Does Evilness around the World disprove God?

[Sami Zaatari]

salam to all! (except aaron and mtaffi and others like them :giggling: )

as you know atheists always say well how can God exist when there is so much violence and bad things happening in the world, from this they say God cant exist.

now an atheist will also say that evilness also shows that if God does exist he is incompetent since what is he doing cant he control his people!

http://muslim-responses.com/Does_Evi..._disprove_God_

this rebuttal throws this argument in the garbage bin and shows how contrdictory and inconsistent the atheist claim is!

[NoName55]

edit:

salam to all! (except aaron and mtaffi and others like them

)

why? did mtaffi nick your toys and gave them to Aaron?

[Isambard]

salam to all! (except aaron and mtaffi and others like them :giggling: )

as you know atheists always say well how can God exist when there is so much violence and bad things happening in the world, from this they say God cant exist.

now an atheist will also say that evilness also shows that if God does exist he is incompetent since what is he doing cant he control his people!

http://muslim-responses.com/Does_Evi..._disprove_God_

this rebuttal throws this argument in the garbage bin and shows how contrdictory and inconsistent the atheist claim is!

The arguement that you address doesnt apply to Islam, it applies to Christianity because of the doctrine of original sin and Jesus needed for forgiveness etc.

Evil dispelling God in regards to Islam can be highlighted in terms of non-man-made evils such as natural disasters, disease, etc.

Unlike christian doctrines, there is no original sin to contradict free-will in Islam, so why then have natural disasters, disease etc? No matter how righteous a community is, if a tornado blows thru it, itll be destroyed and its people killed. The Spanish Flu was indifferent to age, gender, religion or righteousness in killing its victems. What possible purpose is there for this?

Then there is the evil done in the name of God, both Islamic and otherwise. Why would God send down a set of rules that were so vague that so many would kill themselves over?

The strongest case in the arguement however are biological sociopaths. They are people literally born without a conscience or ability to sympathize. Their brains are often of a different structure than a normal human brian. In essence, (if he exists) God created evil men without the ability to change.

Anyways, I never liked the whole "evil disproves God" arguements. There are far more effective methods for disproving Allah. I would be more impressed if you had a response to the relativity of what constitues as evil.:okay:

[ranma1/2]

salam to all! (except aaron and mtaffi and others like them :giggling: )

as you know atheists always say well how can God exist when there is so much violence and bad things happening in the world, from this they say God cant exist.

now an atheist will also say that evilness also shows that if God does exist he is incompetent since what is he doing cant he control his people!

http://muslim-responses.com/Does_Evi..._disprove_God_

this rebuttal throws this argument in the garbage bin and shows how contrdictory and inconsistent the atheist claim is!

it depends on the god.
all loving, all powerful all good god yes.
One that is not all 3 of these. No.

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

[Malaikah]

Unlike christian doctrines, there is no original sin to contradict free-will in Islam, so why then have natural disasters, disease etc? No matter how righteous a community is, if a tornado blows thru it, itll be destroyed and its people killed. The Spanish Flu was indifferent to age, gender, religion or righteousness in killing its victems. What possible purpose is there for this?

This reply would be relevant... it is with respect to the tsunami that happens a few years ago.

Question: In the recent Tsumani disaster, some people who had weak eman, had their faith shaken and it made them question the existence of God. Many of them in utter disbelief, attribute dhulm (transgression) to Allah, saying: How can Allah do this to us? How can we best answer this disbelief.

Answer: Firstly, as Muslims we must always think the best of Allah and know that Allah is the Just, the Wise and that his wisdom is greater than anything we can ever imagine. It is a part of our faith to never question something that happens, and to recognize that this is a part of Allah’s Wills, and no matter how devoid of good it might seem to us, Allah always has a reason for allowing something to happen.

We might not recognize the good that might come from it, but that is because, as humans, we have little foresight, whereas only Allah truly understands the wisdom and benefit behind something has tragic as the tsumani. The benefit that comes from it must be for the ‘greater good’, i.e. the good in it out ways the harm.

The story of Khidr (`alaihis salam) and Musa (`alaihis salam), mentioned in Surat Al-kahf is an excellent example of this. Allah had willed for a child to die, something which would be considered heartbreaking by many, especially the parents, and some weak in imam might actually turn against Allah is confront by such a calamity. However, in the particular story mentioned in the surah, the death of the child was actually a blessing to the parents, since if he had grown up he would have been a source of despair for them. Instead, Allah allowed the child to die in a state of innocence, protecting him from becoming an evil person in adulthood and protecting his parents from his evil, while replacing the child with another child who would be a source of comfort for the child.

The parents might not have known about the wisdom in this act, but the message is clear- a Muslim must place his faith in Allah and know that the calamity befalling him must only be for good, and also that is he is patient, Allah will expiate his sins via the sin. Thus, even though we might not be able to find a wisdom, we must accept that it is there and that Allah knows best what it is.

When a calamity befalls the ummah*, it might be that Allah is trying to preserve one of the five universal matters. So, with the example of the tsunami, a major sacrifice of life was made, and it must have been to preserve the deen** in some way, since the deen is the only matter that ranks higher than life.

Lastly, we know from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that a Muslim who dies from drowning has the status of martyrdom, may Allah have excepted from them!

And Allah knows best.

*Nation, i.e. the Muslims collectively.
**religion/way of life, i.e. Islam

Then there is the evil done in the name of God, both Islamic and otherwise. Why would God send down a set of rules that were so vague that so many would kill themselves over?

It isn't vague, it is crystal clear, but people can twist anything if it meets their needs.

[asadxyz]

salam to all! (except aaron and mtaffi and others like them :giggling: )

as you know atheists always say well how can God exist when there is so much violence and bad things happening in the world, from this they say God cant exist.

now an atheist will also say that evilness also shows that if God does exist he is incompetent since what is he doing cant he control his people!

http://muslim-responses.com/Does_Evi..._disprove_God_

this rebuttal throws this argument in the garbage bin and shows how contrdictory and inconsistent the atheist claim is!

AA:
Being a muslim you should know where Allah promised that He will remove Evil from the world.If there is such Ayaa,I will be pleased to see.
It is the duty of human being to get rid of evils and keep peace and tranquility.
Allah has given us complete guidance about what to do and what not to do.
He who does good job ---------> rewarded
He who does evil job -----------> Punished
Best of luck

[Trumble]

this rebuttal throws this argument in the garbage bin and shows how contrdictory and inconsistent the atheist claim is!

Hardly.. there are far stronger versions of the - centuries old - free will defence against the problem of evil (such as Plantinga's), and even they are inconclusive... and note that even if they weren't the most that could be demonstrated is God can't be 'disproved' by the problem of evil, not that His existence is proven. The major purely logical flaw with 'your' approach is the assumption that absence of evil and free will are incompatible. An assumption is all it is. I exhibit "free will" in deciding to buy my daughter a gift. I exhibit "free will" in choosing whether to buy her a doll or a teddy bear. Neither choice is evil whatever your opinion on "good or bad" is likely to be. You, in fact, create a huge strawman yourself. In the context of this argument it is completely irrelevant whether Islam, Christianity or whatever teaches whether mankind is 'perfect' or not. The point is that an omnipotent God could have created them that way, and you fail to demonstrate that lack of free will must be a necessary consequence.

What is "good and bad"? You mention "fornication, strip clubs, drugs, and alcohol" as instances in which free will can be exhibited. Fine. What about earthquakes, fire, famine and flood? What "free will" have 'I' shown watching my family slowly starve to death? What "free will" would 'I' have had in being gassed to death, will millions of others, in Nazi concentration camps? Or maybe 'I' could be a child in Afghanistan and my limbs are blown off by a stray American bomb - what "free will" do 'I' show to deserve that?

Do you have any idea how painful it can be to die from some forms of cancer, Sami? Excepting, maybe, some cancers that are linked to lifestyle, nobody who gets them does so through "free will". A God might want them to to die to enter Paradise, but why should they suffer so? A 'test'? Of what? Is it entertainment for Him? Surely not, He is supposed to be benevolent, not a sadist. The 'rebuttal' collapses.

[Malaikah]

You are forgetting, Trumble, that God did not force this upon us, rather it is a Muslims belief that ALL of mankind accepted the offer. There can be no blame on God.

[Trumble]

You are forgetting, Trumble, that God did not force this upon us, rather it is a Muslims belief that ALL of mankind accepted the offer. There can be no blame on God.

Why should there be any 'offer'? Which "all of mankind" accepted it? I didn't. Where is the contract? Why should those of us who came afterwards be bound by what our ancestors did? Why was the "offer" necessary when God, being omniscient, would know the answer before even putting the question? Why could He not avoid choices that did not involve so much unnecessary pain and misery?

Sure, you can no doubt provide answers to all of those, albeit not ones I would find convincing. The point is, though, that your point is purely faith based with no non-religious source to support it. Against that you have the pain and suffering you see in the news, and indeed in people around you, every day. Suffering that a benevolent, omnipotent, God could have easily stopped without compromising free will even if you insist it must be preserved.

[Malaikah]

Why should there be any 'offer'? Which "all of mankind" accepted it? I didn't. Where is the contract? Why should those of us who came afterwards be bound by what our ancestors did?

We were created to worship Allah. Allah has His reasons for giving us the offer, I do not know what they are, other than that we were created to worship Him. I don't need to know anything else, if Allah did not tell us, then we do not need to know.

The point is that we agreed. you might not like it know, but you obviously had no problem with it when it was offered. It was a verbal agreement, and we all agreed to it, you and me both, I'm not sure of the details... it has something to do with us all being taken out of Prophet Adam and asked.

The point is, though, that your point is purely faith based with no non-religious source to support it.

*States the obvious*. You are asking a question about God and suffering, of course I am going to answer based on my religion. I don't need non-religious evidence, for religious issues we deal with religious evidence.

Against that you have the pain and suffering you see in the news, and indeed in people around you, every day. Suffering that a benevolent, omnipotent, God could have easily stopped without compromising free will even if you insist it must be preserved.

He does not want to stop it for a reason. He has His reasons, even if He doesn't share then with you and me (see my first post in this thread). this life was never designed to be perfect and care free- that is what Paradise is for. This life was created as a test, and there is no test in a life that is worry free.

Ultimate justice will be served by God, even if we have to wait a while to receive it.

[Trumble]

*States the obvious*. You are asking a question about God and suffering, of course I am going to answer based on my religion. I don't need non-religious evidence, for religious issues we deal with religious evidence.

Sami's 'rubuttal' was supposed to be on the basis of "logically studying and examining the facts", not on faith. It must be so for any atheist - his intended target - to take it seriously. Unless he can actually prove God exists, anyway.

The 'fact' is that I did not agree to this arrangement, or least I have no recollection of same - the idea that I and everybody else have somehow forgotten that we made a compact with God is so absurd it can be dismissed instantly. The 'fact' is that there is no evidence anybody has ever agreed to it. I understand your position, but a purely faith based view is useless as a counter to a logical, philosophical argument as all your opponent has to do is refuse to accept your premises.. which, when there is nothing whatsoever from non-religious sources to support them (and judging from your post even religious sources don't seem to have half the answers), is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The 'rebuttal' fails just as much now as it always has - Sami is presenting (one side of) a very old argument!

[Malaikah]

Okay, I thought the argument was addressed to my own argument.

By the way Trumble, do you remember the day you were born, or the first few years of your life? I doubt it. Does they mean they never happened? Nope. Just like the agreement- we don't remember it, but it happened.

But, of course, you don't even believe in God, let alone the agreement... so never mind. One day you shall come to know...

[sevgi]

Sami's 'rubuttal' was supposed to be on the basis of "logically studying and examining the facts", not on faith. It must be so for any atheist - his intended target - to take it seriously. Unless he can actually prove God exists, anyway.

The 'fact' is that I did not agree to this arrangement, or least I have no recollection of same - the idea that I and everybody else have somehow forgotten that we made a compact with God is so absurd it can be dismissed instantly. The 'fact' is that there is no evidence anybody has ever agreed to it. I understand your position, but a purely faith based view is useless as a counter to a logical, philosophical argument as all your opponent has to do is refuse to accept your premises.. which, when there is nothing whatsoever from non-religious sources to support them (and judging from your post even religious sources don't seem to have half the answers), is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The 'rebuttal' fails just as much now as it always has - Sami is presenting (one side of) a very old argument!

adding to what sis malaikah said..

the argument is a faith based one...it is an account of faith...it may be inetrpreted in many ways...but logically..i dnt think so..

i think what u are actually after i sproof that such an agreement was ever made. any proof we exhibit will instantaneoulsy be eradicated by any non-muslim...

to look for logic in such a faith based and supernatural account is in itself illogical.

[Skavau]

One of the most repeated claims and arguments by atheists to disprove the existence of God is the evil we see around the world. They often bring up war, torture, famine, rape, and all other forms of evil and then say well if God existed then none of this would be happening!

The opening paragraph is at fault. The Problem Of Evil proposes that if an omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists then there would not be injustice and moral evil throughout the world that we inhabit.

The Problem Of Evil does not disprove the concept of a God in its entirety.

They claim how can a perfect all-loving merciful God exist when such things are happening. Some of them then deduce from this that if God does indeed exist then he is doing a very bad job, and has messed everything up, and therefore is not even in need of worship nor attention since he cannot control his own creation.

Right. The more notable point though is that it is in contradiction with the attributes of the Theistic God.

The argument may sound appealing, however so the argument is a fallacy from the start, since it is using the fallacious method which is called "appealing to emotions" basically the person arguing here is appealing to a persons emotions rather than actually logically studying and examining the facts.

Except the the inconsistencies with the state of the world and the self-proclaimed attributes of God equal the fact which bring up the proposal of The Problem Of Evil .

Secondly the person arguing this case has committed a second fallacy, which is "straw man", basically the person who is making this argument has distorted and twisted what Islam really teaches about God and how he does things.

Actually, no. It isn't doing that at all. The Problem Of Evil does not necessarily have to focus on any Islamic teaching ideals. It only has to focus on the attributes of the traditional theistic God and then contrast them with the reality of human existence (or the existence of the planet).

Now what does Islam teach about God and his creation? Islam teaches us that God is perfect, he has no defects, he is free from all error and mistake, however so as far as creation goes then creation is not perfect, nor is creation free from error and mistakes.

Then 1 or 2 is the case.

1. God deliberately established creation in error (and therefore holds a fair amount of blame for establishing the circumstances of existence)

2. God made an error and the creation was not perfect. This cannot be so though as God is omniscient and therefore incapable of making a mistake, therefore 1 must necessarily be the case.

Hence when humans commit evil, and commit major sins, such as murder, mass thievery, and other major acts of evil this has nothing to do with God, it is not God's fault, it is the fault of that human being

Except that in a multitude of ways, it is precisely the fault of God. God created us (assuming God exists) and therefore is entirely responsible for the state of affairs that we live in.

A possible person named X in any world would always in all scenarios torture person B in scenario C. This is an immoral action and it is from person X himself, however - the existence of X is contingent and God does not need to create X. The circumstances of the action are also meaningless and also do not need to be actualised. God being omniscient would be able to prevent such moral evil and given benevolence would therefore prevent such evil.

This argument is entirely applicable in the case of all free actions. If person X tortures B then person X is creating circumstances for B For instance X actualises the circumstance of torturing and are responsible for such a circumstance. However though, the nature of person X and his response to scenario C is in question. It is clear that we have the makings of a causal chain here, with each free action being caused by the person's nature and the circumstance, the circumstance being caused by another free person, etc... until we reach the point where God begins this chain. God could have chosen to create another chain where it leads to virtue and would have been within God's power to do so and therefore God is ultimately responsible for the actions X

God is free from what this evil person has done because God does not sanction nor call for it.

But God creates it and with full knowledge of the results. God understands it its entirety what the eventual result of all 'free' actions will result in which brings into argument the next issue of actual free-will in the face of omniscience.

Now the atheist will resort to another tactic, after you tell him this he will say "well if God is perfect, all powerful, then why does he not make his creation perfect? Why does he allow such things to happen?"

Sort of.

Now the atheist is committing another major problem. Many will notice atheists often mock Islam for having so many rules on what to do and what not to do, they claim it is like a dictator. However so the atheist now wants God to become a complete dictator and control us humans and make us perfect!

Except that perfection in this case is being used to separate moral evil from moral righteousness. The point is that the existence of moral evil in any circumstance invalidates the case for benevolence in God, or the existence of a benevolent God itself.

God gave man free will, hence when you sin, and commit evil, it is because God gave you free will to do what you want, so basically the atheist now wants God to go back on giving us free will and to turn us into controlled robots!

We can now discuss the contradiction between free-will and omniscience.

Premise 1: Allah is Omniscient (Allah knows every event, every outcome and every fact)
Premise 2: Choice involves more than a single outcome. (If real choice exists then there must be the possibility to exist more than one resulting action from a consideration. For example if I decide to tie my shoes, then I should be equally able to decide otherwise. There should be an existing possibilities of me either tying my shoes or not tying my shoes which necessarily must result from my own choices for this to be an action of independent thought.)
Premise 3: Free-Will involves the ability to exercise choice (If Free-Will is asserted to exist amongst us, then there must be necessarily, the ability to uphold real choice (as highlighted above). I must have the ability to choose between action A and action B through my own ability to make real choice.)

A: Allah is proclaimed to be omniscient (Premise 1). Allah therefore knows the outcome of every action, event and has knowledge of every fact.
B: A human choice is an event. If I decide to go to the shops, then I am initiating a state of affairs.
C: If Allah knows the outcome of every event then he knows the outcome of every single human choice. (Premise 1)
D: If Allah knows the outcome of any future choice by any being, then the outcome described is the only possible outcome because:

D1: If any outcome from a human choice was different than Allah's knowledge then Allah would be wrong. This contradicts Premise 1

D2: If Allah was wrong then Allah would not be omniscient.

E: If any choice has only one outcome then there is no choice at all. (Premise 3) (Free Choice relies on the ability to do otherwise. Free-Will relies on the ability of choice. Both are made redundant by the existence of omnipotence contained within a single source (in this scenario: contained within God). If God is omniscient then God necessarily knows the result of all actions within humanity. If all actions within humanity are known then there is no such things as Free-Choice since the outcome has already been pre-seen. If this is the case then there is no Free-Will because Free-Will is dependent upon the ability to exercise choice.)
F: If every choice has only one outcome then there is actual no choice at all, only events.
G: If Allah is omniscient, then every choice is no choice at all. (Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. As Premise 3 states, choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.)

If Allah is omniscient, then there is no free-will at all.

Also what is good and bad? When an atheist says why doesn't God stop all the bad evil going around the world what exactly is the atheist referring to? Because to a Muslim evilness includes fornication, strip clubs, drugs, and alcohol, yet to most atheists these things are okay and are not evil!

This is simply an unsubstantiated generalisation.

So therefore if the atheists want to stop the evil around the world, then the first thing they should do is accept God, accept his rules, accept his laws, accept everything he has told you, and after this they should call people to the same thing, because evil will only end when the entire society finally obeys God and his rules as they should be obeyed, yet hardly anyone is doing that and this is why the world is so corrupt.

Except that you must provide reason to believe in your understanding of what a God potentially is. You must provide moral reason, empirical evidence and/or unrivaled logic which verifies the necessity of a God, more specifically Allah.

Answer: Firstly, as Muslims we must always think the best of Allah and know that Allah is the Just, the Wise and that his wisdom is greater than anything we can ever imagine. It is a part of our faith to never question something that happens, and to recognize that this is a part of Allah’s Wills, and no matter how devoid of good it might seem to us, Allah always has a reason for allowing something to happen.

This is a great shame.

We might not recognize the good that might come from it, but that is because, as humans, we have little foresight, whereas only Allah truly understands the wisdom and benefit behind something has tragic as the tsumani. The benefit that comes from it must be for the ‘greater good’, i.e. the good in it out ways the harm.

The harm is not necessary if an omniscient and benevolent God exists.

The story of Khidr (`alaihis salam) and Musa (`alaihis salam), mentioned in Surat Al-kahf is an excellent example of this. Allah had willed for a child to die, something which would be considered heartbreaking by many, especially the parents, and some weak in imam might actually turn against Allah is confront by such a calamity. However, in the particular story mentioned in the surah, the death of the child was actually a blessing to the parents, since if he had grown up he would have been a source of despair for them.

This is unjust. This contradicts the assertion of free-will. The child in this story has been willed to die and has been seen to be a 'source of despair'. If there is free-will then how could it be the case that the child in this story could only actualise a specific state of affairs from his or her own choice? Choice depends on the ability to freely choose between any number of actions in any given circumstance. This is undermined in its entirety here.

Allah allowed the child to die in a state of innocence, protecting him from becoming an evil person in adulthood and protecting his parents from his evil, while replacing the child with another child who would be a source of comfort for the child.

Given Allah is omniscient and supposedly concerned for the affairs of humankind, then Allah could just as well ensure the children does not grow up to become evil, but instead grows up to become virtuous.

When a calamity befalls the ummah*, it might be that Allah is trying to preserve one of the five universal matters. So, with the example of the tsunami, a major sacrifice of life was made, and it must have been to preserve the deen** in some way, since the deen is the only matter that ranks higher than life.

It however, was completely unnecessary considering the omniscience of Allah.

You are forgetting, Trumble, that God did not force this upon us, rather it is a Muslims belief that ALL of mankind accepted the offer. There can be no blame on God.

In the case of Allah's existence, it is entirely Allah's fault. He actualised all states of affair and therefore began the causal chain.

It is also completely false to state that mankind accepted the offer.

We were created to worship Allah. Allah has His reasons for giving us the offer, I do not know what they are, other than that we were created to worship Him. I don't need to know anything else, if Allah did not tell us, then we do not need to know.

But the more important point is that you claimed we accepted the offer.

When did we accept it?

The point is that we agreed. you might not like it know, but you obviously had no problem with it when it was offered. It was a verbal agreement, and we all agreed to it, you and me both, I'm not sure of the details... it has something to do with us all being taken out of Prophet Adam and asked.

If I agreed in such circumstances I am unaware of it and Allah would have known my eventual disagreement with the 'offer' and therefore he is forcing it upon me under pain of hellfire?

He does not want to stop it for a reason. He has His reasons, even if He doesn't share then with you and me (see my first post in this thread). this life was never designed to be perfect and care free- that is what Paradise is for. This life was created as a test, and there is no test in a life that is worry free.

The test is completely meaningless. God knows the result of all events and we have no free-will to do anything other than what God knows so under Islam there is no meaning to any test.

[sevgi]

lets think of the titanic....

lets take an ideal case...coz thats what God is claimed to be.

was the titanic not perfect? yes.it had no flaws.(so to speak)God is also perfect so his creations must be perfect.

he chose ppl to board it..he gave some the opportunity and also gave them free will.

then what happened. ppl boarded it.
a stupid guy, believes in himself too much, and makes the ship go faster in order to reach its destination sooner.there is your 'evilness'...

then..external factor jumps in...ice berg...the ship is going to fast to swerve in time..so bang...shipwreck...dead ppl...

God put that berg there right?he put that man on that ship right? he created that man flawed right?

whos fault is it? there are three options..1)God. 2) the evil man aboard. 3) the ice berg.
all signs point bak to God coz he is the creator of all and is meant to be flawless...

so what do we say? that god doesnt exist...or that god is evil.

there is howvever..something called common sense and good moral.

god is kind enuf to give his creations free will...isnt that nice of him. noone would like their free will taken away. so we say thank u to god,...

then we move on...and see all these bad things hapening in the world...oh no.ppl are using their free will in a bad way. this is becoz god is testing all to see if they are worthy for heaven...

is it his fault that we utilise our gift of free will for evil doings? we are meant to be greatful for being given this gift.

it slike a kid drawing on the walls and when mummy comes and gives u a death stare, u stupidly point at the non-existent imaginary being next to u...or in another case, u say god gave me these hands so he made me do it!!!

if he took it away, we'd hate him...he gives it to us, we hate him...man...tough croud.....besdies hating him...we say he doesnt exist....

maybe soon he will give up on us and forget that we exist...

[Skavau]

was the titanic not perfect? yes.it had no flaws.(so to speak)God is also perfect so his creations must be perfect.

I believe the Titanic did have flaws actually.

he chose ppl to board it..he gave some the opportunity and also gave them free will.

He chose them to board it? Where is their choice in this then?

then what happened. ppl boarded it.
a stupid guy, believes in himself too much, and makes the ship go faster in order to reach its destination sooner.there is your 'evilness'...

then..external factor jumps in...ice berg...the ship is going to fast to swerve in time..so bang...shipwreck...dead ppl...

God put that berg there right?he put that man on that ship right? he created that man flawed right?

Ultimately, God is entirely responsible for the state of affairs concerning the Titanic crash. He did not have to create the Titanic less so need to create the Iceberg. He started the causal chain.

whos fault is it? there are three options..1)God. 2) the evil man aboard. 3) the ice berg.
all signs point bak to God coz he is the creator of all and is meant to be flawless...

God is the cause of both the iceberg and the evil man aboard.

so what do we say? that god doesnt exist...or that god is evil.

A lot more options than that.

god is kind enuf to give his creations free will...isnt that nice of him. noone would like their free will taken away. so we say thank u to god,...

Of course this is irrelevant and impossible. God still caused all states of affairs and still had foreknowledge of what all events would result in. This brings me back to the Free-Will vs. Omniscience contradiction.

Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. Choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.

So there is no Free-Will. I address this a lot more in my previous post on this thread.

then we move on...and see all these bad things hapening in the world...oh no.ppl are using their free will in a bad way. this is becoz god is testing all to see if they are worthy for heaven...

Ignoring that the concept of Hell is completely unjust - the complete lack of free-will in the Islamic world view makes all 'tests' by God completely meaningless being all events known.

[sevgi]

I believe the Titanic did have flaws actually.

thats why i said 'so to speak...u must read all the way thru.

He chose them to board it? Where is their choice in this then?

the next sentence sates..he gave them the opportunity..u must read all the way thru.

Ultimately, God is entirely responsible for the state of affairs concerning the Titanic crash. He did not have to create the Titanic less so need to create the Iceberg. He started the causal chain.

thats what i said...

God is the cause of both the iceberg and the evil man aboard.

thats what i said...u must read all the way thru,,..i said all signs point to God

A lot more options than that.

what are they?

Of course this is irrelevant and impossible. God still caused all states of affairs and still had foreknowledge of what all events would result in. This brings me back to the Free-Will vs. Omniscience contradiction.


Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. Choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.

So there is no Free-Will. I address this a lot more in my previous post on this thread.

this is where we part in our views,,,i say he also caused free will

Ignoring that the concept of Hell is completely unjust - the complete lack of free-will in the Islamic world view makes all 'tests' by God completely meaningless being all events known.

if u wanna go on believeing that u dnt have free will go for it (thats ur free choice)...i love my free will and my democracy and all that individualist stuff...i still dnt get what u believe in if u dnt believe in free will..?

you seemed to repeat everything i had said and meant all the way thru...untill free will...but u werent aware of it...

[Skavau]

thats why i said 'so to speak...u must read all the way thru.

I have a habit of responding to each point bit by bit.

the next sentence sates..he gave them the opportunity..u must read all the way thru.

See above.

thats what i said...

See above.

thats what i said...u must read all the way thru,,..i said all signs point to God

See above.

what are they?

Any. The conclusion could be that an omniscient and benevolent does not exist. Perhaps the conclusion is that a malevolent God exists instead.

The Problem Of Evil only address benevolence and omniscience.

this is where we part in our views,,,i say he also caused free will

How?

There is a contradiction between free-will and omniscience. You have not addressed that contradiction I have outlined.

if u wanna go on believeing that u dnt have free will go for it (thats ur free choice)

I do believe I have Free-Will, for I do not adhere to the Islamic world view or any similar world view with the same circumstances.

The argument is that the Islamic world view has no free-will.

i love my free will and my democracy and all that individualist stuff...i still dnt get what u believe in if u dnt believe in free will..?

Did you even read what I typed regarding it? I said that Free-Will is impossible in the Islamic World view because of the contradiction with an attribute of God: omniscience. I will copy it out again so you can address it.

Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. Choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.

[sevgi]

I have a habit of responding to each point bit by bit.


See above.

fair enuf

See above.
fair enuf

See above.

fair enuf
Any. The conclusion could be that an omniscient and benevolent does not exist. Perhaps the conclusion is that a malevolent God exists instead.

The Problem Of Evil only address benevolence and omniscience.

i was putting forward options as to who could be blamed for the titanic affair...not how else we can define god in order to come up with new options.
How?

There is a contradiction between free-will and omniscience. You have not addressed that contradiction I have outlined.

omniscience is the ability to know all...etc.

in islam, we believe that god knows what choice we are gna make...but does not intervene in any way...we pre destines our life..putting in forks along the way, at which we, using our free will, make a choice, and continue or lives...its like those goosebumps books we used to read in primary school...
I do believe I have Free-Will, for I do not adhere to the Islamic world view or any similar world view with the same circumstances.

The argument is that the Islamic world view has no free-will.
see above
Did you even read what I typed regarding it? I said that Free-Will is impossible in the Islamic World view because of the contradiction with an attribute of God: omniscience. I will copy it out again so you can address it.

yes i did...i just wanted u to expand...i think there was a misundastanding so...fair enuf...

Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. Choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.

i agree BUT........

They can be changed in islam...oh uve got that all wrong,...they dnt need to be altered coz we make them ourselves...but yes, god knows what we will chose as i stated above...in islam there is a nite called the 'baraat' night..wen we believe a stamp is put on the fate of every individual for that year to come...any prayers made, any charity given etc before that, or throughout that year yeild the potential to change or even eradicate what god has written down...
(sorry to confuse u)
also we belieev that it is all written as we live it...but god knows what we will chose.its not written and stamped like a stage script...where in the world did u get that idea?

[Md Mashud]

Lets make this simple. Does the existance of God have any correlation or means for a World to be without evil? Ofcourse not. So, to answer your initial question, No.

Also, someone has not grasped this freewill thing. Just because God know's what you will do doesn't mean you did not decide to do it - its not a complex subject.

[sevgi]

Lets make this simple. Does the existance of God have any correlation or means for a World to be without evil? Ofcourse not. So, to answer your initial question, No.

bro...do u really want us to start all over again?

lol...:D

we are now talking about 'why' ther is or is not any correlation...

[Skavau]

omniscience is the ability to know all...etc.

Yes, I know.

in islam, we believe that god knows what choice we are gna make...but does not intervene in any way..

This is irrelevant. God is the initiator of the causal chain and he defines your characteristics regardless of whether he decreed what they would be or not be.

His omnisciences ensures that he ultimately knows every action you would do in your life. This eliminates all choice because from your conception you cannot do contrary to the knowledge of God. If you have a choice between A or B and God has seen that you will do [B] then you will always choose [B].

They can be changed in islam...oh uve got that all wrong,...they dnt need to be altered coz we make them ourselves..

When do we make the choices if they've already been seen to happen?

And how can our choices be changed if they have been seen?

also we belieev that it is all written as we live it...but god knows what we will chose.its not written and stamped like a stage script...where in the world did u get that idea?

I got the idea from the contradiction of omniscience and free-will.

[Md Mashud]

If you have a choice between A or B and God has seen that you will do [b] then you will always choose [b].

If you had to choose between a and B, god will just know which you will choose by your freewill without his intervention.

I know that, If I buy a ferarri and some banger and offered someone the choice between the 2 - they would pick the ferarri - But Its not like I intervened in that choice.

There is no reason that advanced knowledge has to do with interference with freewill. God knows us and he knows what we will do, not make us do what he wants.

[Skavau]

Lets make this simple. Does the existance of God have any correlation or means for a World to be without evil? Ofcourse not. So, to answer your initial question, No.

The existence of God in itself may not. A benevolent and omniscient God though raises a very different answer.

Also, someone has not grasped this freewill thing. Just because God know's what you will do doesn't mean you did not decide to do it - its not a complex subject.

You're right. It isn't very complicated.

A: Allah is proclaimed to be omniscient (Premise 1). Allah therefore knows the outcome of every action, event and has knowledge of every fact.
B: A human choice is an event. If I decide to go to the shops, then I am initiating a state of affairs.
C: If Allah knows the outcome of every event then he knows the outcome of every single human choice. (Premise 1)
D: If Allah knows the outcome of any future choice by any being, then the outcome described is the only possible outcome because:

D1: If any outcome from a human choice was different than Allah's knowledge then Allah would be wrong. This contradicts Premise 1.

D2: If Allah was wrong then Allah would not be omniscient.

E: If any choice has only one outcome then there is no choice at all. (Premise 3) (Free Choice relies on the ability to do otherwise. Free-Will relies on the ability of choice. Both are made redundant by the existence of omnipotence contained within a single source (in this scenario: contained within God). If God is omniscient then God necessarily knows the result of all actions within humanity. If all actions within humanity are known then there is no such things as Free-Choice since the outcome has already been pre-seen. If this is the case then there is no Free-Will because Free-Will is dependent upon the ability to exercise choice.)
F: If every choice has only one outcome then there is actual no choice at all, only events.
G: If Allah is omniscient, then every choice is no choice at all. (Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. As Premise 3 states, choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.)

If Allah is omniscient, then there is no free-will at all.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I know that, If I buy a ferarri and some banger and offered someone the choice between the 2 - they would pick the ferarri - But Its not like I intervened in that choice.

There is no reason that advanced knowledge has to do with interference with freewill. God knows us and he knows what we will do, not make us do what he wants.

respect ! :D

[sevgi]

Yes, I know.


This is irrelevant. God is the initiator of the causal chain and he defines your characteristics regardless of whether he decreed what they would be or not be.

His omnisciences ensures that he ultimately knows every action you would do in your life. This eliminates all choice because from your conception you cannot do contrary to the knowledge of God. If you have a choice between A or B and God has seen that you will do [B] then you will always choose [B].


When do we make the choices if they've already been seen to happen?

And how can our choices be changed if they have been seen?


I got the idea from the contradiction of omniscience and free-will.

u miss the point...god hasnt seen that you will choose B...we make the choice...he smiles and says...'i knew it!'...

they havent been seen by anyone..we are livning it...you imply that we live our lives twice,,,once so god can write it down, then again so god can watch...

ive already explained how the choices dnt need to be changed,,,we make them. god doesnt decree something we dnt want and we feel the need to alter it,,,it is written as we live it and as he simultaneiously sees it.

also...he takes note of our prayers etc and moulds our life paths for us, so we come up with the choices which best suit us.we pray...he guids...we choose.no intervention on the choosing...no intervention on what we want in our prayers...he simply does for us what we cant do ourselves...

[Skavau]

If you had to choose between a and B, god will just know which you will choose by your freewill without his intervention.

And you could not do contrary to his knowledge. So where is the choice?

I know that, If I buy a ferarri and some banger and offered someone the choice between the 2 - they would pick the ferarri - But Its not like I intervened in that choice.

You're not omniscient. The person could still do otherwise to your knowledge.

Irrelevent example.

There is no reason that advanced knowledge has to do with interference with freewill. God knows us and he knows what we will do, not make us do what he wants.

It does if it is infallible knowledge. You cannot do otherwise to what God has seen.

[Skavau]

u miss the point...god hasnt seen that you will choose B...we make the choice...he smiles and says...'i knew it!'...

He always would have known it, which eliminates the possibility of it being an actual choice.

they havent been seen by anyone..we are livning it...you imply that we live our lives twice,,,once so god can write it down, then again so god can watch...

I assert that if the Islamic world view is correct we live a life we cannot control because all of our actions have already been seen.

ive already explained how the choices dnt need to be changed,,,we make them. god doesnt decree something we dnt want and we feel the need to alter it,,,it is written as we live it and as he simultaneiously sees it.

So when do we make the choices?

[Md Mashud]

You see, you think God knowing what you will do at the end means that choice never existed, but it did.

For example, the chocolate bar I want to buy at the shop. I will be thinking in my head what to buy, and some reasonings will lead to me ultimatly buying one out of the choices.

Those reasonings, that I use, are not from God. But God, being all knowing, about me too, knows that I will reason in advance and know how I will reason and what I will pick in advance.

At the end, that choice of chocolate bar I bought - I can't say God made me do it can I? I had used my brain afterall.

Even the World is an example, humans forecast so much of what people do and get it right - without interferance (Research Economics). Surely God is 1 stop above us.

[sevgi]

And you could not do contrary to his knowledge. So where is the choice?


You're not omniscient. The person could still do otherwise to your knowledge.

Irrelevent example.


It does if it is infallible knowledge. You cannot do otherwise to what God has seen.

see my post...

[Md Mashud]

And you could not do contrary to his knowledge. So where is the choice?

There is no basis on choice regarding contrary of the knowledge of God, it is so simple...

[Skavau]

You see, you think God knowing what you will do at the end means that choice never existed, but it did.

When did it exist? When did I choose?

For example, the chocolate bar I want to buy at the shop. I will be thinking in my head what to buy, and some reasonings will lead to me ultimatly buying one out of the choices.

So? You could only always result in buying one specific chocolate bar. You could choose otherwise to what you got if God has seen you buy it.

At the end, that choice of chocolate bar I bought - I can't say God made me do it can I? I had used my brain afterall.

I'm not saying God is decreeing anyone to do anything. I'm saying that the foreknowledge of our entire existence eliminates choice. When he created us he began the causal chain which created all events we all face. Whether he created us and decided how we would be, simply decided our attributes or randomised how we would be - he still knows our future and he always knew it.

He would have created Person X for example knowing full well that X would be a rapist, murderer and torturer. He then sends X to hell for it. Could X do otherwise and was X necessary?

Even the World is an example, humans forecast so much of what people do and get it right - without interferance (Research Economics). Surely God is 1 stop above us.

Humans are not omniscient.

[Md Mashud]

So? You could only always result in buying one specific chocolate bar. You could choose otherwise to what you got if God has seen you buy it.

What???

I'm not saying God is decreeing anyone to do anything. I'm saying that the foreknowledge of our entire existence eliminates choice. When he created us he began the causal chain which created all events we all face. Whether he created us and decided how we would be, simply decided our attributes or randomised how we would be - he still knows our future and he always knew it.

He would have created Person X for example knowing full well that X would be a rapist, murderer and torturer. He then sends X to hell for it. Could X do otherwise and was X necessary?

X became a rapist, murderer and torturer NOT due to God. God just knew he would become one. God would not in advance know he would be if the guy did not choose to become one! The knowing of God had 0 influence on him becoming it and this arguement is spiraling around this simple rational for no reason!

Did you know? God could make judgement day happen now - and say why we go to hell - saying we would do this, do that - But we would cry "No we would never do that!" - You can see life as the undoubtable witness and evidence for yourself at the judgement day.

God knows who will go to heaven or hell - but the reasons for which they would come to this would be down to the human.

Humans are not omniscient.

Hence God 1 step above.

[Skavau]

What???

I meant to say couldn't.

My fault.

X became a rapist, murderer and torturer NOT due to God. God just knew he would become one.

God created X. God either created X with a random personality, a specific personality or decided his actions throughout life. In either potential, God initiated the state of events concerning X.

Did you know? God could make judgement day happen now - and say why we go to hell - saying we would do this, do that - But we would cry "No we would never do that!" - You can see life as the undoubtable witness and evidence for yourself at the judgement day.

This seems incoherent here. What is your point here?

Hence God 1 step above.

Assuming God exists.

[Md Mashud]

God created X. God either created X with a random personality, a specific personality or decided his actions throughout life. In either potential, God initiated the state of events concerning X.

No, God does not decide upon your character, don't know why you would blame God for your character/Personality - he just knows what your character/personality will be. He also didnt decide your actions throughout life, if you think he did thats your opinion not ours.

[Malaikah]

But the more important point is that you claimed we accepted the offer.

When did we accept it?

Because we are ignorant, silly.

If I agreed in such circumstances I am unaware of it and Allah would have known my eventual disagreement with the 'offer' and therefore he is forcing it upon me under pain of hellfire?

You agreed, there is no force.

The test is completely meaningless. God knows the result of all events and we have no free-will to do anything other than what God knows so under Islam there is no meaning to any test.

Just because God knows what we will do, doesn't mean we are forced to do it. It is more just that we are given the chance to prove our selves than for God to just tell us what we would have done punish/reward us accordingly.

[Skavau]

Because we are ignorant, silly.

Eh?

What does this have to do with my question?

You agreed, there is no force.

If I did agree then I have no recollection of it whatsoever and God would have known that once I lived my life I would not agree with any such proposal and as of such it is being forced on me under pain of hellfire?

Just because God knows what we will do, doesn't mean we are forced to do it.

But we cannot do otherwise than what we have been seen to do regardless of whether God put forward the final push.

It is more just that we are given the chance to prove our selves than for God to just tell us what we would have done punish/reward us accordingly.

Why should we feel compelled to prove ourselves to an omniscient cosmic arbiter for any reason other than fear?

And how can we prove ourselves when all of our actions in life have already been seen by this cosmic arbiter?

[family]

have in mind that allah is all-knowing. we do have free-will, but we do have to keep in mind that we are not all-knowing. we can't conclude anything before hand. this is a temporary world and we're like the travelers. this is a test and he[Allah swt] knows the answers and the circumstances of the test before hand. somethings are hidden and can only be comprehended by Allah[swt]. if we use our brains with pure heart and in good intentions, we might be able to see a clear picture of some concepts.

[guyabano]

My head is spinning.

I enjoy reading this thread but am I the only one who noticed, that this thread has gone into a loop ?

Skavau brang up the best arguments so far. Keep on going, I get another box of popcorn.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Skavau brang up the best arguments so far. Keep on going, I get another box of popcorn. http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/frech/g030.gif

really? it all sounded pretty repetitive to me.



neway, "does evil around the world disprove God?"

of course not! it just shows your abusing your free-will, Allah will pay full recompense on the day of judgement!

[guyabano]

really? it all sounded pretty repetitive to me.



neway, "does evil around the world disprove God?"

of course not! it just shows your abusing your free-will, Allah will pay full recompense on the day of judgement!

Abusing my free will ? No, of course not. My opinion is, that evil exist only for those who believe in a God. Me, personnally, I don't think about it, so it will never happen.

and of course, its repetitive, because the other posters also are. Some are so eager to show a proof for an existance of a God, but they permanentely fail, because there is simply no evidence - Period.

(Ok, I'm out of this thread, its one of these threads without any issue)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Abusing my free will ? No, of course not. My opinion is, that evil exist only for those who believe in a God. Me, personnally, I don't think about it, so it will never happen.

lol what a ridiculous statement. im sorry but it had to be said


what exempts the non-religious from the existence of evil?

[InToTheRain]

Lets see what the wise Imam Malik(RA) had to say about this issue :)

Imam Malik once said "[speculative] discussions about religion are odious to me. In fact, the people of this city [Medina] also find it odious and constrain people from it. I am reffering to discussing things such as predestination and the like. I do not like discussions unless they involve specific matters they can act upon"

I think discussion such as this about God and Beliefs in Islam will be far more beneficial for everyone we understand God in Islam and concept of predestination:

99 Names of Allah(SWT) and his attributes:
http://www.jannah.org/articles/names.html

The Creed of Islam:

http://alghazzali.org/resources/arti...eedahNotes.pdf

[Skavau]

have in mind that allah is all-knowing.

Yes. They very reason free-will is contradicted.

we do have free-will, but we do have to keep in mind that we are not all-knowing. we can't conclude anything before hand.

Correct.

So it is then a good thing that we are not doing that.

this is a temporary world and we're like the travelers. this is a test and he[Allah swt] knows the answers and the circumstances of the test before hand.

So what is the purpose of this test?

somethings are hidden and can only be comprehended by Allah[swt]. if we use our brains with pure heart and in good intentions, we might be able to see a clear picture of some concepts.

I personally prefer rigorous intellectual scrutiny.

Though, good intentions are virtuous.

really? it all sounded pretty repetitive to me.

The Omniscience vs. Free-Will argument generally is.

of course not! it just shows your abusing your free-will, Allah will pay full recompense on the day of judgement!

You would do well to skim through my posts in this thread regarding this.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:/Ello ello ello

Yes. They very reason free-will is contradicted.

Not really. I'll explain later on in this post.

So what is the purpose of this test?

To test our humanity most likely. I.e. are we going to sit here on our butts and watch the world as it crumbles or do we go out and raise an orphan.

..Though, good intentions are virtuous.

And acting upon that intention is even greater - encouragement is two-fold in Islam - initial (i.e. in this life) and later (i.e afterlife). AWESOME I know.

The Omniscience vs. Free-Will argument generally is.

God being omnipitent doesn't negate free will. If I know for a fact that person A is going to turn a light on in a room it doesn't negate the thought process going on in person A's head where he would decide whether or not to turn the light on. Free-will is inidividual. Similarly, God knows our fates yet we do not - this doesn't mean we cannot chose which path we take. God just knows which one we will and how it will end.

Pretty simple really.

[Skavau]

To test our humanity most likely.

What is there to test? God knows the results of our humanity.

God being omnipitent doesn't negate free will. If I know for a fact that person A is going to turn a light on in a room it doesn't negate the thought process going on in person A's head where he would decide whether or not to turn the light on.

Meaningless example.

You're not omniscient.

God knows our fates yet we do not - this doesn't mean we cannot chose which path we take. God just knows which one we will and how it will end.

And God would have held this knowledge before even establishing our existence. God would have always known how we would act, so when does our choice come into it? When do I make the choice?

[Md Mashud]

I don't get this, why do people constantly debate free will vs omniescence even though atheists have constantly been wrong on the issue in every major debate? Its simple as, IF YOU can't see why they don't contradict, thats your fault/belief not ours. It seems perfectly logical to us, if not for you, I can only assume lack of logic.

[Skavau]

I don't get this, why do people constantly debate free will vs omniescence even though atheists have constantly been wrong on the issue in every major debate?

It would be useful if someone challenged what I proposed earlier in the thread rather than reiterate simply that it can co-exist (which is mostly what I have been seeing).

Premise 1: Allah is Omniscient (Allah knows every event, every outcome and every fact)
Premise 2: Choice involves more than a single outcome. (If real choice exists then there must be the possibility to exist more than one resulting action from a consideration. For example if I decide to tie my shoes, then I should be equally able to decide otherwise. There should be an existing possibilities of me either tying my shoes or not tying my shoes which necessarily must result from my own choices for this to be an action of independent thought.)
Premise 3: Free-Will involves the ability to exercise choice (If Free-Will is asserted to exist amongst us, then there must be necessarily, the ability to uphold real choice (as highlighted above). I must have the ability to choose between action A and action B through my own ability to make real choice.)

A: Allah is proclaimed to be omniscient (Premise 1). Allah therefore knows the outcome of every action, event and has knowledge of every fact.
B: A human choice is an event. If I decide to go to the shops, then I am initiating a state of affairs.
C: If Allah knows the outcome of every event then he knows the outcome of every single human choice. (Premise 1)
D: If Allah knows the outcome of any future choice by any being, then the outcome described is the only possible outcome because:

D1: If any outcome from a human choice was different than Allah's knowledge then Allah would be wrong. This contradicts Premise 1

D2: If Allah was wrong then Allah would not be omniscient.

E: If any choice has only one outcome then there is no choice at all. (Premise 3) (Free Choice relies on the ability to do otherwise. Free-Will relies on the ability of choice. Both are made redundant by the existence of omnipotence contained within a single source (in this scenario: contained within God). If God is omniscient then God necessarily knows the result of all actions within humanity. If all actions within humanity are known then there is no such things as Free-Choice since the outcome has already been pre-seen. If this is the case then there is no Free-Will because Free-Will is dependent upon the ability to exercise choice.)
F: If every choice has only one outcome then there is actual no choice at all, only events.
G: If Allah is omniscient, then every choice is no choice at all. (Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. As Premise 3 states, choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.)

If Allah is omniscient, then there is no free-will at all.

Its simple as, IF YOU can't see why they don't contradict, thats your fault/belief not ours.

Assuming that be the case, yes.

And vice versa.

[Md Mashud]

Holy shizzle, are you joking? You are just repeating same stuff that I have refuted over and over (I should mention you failed to respond to one of my replies, I guess you had nothing to say).

Just give it up, we don't need convincing that freewill and omniescence can work together - and its not our duty to babysit people who don't.

If you think they must contradict, go ahead. No one has the time to go over this any more. You are not convincing anyone and should just drop it.

[Skavau]

Holy shizzle, are you joking? You are just repeating same stuff that I have refuted over and over

I fail to see how you have refuted that actually. I have responded to any points you made regarding the Omniscience vs. Free-Will issue.

(I should mention you failed to respond to one of my replies, I guess you had nothing to say).

Point it out.

Just give it up, we don't need convincing that freewill and omniescence can work together - and its not our duty to babysit people who don't.

This is a free forum. If you do not wish to discuss on this topic in this thread then I suggest quite simply that you do not do such. I am not attempting to convince anyone anything, I am just responding to replies made regarding the issue.

If you think they must contradict, go ahead. No one has the time to go over this any more. You are not convincing anyone and should just drop it.

I am probably not convincing anyone indeed, but I never expected to convince anyone.

[InToTheRain]

What is there to test? God knows the results of our humanity.

Knowing something does not mean we were forced to acquire those results.

I know the Sun came up yesterday, Does not mean I made it happen. I know the Sun is setting now, it does not mean I made it happen, Just because I know the Direction in which the Sun moves does not mean I made it happen.

Also Allah(SWT) has no Past, Present or Future. He had no beginning, He has no end, he is not contained within the linear time motion as his creation, He is not contained within the 6 directions as created beings are . There is no Modality to describe Allah(SWT). Your lack of understanding of his attributes and abilities leads you do believe he is incapable of doing something he is.

[Md Mashud]

God created X. God either created X with a random personality, a specific personality or decided his actions throughout life. In either potential, God initiated the state of events concerning X.

This is a pool of misunderstanding on yourbehalf, you can read my reply to it on page 3.

Yes this is a free forum - but if you have nothing NEW to add - don't keep repeating same stuff, its spam.

[Trumble]

I don't get this, why do people constantly debate free will vs omniescence even though atheists have constantly been wrong on the issue in every major debate? Its simple as, IF YOU can't see why they don't contradict, thats your fault/belief not ours. It seems perfectly logical to us, if not for you, I can only assume lack of logic.

What 'major debates'? The question has been a philosophical conundrum for centuries, if not millennia, and has never been resolved. There is no sound logical proof either way.. and I doubt there ever can be.

[Md Mashud]

What 'major debates'? The question has been a philosophical conundrum for centuries, if not millennia, and has never been resolved. There is no sound logical proof either way.. and I doubt there ever can be.

What? No logical proof? Thats a strange assumption.

To be honest, not to grasp the idea, is to make a false assumption on Gods behalf, that is all.

The only reason debates like this still exist, aswell as others, is some people practice mental masturbation on such simple notions - to make the assumption of knowledge prior to action means intervention has to take place is a mockery of logic.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I am probably not convincing anyone indeed, but I never expected to convince anyone.

LOL loses the whole point of debating dont you think?

[Skavau]

Knowing something does not mean we were forced to acquire those results.

We are compelled to do as they state though. I never stated that God explicitly decided the path of our existence.

I know the Sun came up yesterday, Does not mean I made it happen.

This is irrelevant. You know the sun came up yesterday because you saw it happen yesterday. The sun doesn't have free-will anyway.

I know the Sun is setting now, it does not mean I made it happen, Just because I know the Direction in which the Sun moves does not mean I made it happen.

I never stated that God is forcing us to do anything. You misunderstand.

Also Allah(SWT) has no Past, Present or Future. He had no beginning, He has no end, he is not contained within the linear time motion as his creation, He is not contained within the 6 directions as created beings are

This is irrelevant.

. There is no Modality to describe Allah(SWT). Your lack of understanding of his attributes and abilities leads you do believe he is incapable of doing something he is.

There is no way of describing Allah and yet attributes of Allah are forever asserted by Muslims as a way of describing Allah as positive.

Yes this is a free forum - but if you have nothing NEW to add - don't keep repeating same stuff, its spam.

I repeatedly get on this thread the same replies to the Omniscience vs. Free-Will issue by different members, so I respond accordingly.

No, God does not decide upon your character, don't know why you would blame God for your character/Personality

I don't believe in a God so I'm not blaming any God for anything. But simply, God is the starter of the chain of event surrounding humanity. Our very creation ensures he is at fault for our character be it positive or negative.

Whether he actively decided the character of us or simply provided the mechanism for it to exist is a different question though. Either way, he knew the results.

He also didnt decide your actions throughout life, if you think he did thats your opinion not ours.

I never proclaim that Allah decided anything.

LOL loses the whole point of debating dont you think?

Arguably.

However, in my years of conversation with Theists of all kinds and observations of conversations with Theists of all kinds, I have found that either 'side' convincing the other 'side' of anything as very unlikely indeed.

[Md Mashud]

repeatedly get on this thread the same replies to the Omniscience vs. Free-Will issue by different members, so I respond accordingly.

If you present anything and get a reply to that, regardless if your happy with it or not, you take that as the replied stance, you do not reitterate the original transcript.

I never proclaim that Allah decided anything.

Really?

God created X. God either created X with a random personality, a specific personality or decided his actions throughout life. In either potential, God initiated the state of events concerning X.

Well? You must be the only person who believes this as no theists believes this - and using this - you said this disproves the idea of both freewill and omniescence coinciding without contradiction. So, your basis is on your beliefs, not ours. Maybe your version of how the Universe works means that we have no freewill, not ours.

[InToTheRain]

LOL loses the whole point of debating dont you think?

Nah it's not so bad as it means he wanted to be convinced by us.

But maybe he knew we would try convince him and therefore forced us to do say by negating our free will not to :O and then he prob new that he would fail in trying to convince us therefore it becomes a normal sequence of predicted events with no free will involved therefore having one result which is that no one will be convinced by what he said! therefore he knew this so according to his logic he made us do it! OMG WHY MAN WHY....AM I NOT MAKING SENSE TELL MEEeeeeeee!! :X

Sorry guys I just thought if I kept going at it I might be able to make sense but meh, better to have tried and failed then never to have tried at all.

[Skavau]

If you present anything and get a reply to that, regardless if your happy with it or not, you take that as the replied stance, you do not reitterate the original transcript.

Eh?

Are you referring to me reposting the rather long first post I made on the issue?

Really?

Quote:
God created X. God either created X with a random personality, a specific personality or decided his actions throughout life. In either potential, God initiated the state of events concerning X.

So?

God did initiate the state of events concerning humanity regardless whether he actively decided on what they would amount to or not. That was the point I was making.

I did not say that God forces anything there.

Well? You are the only person who believes this, no theists believes this

That likely goes without saying.

and using this - you said this disproves the idea of both freewill and omniescence coinciding without contradiction.

Except I wouldn't use what I said above to refer to the Omniscience vs. Free-Will discussion. At least not on its own, or as an opening point regarding it.

Maybe your version of how the Universe works means that we have no freewill, not ours.

My understanding of the universe does not involve any God, so there is no issue regarding the Omniscience vs. Free-Will debate.

Nah it's not so bad as it means he wanted to be convinced by us.

I don't mind.

But maybe he knew we would try convince him and therefore forced us to do say by negating our free will not to :O and then he prob new that he would fail in trying to convince us therefore it becomes a normal sequence of predicted events with no free will involved therefore having one result which is that no one will be convinced by what he said! therefore he knew this so according to his logic he made us do it! OMG WHY MAN WHY....AM I NOT MAKING SENSE TELL MEEeeeeeee!!

Eh?

[Md Mashud]

God either created X with a random personality, a specific personality or decided his actions throughout life.

DO you not see this is not theist belief? Only if this was true would then can we be stripped off freewil and ONLY under this. However, this is not how it is, period. What else is their to argue about?

God did initiate the state of events concerning humanity regardless whether he actively decided on what they would amount to or not.

You are in a pool of misunderstanding, IF he did not activeley decide what we will amount to then it is free will. The only thing we do not have power to is where and when we will be born.

[Md Mashud]

Premise 1: Allah is Omniscient (Allah knows every event, every outcome and every fact)
Premise 2: Choice involves more than a single outcome. (If real choice exists then there must be the possibility to exist more than one resulting action from a consideration. For example if I decide to tie my shoes, then I should be equally able to decide otherwise. There should be an existing possibilities of me either tying my shoes or not tying my shoes which necessarily must result from my own choices for this to be an action of independent thought.)
Premise 3: Free-Will involves the ability to exercise choice (If Free-Will is asserted to exist amongst us, then there must be necessarily, the ability to uphold real choice (as highlighted above). I must have the ability to choose between action A and action B through my own ability to make real choice.)

A: Allah is proclaimed to be omniscient (Premise 1). Allah therefore knows the outcome of every action, event and has knowledge of every fact.
B: A human choice is an event. If I decide to go to the shops, then I am initiating a state of affairs.
C: If Allah knows the outcome of every event then he knows the outcome of every single human choice. (Premise 1)
D: If Allah knows the outcome of any future choice by any being, then the outcome described is the only possible outcome because:

D1: If any outcome from a human choice was different than Allah's knowledge then Allah would be wrong. This contradicts Premise 1
D2: If Allah was wrong then Allah would not be omniscient.
E: If any choice has only one outcome then there is no choice at all. (Premise 3) (Free Choice relies on the ability to do otherwise. Free-Will relies on the ability of choice. Both are made redundant by the existence of omnipotence contained within a single source (in this scenario: contained within God). If God is omniscient then God necessarily knows the result of all actions within humanity. If all actions within humanity are known then there is no such things as Free-Choice since the outcome has already been pre-seen. If this is the case then there is no Free-Will because Free-Will is dependent upon the ability to exercise choice.)
F: If every choice has only one outcome then there is actual no choice at all, only events.
G: If Allah is omniscient, then every choice is no choice at all. (Omniscience necessitates the ability of knowledge of all outcomes: past, present and future. This also necessarily leads to God knowing all future events that will happen. If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. As Premise 3 states, choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.)

If Allah is omniscient, then there is no free-will at all.

Let me tear this apart to make you happy =)...

D: If Allah knows the outcome of any future choice by any being, then the outcome described is the only possible outcome because:

D1: If any outcome from a human choice was different than Allah's knowledge then Allah would be wrong. This contradicts Premise 1

Allahs knowledge is a result of human choice to begin with, it is not implied that human choice is created by Allahs knowledge - to assume otherwise would be self-belief and not an agreed opinion - there is no contradiction.

D2: If Allah was wrong then Allah would not be omniscient.

There really is no right or wrong, as I said its human choice in advance that created the knowledge.

E: If any choice has only one outcome then there is no choice at all. (Premise 3) (Free Choice relies on the ability to do otherwise. Free-Will relies on the ability of choice. Both are made redundant by the existence of omnipotence contained within a single source (in this scenario: contained within God). If God is omniscient then God necessarily knows the result of all actions within humanity. If all actions within humanity are known then there is no such things as Free-Choice since the outcome has already been pre-seen. If this is the case then there is no Free-Will because Free-Will is dependent upon the ability to exercise choice.)

Every choice/event always will result in one outcome - it doesn't mean there was no choice - as I explained with the chocolate bar theory before. If God knows you will Do A in a situation where you had ABC, how does thie equate to that you couldn't have picked B or C? Rather it is just God knew you would pick A with your rational and thinking - derived by your own engineered persona.

outcomes are known then there is no such things as Free-Choice since the outcome has already been pre-seen.

Why is it if an outcome is known there is no free choice? That has no logic behind it, its an opinion.

If this is the case then there is no Free-Will because Free-Will is dependent upon the ability to exercise choice.)

Every action you are doing now is proof that you have ability to excercise choice, whats stopping you from excercising your choice? Just because God knows what you will do does not mean you was forced into every event.

If all future events are known to happen, then all human choices are also known to happen. If all human choices are known to happen and cannot change then they lose the status of 'choice' and simply become rendered into events. As Premise 3 states, choice relies on the possibility of more than one specific outcome. If only a specific outcome can happen then there is no choice, only consequences of events. Only under omnipotence can this happen as all future 'choices' would already be known by the source which possesses omnipotence.)

Hang on a second, nothing is contradicting premise 3, because free choice does not have a logical requirement of being unknown in the future. One spefic outcome can only happen otherwise it would imply we can time travel or other crazy things. If I definatly buy a chocolate bar from a shop and I have only money to buy one, the logic applies is that there is only one outcome that is I buy 1 chocolate bar - The option I won't buy one is non existance in that I have decided that I definatly wish to buy one. God can know that I would want to buy a chocolate bar - but he does not need to implant the idea to make me buy one.

Nothing I read of yours seems to make any logic as to why both cannot coincide together.

[Skavau]

DO you not see this is not theist belief? Only if this was true would then can we be stripped off freewil and ONLY under this. However, this is not how it is, period. What else is their to argue about?

When I said 'random personality' there, I meant as in - God does not decide on what our character is. But considering at this point God would know how we would all turn out and what we would all become, I fail to see how we can be the designers of our own character.

You are in a pool of misunderstanding, IF he did not activeley decide what we will amount to then it is free will.

When are choices decided upon under this assertion then?

I will happily quote this extract from another person on another forum on a smaller assertion on the contradiction of free-will and omniscience:

1. If a person has free will, then for any action they do, they could have done otherwise.
2. If God is omniscient, then God is never wrong about His beliefs and knows all knowable things.
3. If God is never wrong about His beliefs and knows all knowable things, then God knows about a person's action and cannot be wrong about it.
4. If God knows about a person's action and cannot be wrong about it, then it is not actually possible for a person to do otherwise. (If a person had done otherwise, God would be wrong)
5. Therefore, free will requires the ability to do otherwise and omniscience denies the ability to do otherwise.
6. Therefore, free will and omniscience are mutually contradictory.

I note that most responses refer to the Psychologist Response numerous times.

Psychologist Response
One objection is that omniscient observation does not result in any form of compulsion. Omniscience actually results in compulsion since it cannot be that God knows that a person does do a particular action and that a person does not do that particular action. Choice requires multiple possibilities and omniscience denies this.

Some may assert that predictions made by psychologists predict human behaviour, but these are flawed on the basis of the analogy being inaccurate to God. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and ultimately the creator of the universe. The psychologist is of limited power to say the least compared to God. The absolute properties of God ensure that all analogies constructed regarding the issue of Omniscience vs. Free-Will must include those properties. The other problem here is that God is necessarily the creator of the universe and by creating a universe by which God has infallible knowledge of, he instantiates all things into necessities.

Allahs knowledge is a result of human choice to begin with, it is not implied that human choice is created by Allahs knowledge - to assume otherwise would be self-belief and not an agreed opinion - there is no contradiction.

Except that (also stated above) by being the necessary creator of the universe and by creating the universe in which God has ultimate and infallible knowledge of, all is instantiated into necessities. Human 'choice' is amongst that.

There really is no right or wrong, as I said its human choice in advance that created the knowledge.

There is only what can happen as God knows, and that is what can only be right.

Every choice/event always will result in one outcome - it doesn't mean there was no choice - as I explained with the chocolate bar theory before.

Yes.

If God knows you will Do A in a situation where you had ABC, how does thie equate to that you couldn't have picked B or C?

Because the possibility never existed if it had been known eternally that I would always commit to A.

Rather it is just God knew you would pick A with your rational and thinking - derived by your own engineered persona.

See the 'Psychologist Response' earlier.

Why is it if an outcome is known there is no free choice? That has no logic behind it, its an opinion.

Because there should always be the potential to exercise choice. If a specific outcome is always known to be the case then any potential choice which could deviate from that event simply cannot exist.

Every action you are doing now is proof that you have ability to excercise choice, whats stopping you from excercising your choice?

Yes.

But then I'm not an adherent to the world view of Islam, so this does not effect me. Should Islam be the case then everything I am doing, I could not do otherwise.

Just because God knows what you will do does not mean you was forced into every event.

See the 'Psychologist Response' earlier.

Hang on a second, nothing is contradicting premise 3, because free choice does not have a logical requirement of being unknown in the future.

This appears to be the Frankfurtian Response

Frankfurtian stated that alternative possibilities are not necessary for the freedom of will. An analogy commonly used is this:

Black, an evil neurosurgeon, wishes to see White dead but is unwilling to do the deed himself. Knowing that Mary Jones also despises White and will have a single good opportunity to kill him, Black inserts a mechanism into Jones's brain that enables Black to monitor and to control Jones's neurological activity. If the activity in Jones's brain suggests that she is on the verge of deciding not to kill White when the opportunity arises, Black's mechanism will intervene and cause Jones to decide to commit the murder. On the other hand, if Jones decides to murder White on her own, the mechanism will not intervene. It will merely monitor but will not affect her neurological function. Now suppose that when the occasion arises, Jones decides to kill White without any "help" from Black's mechanism. In the judgment of Frankfurt and most others, Jones is morally responsible for her act. Nonetheless, it appears that she is unable to do otherwise since if she had attempted to do so, she would have been thwarted by Black's device. (Adapted from an example by John Fischer, 1982).

There argument is that there is no alternate possibilities but there actually is multiple possibilities. There are two provided within the example itself.

1. Mary Jones can decide not to kill White and the machine intervenes and White is killed.

2. Mary Jones can decide to kill Jones and the machines does not intervene and White is killed.

The outcome of those potential events is the same, but the choice is different. As the argument shows, it matters more of what choice is made rather than the outcome of it. Free-Will is dependent on the ability to exercise choice and not necessarily control outcomes, it is the process of trying rather than succeeding. Not even though are the outcomes in this analogy provided the same. In the first instance, the machine intervenes and in the second outcome the machine does not intervene. The analogy also does not even take into account other possible outcomes - White might survive from Mary Jones attempts on his life. Mary Jones also may not attempt to decide to kill or to not kill White and may simply go to the cinema or attempt to remove the machine.

The applicability of this argument to the omniscience of God and free-will though is indeed confusing, if at all relevant. The entire scenario regarding the existence of an omniscient God completely denies any ability to make any choice other than what God has seen to be.

One spefic outcome can only happen otherwise it would imply we can time travel or other crazy things.

A specific outcome can only be actualised indeed, but the choice to do otherwise must remain a possibility. If it does not remain a possibility then free-will is meaningless.

If I definatly buy a chocolate bar from a shop and I have only money to buy one, the logic applies is that there is only one outcome that is I buy 1 chocolate bar - The option I won't buy one is non existance in that I have decided that I definatly wish to buy one.

You are looking at it from a past perspective. Once you have made the decision and bought the chocolate bar there is only one result that the past tells us of (you buying the chocolate bar) - however whilst you have the choice to make a decision or not, you have the choice to buy one and to not buy one right up until the last second of purchase (or not of purchase). You may be strongly in favour of buying the chocolate bar over not, but you still maintain the choice.

God can know that I would want to buy a chocolate bar - but he does not need to implant the idea to make me buy one.

See the Psychologist Response.

I would like to thank Dante Alighieri for information, should he exist on this forum or not.

[Md Mashud]

Ok, you typed that post right? Was there really another choice? You would say, that you could have not typed it but - can you prove this? Only way you could is if you could time travel back and show that you could have not posted that.

The ideology is the 1 outcome really was from a set of options but after having happened it cannot be changed - thus being fate, but still being freewill as you was not forced into that choice.

Omniscience actually results in compulsion since it cannot be that God knows that a person does do a particular action and that a person does not do that particular action. Choice requires multiple possibilities and omniscience denies this.

Can you see this is opinion rather than logic? Please, open your eyes. Your saying YET AGAIN 100 times that its compulsion because someone cannot do somthing without the knowledge of God, now tell me how the hell is this compulsion? Its not, its a flawed opinion. The knowledge of GOD again is derived by human CHOICE, how hard is it to understand? Can we step up intellect in this debate please. Its one thing to have an opinion but to lay the opinion as some sort of logical fact is humerous.

Again, I don't know what else to add, if you believe this its you alone... I do not agree with this statement and you have no logical reasons as to why this is true. There is nothing to say omniescience NEGATES multiple possibilities EVER, it is an idea in your imagination.

This arguement is going in circles, I think there is nothing else either has to say.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

What is there to test? God knows the results of our humanity.

To the tester, the results are meaningless. To the people who are being tested the meaning cannot be quantified.

Meaningless example.

You're not omniscient.

No, I'm not omniscient. However, the point was quite clear.

And God would have held this knowledge before even establishing our existence. God would have always known how we would act, so when does our choice come into it? When do I make the choice?

You always have a choice - just because God knows what choice you will take does not mean you do not have a choice.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

way too much repetition on this thread lol, i think people should take time out to reflect on whats been said

[Trumble]

You always have a choice - just because God knows what choice you will take does not mean you do not have a choice.

Yes it does. If God 'knows' he can predict that a particular event, as opposed to alternatives, will occur with 100% accuracy. If an event can be predicted with 100% accuracy it is predetermined. If it is predetermined there can be no genuine choice possible on the part of an agent between that event and others ... the most you can hope for is an illusion of choice, i.e the agent doing the 'choosing' believes his choice is not predetermined.

[InToTheRain]

Yes it does. If God 'knows' he can predict that a particular event, as opposed to alternatives, will occur with 100% accuracy. If an event can be predicted with 100% accuracy it is predetermined. If it is predetermined there can be no genuine choice possible on the part of an agent between that event and others ... the most you can hope for is an illusion of choice, i.e the agent doing the 'choosing' believes his choice is not predetermined.

Allah(SWT) knew we would be created, what we would do, where, when and how we would die before he even created us. He doesn't predict! He simply is all knowing. You are trying to confine God to the same linear time dimension as us when he is beyond such constraints.

[Basirah]

salam to all! (except aaron and mtaffi and others like them :giggling: )

as you know atheists always say well how can God exist when there is so much violence and bad things happening in the world, from this they say God cant exist.

now an atheist will also say that evilness also shows that if God does exist he is incompetent since what is he doing cant he control his people!

http://muslim-responses.com/Does_Evi..._disprove_God_

this rebuttal throws this argument in the garbage bin and shows how contrdictory and inconsistent the atheist claim is!

Some questions that some may arise. maybe not me. but some:

Did God create evil?

Can God be evil? If he cannot... is he infinite?

[Skavau]

Ok, you typed that post right?

I copied some bits.

Was there really another choice?

Yes, I did consider not replying until later.

You would say, that you could have not typed it but - can you prove this?

No. I cannot prove to you what I did concerning this post.

The ideology is the 1 outcome really was from a set of options but after having happened it cannot be changed - thus being fate, but still being freewill as you was not forced into that choice.

See the Psychologist Response.

Again, I don't know what else to add, if you believe this its you alone... I do not agree with this statement and you have no logical reasons as to why this is true.

You cannot choose otherwise to what God has seen.

Simply stated for every action that you do, you could have done otherwise. If God knows what action that you will do then it is false that you could have done otherwise. There is no possibility to do otherwise than what has been seen.

No, I'm not omniscient. However, the point was quite clear.

No it wasn't. If you're going to use an analogy regarding Omniscience and Free-Will, you must include those properties in it. You did not.

You always have a choice - just because God knows what choice you will take does not mean you do not have a choice.

Psychologist Response
One objection is that omniscient observation does not result in any form of compulsion. Omniscience actually results in compulsion since it cannot be that God knows that a person does do a particular action and that a person does not do that particular action. Choice requires multiple possibilities and omniscience denies this.

Some may assert that predictions made by psychologists predict human behaviour, but these are flawed on the basis of the analogy being inaccurate to God. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and ultimately the creator of the universe. The psychologist is of limited power to say the least compared to God. The absolute properties of God ensure that all analogies constructed regarding the issue of Omniscience vs. Free-Will must include those properties. The other problem here is that God is necessarily the creator of the universe and by creating a universe by which God has infallible knowledge of, he instantiates all things into necessities.

Allah(SWT) knew we would be created, what we would do, where, when and how we would die before he even created us. He doesn't predict! He simply is all knowing. You are trying to confine God to the same linear time dimension as us when he is beyond such constraints.

All that does is simply provide a mechanism for God's existence. The omniscience is enough to undermine free-will itself. Whether God is beyond constraints or not is completely irrelevant.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

The omniscience is enough to undermine free-will itself.

if you felt a sudden force push you towards doing that which is wrong when you strongly wanted to do that which is right, then you have lost your free-will. If you felt a sudden force push you towards doing that which is right when your corrupted desires wished to do harm then that intervention was a prevention of your free-will.

But when you are able to go out and do absolutely what you want knowing accountability is in the next world and not this one then how on earth can you say we have no free-will?


it makes no sense, we are free to choose, knowledge and force are different, we are not forced to do anything!

[Skavau]

if you felt a sudden force push you towards doing that which is wrong when you strongly wanted to do that which is right, then you have lost your free-will.

No.

If you in such a scenario still obtain the ability to commit X regardless of how 'bad' it feels, then you still have your free-will.

If you felt a sudden force push you towards doing that which is right when your corrupted desires wished to do harm then that intervention was a prevention of your free-will.

See above.

As long as you could choose otherwise, you have free choice.

But when you are able to go out and do absolutely what you want knowing accountability is in the next world and not this one then how on earth can you say we have no free-will?

Because of the Omniscience vs. Free-Will issue. I will direct to any of my posts on this thread to understand my viewpoint on this issue further.

This post may be similar to my other posts, but if various users are going to regurgitate similar points then I am going to repeat similar answers.

it makes no sense, we are free to choose, knowledge and force are different, we are not forced to do anything!

Please read the Psychologist Response.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ please read my post one more time :) because i cant help but feel your missing my point.

Yes i agree that IF you could do otherwise you have free-will, and this is my point exactly, we can always choose from many options, now for example i have this keyboard in front of me, if i attempted to pick it up and throw it away and i was PREVENTED FROM DOING SO (by a force and intervention) THEn my free-will has been robbed, however if i am able to do so then i have free will.


i hope it is clearer now, free-will is not dependant on knowledge.

[Skavau]

^ please read my post one more time because i cant help but feel your missing my point.

I understand it perfectly and it is the same as all other responses to Omniscience vs. Free-Will.

Yes i agree that IF you could do otherwise you have free-will, and this is my point exactly, we can always choose from many options, now for example i have this keyboard in front of me, if i attempted to pick it up and throw it away and i was PREVENTED FROM DOING SO (by a force and intervention) THEn my free-will has been robbed, however if i am able to do so then i have free will.

Actually no.

Even if you were prevented from throwing the keyboard away, you will still have free-will. Note that in your scenario you provide two results.

1. You choose not to throw the keyboard away, and it stays where it is.

2. You choose to throw the keyboard away - the force intervenes, and it stays where it is.

The above would be your free-will existing. Under Islam though, your decision to whether you would throw or not throw the keyboard would already be seen and you could not do otherwise. I responded to a similar response earlier using this Analogy:

Originally Posted by Analogy
Black, an evil neurosurgeon, wishes to see White dead but is unwilling to do the deed himself. Knowing that Mary Jones also despises White and will have a single good opportunity to kill him, Black inserts a mechanism into Jones's brain that enables Black to monitor and to control Jones's neurological activity. If the activity in Jones's brain suggests that she is on the verge of deciding not to kill White when the opportunity arises, Black's mechanism will intervene and cause Jones to decide to commit the murder. On the other hand, if Jones decides to murder White on her own, the mechanism will not intervene. It will merely monitor but will not affect her neurological function. Now suppose that when the occasion arises, Jones decides to kill White without any "help" from Black's mechanism. In the judgment of Frankfurt and most others, Jones is morally responsible for her act. Nonetheless, it appears that she is unable to do otherwise since if she had attempted to do so, she would have been thwarted by Black's device. (Adapted from an example by John Fischer, 1982).

There argument is that there is no alternate possibilities but there actually is multiple possibilities. There are two provided within the example itself.

1. Mary Jones can decide not to kill White and the machine intervenes and White is killed.

2. Mary Jones can decide to kill Jones and the machines does not intervene and White is killed.

The outcome of those potential events is the same, but the choice is different. As the argument shows, it matters more of what choice is made rather than the outcome of it. Free-Will is dependent on the ability to exercise choice and not necessarily control outcomes, it is the process of trying rather than succeeding. Not even though are the outcomes in this analogy provided the same. In the first instance, the machine intervenes and in the second outcome the machine does not intervene. The analogy also does not even take into account other possible outcomes - White might survive from Mary Jones attempts on his life. Mary Jones also may not attempt to decide to kill or to not kill White and may simply go to the cinema or attempt to remove the machine.

The applicability of this argument to the omniscience of God and free-will though is indeed confusing, if at all relevant. The entire scenario regarding the existence of an omniscient God completely denies any ability to make any choice other than what God has seen to be.

If you are able to actively make choice then you have free-will. Free-Will is the process of trying to influence an outcome and not necessarily establishing an outcome. The Islamic world view has all outcomes seen and therefore all choices could not decide to do otherwise relating to those outcomes.

[sevgi]

edit

[sevgi]

He always would have known it, which eliminates the possibility of it being an actual choice.

no it doesnt...how?

I assert that if the Islamic world view is correct we live a life we cannot control because all of our actions have already been seen.

who saw them?
So when do we make the choices?

when we pray

[Skavau]

no it doesnt...how?

Because it then eliminates the ability to make choice in order to do otherwise than what has been seen.

One objection is that omniscient observation does not result in any form of compulsion. Omniscience actually results in compulsion since it cannot be that God knows that a person does do a particular action and that a person does not do that particular action. Choice requires multiple possibilities and omniscience denies this.

who saw them?

God - by definition.

when we pray

I do not pray. Do I therefore not make choices?

[Md Mashud]

Omniscience actually results in compulsion since it cannot be that God knows that a person does do a particular action and that a person does not do that particular action

Prove it, stop repeating it.

You made a statement based on 0 logic and 100% opinion, why present it as fact? Atleast say "I think", when you bring no basis to the table.

[sevgi]

Because it then eliminates the ability to make choice in order to do otherwise than what has been seen.

One objection is that omniscient observation does not result in any form of compulsion. Omniscience actually results in compulsion since it cannot be that God knows that a person does do a particular action and that a person does not do that particular action. Choice requires multiple possibilities and omniscience denies this.

it hasnt been seen(see below). therefore multiple possibilities are available...nothing is 'pre determined'...he simply knows coz he is omnisient...not coz he has seen...that is another attribute of gods 'the all-seing"..u cant use one definition to define another...omnisience means to know..not to see.

God - by definition.
he doesnt see anything until we live it..i dno where u got that from...how cud he have seen it..i said this before..we havent lived our lives twice...thats the silliest thing ive ever heard.

I do not pray. Do I therefore not make choices?
im talkn about muslims...for u..this whole argument is void...

so yeah

[sevgi]

islam has free will and a simultaneous omniscient god right skavau...?

[Skavau]

Prove it, stop repeating it.

The statement proves itself. Free-Will relies upon the ability to choose between a multitude of different options.

You made a statement based on 0 logic and 100% opinion, why present it as fact? Atleast say "I think", when you bring no basis to the table.

I have posted the Psychologist Response earlier in this thread on numerous occasions. You are free to address this.

it hasnt been seen(see below). therefore multiple possibilities are available

Not in Islam because it has in fact been seen.

he doesnt see anything until we live it.

So you deny his omniscience?

i dno where u got that from...how cud he have seen it..i said this before..we havent lived our lives twice...thats the silliest thing ive ever heard.

Omniscience is to know everything infinitely. Human choices are events and God would therefore know them.

islam has free will and a simultaneous omniscient god right skavau...?

No. Why are you asking me that?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Skavu, I believe you have confused knowlede with influence - God knowing the outcome does not mean He is influencing it.

As for your psychologists response, here is my rebutal;

Psychologist Response
One objection is that omniscient observation does not result in any form of compulsion. Omniscience actually results in compulsion since it cannot be that God knows that a person does do a particular action and that a person does not do that particular action.

This particular train of thought assumes that God has the abilities of man. In reality His ability is far greater.

requires multiple possibilities and omniscience denies this.

No it doesn't. Definition of omniscience: the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge. By itself, infinite knowledge means that the outcome is known - it does not mean that the being with infinite knowledge is creating that outcome.

...God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and ultimately the creator of the universe. The psychologist is of limited power to say the least compared to God. The absolute properties of God ensure that all analogies constructed regarding the issue of Omniscience vs. Free-Will must include those properties. The other problem here is that God is necessarily the creator of the universe and by creating a universe by which God has infallible knowledge of, he instantiates all things into necessities.

This actually backs up what I said two paragraphs up with regards to God's abilitiess - you cannot use human thought process when referring to God's will. It's a different league, one that humans will never be a part of.

[Skavau]

Skavu, I believe you have confused knowlede with influence - God knowing the outcome does not mean He is influencing it.

I have never contended such to be the case.

This particular train of thought assumes that God has the abilities of man. In reality His ability is far greater.

No - it considers the position that God has the capacity of omniscience.

No it doesn't. Definition of omniscience: the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge. By itself, infinite knowledge means that the outcome is known - it does not mean that the being with infinite knowledge is creating that outcome.

I have not contended such to be the case regarding God forcing anyone.

This actually backs up what I said two paragraphs up with regards to God's abilitiess - you cannot use human thought process when referring to God's will. It's a different league, one that humans will never be a part of.

This is meaningless to me. It just seems like a get out clause.

[sevgi]

skavau...

knowing something infinetly has nothing to do with seeing it...God has known it all along..without seeing it...how can u say that it is a fact that he has seen it...we havent lived our lives before...

u dnt have to see something to know about it...

this eradicates anything u have to say on the omniscience of God...

ther is a time when some ppl must let go of their arguments coz their arguments are built on silly 'facts'...uve adapted the meaning of omniscience to fit ur personal agendas..i think it is time to let go.

[ranma1/2]

just a side question, is god all knowing in regaurds to itself.

[sevgi]

just a side question, is god all knowing in regaurds to itself.

u mean is god omniscient towards himself?

of course...

[ranma1/2]

so god can not act different from what it knows?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

I have never contended such to be the case.

Then please explain to me why your position on this equates to such. You have previously stated that God knowing the outcome denies free-will. I have stated many times that God KNOWING cannot INFLUENCE a Human's outcome therefore DOESN'T INFLUENCE the outcome. Yet each time I bring this up you say the complete opposite.

Therefore logical assumptions lead me to that position where knowledge equates to influence - that's the only reason why I think you would state such argument. Which of course you have now denied. If that is not the case, please clarify your stance.

No - it considers the position that God has the capacity of omniscience.

It also considers that God has limited capability. I previously stated that He does not.

[ranma1/2]

it doesnt matter if god can influence it or not.
Once it is predetermined free will is lost.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

it doesnt matter if god can influence it or not.
Once it is predetermined free will is lost.

By predertermined I'm assuming you are taking the meaning as in laymans terms: influencing the future. Which would make more sense for Skavu's initial argument.

However, if the future is predetermined in the complete sense then it would be meaningless for life to exist. However, life does exist and therefore DOES have a meaning. Hence, the future is not entirely predetermined - as certain actions can be delayed or enlongated. The final outcome, i.e. death, is predetermined in the sense that it will happen. To give an easier example; it is predetermined that it will rain on XYZ day. Whether or not you will get wet (or the extent of the ''wetness'') can easily be influenced by your own actions.

In which case a counter argument (that I am fully aware of is coming my way) would be; but God knows you are going to do that thus you're not influencing your future. The fact is, whether or not God knows that you are going to do something doesn't negate the fact that you will or will not do it - we term this free-will. At the end of the day it is not God turning off your bedroom light-switch, It is you (or your mummy) - you wouldn't know if it is predetermined unless you perform an action and in order to perform an action you must have free will.

[Muezzin]

Does Evilness around the World disprove God?

If a book has evil characters that hurt its good characters, does that mean the author is incompetent or doesn't exist?

[Md Mashud]

If a book has evil characters that hurt its good characters, does that mean the author is incompetent or doesn't exist?

We have a winner.

[Skavau]

If a book has evil characters that hurt its good characters, does that mean the author is incompetent or doesn't exist?

No.

The author sets out to tell a story. God is proclaimed to be omnibenevolent and creates a universe full of suffering.

No relation to the example whatsoever.

Then please explain to me why your position on this equates to such. You have previously stated that God knowing the outcome denies free-will.

Because free-will depends on the ability to do otherwise. If God exists and is omniscient then there is no ability to do otherwise than what God has seen. You cannot make any choices other than what you have been seen to have 'made'.

Free-Will is defined by the ability to choose to do otherwise.

I have stated many times that God KNOWING cannot INFLUENCE a Human's outcome therefore DOESN'T INFLUENCE the outcome.

But when does choice exist then at all? God initiated all states of affairs regarding the universe assuming God exists. He would of began the causal chain.

Other part of the Psychologist Response:

Some may assert that predictions made by psychologists predict human behaviour, but these are flawed on the basis of the analogy being inaccurate to God. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and ultimately the creator of the universe. The psychologist is of limited power to say the least compared to God. The absolute properties of God ensure that all analogies constructed regarding the issue of Omniscience vs. Free-Will must include those properties. The other problem here is that God is necessarily the creator of the universe and by creating a universe by which God has infallible knowledge of, he instantiates all things into necessities.

It also considers that God has limited capability. I previously stated that He does not.

No. It takes into account the results of omniscience - which is infallible knowledge.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

No.

The author sets out to tell a story. God is proclaimed to be omnibenevolent and creates a universe full of suffering.

No relation to the example whatsoever.

God has created what he deemed to be best in his knowledge, he has created people who turn evil and hurt the good, there is a strong relation here to what muezzin spoke about.

Just because God has allowed suffering does not in anyway negate his existence or justice.

No one will ever understand Gods true justice until they establish belief in the day of judgement. Its as simple as that.

[aamirsaab]

Because free-will depends on the ability to do otherwise. If God exists and is omniscient then there is no ability to do otherwise than what God has seen. You cannot make any choices other than what you have been seen to have 'made'.

Free-Will is defined by the ability to choose to do otherwise.

You do not know which choice God has forseen until you take it - so until then you have a choice.

But when does choice exist then at all? God initiated all states of affairs regarding the universe assuming God exists. He would of began the causal chain.

My understanding of this is that God knows the outcome for every move we make but since we aren't all-knowing, we have the [perceived] ability to choose - since it is a choice to human beings not to God. If you want, you could call it an illusion of choice - this may make it easier to understand.

[syilla]

Depends on the definition of evilness...

As in Islam, even you're happy and have alot of money but if you are boastful, arrogant and won't share the money with the poor....that is also an evilness.

And if you're happy and beautiful but arrogant and showing off...that is also an evilness.

And if you poor but contented humble and helping out others are not evil according to Islam...

And if mishap happened but you're still grateful and do the best of what you have...that is not evilness according to Islam.

[Skavau]

God has created what he deemed to be best in his knowledge, he has created people who turn evil and hurt the good, there is a strong relation here to what muezzin spoke about.

So why has God done such? Why is it necessary to create people who would turn evil and hurt the good?

And how is that supporting free-will if they would always turn evil and hurt the good?

Just because God has allowed suffering does not in anyway negate his existence or justice.

It does if God is asserted to omniscient and omnibenevolent.

You do not know which choice God has forseen until you take it - so until then you have a choice.

That would only be an illusion of free-will.

My understanding of this is that God knows the outcome for every move we make but since we aren't all-knowing, we have the [perceived] ability to choose - since it is a choice to human beings not to God. If you want, you could call it an illusion of choice - this may make it easier to understand.

An Illusion of choice is not choice.

[asadxyz]

So why has God done such? Why is it necessary to create people who would turn evil and hurt the good?

.

Only an atheist can produce such "PEARL OF WISDOM".To get the answer for such queries you should answer the following question first.
Why do you have only two eyes ?? Why not four eyes, two on your front and two on your back ??
If you can answer this questions many Questions about God will be solved.

[Trumble]

Perhaps you would care to tell us the answer, and then explain how it even vaguely relates to the original question?

[asadxyz]

Perhaps you would care to tell us the answer, and then explain how it even vaguely relates to the original question?

Another one of the tactics of the Atheist.
I have asked you the question and it is your repsonsibility to reply to it.

[Trumble]

Asking you to stop waffling and get to your point is hardly a 'tactic', atheistic or otherwise.

I have some ideas as to why we might have two eyes rather than four but as they do not involve God and do involve biology and evolution (on which I am not an expert) for sake of argument lets just assume I don't know the answer?

So with that out of the way perhaps could you tell us? And then relate it to why, for example, there are mass murdering psychopaths in the world, why so many children still starve to death because weather or war destroys the crops, and why people have to suffer excrutiating agony for an extended period of time while dying from some forms of cancer? And how you believe these things to be compatable with the existence of an omniscient, omni-benevolent God?

[Md Mashud]

So with that out of the way perhaps could you tell us? And then relate it to why, for example, there are mass murdering psychopaths in the world, why so many children still starve to death because weather or war destroys the crops, and why people have to suffer excrutiating agony for an extended period of time while dying from some forms of cancer? And how you believe these things to be compatable with the existence of an omniscient, omni-benevolent God?

Its all accounted for in the afterlife :O, I thought this was obvious. Before you say whats the proof of afterlife? Well your arguement states it would be unjust if god exists and evil spread, so if god can exist, why can't afterlife? If you rule out afterlife you mayaswell rule out god to begin with in your arguement and just whine about how unjust the world is. You can't add half of it into the arguement, you got to add the full.

[Trumble]

Its all accounted for, is why in the afterlife :O, I thought this was obvious.

Not really. It's the sort of religious equivalent of me punching somebody in the face and then offering an apology accompanied by a box of chocolates. It's just far better not to punch somebody in the face in the first place. And indeed still give the person I didn't punch the chocolates.

Can I assume you are also in the dark as to what all this has to do with the number of eyes we have?!

[ranma1/2]

Only an atheist can produce such "PEARL OF WISDOM".To get the answer for such queries you should answer the following question first.
Why do you have only two eyes ?? Why not four eyes, two on your front and two on your back ??
If you can answer this questions many Questions about God will be solved.

because we are not related to insects. we are related to fish.

[asadxyz]

Asking you to stop waffling and get to your point is hardly a 'tactic', atheistic or otherwise.

I have some ideas as to why we might have two eyes rather than four but as they do not involve God and do involve biology and evolution (on which I am not an expert) for sake of argument lets just assume I don't know the answer?

So with that out of the way perhaps could you tell us? And then relate it to why, for example, there are mass murdering psychopaths in the world, why so many children still starve to death because weather or war destroys the crops, and why people have to suffer excrutiating agony for an extended period of time while dying from some forms of cancer? And how you believe these things to be compatable with the existence of an omniscient, omni-benevolent God?

Thought and an atheist ?? impossible. Are you kidding?
How can a person who says ,"Design can exist without a desighner " can think ?

[Abdul Fattah]

The strongest case in the arguement however are biological sociopaths. They are people literally born without a conscience or ability to sympathize. Their brains are often of a different structure than a normal human brian. In essence, (if he exists) God created evil men without the ability to change.

I think the nurture vs. nature debate on sociopaths is still not settled as either side is still unproven.

[sevgi]

SKAVAU

this thread is gna get nowhere unless u listen to me and everyone else and understand that omniscience has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEEING...he hasnt seen our lives before..

why wont u accept that???

scared?

[Isambard]

SKAVAU

this thread is gna get nowhere unless u listen to me and everyone else and understand that omniscience has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEEING...he hasnt seen our lives before..

why wont u accept that???

scared?

Knowing everything implies knowing the future. Ergo, haven seen it.

[sevgi]

Knowing everything implies knowing the future. Ergo, haven seen it.

i agree...but my friend skavau constinusly states that 'all seeing' and 'all knowing' are equal and the same...hence his arguments tumble...

[Isambard]

i agree...but my friend skavau constinusly states that 'all seeing' and 'all knowing' are equal and the same...hence his arguments tumble...

Being all knowing is to be all seeing.

[sevgi]

Being all knowing is to be all seeing.

to that..i giggle.

this implies that we hav lived our lives twice...

once for god to watch...

and once again for the fun of it...

do u really expect anyone to believ that we are living our lives for the second time?

[Isambard]

to that..i giggle.

this implies that we hav lived our lives twice...

once for god to watch...

and once again for the fun of it...

do u really expect anyone to believ that we are living our lives for the second time?

Or it implies destiny, which is his point. You cant have an all knowing God with free-will as that would violate choice.

So either you believe in free-will with a dumbed down god, or you believe in an all knowing God with no free-will

[sevgi]

Or it implies destiny, which is his point. You cant have an all knowing God with free-will as that would violate choice.

So either you believe in free-will with a dumbed down god, or you believe in an all knowing God with no free-will

destiny?

expand please.

[Isambard]

destiny?

expand please.

That the only way for God to know everything in advance, is for there to be destiny, everything has only one outcome that has already been pre-ordained and 'set in stone' so to speak.

[sevgi]

That the only way for God to know everything in advance, is for there to be destiny, everything has only one outcome that has already been pre-ordained and 'set in stone' so to speak.

yes..i no that u believe that...


then how does that explain that he has seen our lives and future before,,,

u said that all seing and all knowing were equal...

[Isambard]

yes..i no that u believe that...


then how does that explain that he has seen our lives and future before,,,

u said that all seing and all knowing were equal...

All seeing means God has seen our past, present, and future regardless of our location.

To be all knowing, one would have to have foreknowledge hence intrinsically implying to be all seeing as well.

[sevgi]

All seeing means God has seen our past, present, and future regardless of our location.

To be all knowing, one would have to have foreknowledge hence intrinsically implying to be all seeing as well.

all seeing means that God is all seeING...that is in the present tense...

he has not seen our future...

again, for that to happen, we wud have had to live our lives twice...

[Isambard]

all seeing means that God is all seeING...that is in the present tense...

he has not seen our future...

again, for that to happen, we wud have had to live our lives twice...

All knowledgeable would make all seeing extending into future actions, that or you admit God really isnt all powerful.

[sevgi]

All knowledgeable would make all seeing extending into future actions, that or you admit God really isnt all powerful.

god is all knwing...ie, has knowledge of future.yes. agreed.
god is all seeing...ie, sees all which is seeable...

something which hasnt happened isnt seeable.

[ranma1/2]

and something that hasnt happened yet isnt 100% knowable.

[Trumble]

Thought and an atheist ?? impossible. Are you kidding?
How can a person who says ,"Design can exist without a desighner " can think ?

Stop waffling and answer the question. Or if, as I suspect, you are in way over your head, just say so.

As a matter of interest, BTW, that's a total straw-man. No atheist would dispute that a design, by definition, cannot exist without a designer. What they would dispute is the huge implied assumption that there is a 'design' at all and hence any need for a designer.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Ok I'm going to simplify this as best as I can:

Due to humans lack of knowledge, we at times in our life have what we define as a choice i.e. to take action X or action Y. At this moment in time, we have a choice.

God, being all-knowing and all-seeing, KNOWS for a fact that I will take action X out of the two possible actions in this particular case. Since, however, humans are not all-knowing, we are convinced that we have a choice in the matter.

Since choice relies on perception, and our perception as humans is miniscule compared to God, we have what is defined as a choice. Regardless of what God has foreseen, we still make choices - we do not know what action God has forseen until we instigate or initiate the action. Thus our choice is not affected by God's knowledge, thus we have choice.

With a greater perception, we would not be under an illusion of choice - instead it would be one action or one choice. However, as stated before, our perception is limited. Therefore, God is indeed all-knowing but, this does not affect our ability to chose since we do not know what God has forseen. Our ability to chose ends after an action (or choice) has been taken - it is then and only then do we know what action God had forseen, but by then it doesn't matter since the action has occured.

[Trumble]

You seem to be denying free will in saying that the degree of illusory 'choice' decreases with increased perception? Surely free will cannot be dependent on the extent of our perception? If it does the logical conclusion must be that a being with perfect perception (i.e omniscience, i.e God) must therefore have zero free will?!

[Skavau]

SKAVAU

this thread is gna get nowhere unless u listen to me and everyone else and understand that omniscience has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEEING...he hasnt seen our lives before..

God being omniscient has seen our lives before.

why wont u accept that???

Why won't I accept that there is no contradiction between Omniscience and Free-Will or that "omniscience has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEEING"?

If you mean the actual contradiction though - I have not been given sufficient reason to believe there is no contradiction.

scared?

Not at all.

Why would I be?

i agree...but my friend skavau constinusly states that 'all seeing' and 'all knowing' are equal and the same...hence his arguments tumble...

No I don't.

I say that God's infallible foreknowledge (and general knowledge) undermines the idea of free-will. I do not even say anything about 'seeing'.

this implies that we hav lived our lives twice...

No it doesn't. It implies that God has the infinite capacity to merely have knowledge of our lives.

do u really expect anyone to believ that we are living our lives for the second time?

No. That would be illogical.

then how does that explain that he has seen our lives and future before,,,

You are essentially disputing God's omniscience.

An interesting standpoint, but it would remove the contradiction.

he has not seen our future...

Being proclaimed as omniscient, I would indeed say otherwise.

With a greater perception, we would not be under an illusion of choice - instead it would be one action or one choice. However, as stated before, our perception is limited. Therefore, God is indeed all-knowing but, this does not affect our ability to chose since we do not know what God has forseen.

You're still asserting an illusion of choice.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

You seem to be denying free will in saying that the degree of illusory 'choice' decreases with increased perception?

Indeed, since choice is perceptive. From God's point of view, what humans consider as choice is not a choice.

Surely free will cannot be dependent on the extent of our perception? If it does the logical conclusion must be that a being with perfect perception (i.e omniscience, i.e God) must therefore have zero free will?!

Free-will is the ability to think i.e make choices. To God, it is not a case of choice, it is a case of knowing everything thus there is no choice in that sense. Since we do not know the full logic behind His actions (at most, we may know pieces), I cannot state whether or not He has free-will simply because my own perception is limited.

You're still asserting an illusion of choice.

Because you are still asserting that God's omniscience denies free will. If that is the case, then there cannot be a choice, only an illusion of choice or if you really want you can call it destiny.

[sevgi]

and something that hasnt happened yet isnt 100% knowable.

yes...we are speaking abt two differnt attributes...omniscience embraces the future.but he does not have to see it to know it...he created the future remember???(to us)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

may Allah reward aamirsaab and MD Mashud for their patience, the repetition of some members on this thread has put me off from replying, i think its put Mashud off aswell ;D

[sevgi]

God being omniscient has seen our lives before.


Why won't I accept that there is no contradiction between Omniscience and Free-Will or that "omniscience has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEEING"?

If you mean the actual contradiction though - I have not been given sufficient reason to believe there is no contradiction.


Not at all.

Why would I be?


No I don't.

I say that God's infallible foreknowledge (and general knowledge) undermines the idea of free-will. I do not even say anything about 'seeing'.


No it doesn't. It implies that God has the infinite capacity to merely have knowledge of our lives.


No. That would be illogical.


You are essentially disputing God's omniscience.

An interesting standpoint, but it would remove the contradiction.


Being proclaimed as omniscient, I would indeed say otherwise.


You're still asserting an illusion of choice.

there is too much contradiction in ur replies...it hurts my brain...

all seing and all knowing are essentially seperate and have nothing to do with eachother...

please read my debate with isambard...where he left is where we stand...

so God is omniscient and there is free will in islam.

the choices we make are not pre-determined by god....they are pre meditated though...god knows but doesnt see them.and doesnt intervene....we make judgements and choices for ourselves.

tahst all....

[Skavau]

there is too much contradiction in ur replies...it hurts my brain...

That's a shame.

What contradiction would this be?

all seing and all knowing are essentially seperate and have nothing to do with eachother...

Omniscience means to know everything infinitely. If you know everything then you therefore also know all events. A human choice is an event.

If you are saying that God does not know our future and therefore loses omniscience then you do remove the contradiction with free-will. You also though undermine God's ability.

[sevgi]

That's a shame.

What contradiction would this be?
i cnt be bothered really...they are contradictions to me bt not to u...i dnt wana go into it...nt trying to put u off....

Omniscience means to know everything infinitely. If you know everything then you therefore also know all events. A human choice is an event.

yes...but u dnt need to see it to know it...thats where the attributes are seperate.

If you are saying that God does not know our future and therefore loses omniscience then you do remove the contradiction with free-will. You also though undermine God's ability.

he knows it...hasnt seen it...doesnt have to see it..he can know it by jst being omniscient...his attribute of seeing doesnt need to assist him.

[Skavau]

he knows it...hasnt seen it...doesnt have to see it..he can know it by jst being omniscient...his attribute of seeing doesnt need to assist him.

His infinite foreknowledge of what will happen means then that nothing can happen contrary to what he has seen. You're just arguing the mechanism in how God knows what we will do. You're not actually disputing it.

[sevgi]

His infinite foreknowledge of what will happen means then that nothing can happen contrary to what he has seen. You're just arguing the mechanism in how God knows what we will do. You're not actually disputing it.

u used seen again.

[Muslim Knight]

Atheists argue as if God exists He actually owes us something i.e. His existence and whatnot. Like He is supposed to do something for the mess that actually we caused in the first place. They think life is just for frolic.

They've seen Clash of the Titans and old Greek myth movies wherein the gods need mortals to worship them just to survive and exist, too many times and they're trying to drag us into the same mental quagmire they're in.

[Skavau]

u used seen again.

Right. Let me get this straight.

You have said, and I quote: "he knows it...hasnt seen it..." (I am assuming the context is referring God's knowledge concerning our future. The fact that you claim God knows it is no different really whatsoever than God having seen it. You are just playing with words here.

The contradiction still exists whether God has seen or knows. For purely practical reasons I do not distinguish between either words concerning God's omniscience because they both have the same result.

If God has seen infallibly all of our choices, then it is false that we could act contrary to such foresight (gained from 'seeing' our choices).

If God knows infallibly all of our choices, then it is false that we could act contrary to such knowledge (gained from being omniscient)

There is no different in the end result and the contradiction still exists.

What are you arguing about again?

Atheists argue as if God exists He actually owes us something i.e.

No. People who contest the traditional conception God argue according to the self-proclaimed definitions asserted to be of that God.

His existence and whatnot. Like He is supposed to do something for the mess that actually we caused in the first place.

Assuming of course that we did even have any ability to not cause the mess we 'caused' - which is what we are contesting right now.

Although being omniscient and omnibenevolent - why would God not?

They think life is just for frolic.

Considering a good portion of Atheists (I would imagine) consider this to be the only life - it is wise to make the very best of it.

They've seen Clash of the Titans and old Greek myth movies wherein the gods need mortals to worship them just to survive and exist, too many times and they're trying to drag us into the same mental quagmire they're in.

Except we're doing the opposite, we're considering the exact characteristics of the traditional theistic and then considering them. The fact that the Gods as you describe above need mortals to survive completely preclude them from any discussion - because that would certainly not be infinite or omnipotent.

[Muslim Knight]

Assuming of course that we did even have any ability to not cause the mess we 'caused' - which is what we are contesting right now.

Excuse me but on which world are you living in right now? There are people who cause problem and there are people who do not cause problem and there are people who solve problems.

Although being omniscient and omnibenevolent - why would God not?

I am even more surprised suddenly we can lay off all our problems and irresponsibilities at God's feet. Evil people murder innocent people and suddenly it's God's fault.

Considering a good portion of Atheists (I would imagine) consider this to be the only life - it is wise to make the very best of it.

I would hardly say frolic = best. That would be like flunking your tests just because you were tired having been boozing and organizing orgies all night and you say that is making best of your life. That kind of irresponsible behavior leads to the the attitude of Atheists when saying, "If God really exists why didn't He do such and such?"

Except we're doing the opposite, we're considering the exact characteristics of the traditional theistic and then considering them.

Traditional theistic means old dead Greek religions in this context. Please exclude Islam because we don't believe that God needs us just to survive and exist. Rather, we need Him because He created us and sustains us.

[sevgi]

[QUOTE=Skavau;826713]Right. Let me get this straight.

You have said, and I quote: "he knows it...hasnt seen it..." (I am assuming the context is referring God's knowledge concerning our future. The fact that you claim God knows it is no different really whatsoever than God having seen it. You are just playing with words here.

no im not...there is a big difference between seeing and knowing...but isnt that the essential diff. between theists and atheists...we know what we dnt see...but atheists wont believ without seeing....
so i guess what is vital is yet again lost, even in this minor debate.if u cud diffrenciate these terms, u wud see this topic in a whole new light.

The contradiction still exists whether God has seen or knows. For purely practical reasons I do not distinguish between either words concerning God's omniscience because they both have the same result.

see above

If God has seen infallibly all of our choices, then it is false that we could act contrary to such foresight (gained from 'seeing' our choices).

see above


If God knows infallibly all of our choices, then it is false that we could act contrary to such knowledge (gained from being omniscient)

why? he doesnt intervene...him knowing it(not seeing) makes no difference to our choice making...

There is no different in the end result and the contradiction still exists.

does it really? i think this contradiction is in ur head only...and any other atheist right? so why dnt u try and be a little less unbiased, and look at it the way we look at it...then the contradiction will dissapear.

What are you arguing about again?

God is omniscient and respectively and independently all-seeing, and islam still has free will regardless.QUOTE]

peace

[Skavau]

Excuse me but on which world are you living in right now? There are people who cause problem and there are people who do not cause problem and there are people who solve problems.

This much is true.

I suggest you actually read some of my previous posts regarding the Islamic world view and free-will to gain some context of my statement.

I am even more surprised suddenly we can lay off all our problems and irresponsibilities at God's feet. Evil people murder innocent people and suddenly it's God's fault.

If God exists and if God is as described by Muslims/Christians then it is very much God's fault.

I would hardly say frolic = best.

I did not mean it in a literal sense.

That would be like flunking your tests just because you were tired having been boozing and organizing orgies all night and you say that is making best of your life.

Of course, deliberately misinterpreting what I meant is fine. I did not mean any of what you described above.

Traditional theistic means old dead Greek religions in this context. Please exclude Islam because we don't believe that God needs us just to survive and exist. Rather, we need Him because He created us and sustains us.

When I say 'Traditional Theistic' I am referring to the Christian, Islamic and Judaic conceptions of God.

no im not...there is a big difference between seeing and knowing...

Yes there is a difference between seeing and knowing.

But there is no difference in the end result of God's knowledge of our future, whether God be all-seeing or all-knowing. In either situation he knows or has seen (both infallibly) our future.

The contradiction therefore still exists.

so i guess what is vital is yet again lost, even in this minor debate.if u cud diffrenciate these terms, u wud see this topic in a whole new light.

I just did. The differentiation has absolutely no difference concerning this particular topic.

why? he doesnt intervene...him knowing it(not seeing) makes no difference to our choice making...

We've been through this. His infinite capacity to know our future means that we could not do contrary to such knowledge, therefore constraining free-will to only what God knows will happen.

does it really? i think this contradiction is in ur head only...and any other atheist right?

I know that you believe it is in my head. It is however not an exclusive criticism conducted by me or other Atheists. It is an old dilemma which has been discussed before.

so why dnt u try and be a little less unbiased, and look at it the way we look at it...then the contradiction will dissapear.

I just did. The way you look at it provides only word games. It does not actually remove the contradiction.

God is omniscient and respectively and independently all-seeing, and islam still has free will regardless.

So now you're asserting that God is all-seeing?

[sevgi]

Yes there is a difference between seeing and knowing.

But there is no difference in the end result of God's knowledge of our future, whether God be all-seeing or all-knowing. In either situation he knows or has seen (both infallibly) our future.

thats true...i wasnt arguing that anyway.
i just dnt agree that he has seen our future coz it bares no logic what so ever...its fairy tale talk to me....

The contradiction therefore still exists.

as long as u think that god uses these attributes to intervene...yes it does...
but to me...no.

I just did. The differentiation has absolutely no difference concerning this particular topic.

see above

We've been through this. His infinite capacity to know our future means that we could not do contrary to such knowledge, therefore constraining free-will to only what God knows will happen.

weve been through this before...and i keep asking...why?...why cant we do contrary to what he knows when he exerts no effort to intervene...?

I know that you believe it is in my head. It is however not an exclusive criticism conducted by me or other Atheists. It is an old dilemma which has been discussed before.

definitely...yes...i know...i just didnt think i needed to be that encompassing with my generalisation...sorry.

I just did. The way you look at it provides only word games. It does actually remove the contradiction.

i admire your unbiased effort

So now you're asserting that God is all-seeing?

i have been all along...did my mind skip a beat?

[Skavau]

i just dnt agree that he has seen our future coz it bares no logic what so ever..

It is completely logical. God is omniscient. If God is omniscient, God knows everything infallibly. God therefore knows my past, present and future.

as long as u think that god uses these attributes to intervene...yes it does...

No.

As long as God has omniscience.

why cant we do contrary to what he knows when he exerts no effort to intervene...?

Simple. I've posted how many times.

1. I have a choice between A and B.
2. God has seen that I will choose B.
3. I cannot not choose B because that would be contrary to God's knowledge and God cannot be wrong.
4. Therefore I can only 'choose' B.

Read through some of my earlier posts for similar explanations.

[sevgi]

It is completely logical. God is omniscient. If God is omniscient, God knows everything infallibly. God therefore knows my past, present and future.

yes...i was talking about 'seeing'..being illogical..nt knowing...

No.

As long as God has omniscience.

lol...im gettn sick of this...

Simple. I've posted how many times.

1. I have a choice between A and B.
2. God has seen that I will choose B.
3. I cannot not choose B because that would be contrary to God's knowledge and God cannot be wrong.
4. Therefore I can only 'choose' B.

Read through some of my earlier posts for similar explanations.

yes yes yes..i feel like im in my first year philo lectures again..look..i could pull out a whole lot of aquinas to throttle all that away..its philosophy...u can dispute all day...and prove and disprove anything....its a matter of 'playing with words'...
gods knowledge encompasses what we will choose...he is not wrong in knowing what we will choose...

i dnt see how that undermines his omnisc. or our free will..
maybe im dumb....

[Md Mashud]

Skavau and others, as you can see, this arguement does go in circles and circles.

However, I did watch some debates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j0a4Tkjwps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aiAtnTJxRo

It should be noted, that one of the atheists, who had indepth knowledge of Physics/sciences, did actually mention at one point on this 2.5 hours lecture

"I don't disagree that freewill and omniscience can work in harmony, my question is to do with ..."

Which went on to go about, why God does not stop evil and accountability - but the point was, even though this guy was atheist, believed in multiverse, evolution from apes to humans, he had the logical capability to see that, freewill and omniscience do not contradict.

To say it does, seems to be a primitive arguement, even for atheists!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There is a lot of nonsense in this thread. We can all agree that this is an argument that will run and run, but can I ask that people don't use words like 'logic' and 'philosophy' so negligently?

Some examples:

yes yes yes..i feel like im in my first year philo lectures again..look..i could pull out a whole lot of aquinas to throttle all that away..its philosophy...u can dispute all day...and prove and disprove anything....its a matter of 'playing with words'...

This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is and what it does.

a) Using a medieval theologian to support your beliefs is rather pointless when it is widely agreed amongst professional philosophers that his arguments were obliterated by the work of Immanuel Kant and David Hume in the 18th century. Aquinas' arguments would still have to face those replies. If you think you can produce a modified version of Aquinas' arguments which doesn't contain the defects others have found, then go for it. You'd have to display some serious ingenuity to do so.

b) Philosophy is emphatically not 'playing with words'. If arguments are convincing, they survive; if not, they perish. You can't just imagine that philosophers "prove" nonsensical statements with no regard for truth.

Which went on to go about, why God does not stop evil and accountability - but the point was, even though this guy was atheist, believed in multiverse, evolution from apes to humans, he had the logical capability to see that, freewill and omniscience do not contradict.

The free will / omniscience paradox has been much discussed over the centuries, and there are many different views about it. Just because someone agrees with your opinion, that does not mean he (or you) are more logical than anyone else.

Peace

[Trumble]

Philosophy is emphatically not 'playing with words'. If arguments are convincing, they survive; if not, they perish. You can't just imagine that philosophers "prove" nonsensical statements with no regard for truth.

The free will / omniscience paradox has been much discussed over the centuries, and there are many different views about it. Just because someone agrees with your opinion, that does not mean he (or you) are more logical than anyone else.

Great post.

[Md Mashud]

The free will / omniscience paradox has been much discussed over the centuries, and there are many different views about it. Just because someone agrees with your opinion, that does not mean he (or you) are more logical than anyone else.

Peace

I think you missed the point. It was to show, being Atheist, does not mean you cannot accept omniscience and freewill being able to work together - it does not go against your belief system, or "disbeleif" system :skeleton:

[Isambard]

I think you missed the point. It was to show, being Atheist, does not mean you cannot accept omniscience and freewill being able to work together - it does not go against your belief system, or "disbeleif" system :skeleton:

It has nothing to do with a 'atheist mantra'. What is happening is that his arguement is unconvincing.

The only way God could be omisciencient and we have free-will is for him to stay out of the universes affairs else causing a series of events that he by already knowing all the outcomes, would eliminate free-will via causality.

Seeing that those who argue for both of these (and especially for a muslim or christian) God not meddling is thrown out the window and you remain with a paradox.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Me and trumble had a discussion about this a while back, near the bottom of this page and the page after:


http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...th-test-3.html



I remember reading by Ibn ul Qayyim that a wife can't get pregnant unless she has intimate relations with her husband, nor can a person fulfill his/her hunger unless he/she eats. Nor can a person reach their destination unless they travel to it. Similarly, none of us know whether we are destined for paradise or the fire, so we take our journey towards it, and hope for Allah's reward of paradise. It's that simple. The test isn't for Allah, but for us. And the only way we'll succeed is if we do the things required to get there. Don't expect to go paradise, or escape Allah's punishment if you don't take the required measures to get where you want to reach.


And Allah knows best.

[Skavau]

yes yes yes..i feel like im in my first year philo lectures again..look..i could pull out a whole lot of aquinas to throttle all that away.

I am not a fan of Aquinas in the slightest. I am also unaware of Aquinas actually said on this subject.

What at all made you think my objection here was not at all philosophical in any way? It has been since the start.

its philosophy...u can dispute all day...and prove and disprove anything....its a matter of 'playing with words'...

It can be indeed a matter of playing with words (see the Ontological Argument).

But real philosophy (that actually intends to achieve something) goes beyond 'playing with words'. In this specific scenario, I am not playing with words and I actually criticise those that do.

gods knowledge encompasses what we will choose...he is not wrong in knowing what we will choose...

Precisely.

So we could not do otherwise to what God knows, since his omniscience ultimately means he will know what we will go on to 'choose'.

i dnt see how that undermines his omnisc. or our free will..

It doesn't undermine his omniscience.

It does undermine his free-will. I shall give another example: If I have a choice between A and C and God knows that I will do C I could not do otherwise because that would make God wrong, and God cannot be wrong because God is omniscient.

So I would have to do C.

Which went on to go about, why God does not stop evil and accountability - but the point was, even though this guy was atheist, believed in multiverse, evolution from apes to humans, he had the logical capability to see that, freewill and omniscience do not contradict.

Be that his imperative then.

Appealing to popularity is a fallacy, not a good reason.

I remember reading by Ibn ul Qayyim that a wife can't get pregnant unless she has intimate relations with her husband, nor can a person fulfill his/her hunger unless he/she eats. Nor can a person reach their destination unless they travel to it. Similarly, none of us know whether we are destined for paradise or the fire, so we take our journey towards it, and hope for Allah's reward of paradise. It's that simple. The test isn't for Allah, but for us. And the only way we'll succeed is if we do the things required to get there. Don't expect to go paradise, or escape Allah's punishment if you don't take the required measures to get where you want to reach.

This makes no effort to address the supposed contradiction and all asserted above is completely meaningless assuming the contradiction indeed is the case.

[sevgi]

[QUOTE=Skavau;827144]I am not a fan of Aquinas in the slightest. I am also unaware of Aquinas actually said on this subject.

lets just say he believes in god...

What at all made you think my objection here was not at all philosophical in any way? It has been since the start.

i didnt say anything like that...

It can be indeed a matter of playing with words (see the Ontological Argument).

But real philosophy (that actually intends to achieve something) goes beyond 'playing with words'. In this specific scenario, I am not playing with words and I actually criticise those that do.

i dnt know of any philosophy which intends to acheive anything...in philo..there are always two sides to an issue..and they battle it out till they die...then new age thinkers come along..and keep battling...its a bunch of theories, premises, falacies, plausibilities...

i like studyn it though...

Precisely.

So we could not do otherwise to what God knows, since his omniscience ultimately means he will know what we will go on to 'choose'.

knowing something is not an intervention...

It doesn't undermine his omniscience.

It does undermine his free-will. I shall give another example: If I have a choice between A and C and God knows that I will do C I could not do otherwise because that would make God wrong, and God cannot be wrong because God is omniscient.

So I would have to do C.

how does this undermine our free will...?at the end of it all, we choose what we want...and that just happens to be what god knows..
QUOTE]

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think you missed the point. It was to show, being Atheist, does not mean you cannot accept omniscience and freewill being able to work together - it does not go against your belief system, or "disbeleif" system :skeleton:

I had grasped that already, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.

I'm not taking issue with anyone on the free will / omniscience paradox here - it's a debate I don't feel like getting into right now. What I am taking issue with is your continued misuse of the word 'logic'.

i dnt know of any philosophy which intends to acheive anything...in philo..there are always two sides to an issue..and they battle it out till they die...then new age thinkers come along..and keep battling...its a bunch of theories, premises, falacies, plausibilities...

i like studyn it though...

Words fail me. :rollseyes

Peace

[sevgi]

Greetings,



Words fail me. :rollseyes

Peace

what? my words? words in general?lol...i dnt get it...

[Skavau]

lets just say he believes in god...

I know he does.

I also know that I have found much of his considerations regarding God unconvincing.

i dnt know of any philosophy which intends to acheive anything...in philo..there are always two sides to an issue..and they battle it out till they die...then new age thinkers come along..and keep battling...its a bunch of theories, premises, falacies, plausibilities...

i like studyn it though...

There are many sides to many issues.

Some however remain much more competent than the other sides.

knowing something is not an intervention...

I have never contended that it was. You're creating a strawman.

how does this undermine our free will...?at the end of it all, we choose what we want...and that just happens to be what god knows..

Because choice rests on the ability to choose more than one outcome. If God knows then you simply cannot 'choose' anything that God does not know, so you could not choose more than one outcome.

My previous posts have described this in greater detail.

[Pygoscelis]

This idea that "evilness disproves a god" simply makes no sense.

Why can't a God be evil?

[Pygoscelis]

As to the free will bit, free will is an illusion anyway. I have yet to see any evidence or even logical argument otherwise.

[Trumble]

This idea that "evilness disproves a god" simply makes no sense.

Why can't a God be evil?

Possibly because it is difficult to disassociate the concepts of God and 'the Good'. One tends to get defined in terms of the other.

And possibly because the thought of an omnipotent, omniscient, malevolent God is too horrifying to contemplate?