Vision of God: Possibility, Evidence, Objections and Transcendence

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

• What distinguishes rational possibility from actual occurrence of divine vision?
• What does complete disclosure through sight principally mean?
• What is compared in the hadith about seeing the full moon?
• What issue is raised by the fact that substance and accident can both be seen?
• What is a central logical objection to treating existence as the reason for vision?
• What follows if something potentially visible is not actually seen?
• Which assumption underlies the claim that divine vision requires direction and distance?
• How should vision be distinguished from encompassing?
• What does Moses’ request principally support in the classical argument?
• What key distinction informs the Sunni reply to “You shall not see Me”?
• How is “If it remains in place” used in the discussion?
• What is the response to citing the Israelites’ rebuke as proof of impossibility?
• What does nāḍirah signify in the verse about faces on that Day?
• What counters the reading “awaiting reward” in “looking toward their Lord”?
• Besides possibility, what does the hadith of vision aim to establish?
• Which conclusion does NOT follow from disagreement about vision during the Miʿrāj?
• What caution is required when discussing reports of vision in dreams?
• What key semantic point is made in reply to “Eyes do not comprehend Him”?
• What follows if the ordinary physical conditions of sight are not universally necessary?
• Why is the specific essence of body or accident questioned as the basis of vision?
• What mistake is avoided by speaking of sight apprehending identity?
• Which formulation combines vision with divine transcendence?
• What is the appropriate order of the reasoning in this topic?
• What distinction is essential when comparing vision in this world and in the Hereafter?
• Which conclusion overstates the argument connecting existence and vision?
• What is NOT established merely by affirming divine vision?
• Proving rational possibility of vision automatically proves that every person sees God in worldly life.
• The reply concerning “Eyes do not comprehend Him” invokes the distinction between vision and encompassing.
• The full-moon analogy is meant to establish that God has the moon’s shape.
• Moses’ request and the verses and hadiths about the Hereafter serve different argumentative functions.