Does Evilness around the World disprove God?

[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]

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_Evilness_disprove_God/Does_Evilness_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?