The owner of the tie
Hi, I wanted to ask what you think about the claims of the author of the Akida for the renewal of the world.
If you know them, he claims that abundance, wisdom, and purpose confirm that the world is indeed renewed, and he brings the evidence from the psalm “My soul rejoices in the Lord” in the Psalms.
What do you think?
Does this fit scientific knowledge?
And he reminded me of one of your claims, Leibniz’s law, the principle of sufficient taste.
And now, when the action is in this manner, my will from the perspective of the purpose, especially in the way of the will, is nullified. All the questions that said why it was in this manner and not in another, are nullified. For the correct answer to all is that it was according to his will.
That is, if we look at the purpose for which He created and fashioned the world, it is possible to understand why the laws are as they are and not as they are.
I would be happy if you correct me if I am wrong in any way.
I don’t know. Your wording reminds me of the physico-theological argument I extended about it.
Indeed, and that is why I ask this.
I will quote him
“And this is itself the first argument taken from the side that the case will be renewed for the little. Attached to which
that the multiplicity implied in value will require the absolute will, and not the invention there of two beginnings, God forbid.
The second is that you have made them all with wisdom. And this is itself the second argument. Because the correctness of their action and the arrangement of their nature and the agreement of all the parts of their actions on the right point to the power of the wisdom of the one who acts on them with immense intention. And in saying you have made, he points to the absolute will, as the wise Al-Ghazali explained in the questions of the three and four, that whoever does not act with will will not be called neither a doer nor an actor.”
That is, if I understood correctly, he claims that spontaneous creation or spontaneous creation (accidental and not voluntary) will not cause the multiplication of things, in this case the universe in which everything is arranged correctly and everything has a role.
This is very reminiscent of the theological argument.
He brings up the argument from Rambam and Aristotle by the way.
The physico-theological argument is ancient, and he did not invent it. It already appears in the Midrash about Abraham, who asked who turns the wheel. And also among Christian thinkers. There is nothing new in this. There are subtleties that have emerged in recent generations that improve the argument and deal with various arguments against it (such as evolution). The history of ideas is a very tricky field. You can always find some new idea in earlier sources.
By the way, regarding the plurality of things, it seems to me to be meaningless in the context of evidence. Coordination is something else.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
