Firstly, there are several other arguments for God's existence. Between these, we can (through a mixture of deduction and induction) build up something of a picture of God. Secondly, there is revelation, which can shed a lot of light on the 'necessary existent'. /2
-
-
AQ Retweeted Joscha Bach
2. You seem to just be "explaining" one regularity by correlating it with other regularities. We would then need to explain this correlation, and these other regularities, and so on and so forth. /3https://twitter.com/Plinz/status/1032775423619420161?s=19 …
AQ added,
Joscha Bach @PlinzReplying to @Plinz @EvollaqiAs an aside: we know what makes cotton combust when we bring fire near it: photons (carriers of an electromagnetic field in the infrared range) increase the momentum of the cotton's molecules until bonds break and recombine with atmospheric oxygen, thereby releasing more photons.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
AQ Retweeted Joscha Bach
3. You're assuming that these traits are fundamental to God, and then being the sole and direct cause of everything has just been tacked on. But that is not so. In Islamic theology, His necessary existence, His omnipotence, His "immediacy", and so on /4https://twitter.com/Plinz/status/1032771893865136128?s=19 …
AQ added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
are fundamental. Mainstream theology holds these features of God can be known through pure reason prior to any revelation. Once reason has established these features of God, reason can then establish the logical possibility of revelation, and criteria by which /5
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
true revelation can be identified. Only then - according to the majority of Islamic theologians - can we discover the truth of Islam, and all the features of God which you identified in your tweet. /6
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thus rather than occasionalism being tacked onto God, it is a fundamental feature of (our knowledge of) Him, and it is these other traits which are then being tacked on. What are your thoughts? Have I understood your points correctly? I really appreciate you engaging :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Evollaqi
A statement about an item of faith is not a true statement about reality, but a true statement about the state of the mind holding the faith. It involves a belief without priors, something that cannot validly be inferred in any other way but by observing your own mind.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
For instance, there can hardly be a valid perceptual observation that informs you that you were created by an intentional being rather than a mechanical process. It is important to not engage in motivated reasoning.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
There can be no evidence for the existence of an ontologically existing being that is omnipotent. If you find yourself holding non-zero confidence in its existence (i.e. confidence that is higher than evidential support), your mind finds itself in its presence, but it's not true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What is true is that you indeed have that experience, because you (as an experiencing self) exist inside of the mind that generates you based on its confidences, regardless of whether the confidence is based on sound epistemology. Religion usually breaks epistemology.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Functionally, God is a virtual agent that is implemented by the minds and actions of its believers. I think it is quite similar to how a person is a virtual agent implemented by cells. However, while a person is sentient and cells are not, believers are sentient and God is not.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.