Editing Talk:Proof of the Truthful (section)

==Adamson==
He is too much cited in the article, which makes it too Adamsoncentric. [[User:Yahya Talatin|Yaḥyā ‎]] ([[User talk:Yahya Talatin|talk]]) 04:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
: {{re|Yahya Talatin}} Can you explain in what way (other than being "too much cited")? If you have sources, or suggestions to add more diverse viewpoints, please elaborate. [[User:HaEr48|HaEr48]] ([[User talk:HaEr48|talk]]) 07:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
::18/29 of the footnotes, I'd call that excessive. Proof of the Truthful is wholly misrepresented in this article, that's what happens when thoughts and beliefs from one single author are projected as if they were those of Avicenna. The actual arguments provided by Avicenna, were much stronger, when they're understood in todays language.[[User:Yahya Talatin|Yaḥyā ‎]] ([[User talk:Yahya Talatin|talk]]) 18:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
::: Sure, but the number (18/29) itself is not a problem. It's a problem if you think other viewpoints are not represented properly. It seems that you think so, I'm happy to see the article improved, but in order to be helpful please be more specific in your comments (or edits) and back them up with reliable sources. "is wholly misrepresented" is a very generic comment does not help people who want to improve it. "The actual arguments provided by Avicenna, were much stronger" is your opinion, but Wikipedia relies more on works of reliable secondary/tertiary sources rather than an editor's opinion or analysis of the work itself. [[User:HaEr48|HaEr48]] ([[User talk:HaEr48|talk]]) 19:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
If Adamson opinion in the floating man experiment wasn't misinterpreted, then I'd be very conscious to use him as source. Proof of the Truthful in everyday language (which can be experienced by everyone): If you pinch yourself and you have pain in an area, the physical manifestation and the inner experience of pain aren't the same. There can be thousands of manifestations, be it brain activity (from todays language), screaming, etc... they can all be coming from different places, yet the inner subjective experience can be unitary. The only uniting factor of all those different physical manifestation is an unitary subjective immaterial experience of pain. Then Avicenna simply generalized from that: All physical manifestations can therefor be joined by one single unitary experience (God). He elsewhere developped from there, on how physical manifestations can only be joined by an inner agent. In the West that part has been plainly dealt with, by Jung [[Synchronicity]] concept. [[User:Yahya Talatin|Yaḥyā ‎]] ([[User talk:Yahya Talatin|talk]]) 20:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
:As for sources, common day observation by about anyone can never be sourced, because no one can ever take credit for. Why would you publish something everyone can already without any special knowledge observe (unless it's a kindergarten book, but I doubt it is allowed to use such works here) ? But just for your information, in his thought experiment talkpage, I have posted links to a bunch of Avicenna philosophical concepts. If you check by yourself, you'll see that I am not inventing anything. [[User:Yahya Talatin|Yaḥyā ‎]] ([[User talk:Yahya Talatin|talk]]) 20:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
:: I don't see how the last comments relate to the article subject? The article is about argument for God's existence, why are you talking about pinching, pain, brain activity? [[User:HaEr48|HaEr48]] ([[User talk:HaEr48|talk]]) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
:::Several hundred years ago, thinkers were building their argumentations on minimal a priori knowledge. This means that every conclusions were derived from direct observation. In Islamic and European (particularly in the middle ages) works man was made from the image of God. The pinching example was just analogical; Avicenna projecting a human experience and from there deriving the existence of God. From the other article: ''Seddiqin means the argument of the sincere men or truthful ones.'' Do you think that the reader from just reading the article will understand what the hell the sincere men has to do with God existence? Nowhere in the other article or this one, there is anything explicitly telling why sincerity is connected with God. Here [http://www.maslaha.org/islamic-answers/glossary/zahir-and-batin-long] is the central Islamic doctrine that all Islamic philosophers follow. Sincerity is about intention (see the link) which is an inner experience... not an outer manifestation. Those issues were raised by Kant in the Prolegomena. Why is an identical copy of you, not you? Because your inner experience is missing in the other copy.  See while those articles are sourced, they say nothing about the initial philosophy of Avicenna. [[User:Yahya Talatin|Yaḥyā ‎]] ([[User talk:Yahya Talatin|talk]]) 00:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)