Your tweet led me hear :)

Yup it brings up the Euthyphro dilemma again if you posit attributes as external & separate from god. Al Ghazali in his book moderation in belief uses the analogy of someone having a hand. The hand is not the person but the hand is not separate from the person. Or the slices of the pizza are distinct from the pizza yet part of the pizza. It seems you have to posit that god is made of parts but these parts are simply not physical parts, they are abstract parts. Physical parts would lead to causation problems making god dependent on the parts. It raises intriguing questions as to the whole concept of seeing god/beatific vision. Can god only be experienced through attributes. The problem becomes that ppl would find this too impersonal. We as humans are used to faces, voices & forms. How can anybody see or experience a being that has no form unless hes form is not one of material substance ?

@@ak2872 I think the problem is that if you say God has attributes that are distinct from His essence, and it is in virtue of these attributes that He has certain intrinsic perfections (such as knowledge and power), then that implies that the essence of God is not completely perfect in itself, but it depends on something else (i.e. distinct attributes) in order to have certain perfections. It shows that God's essence is devoid of perfections and is in need of something else (the attributes) in order to have those perfections. However, on divine simplicity, the essence of God is infinitely perfect, lacking nothing. Thus, there is no dependence on distinct attributes in order to have perfections, because all perfections are already encompassed within the infinitude of perfection that is the divine essence, safeguarding both divine perfection and divine independence.

@Mr M " positing that god is identical to his attributes entails 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲, and since the attributes have no ontological reality according to the twelvers/mutazilites, it entails that God also has no reality." This is not how a classical theist would predicate attributes to God. According to our theology, God's essence is infinite perfection itself, so it can serve as the basis for many of our predications, since every perfection we predicate to Him (such as knowledge and power) is understood only from imperfect creaturely modes. Thus, each distinct predication is true and can be made because no single predication really exhausts the perfection of the divine essence, but each of them signifies or points to the divine essence in their own unique and limited ways. So, when we say God is identical to His attributes, it doesn't mean He is an attribute, it means that all of them really signify the divine essence, which is infinite perfection itself, in their own unique and limited ways. Lastly, we don't say that attributes have no ontological reality. It's correct to say that in God, 'attributes' are not distinct realities from His essence on which He depends to have perfections, for that would make His essence imperfect and dependent. "Dependency is when one relies on something other than it, whereas Gods attributes are neither identical to his essence 𝗻𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗶𝗺" The attributes are distinct from Him according to Sunni theology. So, in that sense, they are other than Him (no one ever claimed that they were separate). There is a difference between separability and distinction. So, the argument still holds. If you say God has attributes that are distinct from His essence, and it is in virtue of these attributes that He has certain intrinsic perfections (such as knowledge and power), then that implies that the essence of God is not completely perfect in itself, but it depends on something else (i.e. distinct attributes) in order to have certain perfections.

@Mr M " it is flawed as saying that god is identical to his attributes entails that he is an attribute" Already addressed. "Saying "god is knowledge" and "god is will" are also contradictions if you claim they are simultaneous as even a child can comprehend that knowledge and will are distinct meanings and thus it still results in the very composition and "dependency" you are trying to refute." Yes, 'knowledge' and 'will' mean different things. But, they all just different ways and conceptions through which we can conceive and describe the divine essence. The attributes having different meanings doesn't mean that they have to correspond to distinct realities in God; they all describe, in different ways, the infinite perfection of God. "Either god has the attributes of knowledge, will, power etc and you are merely mentioning them in which case you would be agreeing with us or he doesnt really have those attributes in which case your predicating them of him would be a lie." Yes, God does have those attributes. They are true and real predications describing His infinite perfection. They do not refer to distinct actualities in God, which will result in your incoherent theology viewing God as a composite of substance and accidents. "The standard islamic position on the sifat is that gods attributes are neither his essence nor other than his essence." If the attributes are not identical to the essence, nor distinct from His essence, then that is a logical contradiction. So, your conception of God is logically incoherent.

We don't consider parts to be any sort of distinction like Aristotleans, parts, to us, are detachable from the whole

@@vedon_z whos we buddy ? Theres tons of variations in views in philosophy. Thats why these things are discussed in the first place and so much literature written on these subjects because nobody can agree

@@Yameen200 We is the 1.6 billion Sunnis on planet earth

@@vedon_z are you athari?