Talk:Occasionalism

message: Anyone want to make one that doesn't have "physical" spelled wrong? --Anaraug 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematic 

message: I've seen Karl Barth cited as a contemporary source of theological occasionalism. It would be interesting if we could have more references on that.  ADM (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Karl Barth

message: Im removing the word Habitual from the lead, Habit gives the wrong understanding and has nothing to do with this or God, although i understand why it was used and what it was trying to express. I couldn't find a precise single word to replace it so removing it would be better as the passage still conveys the same meaning without it. Iβn Kᾱτhir τᾱℓк 07:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits 

message: Oxford professor explaining Occasionalism. I think, at first, a bad explanation of Berkeley, but a good one of Occasionalism. It has a good "billiard ball" analogy that may be somehow be here incorporated. Nagelfar (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uploaded video of a 2009 lecture explaning Occasionalism 

message: Something could be said about the possible relationship between the rise of occasionalism and the relative stagnation of science among Muslims in most areas after the 13th century.  Adherence to occasionalism is not necessarily incompatible with practical scientific work, but overall it encourages habits of mind not very favorable to a scientific world-view, and some have speculated that there might be a connection to the decline of scientific innovation in most Muslim societies (though of course official endorsement of occasionalism would not have been the only factor in the decline)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim has been debunked numerous times  -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:5181:4250:D496:CBC:CF9:D7D9 (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Muslims were still the most powerful people on the planet 600 years after the theory presented by Ghazali. After that the British took over. Occasionalism was present before Ghazali aswell. Your statement is a non-sequitor. 2600:1700:727A:1010:24F7:F30E:2F6A:400C (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest year that Muslims could be considered the most powerful was 1683, and some would consider the decline to have begun earlier.  Anyway, I wasn't talking about that; I was talking about the fact that Arabs contributed little to science after the 13th century, in contrast to the earlier Abbasid period.  Obviously occasionalism wasn't the only reason for this, and the acceptance of occasionalism didn't immediately cause an abrupt end to science, but nevertheless occasionalism may have been a somewhat significant part of a cultural climate that was overall moderately hostile to scientific innovation... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: occasionalism and science

message: The section on Islam has the sentence "In his famous example, when fire and cotton are placed in contact, the cotton is burned not because of the heat of the fire, but through God's direct intervention, a claim which he defended using logic." This sounds kind of dumb and should be fixed. Either the phrase "a claim which he defended using logic" should be stripped out entirely or should be replaced with an actual summary of his arguments. Just saying he used "logic" to defend his arguments is baseless and doesn't actually tell us anything.
--SStewartGallus (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Human beings have no definition of what is "logical" So what is logical to Ghazali might not make sense to you and vice versa. 2600:1700:727A:1010:24F7:F30E:2F6A:400C (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

text: SStewartGallus -- The purpose of the phrase is to indicate that he gave reasoning in support of it, and didn't merely assert it without any reasoning. AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A claim which he defended using logic