Timeline for What logical preconditions would guarantee that a book is of divine origin?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apr 22, 2013 at 19:39 | comment | added | philosodad | @sehe I wasn't condemning anything. I was clarifying. I made an assumption that the context would be sufficient to demand an actual book... for example, point 3 states that people "read" the book. I was clearly wrong about that, and I'm not condemning you for pointing it out. | |
Apr 21, 2013 at 11:09 | comment | added | sehe | I know it was ludicrous. However, your list specifically did not constrain to "a book" (whatever that may be) and it did constrain with "is not subject to the laws of physics". I was merely thinking along. Funny how you condemn my comment for an paradox/contradiction you postulated yourself. (FTR: I was willing to stretch the definition of "book" to include any kind of externally observable entity that can act as a source of repeatable information. Yeah, it's more like "medium". Hofstadter's "record into space" thought experiment comes to mind.) | |
Apr 20, 2013 at 11:43 | history | edited | philosodad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified that we're not talking about a force of nature, we're talking about a consistent collection of words.
|
Apr 20, 2013 at 11:30 | comment | added | philosodad | @sehe gravity is not a book, nor is it like a book, so it doesn't meet the most basic criteria. The properties I'm listing are not properties of an intangible thing, they would be properties of an actual book. | |
Apr 19, 2013 at 20:16 | comment | added | sehe | I'm thinking "gravity" fits the description of this "book" (it is untangible, yet appears to be omnipresent and rarely debated). My point is: this implies the perception of it (the 'book') by humans is important to qualify, and yet we know how perception is a debatable source of truth. For starters, we could have a phenomenon satisfy the criteria 'locally', with no way to assess universal applicability. My stance is, we couldn't know, even if we went along with the assumptions stated in your answer. | |
Mar 14, 2013 at 14:21 | history | edited | philosodad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
expanded answer to include books written by extant gods.
|
Mar 14, 2013 at 14:16 | comment | added | philosodad | @Muz I think that is sort of the point, though. In order for a rational person to be convinced that something was the product of a supernatural being, the thing has to contain a convincing proof of supernaturalness, such as being supernatural itself. | |
Mar 14, 2013 at 5:05 | comment | added | Muz | Point 4, combined with the ones before it would make it not a book.. it would be some kind of natural insight. Point 5 might not be true; Islam and Christianity recognize other books as revelation, though this might contradict with your Point 1 in that such a book can't be introduced at a later date. | |
Aug 25, 2012 at 15:18 | history | answered | philosodad | CC BY-SA 3.0 |