Free will with an all knowing God.

[IAmZamzam]

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

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

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

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

 

[Trumble]

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

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

 

[IAmZamzam]

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

 

[Trumble]

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

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

 

[Lynx]

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

So Allah is not omniscient? um okay.

 

[FS123]

So you guys are saying: foreknowledge = no freewill

 

[IAmZamzam]

So Allah is not omniscient? um okay.

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

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

 

[Lynx]

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

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

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

 

[FS123]

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

Is that appeal to authority?

 

[Lynx]

Is that appeal to authority?

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

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

 

[FS123]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lynx]

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

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

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

 

[IAmZamzam]

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

 

[Pygoscelis]

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

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

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

 

[IAmZamzam]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lynx]

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

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

 

[IAmZamzam]

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

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

 

[Lynx]

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

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

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

 

[IAmZamzam]

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

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

 

[FS123]

Satisfaction is in the eye of the beholder.