Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Einstein

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Einstein

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 01/15/1983

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,074 profile views
  1. it can't be distinguished from other independent or external realities, but this same reality seems to be comprised of many different mini-realities, (things, or sub-realities if you will) within it.
  2. i didn't know we were discussing theistic understanding on the subject, as it is irrelevant, not to mention that i'm quite familiar with theistic (islamic, specially shia) views on the matter. i mentioned randomness (indeterminism) because it's the only logically possible alternative to determinism (which you reject).
  3. i disagree with this. something needn't be outside of reality to make the distinction. as long as a distinction of any kind, and from anywhere, and by anyone/anything, is made, it should suffice.
  4. this would just mean god "knows" himself. big deal! lol another problem is that this makes us a part of god, which would mean that god has parts (even if only conceptual), rendering him multiple.
  5. salam; predestination is simply what god has destined to happen to everyone and everything. by virtue of the principle of sufficient reason, true randomness is absolutely impossible. and since randomness and sufficient reason are truly contradictory (absolute opposites. what is random is causeless, and what is caused is not random), this means that both can't be true or false at the same time (thanks to the laws of no contradiction and excluded middle). in other words, one of them must be true for any item (physical or not, and simple or complex). the 'will' is an item which must either function randomly or causally. if it functions causally, then it's deterministic, hence no freewill. if it functions randomly, then it's indeterministic, hence no accountability either. this is why i only accept some sort of notional freewill and notional responsibility (out of necessity). note that this is the same type of "responsibility" i place on animals that are deemed a threat, and must therefor be destroyed or some such. awareness alone cannot entail genuine responsibility. wslm
  6. it doesn't matter how you or i know something. what does matter, however, is the general understanding and definition of the word "knowledge". i argue that our understanding of factual "knowledge" is that it must conform to reality, and not reality conforming to our imagination. all of existence is essentially nothing more than god's imagination/dream being realized (unfolding).
  7. if these philosophers are not compatibilists (if they're libertarians), then they certainly are unfamiliar with valid deductive reasoning.
  8. determinism has nothing to do with linear or non-linear anything (we're not talking about physical determinism here). predestination is different from determinism only in the matter of intentional (intelligent) causality, which determinism doesn't require for it to be true, while predestination does require it. whether a god exists is not really relevant in determinism (unlike predestination). determinism isn't necessarily a theological concept, while predestination is strictly theological.
  9. like i said before, if everything is nothing but a manifestation of what's in god's mind, then this isn't technically knowledge that he has of everything (because knowledge must be extracted from reality, not reality extracted from knowledge), but rather a realization of his ideas/imagination.. actually god can't will what contradicts his nature (or what's eternally in his mind), which means he can't actually do anything differently to what had existed eternally in his mind. there is no logical (or practical) evidence that god is good, loving, perfect, etc. (based on our understanding and definition of these things). there might exist evidence to the contrary, however.
  10. well, then i guess all the philosophers should have studied "your experience" rather than waste their time with philosophy, logic, and deductive reasoning.
  11. you can ask any marje' (grand ayatollah) if you wish. this is not a matter of hadith. hadiths don't even use terms like ayatollah or ayatollah uthma. the difference between a regular ayatollah and a grand ayatollah is that the regular one doesn't need to follow anyone, and can extract laws from quran and sunnah himself. a grand ayatollah has a "resalah" which people can use to follow him. regular ayatollahs don't have resalahs.
  12. either way, he's not a grand ayatollah, so no one can follow him (taqlid). you must follow a marje' (grand ayatollah), not a regular ayatollah... who knows, you might find a grand ayatollah who suits your tastes. of course if one really seeks to follow the most suitable person, there are only a handful of suited candidates, the rest are not as qualified.
  13. i honestly don't know who this amini guy is, but his points 2 and 3 oppose what is generally accepted among other jurists.
  14. i agree with this... but, he didn't clarify what exactly constitutes "injustice with respect to actions and deeds".
  15. it's his view (sistani) that those things he mentioned are not mandatory (wajib), but recommended (mustahab). if we wanna enter into the world of all that's recommended, we'll be here a very long time.
×
×
  • Create New...