1. What possible questions can be posed to 'the argument from likelihood'? — dan1
2. I think the author makes it clear that the "overtones" of 1 religion is in now way intended to imply that claimants to that faith are in any way superior; since judging the nature of belief is a different matter. Therefore he seems to be assessing the matter of humanity impartially from logic alone i feel — dan1
3. Can you provide actual critique of this piece — dan1
4. so far you've made good points but i feel you need to be more to the point — dan1
Let us frame it this way (not barring disagreements on so doing): there are two justifiable alternatives to the existence of God: a) God is, b) God isn’t. Then:
What makes one alternative more likely than the other? — javra
he granted them deduction once we agree to a specific faith narrative in light of the arguments he provided aiming to attest logicality of the quran. — dan1
‘The Principle of Flawless Prose’ which shows incomparable structure of linguistic and rhetorical devices beyond the concoction of man;
Reads like propaganda/an advertisement to me. — Terrapin Station
The empirical sceptical view of reality held by David Hume (later expounded upon and promoted by Peter Millican, among others) as opposed to the view of reliability of reality held by the Ash’ari school in Sunni Muslim theology (held by Ghazali and more recently lucidly expressed by Ramadan Bouti, among others) is briefly outlined herein. — dan1
... If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. — David Hume (Enquiry, 12)
1. the fact that even intellectuals like millican and bouti (let alone students at oxford or elsewhere for that matter) conform 'based on biases' means that 'appeal to authority' does matter even if logically it may be baseless — dan1
yes, youre very right. but again ou are not criticizing this article. he argues that the quran does contain logic which cannot be rejected — dan1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.