for having been more consistent. Consistency does not mean something is possible. It could easily be something logically we understand is impossible, and yet it was presented as coherent, consistent. Consistency doesn't necessitate 'right'.

Quote:

The Muslim belief, on the other hand, is not even logically consistent. It's logically inconsistent. The Muslim can't say "I believe this on faith." By definition, he can't, fully understanding what these propositions imply, believe all 3 of them concurrently.

I've read your three propositions, and I don't see where you've come to this conclusion.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Your religion isn't any more 'right' for having been more consistent. Consistency does not mean something is possible.

Yes. That's exactly what consistency means. Take it from a philosophy major. Consistency isn't the same as rightness, but it certainly is the same thing as possibility.

Quote:

I've read your three propositions, and I don't see where you've come to this conclusion.

Then reread it.

@Bonaventurian,

Ok, then I have Luigi to my left, Bowser to my right, and Mario stars above my head right now. I also drink from Peach's wine glass (secret item) which I believe has her kindness imbued. I read from the Mario Allstars manual, and it tells me nothing about this scenario is inconsistent.

Well, it looks like I've reached the same level of possibility you have.

@Bonaventurian,

This attention to the details of faith when the whole subject is nothing more than scriptures written by man with the sole intention of deluding man into a blind dogmatic faith system, its bizarre.

Philosophy Forum

Islam is fundamentally incoherent.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know