Free will with an all knowing God.

[Tyrion]

:sl:

I tried searching for another thread that tackled this, and I couldn't really find anything... So here I go.

Basically, a few weeks ago I got into a discussion with one of my philosopher friends, and we started talking about God. He brought up the issue of free will being impossible with the existence of an all knowing God, and while I was able to hold my own in the discussion, I wasn't able to really articulate an effective response. This was mainly due to the fact that I'm not particularly learned in philosophy, or proper Islamic arguments on the matter. I basically just ended up telling him what I could about the Islamic conception of God and free will, and then just let him know that my knowledge on the matter ended there.

I was hoping to get some responses from Muslims who are knowledgeable on the subject, but also to maybe spark some discussion so that I can further understand both view points. Thanks in advance for your replies.

[CosmicPathos]

Just because God knows the future, it does not mean man does not have free will. Moreover, in Islam, God knows the future, and has written it down in the Preserved Tablet. All the past events that have occurred, the future as it will unfold and manifest itself, and the present, every minuscule detail has been recorded by God. So in essence, we have free will but within the context of what God wrote down for us. Since we do not know what God wrote for us, we have to strive our best to do things, but whatever God has willed and has written down, only that will happen. And some of the things which God wrote down, such as such and such person is destined to Hell, He wrote them down based on His foreknowledge of what the deeds of that person will be as done out of his pure free-will. So its not unjust at all.

May Allah forgive me if I said something wrong about Him.

[PouringRain]

I will tell you a practical way that I conceptualize it. Have you ever read those Choose Your Own Adventure books? That is free will, in spite of God knowing all things. God authored the book of your life. You are the character in the book who gets to make the choices. Each choice leads to various outcomes (all which God authored in his book), and he knows all your endings.

If you are not familiar with the books, then this explanation may not make a whole lot of sense. :) I was one of those anal-children who would read each book and pick every single endings making sure I saw every single choice and outcome.

Anyhow, that is my conceptualization of free will + God knows all things.

[marwen]

Free will with an all knowing God ?
I don't know what is the problem here. God is knowing what you'll do in the future, but He doesn't force you to do what you will do : You still have a free will.
Allah gave us a free will, but also because He is a God, he can know the future. And Allah's knowledge of the future is independent from your free will : no contradiction between your freedom to do what you want, and the fact that Allah can know what you will do before you do it.

Let's take an example : this is not exactly the same thing, but just to clarify a little bit the independence between The all knowing God and The Free will :
Let's suppose you have a kid. And from your experience/knowledge you know that your kid love chocolate more than anything else.
And you gave your kid some pocket money and told him to go to the supermarket and buy some food for himself. In the supermarket, in the food section, there is cookies and candies and chocolate. Now before your kid get out the supermarket, you can already know that he will surely come out with at least one chocolate bar in his bag (with or without other things). Did you force him to buy chocolate ? No ! He had a free will. But you knew what he will do before he did it. The tow things (your knowledge and the kid's decision) are independent.

The same way, Allah can know what we will do in the future, even before we are born/created. But we are totally free to decide what to do, and we will freely chose the actions that we want to do (that's why we are responsible of our actions), but the result will be exactly conform to Allah's prior knowledge.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[B_M]

I will tell you a practical way that I conceptualize it. Have you ever read those Choose Your Own Adventure books? That is free will, in spite of God knowing all things. God authored the book of your life. You are the character in the book who gets to make the choices. Each choice leads to various outcomes (all which God authored in his book), and he knows all your endings.

That's exactly how I think of it.

How do we know that God doesn't know both the outcomes? If we come to a certain situation that requires a decision, and there's more than one path, whether we take route 1 or route 2, maybe God knows the outcome to both. It's our Free Will to choose which path to take.

[*Hana*]

Salam Alaikum:

When questioned about free will, I always explain this way:

There are 2 things that are absolute...the time of our birth and the time of our death. These two things will never change and all paths we take from birth will eventually lead to the same end...death. However, the paths we choose between these two absolutes is our free will. The path is straight at birth and then branches off as we make decisions or choices through life.

Hope this helps. :)

Wa'alaikum salam,
Hana

[Yanal]

:sl:

Insha'Allaah this can assist you:

Divine Decree

A Muslim must believe in Divine Decree or destiny — qadar in Arabic. The concept of qadar used in the Qur’an means a measure or the latent possibilities with which Allah (God) created human beings and all things of nature. When Allah created each thing, He determined when it would come into existence and when it would cease to exist. He also determined its qualities and nature. And everything in the universe, the seen and the unseen, is completely subject to the overriding power of Allah. Nothing can happen outside His Will.
As for human beings, they are not completely masters of their fates, nor are they puppets subject to the hazards of destiny. Allah gave humans limited power and great freedom, including the freedom of choice. That autonomy makes each individual accountable for his or her deeds.
We cannot know our future and, to a large extent, we cannot control it. But we can make decisions within the limits of what we can control, based on our understanding of the way the world works. If someone chooses to punch his fist into a brick wall, he cannot claim any injustice when it hurts. He knows that the wall exists and that it is hard. That is the reality — the “laws of nature” — he has to deal with. Yet the ultimate reality is that Allah could make the wall disappear just before one’s fist reaches it.
Just as Allah created nature and its laws, He made moral laws, and we cannot claim any injustice if we get punished for disobeying or ignoring those moral laws.

The concept of qadar, therefore, indicates that we must seek harmony with Allah’s rules of human nature and nature at large, and consciously submit to His will. Destiny as conceived by Islam, therefore, does not take away our freedom of choice and action. It is our willful choice of those actions from our inherent possibilities that are in harmony with Allah’s will that earns us our reward from Allah.
Yet, when Allah set certain rules in His decree as to how things evolve, even these things can be changed through prayers. The Prophet stressed that only sincere prayers can change the way events unfold, and that true worship and sincere submission to Allah can raise the believer above the normal ways of nature. Prayers can and do result in “personal miracles” — events or experiences that we consider almost impossible and certainly highly improbable.
From an Islamic point of view, human beings are free for all practical purposes. A person has no excuse for making the wrong choice and then blaming qadar or destiny, any more than a man punching his fist into a wall can blame the laws of nature. He knew the consequences of his actions for all practical purposes and he shouldn’t expect a miracle!
We should not worry about what Allah has written for us, since we can never know it. But our duty is to strive for the best in this world and the next. Then, good results will follow, if Allah wills.
As for the question of whether humans are predestined to enter Paradise or Hell, we must remember that Allah transcends the limits of time. He is All-Knowing of the past, present and future. Thus He knows in advance which path — good or evil — each individual will choose and what will be his or her final destination — Paradise or Hell. But such knowledge does not mean that He makes each person choose a certain path.

http://islam.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1...rticle01.shtml

[Dave...]

It has been my experience that when speaking of "free will", most people have a different idea of what it means. So the number one objective is to collectively define what it means. I always ask, what are you claiming that your will is free from, God's sovereignty? His decree?

As a Christian, I know that the Bible knows of no such concept as "free will" is it is usually defined. The Bible says that we are either slaves to sin, or slaves to righteousness. Freedom, as defined by the Bible, is the ability to obey God without the restraint of sin.

It's a deep topic. The problem is everyone is reading their own definition into terms like "free will" and as a result, nobody is understanding what the other is saying.

Try to first ask...what do you mean by "free will"? I will either agree, or disagree, depending on how one defines it. That goes a long way to making any discussion worth having.

Dave

[Lynx]

The most common response to the Free Will problem is that just because God knows what will happen does not mean God is making it happen. The best way IMO to think about this is imagine if God didn't exist in our universe; would our actions be any different? Probably not because God's knowledge of our actions seem to be known because we will do those actions. So John is going to buy a sandwich tomorrow and God knows this because that's what John is going to do.

Read Boethius for the strongest defense of free will + omniscience or look up a summary of Boethius' passage about free will in his consolation of philosophy.

[Pygoscelis]

The most common response to the Free Will problem is that just because God knows what will happen does not mean God is making it happen.

Unless God also created us with total power over how we'd turn out.

The problem with God and Free Will is not that God knows the future, but that God knows the future AND created us with complete power over how we'd turn out. This means that God built us so we would do what we will do, and then punishes us if we do something different. It is like writing "4" on all six sides of a dice, rolling the dice and then being upset at the dice because they didn't roll "5". It is like screaming at your dog because he peed in your house after locking him up for 10 hours and not letting him go outside.

[FS123]

The problem with God and Free Will is not that God knows the future, but that God knows the future AND created us with complete power over how we'd turn out.

Turn out physically or morally? God doesn't make you do what you do, choice is yours.

[Lynx]

Unless God also created us with total power over how we'd turn out.

The problem with God and Free Will is not that God knows the future, but that God knows the future AND created us with complete power over how we'd turn out. This means that God built us so we would do what we will do, and then punishes us if we do something different. It is like writing "4" on all six sides of a dice, rolling the dice and then being upset at the dice because they didn't roll "5". It is like screaming at your dog because he peed in your house after locking him up for 10 hours and not letting him go outside.

I don't quite see how human sinning is akin to a dog peeing inside because he can't go outside. Are you saying that since (for example) men want to have sex, that it's God's fault when a man falls for that temptation because that's how God made him?

[Pygoscelis]

I don't quite see how human sinning is akin to a dog peeing inside because he can't go outside. Are you saying that since (for example) men want to have sex, that it's God's fault when a man falls for that temptation because that's how God made him?

God should bare some responsibility if he created this particular man with this particular drive and knew it would lead him to do this particular thing, which God doesn't want to happen. The dog could have held out for a couple more hours before peeing on the rug too. But as the owner, you know what is likely to happen if you set up the scenario. You don't know exactly what WILL happen though as you create the circumstance, as God would (making God more responsible).

[جوري]

The dog could have held out for a couple more hours before peeing on the rug too

Are you suggesting that it is instinctive as it is to pee or eat to be evil? and where would free will come to play in all of this, I mean what would be the point of life?
It is as if to say, the teacher should take responsibility for the failure and cheating of some of his students, he knew their nature, that they are rowdy, undisciplined and not smart yet made a difficult exam anyway..

Got to love that atheist logic (or lack thereof)

[Pygoscelis]

Are you suggesting that it is instinctive as it is to pee or eat to be evil? and where would free will come to play in all of this, I mean what would be the point of life?
It is as if to say, the teacher should take responsibility for the failure and cheating of some of his students, he knew their nature, that they are rowdy, undisciplined and not smart yet made a difficult exam anyway..

The teacher did not create the student with perfect knowledge of the test results they would receive before even admitting them to the course. And the teacher did not have the ability to create the student differently.

Got to love that atheist logic (or lack thereof)

Yes of course, the obligatory snide remark to avoid actual civil discussion.

[CosmicPathos]

The teacher did not create the student with perfect knowledge of the test results they would receive before even admitting them to the course. And the teacher did not have the ability to create the student differently.




Yes of course, the obligatory snide remark to avoid actual civil discussion.

teacher, however, had the authority to make the test easier.

[Ramadhan]

Got to love that atheist logic (or lack thereof)

They just want to have their cake and eat the whole thing too.

[Lynx]

God should bare some responsibility if he created this particular man with this particular drive and knew it would lead him to do this particular thing, which God doesn't want to happen. The dog could have held out for a couple more hours before peeing on the rug too. But as the owner, you know what is likely to happen if you set up the scenario. You don't know exactly what WILL happen though as you create the circumstance, as God would (making God more responsible).

I think your analogy is causing a little bit of confusion. If a dog is stuck outside he will necessarily pee outside. It's a physical constraint. A man who is tempted to commit adultery has no such constraint...The fact that God knows the outcome does not make the circumstance any less in the hands of the agent.

Or are you saying that if God knows that Peter is going to kill John then God should create a situation where Peter is not going to kill John as opposed to creating a situation where Peter will kill John? If that's your position then sure God definitely shares some responsibility.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Allah's Messenger explained Destiny in the best and simplest way;



اعملوا ف كل ميسرلما خلقه

i'maloo, fa kulu muyussaru li ma khuliqahu.

(Work (in good deeds), because everyone has had made easy for them what they have been created for). [i.e. heaven or hell]

[Sahih al Bukhari]


So if you want to be a person of Paradise, do the actions for that. If you want to be a person of hell, do the actions for that.

[جوري]

The teacher did not create the student with perfect knowledge of the test results they would receive before even admitting them to the course. And the teacher did not have the ability to create the student differently.

Teachers have a pretty good idea of the capabilities of their students, and the exams are standardized not to cater to the smart or the stupid, but only those who work hard... those with special needs go to special schools, capable ones are responsible for what they receive, but even more fair with God is that God is forgiving..

Yes of course, the obligatory snide remark to avoid actual civil discussion.

There is nothing civil about the way you address God, and you are so lucky that you got away with only an analogy!

[Pygoscelis]

Or are you saying that if God knows that Peter is going to kill John then God should create a situation where Peter is not going to kill John as opposed to creating a situation where Peter will kill John? If that's your position then sure God definitely shares some responsibility.

Yes that is my point. If God is both all knowing and all powerful and created Peter in such a way that he knew Peter would kill John, then God is certainly culpable. He created the events that took place knowing that they would and thus intended them to.

[Asiyah3]

Yes that is my point. If God is both all knowing and all powerful and created Peter in such a way that he knew Peter would kill John, then God is certainly culpable. He created the events that took place knowing that they would and thus intended them to.

Peace,
How does this remove Peter's free will?

Edit: SubhaanAllah, this verse suddenly sprang to my mind.

55. "And follow the Best of (the courses) revealed to you from your Lord, before the Penalty comes on you of a sudden, while ye perceive not!--

56. "Lest the soul should (then) say: Ah! woe is me!― In that I neglected (my Duty) towards Allah, and was but among those who mocked!'―

57. "Or (lest) it should say: `If only Allah had guided me, I should certainly have been among the righteous!'―

58. "Or (lest) it should say when it (actually) sees the Penalty: `If only I had another chance, I should certainly be among those who do good!'

59. "(The reply will be) `Nay but there came to thee My signs, and thou didst reject them: thou wast Haughty, and became one of those who reject Faith!' "

Surah Az-zumar (Yusuf Ali translation)

[M.I.A.]

i am not able to post in the advice section as i do not have enough posts.

im guessing there is good reason for this.

:p

[Lynx]

Yes that is my point. If God is both all knowing and all powerful and created Peter in such a way that he knew Peter would kill John, then God is certainly culpable. He created the events that took place knowing that they would and thus intended them to.

Okay, got it. Yeah that does I think pose a problem for that type of God. The only way I think a religious person could go around it is they say that this is the best of all possible worlds so there was no other way God could have set the conditions up.

[CosmicPathos]

Yes that is my point. If God is both all knowing and all powerful and created Peter in such a way that he knew Peter would kill John, then God is certainly culpable. He created the events that took place knowing that they would and thus intended them to.

Islamic God permits some things but He hates them. He permits Shirk to take place. You cant say He intends shirk to take place. Peter killing John is hated by God but He permits it based on the intentions of Peter. Sure, God creates all events but the creation is dependent on the intention of subjects. Peter willed to kill, God permitted it even though He hates the fact that Peter would make that choice. Hence, He allowed Peter to kill and for that He will hold him accountable on Judgment day.

Try hard next time.

[Pygoscelis]

Islamic God permits some things but He hates them. He permits Shirk to take place. You cant say He intends shirk to take place.

Look again. The logic I presented above does lead to exactly that. Show me where it goes wrong.

Peter killing John is hated by God but He permits it based on the intentions of Peter.

Intentions he knew would come about in Peter when he created Peter and that would not have come about had he created Peter differently.

Sure, God creates all events but the creation is dependent on the intention of subjects.

If this is so then God is either not all powerful or not all knowing. If he is all powerful then nothing is dependent on anything but him.

Try hard next time.

Indeed.

[S.Belle]

this article might help
http://puremotivation.your-talk.com/...-free-t212.htm

[B_M]

Intentions he knew would come about in Peter when he created Peter and that would not have come about had he created Peter differently.

Okay.

God did not 'create' Peter. God 'created' Adam. God 'created' Eve. He did not 'create' you.. or I.. or Peter. Our parents 'created' us.

It was their sperm and egg that 'created' us. It was their raising us.. that created.. us. For your behavior is an act of free will.

God had nothing to do with the creation of Peter. Peter's motives are his alone.. given to him by free will. By the laws of nature, that God designed, he cannot create somebody differently.. if he had not created him at all! (He didn't 'create' murder, man did. He didn't 'create' bestiality, man did.)

You are an outspoken person, because your mother always told you 'Hold your tongue for no one.' So, you have always been the type to say what's on your mind. God didn't create you to speak your mind. Mommy did. So if you tell somebody the shirt they're wearing is ugly, why would God have anything to do with changing that? Instead, what you COULD have done to prevent hurt feelings, was to have not said nothing at all... and bit your tongue. See that is free will. God knows the outcome of both situations, that is what makes him 'all knowing'.

Why does God always have to be the blame for everything, when we ourselves have the power to make our own reality? You lead the horse to water, you can't make him drink it. You can teach your kids how to live life, but you can't live it for them.

God does not want Peter to kill John because he has said thou shall not kill. By Peter's act of free will, he could kill John, or could not. God's purpose for humankind was not to take one another lives. Therefore he hates the intention. But it's Peter's free will to choose.

[Pygoscelis]

Okay.

God did not 'create' Peter. God 'created' Adam. God 'created' Eve. He did not 'create' you.. or I.. or Peter. Our parents 'created' us.

What you say limits either God's power or his foreknowledge.

If he has perfect foreknowledge then he knows that by creating Adam and Eve in exactly the manner he did they would have the children they did and so on and it would lead to Peter, or whoever else you care to select. It may sound a bit absurd, but that is the nature of infinite power and infinite knowledge. You can't limit them and still say they are infinite.

Why does God always have to be the blame for everything,

Because he created everything with full knowledge of how it would turn out.

You can teach your kids how to live life, but you can't live it for them.

No, but we also did not have perfect creative power over them (we were limited by genes, environment, available nutrition, and a lot of other things beyond our control), nor do we have perfect knowledge of how they'd turn out when we raise them.

[IAmZamzam]

I've had to explain this so many times that by now I'm just copying and pasting:

I have never understood for the life of me this cliched non-sequitur about God's knowledge that something is going to happen automatically meaning or entailing that He's making it happen. Nobody has ever explained it to me to my satisfaction and I don't think anyone ever will because it just doesn't make any sense. Even if you assume what is patently false that God is not omnitemporal and therefore subject to the past-present-future division like the rest of us, the argument still doesn't make any sense. You are aware of yours and my mortality; that does not qualify you as having committed an act of murder-suicide. We all know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow; that does not mean that we've positioned the sun in place ourselves and are constantly telekinetically moving the earth in its orbit. If a psychic predicted correctly that someone who would never be born until after she died would win a future presidential election, would that mean she's rigged it? Of course not, and why? Because foreknowledge and causation are separate things and the former does not automatically implicate the latter.

Honestly, what is so hard about this???

[FS123]

well said bro :thumbs_up

[Pygoscelis]

God's knowledge that something is going to happen automatically meaning or entailing that He's making it happen.

That is only half of it. He also is said to have had perfect omnipotent power and to have created the circumstances in which it would all happen. He set the dominoes up, knowing how they would fall, and then he tapped the first one on its way. This is what all your analogies are missing.

Honestly, what is so hard about this???

Indeed.

[Lynx]

@Pygoscelis

I think Yahya was just answering the problem posed against the existence of Free Will.

@Yahya

The response to your argument is that under your explanation God's knowledge is caused by us and since knowledge is a part of God, God is not uncaused.

[IAmZamzam]

Pygo: Come to a greater understanding of the taqlid doctrine first, and then get back to me.

Lynx: What are you even talking about? Since when is a person's knowledge part of the person?

[Pygoscelis]

Pygo: Come to a greater understanding of the taqlid doctrine first, and then get back to me.

There is no need to know the details of any particular dogma to address the ideas discussed above. Either God is omnipotent or he is not. Either he is all knowing or he is not. And consequences and arguments flow from those premises. No need for a seminary course.

[B_M]

What you say limits either God's power or his foreknowledge.

If he has perfect foreknowledge then he knows that by creating Adam and Eve in exactly the manner he did they would have the children they did and so on and it would lead to Peter, or whoever else you care to select. It may sound a bit absurd, but that is the nature of infinite power and infinite knowledge. You can't limit them and still say they are infinite.

But he doesn't control their children.

Free will by definition is.. the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies.

Therefore God does NOT control your decisions.

He KNOWS what WE are thinking. Omniscience.

You decide to make fun of a kid. (Free will)
WE do not know what he's going to do. (Because we are not all-knowing)
However God knows what that kid is thinking. (All-knowing)
God knows that, the kid has a gun. (All-knowing)
God is not going to interfere with the kid's decision. (Free will)

He also is said to have had perfect omnipotent power and to have created the circumstances in which it would all happen.

By having omnipotent power means God has the power to, for example, rid mankind altogether like the Quran has said. [4:133]


By the way, none of us even have the ability to grasp God. If he is out of space and time, how is HIS 'knowing' the same as our 'knowing'.

[IAmZamzam]

It most certainly does not follow that having ultimate power over something automatically means exercising that power, let alone in a way that violates another creature's capacity to choose. You're confusing "God can" with "God does". And the omniscience part I have already refuted.

If you understood taqlid then you would have no trouble understanding any of this, certainly at least as regards God's power. It does not teach anything that is exclusive to Islamic doctrine and inapplicable to theism in general. Learn before you leap.

[Darth Ultor]

May Allah forgive me if I said something wrong about Him.

This statement makes it seem like you think God is like a human king watching us through well placed surveillance cameras and microphones. He is above all that and He knows that you do not mean anything against Him. If I misinterpreted you in anyway, I apologize, but I don't like when people give human attributes to God.

[Lynx]

Lynx: What are you even talking about? Since when is a person's knowledge part of the person?

Because it's part of the stuff that constitutes who you are. The knowledge of x is a property that belongs to you; it's something you necessarily possess if you possess it. According to your argument, God's characteristic of knowing what we will do is caused by us which means he has a characteristic that is caused (by us no less). So if God is the constituent of various characteristics (like all powerful, all knowing etc) then there's a part of him that is caused. o.o

It's a classic problem ! Don't blame me I didn't invent it :(

If you want your head to spin, read maimonedes' answer to this LOL.

[marwen]

God's characteristic of knowing what we will do is caused by us which means he has a characteristic that is caused (by us no less).

How can you consider the fact that God knows what we will do is caused by us ? How can we be the cause before we do anything ?

We should remember that a cause must be before the caused result. So saying God's knowledge is caused by us is only true if we assume that God knows what we do only after we do it , i.e He observes what we did and gets the knowledge. But that's not true, because God knows what we will do before we even exist. How can a result be caused by something not existent ? How a result can exist before it's cause ?
All I can conclude is that we can't be the cause of God's knowledge.

But how can God know, before we exist, what we will do, that's something only God can tell you how He can do it.

[IAmZamzam]

Because it's part of the stuff that constitutes who you are. The knowledge of x is a property that belongs to you; it's something you necessarily possess if you possess it. According to your argument, God's characteristic of knowing what we will do is caused by us which means he has a characteristic that is caused (by us no less). So if God is the constituent of various characteristics (like all powerful, all knowing etc) then there's a part of him that is caused. o.o

It's a classic problem ! Don't blame me I didn't invent it :(

If you want your head to spin, read maimonedes' answer to this LOL.

It's no more a "problem" than that pathetic "problem of evil". It's amazing how many great minds will work themselves into a tizzy over absolutely nothing. If you can't tell the difference between an entity itself and a certain trait the entity just so happens to possess, it's your own problem, and I don't know if I can help you with it. The only "defining" characteristics of God, insofar as there really are any (that we could ever understand), is that He is the creator and ruler of the universe--as any dictionary in the world will attest. Everything else is just certain qualities that God has, and which if gone would not mean an absence of God but instead merely a different kind of God.

[Trumble]

It's no more a "problem" than that pathetic "problem of evil".

Ah, that would be the same 'pathetic' problem of evil that even after two thousand years or so theists haven't been able to come up with a solution that is anything other than a complete philosophical joke, would it? P-lease....

[IAmZamzam]

Don't even try to make a passing comment I made into a new topic to derail us. If you absolutely must rant on that age-old equivocation fallacy, do it in another thread.

[Trumble]

If you absolutely must rant on that age-old equivocation fallacy, do it in another thread.

Oh, I think I can resist the urge, particularly if that is the best you can offer. Still, I suppose that particular piece of nonsense does avoid having to consider the problem in relation to, erm.. free will.

[Lynx]

It's no more a "problem" than that pathetic "problem of evil". It's amazing how many great minds will work themselves into a tizzy over absolutely nothing. If you can't tell the difference between an entity itself and a certain trait the entity just so happens to possess, it's your own problem, and I don't know if I can help you with it. The only "defining" characteristics of God, insofar as there really are any (that we could ever understand), is that He is the creator and ruler of the universe--as any dictionary in the world will attest. Everything else is just certain qualities that God has, and which if gone would not mean an absence of God but instead merely a different kind of God.

So Allah is not omniscient? um okay.

[FS123]

So you guys are saying: foreknowledge = no freewill

[IAmZamzam]

So Allah is not omniscient? um okay.

?????????????????????????????????????

It has gone beyond the point of your thinking merely consisting of twisted logic and all the way to the point of such non-sequitur that I no longer even have the faintest clue what's going through your head.

[Lynx]

?????????????????????????????????????

It has gone beyond the point of your thinking merely consisting of twisted logic and all the way to the point of such non-sequitur that I no longer even have the faintest clue what's going through your head.

you should read some of the medieval philosophers of religion. There are some very interesting things written about. But, as this discussion might indicate, it's hefty stuff!

[FS123]

you should read some of the medieval philosophers of religion. There are some very interesting things written about. But, as this discussion might indicate, it's hefty stuff!

Is that appeal to authority?

[Lynx]

Is that appeal to authority?

No I am just passing out friendly advice ;D there's a whole wealth of literature on some really interesting arguments/discussions that people don't discuss in popular philosophy of religion. I mean you don't get Dawkins or whoever the other guys are discussing problems/solutions associated with God as a composite being for example...It makes for great discussion if only most people knew about it :(

FYI I don't think foreknowledge precludes Free Will. Yahya just presented the most commonly given explanation of free will and I thought I'd play Devil's advocate and point out the response to his argument that no one really uses...unfortunately it's difficult to explain from scratch; some background info is necessary or people start getting confused :(

[FS123]

No I am just passing out friendly advice ;D there's a whole wealth of literature on some really interesting arguments/discussions that people don't discuss in popular philosophy of religion. I mean you don't get Dawkins or whoever the other guys are discussing problems/solutions associated with God as a composite being for example...It makes for great discussion if only most people knew about it :(

FYI I don't think foreknowledge precludes Free Will. Yahya just presented the most commonly given explanation of free will and I thought I'd play Devil's advocate and point out the response to his argument that no one really uses...unfortunately it's difficult to explain from scratch; some background info is necessary or people start getting confused :(

I'll pass a friendly advice too, read "Even Angels Ask" by Dr. Lang, from Islamic perspective argument has been covered there. (Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Even-Angels-As.../dp/0915957671 )

Another thing, maybe a person is already familiar with the subject, but doesn't have the same opinion as yours.... it sounds like a cop out.

[Lynx]

I'll pass a friendly advice too, read "Even Angels Ask" by Dr. Lang, from Islamic perspective argument has been covered there. (Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Even-Angels-As.../dp/0915957671 )

Another thing, maybe a person is already familiar with the subject, but doesn't have the same opinion as yours.... it sounds like a cop out.

I haven't really shared my opinion on this thread yet. As for the book, that does sound interesting. If I find a downloadable version of it and if I have the time I might take a look.

[IAmZamzam]

Lynx, I'm having enough trouble being annoyed by Hugo doing the very same thing as you in other threads right now. We don't need another devil's advocate around here acting like he thinks he's smarter than us. If you're not willing to explain yourself, just don't post.

[Pygoscelis]

If you understood taqlid then you would have no trouble understanding any of this, certainly at least as regards God's power. It does not teach anything that is exclusive to Islamic doctrine and inapplicable to theism in general. Learn before you leap.

Lynx, I'm having enough trouble being annoyed by Hugo doing the very same thing as you in other threads right now. We don't need another devil's advocate around here acting like he thinks he's smarter than us. If you're not willing to explain yourself, just don't post.

Pot, meet kettle. If you can appeal to authority and demand others go read that authority instead of explaining yourself, why can't Lynx?

[IAmZamzam]

Pot meet kettle about what?? About playing devil's advocate? Yeah, because I so obviously don't believe the pro-theism arguments I've been making.

Acting like I think I'm starter than you? If the sense of weariness in my first post in this thread (having to explain the same obvious things over and over and over and over again can get to anyone after a while) gave you that impression then I apologize, but I do not view intelligence as something simple enough, singular enough, and quantifiable enough to make such a statement as "so-and-so is smarter than such-and-such" even a coherent way of thinking of a person in the first place.

Appealing to authority? What I appealed to was a doctrine, a belief, an idea, and said that it may prove useful. That's all. What Lynx was doing is vaguely alluding to huge supposed volumes and intentionally doing no more than tease us about our presumed inexperience with them. I teased not and was simply referring to a specific doctrine that I said might help you understand if you knew more about it--which I see now you're unwilling to do, so perhaps it helps that I recently explained it elsewhere. Go to "if atheists tell us..." thread or whatever it's called. I explain the thing there. You're not even going to bother, are you?

Well, I've presented what I alluded to. Time for Lynx to do the same...I'm waiting....

[Lynx]

Lynx, I'm having enough trouble being annoyed by Hugo doing the very same thing as you in other threads right now. We don't need another devil's advocate around here acting like he thinks he's smarter than us. If you're not willing to explain yourself, just don't post.

From what I've posted it's possible for people to understand my entire argument. I might have taken for granted how much some background reading on the topic was required but you gave an air of confidence so I thought bringing up the topic of God as a composite being might something you'd be familiar with. You aren't which is fine. And I can post whatever I want to as long as I am not breaking the forum rules. You have the freedom not to reply to my posts if you don't want to but I am obviously not going to stop posting just so you don't feel annoyed. If a message board is too much stress for you then I recommend not visiting here again.

[IAmZamzam]

God is not a composite being, to the best of our understanding. You just presume it as a given. In fact, we can define Him only operationally in the first place. Perhaps you are confusing the very fact of the aggregate of operational functions (that we know of) in question with being a compositional entity by His very nature?

I'm a lazy fellow, Lynx, but when I bother to formulate an argument, I actually...well...formulate an argument.

[Lynx]

God is not a composite being, to the best of our understanding. You just presume it as a given. In fact, we can define Him only operationally in the first place. Perhaps you are confusing the very fact of the aggregate of operational functions (that we know of) in question with being a compositional entity by His very nature?

I'm a lazy fellow, Lynx, but when I bother to formulate an argument, I actually...well...formulate an argument.

I don't think God is a composite being either I was curious if you and other Muslims here thought God was a composite being. If you did think that our actions cause God to know certain things then it can be argued, for the sake of argument, that omniscience does negate Free will. Most of the time most people in taking the defense of free will that you have (although I am starting to think I have misunderstand your understanding of free will due to your response in h-n's thread about free will being free but not action (?)) tend to reverse the causation; instead of God's knowledge causing our actions, our actions cause God's knowledge and so there's a state of God that is caused by us.

[IAmZamzam]

There cannot be a state of God that is caused by us due to our "causing" His knowledge if God's knowledge is not part of God, just as my knowledge isn't me and your knowledge isn't you.

I thought that I had explained the "free will without free action" thing satisfactorily, but if I didn't then maybe this will.

[FS123]

Satisfaction is in the eye of the beholder.

[Lynx]

There cannot be a state of God that is caused by us due to our "causing" His knowledge if God's knowledge is not part of God, just as my knowledge isn't me and your knowledge isn't you.

I thought that I had explained the "free will without free action" thing satisfactorily, but if I didn't then maybe this will.

I don't see anything in that thread relating to free will without free action. You realize that when people talk about free will they are referring to action right? Don't get too stuck on the word 'will'; that's just an expression. The traditional definition of free will is 'to have been able to do otherwise'.

[Trumble]

I don't see anything in that thread relating to free will without free action. You realize that when people talk about free will they are referring to action right? Don't get too stuck on the word 'will'; that's just an expression. The traditional definition of free will is 'to have been able to do otherwise'.

Since Hobbes, at least, the traditional way to defend 'free will' has been to redefine it!

[DancesWithChair]

There is no god but if there were:


From the moment you are born, god knows you will choose to turn left, then choose to turn right. He knows you will choose to walk up and then choose to walk down.


He knows you will put you're left foot in, put you're left foot out, put you're left foot in and shake it all about.


From the moment you're born god already knows what decisions you are going to make and therefore god knows whether he will save you or make you burn in hell.


You have free will but he already knows what you are going to do.


But you might ask for mercy and god is all merciful, all powerful.


God may or may not choose to be merciful.

How can god know what decision he is going to make about you're mercy, if he has not made it yet?
-

[جوري]

How can god know what decision he is going to make about you're mercy, if he has not made it yet?

want to ease on the booze just for coherency' sake?

all the best

[Lynx]

Since Hobbes, at least, the traditional way to defend 'free will' has been to redefine it!

Maybe, but I think that definition of Free will captures all of the essentials of the Free Will debate.

[FS123]

How can god know what decision he is going to make about you're mercy, if he has not made it yet?
-

First of all, theoretically, in modern science time is not linear.

But the most important thing is foreknowledge doesn't equal making it. Let say a psychic or a time traveler would have knowledge of the events that will take place in your future, but does that mean they have made or set those events for you? This question has been posed before.

[Pygoscelis]

First of all, theoretically, in modern science time is not linear.

But the most important thing is foreknowledge doesn't equal making it. Let say a psychic or a time traveler would have knowledge of the events that will take place in your future, but does that mean they have made or set those events for you? This question has been posed before.

The hypothetical time traveller did not create the events and set them in motion. It is said that God knew you would be sent to hell by your "choices", and he created you anyway. He could just as easily have only created those who wouldn't be sent to hell by their "choices". There is no way for him to escape responsibility for this, whether from your point of view you are making a "choice" or not.

PS - Why on earth is the word d-amned censored on a religious board in which hell is very much on topic?

[Hiroshi]

The hypothetical time traveller did not create the events and set them in motion. It is said that God knew you would be sent to hell by your "choices", and he created you anyway. He could just as easily have only created those who wouldn't be sent to hell by their "choices". There is no way for him to escape responsibility for this, whether from your point of view you are making a "choice" or not.

PS - Why on earth is the word d-amned censored on a religious board in which hell is very much on topic?

Hi Pygoscelis.

I am not a Muslim. My view is that God chooses not to know everything about our future choices. We have genuine freedom to choose our own path and are not totally controlled by divine will.

In Genesis 22:1 we read: "Some time later God tested Abraham." Then after Abraham has passed the test, God says: "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." It would be meaningless for the Bible to speak of a "test" if God had already determined what the outcome would be. And the statement: "Now I know ..." clearly shows that God did not know the outcome before the test was made.

But the Qur'an, of course, gives a different picture.

[Pygoscelis]

Good point. If I'm not mistaken the bible also refers to Adam and Eve hiding from God at some point - as if he'd not automatically and at all times know where they are.

[FS123]

The hypothetical time traveller did not create the events and set them in motion.

Good, you see foreknowledge doesn't equal to causation.

It is said that God knew you would be sent to hell by your "choices", and he created you anyway. He could just as easily have only created those who wouldn't be sent to hell by their "choices". There is no way for him to escape responsibility for this, whether from your point of view you are making a "choice" or not.

Which events? The choices made by ourselves? God doesn't make our choices. The choices we make... emphasis [choices we make]. You are mixing something else.

[FS123]

Hi Pygoscelis.

I am not a Muslim. My view is that God chooses not to know everything about our future choices. We have genuine freedom to choose our own path and are not totally controlled by divine will.

In Genesis 22:1 we read: "Some time later God tested Abraham." Then after Abraham has passed the test, God says: "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." It would be meaningless for the Bible to speak of a "test" if God had already determined what the outcome would be. And the statement: "Now I know ..." clearly shows that God did not know the outcome before the test was made.

But the Qur'an, of course, gives a different picture.

Thats why Bible is difficult to believe because it contradicts itself in a very clear fashion; for example, Read Matthew 6:8 "Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Above verse clearly says that God the Father knows what we'll choose. Either the verse is wrong or your interpretation is wrong or thats a clear contradiction.

[Pygoscelis]

Which events? The choices made by ourselves? God doesn't make our choices.

All events. You may believe that we make choices, but God also makes those choices. If he has infinite power then he had infinite different beings he could have brought into existence. If he has infinite foreknowledge then when choosing who to create and who not to he knew exactly what we would do once created. He is therefore making the choices to have us do these things. It is like coating yourself in blood and jumping into a pool of sharks and then being upset that the sharks bite you. Sure, the sharks may have a choice of whether or not to bite you, but you also made a choice. And in the case of God it goes even further than that, in that God created and designed us this way (you didn't create the shark).

[Zafran]

All events. You may believe that we make choices, but God also makes those choices. If he has infinite power then he had infinite different beings he could have brought into existence. If he has infinite foreknowledge then when choosing who to create and who not to he knew exactly what we would do once created. He is therefore making the choices to have us do these things. It is like coating yourself in blood and jumping into a pool of sharks and then being upset that the sharks bite you. Sure, the sharks may have a choice of whether or not to bite you, but you also made a choice. And in the case of God it goes even further than that, in that God created and designed us this way (you didn't create the shark).

You didnt have to coat yourself in blood and Jump into a pool full of sharks?

[Hiroshi]

Good point. If I'm not mistaken the bible also refers to Adam and Eve hiding from God at some point - as if he'd not automatically and at all times know where they are.

I guess you want to show me an instance where God acted as if he didn't know something, when really he did. After Adam and Eve sinned they acted like criminals, trying to hide themselves. But Adam must have realised that hiding from God was impossible because he at last answered the call. I think that God was allowing Adam the dignity of coming out of hiding of his own volition rather than dragging him out by force.

But I believe that what I said still stands. Abraham's test would not really have been a test if the outcome had been pre-determined.

[Hiroshi]

Thats why Bible is difficult to believe because it contradicts itself in a very clear fashion; for example, Read Matthew 6:8 "Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Above verse clearly says that God the Father knows what we'll choose. Either the verse is wrong or your interpretation is wrong or thats a clear contradiction.

1 Kings 8:39 says (Solomon addressing God): "Forgive and act; deal with each man according to all he does, since you know his heart (for you alone know the hearts of all men)".

Because God knows the afflictions that affect each one of us, and also because God knows our innermost feelings (what is in our hearts) he is of course aware of what we need before we ever ask him for help. But that doesn't mean that God has predestined all the choices that we will make when faced with severe tests. We always have the free will to decide what path we will take, whether wise or foolish, whether to remain faithful to God or not.

[FS123]

In post #68 you said: "My view is that God chooses not to know everything about our future choices."

But now you are taking about predestination: "But that doesn't mean that God has predestined all the choices"

Interesting... I think we shouldn't waste each others time. This is my last post on this issue.

[Hiroshi]

In post #68 you said: "My view is that God chooses not to know everything about our future choices."

But now you are taking about predestination: "But that doesn't mean that God has predestined all the choices"

Interesting... I think we shouldn't waste each others time. This is my last post on this issue.

As you wish.

I must explain that I have read articles by some Muslims who say that, because God is God, whatever he has foreknowledge of is automatically also foreordained and predestined. But perhaps you have a different view.

[FS123]

As you wish.

I must explain that I have read articles by some Muslims who say that, because God is God, whatever he has foreknowledge of is automatically also foreordained and predestined. But perhaps you have a different view.

In this thread nobody said that, actually, people have been arguing against it. Foreknowledge doesn't equal predestination. And in post #68, you didn't say anything about predestination.

[Hiroshi]

In this thread nobody said that, actually, people have been arguing against it. Foreknowledge doesn't equal predestination. And in post #68, you didn't say anything about predestination.

I didn't take the trouble to search through the whole thread. My bad.

If you are interested, this article:

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/I...terminism1.htm

has this to say:

Some understand forewriting as foreknowledge only and reconcile it with indeterminism as follows: man freely chooses right and wrong but God knows what he will choose. What is written by God is simply this foreknowledge. However, forewriting is often identified with foreordainment. Thus maktub and muqaddar are often used as synonyms. There is a good reason for it. There is no need to talk about divine writing if one wants to talk only of divine foreknowledge. For knowledge is written in order to transmit it to others or preserve it for oneself. Since much of God's foreknowledge is not communicated and there is no danger that God will forget anything the use of "writing" even in symbolic sense is difficult to understand in term of foreknowledge only. Moreover, "writing" often means decree or command, as for example when God says that fast is written (kutiba) for you (2:183); and in 9:51 (quoted earlier) kataba is clearly used in the sense of foreordainment and not in the sense of foreknowledge. Thus when it is said that something was written by God, it refers not only to God's foreknowledge but also his will.

[IAmZamzam]

How long is this thread going to go on with everyone refusing to get it??? There are only so many different ways you can explain to someone that knowing what will happen is not the same thing as causing it to happen yourself. And everything else is covered by the link and explanation I gave about the Islamic conception of what free will does and does not entail. (This isn't about words: if you want to call it "free will", "free action", or "free pancakes with every purchase of limeade", go right ahead. What matters is the concept.) This thread is getting pointless. If people don't want to understand, you can't make them. (How long do you suppose it will be before Trumble quotes that sentence back at me and says, "My point exactly!"?)

[FS123]

I didn't take the trouble to search through the whole thread. My bad.

If you are interested, this article:

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/I...terminism1.htm

has this to say:

Some understand forewriting as foreknowledge only and reconcile it with indeterminism as follows: man freely chooses right and wrong but God knows what he will choose. What is written by God is simply this foreknowledge. However, forewriting is often identified with foreordainment. Thus maktub and muqaddar are often used as synonyms. There is a good reason for it. There is no need to talk about divine writing if one wants to talk only of divine foreknowledge. For knowledge is written in order to transmit it to others or preserve it for oneself. Since much of God's foreknowledge is not communicated and there is no danger that God will forget anything the use of "writing" even in symbolic sense is difficult to understand in term of foreknowledge only. Moreover, "writing" often means decree or command, as for example when God says that fast is written (kutiba) for you (2:183); and in 9:51 (quoted earlier) kataba is clearly used in the sense of foreordainment and not in the sense of foreknowledge. Thus when it is said that something was written by God, it refers not only to God's foreknowledge but also his will.

Highlighted exactly says the opposite what you gave it for. It is also saying foreknowledge doesn't equal predestination. But I know of a school of thought that believes in predestination, but what that will do in this thread? Nothing, because it is not about them, it is about your misunderstanding or clear contradiction in Bible. I see what your trying to do now, you are trying to shift it on muslims... thats is not so honest. Br is right this is waste of time. Buh bye.

[Trumble]

Oh, I don't think so. When it comes to predestination monotheists can't agree between themselves, let alone with anybody else sticking their oar in!

[Ramadhan]

Oh, I don't think so. When it comes to predestination monotheists can't agree between themselves, let alone with anybody else sticking their oar in

I would not call a person worshipping a 3-persons gods monotheists, but who am I to argue, you are the expert in god .........

[IAmZamzam]

I would not call a person worshipping a 3-persons gods monotheists, but who am I to argue, you are the expert in god .........

Boy have you opened up a can of worms! Now there's no way we're not going off thread for at least eight pages on the subject of whether the Trinity is monotheistic. You've opened the floodgates.

[Woodrow]

Boy have you opened up a can of worms! Now there's no way we're not going off thread for at least eight pages on the subject of whether the Trinity is monotheistic. You've opened the floodgates.

:sl:

That is not about to happen. This thread was answered adequately in this post.

How long is this thread going to go on with everyone refusing to get it??? There are only so many different ways you can explain to someone that knowing what will happen is not the same thing as causing it to happen yourself. And everything else is covered by the link and explanation I gave about the Islamic conception of what free will does and does not entail. (This isn't about words: if you want to call it "free will", "free action", or "free pancakes with every purchase of limeade", go right ahead. What matters is the concept.) This thread is getting pointless. If people don't want to understand, you can't make them. (How long do you suppose it will be before Trumble quotes that sentence back at me and says, "My point exactly!"?)

That is all that needs to be said. Thread is now locked.