God is the best planner of all?

[barney]

Thanks, but I'm already aware of the general picture, it's the specifics I'm interested in. Is there anything in Islam that suggests how God would be aware of your future, to what extent you are 'predestined' to act a certain way, whether God has an active hand in that and how free will and responsibility are involved.

Yes, I did.
For example, you take a ball and roll it down a hill. If you could map every bump of the hillside and measure the properties of the ball to a high degree of accuracy, you could set the ball rolling and predict it's path. If I could then go back and set it up exactly the same, I would release the ball and watch it follow an identical path down the hill.

Taking the predictable effects of known causes and extrapolating into the future would make it possible to predict almost anything, is this how God knows what's going to happen, we are entirely predictable in a physical sense?
If you were told what you were predestined to do, could you use your free will to change it?

Azy, then you would have to plot the overhead passing duck and its downdraught affecting the balls predicted route, and the fluctuation in the earths gravity field from a passing comet 2 billion miles away. I agree its all possible to predict, but thats for a inert object. A sentinent being cant be predicted.
There is simply nothing that can affect our free will under normal human operating circumstances.
If God is plotting our path then he has about 3000Googles of operations a second just to plot me typing this sentance. If he is manouvering every atom in the universe, he has a bit more than that to cope with.
No wonder in the Bible that he had a bit of a nap on Sunday.

I look at cases like Juche. From the moment a North Korean is born their expectations and life is mapped out for them. They are woken at 7 AM and the street cleaners are already out on the streets cleaning away non-existant litter and the Traffic police are stood waving on non-existant traffic.
The Hotel's cook up their state approved meals in the same way each day for hundreds of tourists....who simply are not in the hotel, and will never come. It's the perfect mind control.
And yet still people use their free will. Some grow their hair past state approved length, risking imprisonment, some will smuggle photo's of their prison-city to the outside world, some will run through kilometers of mines and barbed wire.
Even in this super-controlled state, people can still think.

 

[Akilah Hijara]

I think it might be more accurate, if you are still in the discussion about fate vs. free will, to think of life as a pin ball machine. You are always going to come out in one place and exit in another, but the chaotic bouncing around in the middle is entirely up to...whoever. Every move may be planned out or not, but the end result will be the same.
Well, that didn't really come out the way it was in my head, but I hope it makes sense.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The problem with this is understanding how the creator knows what choices you're going to make.

If you have a genuine free will then you could make different choices given the exact same circumstances. That God knows what you're going to do implies either forcing your hand or some kind of determinism, either way you aren't responsible since you couldn't act otherwise.

Hi Azy.
I disagree completely with your reasoning. Determinism doesn't contradict free will nor responsibility at all.

The paragraph you commented to was part of a larger section. I'll post the whole part here:

* Free will vs. fate
When people think about fate or destiny being inevitable; they usually assume it is inevitable despite of our choices rather then because of our choices. To illustrate this with an example. Say a person sits at a diner, deciding whether he'd have coffee or tea. Lets say hypothetically that if he'll take the tea, he'll get sleepy and get run over by a car when exiting the diner as opposed to when he takes coffee which will make him jumpy enough to avoid being hit. When you add fate into the picture, many people will be inclined to think that if the person is destined to be run over, then he will inevitable be run over despite his choice of coffee or tea. In that view, any personal choice can be rendered as irrelevant, and free will is a pipe dream. However there is an alternative view. One could say that the person is destined to be run over because he chooses to have tea. In that view, destiny doesn't deny choice. But rather our choice creates a destiny. Of course some might say that this is a play on words and that in this view, destiny and fate loose there value. But that argument is strictly semantical. Perhaps the value I propose is contradictory to contemporary semantics, but can we honestly claim to know what the semantical value was of a word more then a millennium ago? If we cannot, then this alternative view should be kept into consideration.
* Free will vs. predestination
Predestination ties in very closely to fate and destiny. However, it is a very specific form of destiny and fate. The prefix "pre" stresses that this destiny is already set prior to it happening, and perhaps also known prior to it happening. Again, there's a big semantical problem here that I explain in the page dedicated to time. the word "already" is nonsensical in that sentence because it is a word derived from a presentists point of view. If we include layers of time into this objection, we find that the statement becomes: "At the time1 that I haven't made a choice yet1 the future1 is already2 determined." So it isn't really "already" decided in the sense that we have no saying in it, since that already refers to secondary layer of time. It is already2 decided because an observer outside of time1 would see which course of action we will1 take. That has no bearing on the causality of this time. And it certainly doesn't mean our window of opportunity to choose has passed. The reason the future is set is because our choices are know. In other words, our choices are included into the determination, so the determination does not negate us having a choice.
* Free will vs. causal determinism
The problem that physical causality has with free will; is that it suggests our will is not free at all. If you view the brain as a biological machine which responds to electrical impulses and chemical balances of hormones, then the end result -your choice- can be predicted by the laws of nature. This somehow strips the concept of person input and freedom. This used to be one of the reasons why I considered myself atheistic in the past. As I reconsidered these arguments later in life however, I came to the conclusion that no proof nor indication can be found in the fields of neuro-psychology that confirms this view. First of all we need to consider what causality actually is. As I illustrated here [edit: link to other page] science still has no clue of what causality actually is. We only examine the events that are correlated, not the correlation itself. And on this page I've shown how our views on time could fundamentally change our concept of causality. So just because the results are causal, is not enough to conclude that they aren't our personal, free wills. Furthermore our current knowledge on the human mind is way to limited. There is definitely still more then enough room for interpreting the mind as free. Right now we have no idea how the brain stores memories, how we make decisions, and so on. All we have researched so far is that there is a certain correlation between certain area's of the brain and certain thoughts. We've established this by monitoring brain activity during certain thoughts the test subject has. But the interpretation given to the results are very biased. Many assume that since the area is correlated, that must mean that activity in that area causes or triggers a certain thought. And what about the influence of electrons in our brains? It has been suggested that chaos theory apply to our brain. Chaos theory is the theory that a very small process -in this case the behavior of an electron- can have a determinant influence on the outcome of a much larger event. This is sometimes also called the butterfly effect. How does this affect causality? Well, we don't know yet how causal the behavior of electrons actually is! Is their behavior strictly random, or is there an underlying cause for it? Of course I grant that us humans do experience basic, instinctive impulses and desires that drive us. And because of those impulses we actually have a lot less freedom than some wish to think. However, we can deny these urges by choice! Take fasting for example. Denying ones basic urges to eat for a full day. We have yet to understand how such a choice works on a neuro-psychological level. And that is what true freedom of choice means. That is why someone who choses to ignore his lusts and urges, and instead choses to follow religion acquires the greatest degree of freedom one can have. Because what you do then is ignore your causal body, and follow your spiritual soul. In other words, the choice boils down to this: be a slave of your urges, and needs, or be a slave of God.
* Free will vs. omniscience of God
The argument goes, if our creator is omniscient; he knew exactly what we would eventually do. He thus created some of us despite knowing very well they 'd fail. Or even more convincing, he made us in such a specific manner and environment that we would inevitably fail. This isn't actually an argument against free will, but rather an argument against the responsibility of our free will. As I illustrated before, predestination does not negate free will and personal input. The argument here isn't that we were created without a choice. The argument here is that we were created with choice despite that our creator knew some of us would end up making the wrong choice! This is very twisted. If predestination doesn't negate free will, it shouldn't negate responsibility either. Just because God knew in advance, doesn't mean it isn't our choice and our responsibility. This is in fact the other side of the shinning free-will coin. Free will comes hand in hand with responsibility, and trying to push responsibility to our creator, is in a way rejecting free will, not denying it. The argument is not saying "I don't have it", but rather saying: "I don't want it".

 

[barney]

Can I hop in with my Angels bit here?
Sometimes the Angels intervene. We had a discussion a few weeks back, and the free will of people was sometimes overriden by God. People wanted to die and so they shot themselves yet diddnt die, because the angels made the round ricchochet off the skull, or when driving too fast the angels made the person aware that they were about to be sideswiped by a truck and they made them swerve and miss it.

So when the Angels, who obviously are employees of God, intervene in these situations, are they not mucking about with our free will?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Can I hop in with my Angels bit here?
Sometimes the Angels intervene. We had a discussion a few weeks back, and the free will of people was sometimes overriden by God. People wanted to die and so they shot themselves yet diddnt die, because the angels made the round ricchochet off the skull, or when driving too fast the angels made the person aware that they were about to be sideswiped by a truck and they made them swerve and miss it.

So when the Angels, who obviously are employees of God, intervene in these situations, are they not mucking about with our free will?

There's a difference between free will (choice) and between absolute freedom of action! I don't see why angels ricocheting a round is any different from say a paramedic rescuing a person who slit his wrists. Both cases do not undermine the existence of free will in any way. Free will means we get to choice what actions we'll take, it doesn't mean however we have absolute control over the end result of those actions.

 

[barney]

Well actually they do. The Paramedic is using his free will to save the suicidal guy. Hence overriding it.
But that anology is a bit weak in the respect of nobody can intervene to make a bullet ricochet off a skull.
It can ricohet because it was always going to, due to angle, charge, caliber , grain, muzzle velocity, bullet type or the wearing of a helmet, but for the angels to intervene, as some say they do, is definatly a supernatural being overiding a humans choice.


So either the angels dont intervene, which is against theistic beleif or they do, and theyre overiding free will.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Well actually they do. The Paramedic is using his free will to save the suicidal guy. Hence overriding it.
But that anology is a bit weak in the respect of nobody can intervene to make a bullet ricochet off a skull.
It can ricohet because it was always going to, due to angle, charge, caliber , grain, muzzle velocity, bullet type or the wearing of a helmet, but for the angels to intervene, as some say they do, is definatly a supernatural being overiding a humans choice.


So either the angels dont intervene, which is against theistic beleif or they do, and theyre overiding free will.

My point was, there's a difference between countering free will, and not having free will in the first place. In both cases the suicidal person had the free will to try and end his life, in both cases he ended up using the weapon, and in both cases his actions were countered later on by something he hadn't foreseen.

 

[Azy]

Azy, then you would have to plot the overhead passing duck and its downdraught affecting the balls predicted route, and the fluctuation in the earths gravity field from a passing comet 2 billion miles away.

Well, yes, I was hoping I wouldn't have to completely catalogue the contents of the universe just to make a point

I agree its all possible to predict, but thats for a inert object. A sentinent being cant be predicted.

Do you believe that the laws of nature and causality exist everywhere in the universe but inside your head?
That a human brain can conjure something out of nothing and that thoughts can occur without a cause? What you're arguing for is a supernatural power that is not bound by the rules of physics.

* Free will vs. fate
Perhaps the value I propose is contradictory to contemporary semantics, but can we honestly claim to know what the semantical value was of a word more then a millennium ago? If we cannot, then this alternative view should be kept into consideration.

Translated: This view is valid because I don't know how 8th century Arabs defined the word fate.

* Free will vs. predestination
It is already2 decided because an observer outside of time1 would see which course of action we will1 take. That has no bearing on the causality of this time.

Translated: This view is valid because I can make whatever assumptions I like about an 'observer' who lives 'outside of time', such as the assumption that this state of being is possible, that a being in such a state could view events in our space-time from outside of it, and that such an observer does not interfere with events in our space-time as physical principles suggest they should.

* Free will vs. causal determinism
This used to be one of the reasons why I considered myself atheistic in the past. As I reconsidered these arguments later in life however, I came to the conclusion that no proof nor indication can be found in the fields of neuro-psychology that confirms this view.

Translated: We can assume that causality works fine inside distant stars, but because we don't know everything that goes on inside a person's head and noone has explicitly shown it then it makes sense that causality does not exist there.

* Free will vs. omniscience of God
The argument here is that we were created with choice despite that our creator knew some of us would end up making the wrong choice! This is very twisted. If predestination doesn't negate free will, it shouldn't negate responsibility either. Just because God knew in advance, doesn't mean it isn't our choice and our responsibility.

Translated: God just knows what's going on, I don't know how he knows and nor has anyone presented credible evidence that he even exists so I can say what I want about his attributes.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

Translated: This view is valid because I don't know how 8th century Arabs defined the word fate.

Although I understand your "translations"; I must point out they are inaccurate. The translation would be: the view is valid because the counterargument relies on a very strict semantical interpretation of the word which Islam in general doesn't seem to be supporting! The argument makes as much sense as judging the concept of Allah by argumentation on the semantical value of the Christian view of god. In other words, it's not the validity that is relying on a pre-assumption, it's the counterargument that is relying on such. Therefor your representation which makes the concept look weak and the counter strong is inapt, as it should be the other way around.

Translated: This view is valid because I can make whatever assumptions I like about an 'observer' who lives 'outside of time', such as the assumption that this state of being is possible, that a being in such a state could view events in our space-time from outside of it, and that such an observer does not interfere with events in our space-time as physical principles suggest they should.

I am not making any assumptions, I am simply pointing out a big flaw in the argument. Although I see why the paragraph could be confusing, the explanation was relying on a previous explained concept. I'll clarify:

Presentism and eternalism.
Presentists hold that only the present is existing, and the past ceased to exist while the feature is yet to come into existence. That means dinosaurs for example do not exist. Eternalists on the other hand hold that present and past (and according to some also the future) are equally real. It views the dimension of time similar to the dimension of space. Objects in the distant past are equally real as objects in distant space are real, even though we're not there. So the past does not seize to exist as the present moves along. This means dinosaurs do exist, just none of them are located in the present. Obviously both presentists and eternalists do not only have a different perspective on the nature of time, but also on what the nature of the present is.

Persistence over time and endurance trough time.
Endurance trough time is the classical, intuitive view of how objects interact with time. In this view objects are wholly present at any time, and endure in their totality trough time. Change is then an altering of the composition of that object or it's environment. Some go even further and claim that time is nothing more then a man made concept to measure change. Persistence over time on the other hand holds that objects have four dimensions (hence the alternative name of the theory; four-dimensionalism). The three dimensional objects as we observe them, are then section-fragments or time-segments of the bigger four-dimensional object. that means that objects are not wholly present at any given time, but only a section of them is. Change under this view is not an altering of composition, but a succession of different segments; a bit similar to how movement in a movie is a projection of successive static images.

Discussing time is incredibly challenging because there exist no proper terminology. Our whole language is build up intuitively from the concept of presentism and is thus positively biased towards that view. So discussing the nature of an eternalistic universe is practically impossible. Therefor I have come up with a little trick so that we can apply our presentism-loaded vocabulary to describe an eternalistic universe: "Layers of time". I add an extra -hypothetical- layer of time. A time within a time. The time we experience and are discussing here; I call that the inner layer of time. Now imagine an observer that stands outside of our universe. i.e. in this case God; if you believe he created it you would logically also assume he is not part of his own creation and thus exists independent of it. And since time is a dimensional construct of this universe, God would also be "ungrounded" by and independent of time. It requires a bit of an alternative view on what a "dimension" is to really understand that, rather then a degree of liberty a dimension could also be seen as a degree of captivity. Science is neutral towards which is correct, but humans are inclined to prefer the former instinctively. If this observer would also be outside of our time and space, since four-dimensional space-time is a part of our universe itself. He would see all of the universe's existence at once. Both the past, present and future. But we have a problem there. When I say he sees past and future existence "at once" I am talking nonsense. To an observer that is outside of time, the term "at once", or more clearly, "at one time" makes no sense. See what I mean, by saying our language is intuitively build upon presentism? I have no method of expressing the multitude of observation by the observer, without using words that are time-dependent. Therefor, instead of making new words, I thought it would be more appropriate, and easier to make up a new imaginary layer of time. An outer layer of time. A time that our universe, as well as our observer would undergo. This way we can still use our time-dependent words, and simply clarify to which layer of time they refer. And note that whether or not such a layer of time actually exists, has no bearing on the correctness of our discussion. See it as a simple trick of words, a method to use limited vocabulary, to make concepts more clear. For practical reasons, I would suggest simply putting an index 1 or 2 respectively for inner layer of time and outer layer of time after each time-dependent-word. To get familiar with the trick, I'll write down a few sentences testing this method out.

"Today2 our observer's curiosity made him watch our universe yet again2. He was2 particularly intrigued with this one human in the universe, looking at that humans beginning1 and end1 at the same time2. He watched it for more then an hour2 noticing all the little details; how the human was first1 thin at it's beginning1, and then1 becomes wider2 (=grew taller1) throughout the remainder1 of his life."
More about this is found on my website in the link in my signature.
​

So now, if we look at the argument against predestination again, and apply these indexes, we find the flaw of the counterargument quite rapidly:
The choice I will1 make in the future1, is already2 known by our creator before? I even had the time1 to make it.
I've put an index of question mark after "before". The word is making a chronology between the secondary layer "already known" and the primary layer "had the time". So you see, it is not I who made any assumptions, it is the counterargument that is flawed by wrongful chronology.

Translated: We can assume that causality works fine inside distant stars, but because we don't know everything that goes on inside a person's head and noone has explicitly shown it then it makes sense that causality does not exist there.

Again you've completely missed my point. I am not questioning whether choices are in a sense causal or not. I am simply showing how the causality doesn't strip the choice of being free. For all we know our will might be the very thing that causes the effect, and thus causality would include our free will!

Translated: God just knows what's going on, I don't know how he knows and nor has anyone presented credible evidence that he even exists so I can say what I want about his attributes.

That is completely backwards, and if I might add, very unfair of you to say. First of all, I never claimed that God is "proven", neither do I have to in order to defend the idea. When in defense, it's sufficient to simply defeat the counterarguments. The counterargument goes that since God knows, he is responsible. This is a slippery slope. The counterargument rests on the assumption that predictability indicates something is not "free". I'm inclined to disagree. But regardless, your representation is inaccurate since it is again the counterargument that relies on assumptions and not the concept.

 

[MustafaMc]

I believe that we humans have the free-will to make an intention for an action, but success or failure comes from Allah in accordance with His Will. That is why we Muslims say "Insha'Allah" (Allah willing) when we say that we are going to do something. I may have the intention to go to the grocery store to get a gallon (3.8 liter) of milk, but my destiny may be to die in a car crash on the way to the store, or I may be able to make the trip and return safely home. We have the free-will to make intentions and act toward their achievement, but we don't control the outcome. We also have the free-will to respond and to react to what happens to us according to our own choices.

For example, I strive my best to develop superior cotton varieties that out perform the competition, but I sincerely believe that my success or failure in that endeavor comes but from Allah. Alhamdulillah, To Allah belongs the Praise, forever and forever, Amen.

 

[barney]

I believe that we humans have the free-will to make an intention for an action, but success or failure comes from Allah in accordance with His Will. That is why we Muslims say "Insha'Allah" (Allah willing) when we say that we are going to do something. I may have the intention to go to the grocery store to get a gallon (3.8 liter) of milk, but my destiny may be to die in a car crash on the way to the store, or I may be able to make the trip and return safely home. We have the free-will to make intentions and act toward their achievement, but we don't control the outcome. We also have the free-will to respond and to react to what happens to us according to our own choices.

For example, I strive my best to develop superior cotton varieties that out perform the competition, but I sincerely believe that my success or failure in that endeavor comes but from Allah. Alhamdulillah, To Allah belongs the Praise, forever and forever, Amen.

To this effect, you could remove the brake-pads from your car, looosen the wheelnuts cover the tyres in grease, begin your journey blindfolded through a minefield and make sure your speed dosnt drop below 90 MPH whilst steering the car with your foot. And if Allah willed it, you would be fine.

It brings the question, why bother doing anything. God will sort it out...or he wont.
The Jehovas Witnesses and Christadelpians apply to this school of thought.
One of their young Mums refused a blood transfusion to save her life only 3 weeks back. She thought God diddnt want her to mix blood, and that he would sort it out if he was willing. Well strangly, over the tears and gritted teeth of the Doctors, she diddnt recover. God hadnt willed it. How very, very strange.

 

[- Qatada -]

To this effect, you could remove the brake-pads from your car, looosen the wheelnuts cover the tyres in grease, begin your journey blindfolded through a minefield and make sure your speed dosnt drop below 90 MPH whilst steering the car with your foot. And if Allah willed it, you would be fine.

And there are situations in which believers have had to do similar to this out of necessity, and they placed their trust in their Lord.


Generally, we do all we have control over as humans and then place our trust in Allah. As the famous hadith goes "tie your camel, and then place your trust in Allah."

We do what we have control over, and then we leave what we don't have control over in the trust of Allah.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

the thread title is

"is God the best planner"

im asking who else can possibly plan what is beyond our control?

 

[barney]

the thread title is

"is God the best planner"

im asking who else can possibly plan what is beyond our control?

The alternative is nobody. Things just happen.
If I want to jump up and run around quacking like a duck now I can. It's my free will. If a Bus falls on my head, perhaps it fell out of a very large transport aircraft that had structural failure. It's all completly based in physics and the thought processes of people.
The bus diddnt fall because I quacked. God diddnt drop it. The poor quality control at the factory dropped it along with the flight engineers who said it was safe to carry.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

The alternative is nobody. Things just happen.
If I want to jump up and run around quacking like a duck now I can. It's my free will. If a Bus falls on my head, perhaps it fell out of a very large transport aircraft that had structural failure. It's all completly based in physics and the thought processes of people.
The bus diddnt fall because I quacked. God diddnt drop it. The poor quality control at the factory dropped it along with the flight engineers who said it was safe to carry.

no matter what happens you can never go to the root without going to an all-powerful mover. Nothing moves without a beginning. A ball will just sit there until you set it in motion.

If he who sets the beginning to motion isnt in control, then this world would be far worser then it is now and i have no doubt about that.

 

[Azy]

Hi Azy

Hi,
I may have been a bit flippant and I'm sorry about that.
My main point is this:
Free will cannot exist alongside causality if we take them both in the strictest sense.
As you said, our brains are just biochemical machines, albeit very complex machines. As far as we know causality does not stop between people's ears, so it would seem reasonable as with any other situation that the outcome is determined by the initial conditions.
If the initial conditions are the same (and I mean exactly the same) then you should get the same outcome, the same thoughts produced by the brain, the same decision regardless of how many times you ran through the scenario.
This would mean free will does not exist if the functions of your brain are deterministic.

If your brain functions are not deterministic then we are all essentially playing god and creating something from nothing, effects without causes.

 

[جوري]

Hi,
I may have been a bit flippant and I'm sorry about that.

I know the post isn't addressed to me, but I do like that you are shifting gear.. it shows growth or at least trying to relate though not agreeing with members!

cheers

 

[snakelegs]

And there are situations in which believers have had to do similar to this out of necessity, and they placed their trust in their Lord.


Generally, we do all we have control over as humans and then place our trust in Allah. As the famous hadith goes "tie your camel, and then place your trust in Allah."

We do what we have control over, and then we leave what we don't have control over in the trust of Allah.

do you know what hadith this is? i've heard that saying for years (and liked it), but never knew where it came from.

For example, I strive my best to develop superior cotton varieties that out perform the competition, but I sincerely believe that my success or failure in that endeavor comes but from Allah. Alhamdulillah, To Allah belongs the Praise, forever and forever, Amen.

this is a good attitude to take - this way you will never become arrogant and smug. i try to approach life this way, but don't always succeed.

 

[chacha_jalebi]

sister snakey i heard that hadiths from Hadhrat Anas Ibn Malik andd in the hadiths collection by Tirmidhi!!

 

[snakelegs]

thanks. if anyone knows the exact hadith, please post.