On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:02:40 -0500 (GMT-05:00), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >So if some new religion came about tomorrow which thought that the San
> >francisco Yellow Pages were holy revelation from God you don't think
> >it would be possible to ever refute their claim?
> N
>So if some new religion came about tomorrow which thought that the San
>francisco Yellow Pages were holy revelation from God you don't think
>it would be possible to ever refute their claim?
Needless to say, such a claim would be self-refutable.
I guess this is an attempt at humor?
On second th
Gilberto,
At 01:49 AM 1/16/2005, you wrote:
>>Fair enough. I don't think I ever said that they were. Are most Bahais
>>willing to assert that Shoghi Effendi made factual errors?<<
Not most Baha'is I know. However, I suspect that, just through osmosis, many
Baha'is on the Internet are more open
[In the context of the Bahai writings]
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:15:37 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Observing such inaccuracies, where they exist (and Shoghi Effendi, for
> instance, did made some factual errors), are not, IMO, tests of infallibility
> (protection from impurit
Gilberto,
At 09:45 PM 1/15/2005, you wrote:
>>I think idea behind falsifiability was more theoretical. Even if one couldn't
>>actually go back in time we could still specify what it means for the
>>statement to be true or false.<<
In certain cases, concepts in the Qur'an or the Baha'i scriptur
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:22:48 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>First, I would accept it on face value. I do see how one could possibly
> >>know if it is a factual error, but I would have no problem in the event an
> >>error was committed.<<
>
> That should be, 'I do **not** se
>>First, I would accept it on face value. I do see how one could possibly know
>>if it is a factual error, but I would have no problem in the event an error
>>was committed.<<
That should be, 'I do **not** see how one could "
With regards, Mark A. Foster 15 Sites: http://markfoster.net
"S
Gilberto,
At 12:32 PM 1/15/2005, you wrote:
>>So then (I guess this would be a question more for Mark) what is the
>>appropriate Bahai response? Are you saying that yes, there is a factual error
>>but it isn't really important... like the Bible mistaking Isaac for Ishmael?
>>Are you saying that
So then (I guess this would be a question more for Mark) what is theappropriate Bahai response? Are you saying that yes, there is afactual error but it isn't really important... like the Biblemistaking Isaac for Ishmael? Are you saying that it is still true thatZechariah is Mary's father but meta
In a message dated 1/15/2005 12:32:26 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far assouls go, I do remember a long time ago that I read a blurb aboutparanormal researchers weighing bodies at the moment of death and theyfound that there tended to be a small but measurable weight lo
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:09:24 -0600, Susan Maneck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gilberto:
> > "And one can start to suggest properties that
> > beings with souls have which might be verified or disproven."
Susan:
> > And how would one establish a that these properties do > > indeed establish
> > th
> "And one can start to suggest properties that
> beings with souls have which might be verified or disproven."
> And how would one establish a that these properties do indeed establish
that
> the being who possesses them has a soul? Would this be a falsifiable
> criteria?
It would depend on the
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:17:20 -0600, Susan Maneck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "And one can start to suggest properties that
> beings with souls have which might be verified or disproven."
> And how would one establish a that these properties do indeed establish that
> the being who possesses th
Gilberto,
At 09:44 PM 1/14/2005, you wrote:
>>But also, in the original case where I suggested the concept might come up we
>>were talking about scriptures. And Mark (correct me if I'm wrong) seemed to
>>suggesting that the Bahai writings might contain factual errors but he would
>>still "belie
"And one can start to suggest properties that
beings with souls have which might be verified or disproven."
And how would one establish a that these properties do indeed establish that
the being who possesses them has a soul? Would this be a falsifiable
criteria?
"And Mark (correct me if I'm
wro
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:16:37 -0800 (PST), Tim Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Gilberto,
> >The idea is that in order for a theory or a statement to be
> meaningful, it has to be falsifiable.If you can't really do that,
> so the argument goes, what you are saying ultimately has
> no
16 matches
Mail list logo
