Quote:
WR: the skeptic who posits a contradiction is simultaneously positing the non-existence of any resolution;
B: That does not follow. I don't understand your logic here.
WR: It /does/ follow.
When somebody posits a contradiction, it is because they have, up to the point of making the statement, have observed no resolution. It does not then follow that there is no possible resolution.
Quote:
The last time I checked, the working hypothesis of the SAB was that the category-names mean what they say: "Contradictions," not "Possible Contradictions," and "Injustices," not "Feasibly Unjust Incidents," and "Absurdities," not "Conceivably Absurd Statements," and so on.
Nor does it say "Contradictions with no possible resolutions", or "Injustices with absolutely no explanation". The whole point is that a skeptic will point out a contradiction, you will (be expected to) come along and propose resolutions. In case you have not noticed, many contradictions and injustices have been altered or removed due to the reasonable arguments presented by believers.
Quote:
So if a resolution appears, in which the two statements are shown to be capable of agreement, the claim that no resolution is possible dissolves.
A resolution for any contradiction is always possible. That does not make the resolution true. That is why they are still contradictions- because you propose resolutions, but don't ground (all of) those resolutions in reality.
Every time you think you see a contradiction, injustice, or absurdity in the Quran, there is a possible resolution to your complaint. Therefore, there are no contradictions, injustices, or absurdities in the Quran. I don't understand why you bother to even comment on it.
