Ugly Jinn, on 03 March 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:
That's fine. If your claim is part of the prerequisite then it doesn't change much (just that it's incorrect - but I don't want to get into that). Any fallible can claim to be a divine agent, hence there is Agha Khan, the whole point is, 'How do you prove it?' You're just proving it using fallible personality traits only, that's logically not enough.
Regardless, if you read La'nat Ma Man's post, he provided a logically sound prerequisite that differentiates an infallible from a fallible. He gave a perfect answer. I choose not to get into specifics of the prerequisites, rather state that something only an infallible can achieve must be a condition.
Even for the sake of argument the if person was conned, his formula is still sound, even if he made an error in it's application. Your formula is erroneous to begin with, in my opinion, and because of that approach there are millions of Agha Khan followers.
Why hasn't Agha Khan performed either of the conditions La'nat Ma Man's posted if it's so easy to 'pretend' it? Because it's not something one can 'pretend' that easily, and to be honest with no disrespect, he doesn't need to because people are using your approach. On the other hand, if your fallible conditions were applied (ex. sanity, truthful, claimed to be a divine agent, etc.), all Agha Khan followers will easily say, "Our beloved Agha Khan meets all your requirements".
Come to think of it, the case of the Aga Khan is very different. He claims to fulfill the role of Imamate in Islam, so there would be more criteria that applies: Qur'an, Hadith, as well as his own actions and lifestyle (which on its own is enought to disqualify him from infallibility).
As for miracles and magic - it's the ethical character than differentiates the two for people who only see the supernatural appearance.
That's the point jeb, what seperates black magic from miracles is that the former is an illusion whilst the latter has a physical effect on natural phenomena.
But we just see the appearance. Who's to tell that the cleaving of the moon was not just an illusion but also a physical effect? Who's to establish whether Christ's bird or healing the sick wasn't just illusion and luck respectively?
And how can we, normal people, differentiate between appearance and physicality?
And why should we assume that magic is mere illusion and cannot effect things physically? Demons can build for Solomon
. This makes a physical difference, I presume. So why can't a demon work for a corrupt master?
As for the greatest miracle of all, the Qur'an, it is not supernatural in the sense the others are.
The same applies to predictions - any prediction.
Supernatural things don't indicate the Divine, they indicate some sort of power or knowledge, which can stem from God or from evil. But goodness and sincerity is the mark of the Divine, and if such a man claimed to be a prophet, or the al-Mahdi, I would believe him.
Let me put it to you this way:
Sistani is a truthful man, La'nat. Do you accept? What if he told you: "I have seen the Imam. He is arriving soon." Would you believe him or not? I think I would, although I don't know him well enough to establish that he is scrupulously truthful, but all the evidence suggests that he is. There is extremely little evidence undermining his truthfulness.
Edited by Jebreil, 03 March 2012 - 06:17 PM.