"All knowing"

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

Then perhaps our definitions of relevance do not match. We leave it there.

A believer cannot question? The way 'believers' patronize those who question the beliefs makes me less of a believer though.

You can ask questions, no one is stopping you!

[QUOTE]

If you program a software where objects in the software behave in a way that you determined at the inception, would it be fair to judge their behavior at the 'end' of execution the program?

[/QUOTE]

So, are you sure that God programmed us same way we do programming?

[QUOTE]

There is a whole spectrum of beliefs among 'believer and disbelievers'. My 'beliefs' if you will, can be summarized in post #55. Why force someone to choose sides? I am not questioning existance of God. I am questioning the qualities of the God that people attribute to Him.

[/QUOTE]

If you deny the 'all knowing' quality then you are dropping the idea of the God, the One.

[QUOTE]

No. Foreknowledge of things that CANNOT BE CHANGED NO MATTER WHAT implies predetermination. If you call it assumption, that's your option. If God;

1. knows everything that is going to happen, and
2. those things cannot be changed whatever you do,

it simply means someone (most probably God) has predetermined them. If they were not predetermined, they could be changed.

[/QUOTE]

It can neither be rejected nor accepted scientifically. As a believer you can believe that you have free will, and God is all knowing.

[QUOTE]
I am not 'undermining' God. I am simply saying that what has not yet happened does not exist and God not knowing something that doesn't exist is not a big deal.

Still avoiding the question: Is it fair to punish me for something I do that I was already decreed to do even before my birth and I had no choice but to do it?
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t you imply you would rather believe in such God that would not 'all knowing'?
If yes, then doesn’t ‘not all knowing’ imply ‘not all powerful’?
Would be satisfied with not all powerful God?

Yes I am avoiding you paradox because it can neither be approved nor disapproved, scientifically. Aren’t you avoiding my point?

And you missed following points
point 1: All i am asking is if you cannot validate yourself just bring some real scientist's work which proves that determinism involving human being actions can be validated empirically.

point 2: My point is, claim of 'foreknowledge implies predetermination' is not verifiable. Remember, you said there it can be validated using negation.

[kakaballi]

Re: "All knowing"

.....It can neither be rejected nor accepted scientifically. As a believer you can believe that you have free will, and God is all knowing..

...Yes I am avoiding you paradox because it can neither be approved nor disapproved, scientifically. Aren’t you avoiding my point?

And you missed following points point 1: All i am asking is if you cannot validate yourself just bring some real scientist's work which proves that determinism involving human being actions can be validated empirically..

point 2: My point is, claim of 'foreknowledge implies predetermination' is not verifiable. Remember, you said there it can be validated using negation.

Funny that, Scientifically, existence of God is not verifiable. Would you doubt that too?

Funny that you would ask for scientific proof for a moral question.

Funny that you would ask for scientific proof for something that is easily demonstrated logically.

Funny that you would use science (and religion) where it suits your opinion and reject science (and religion) where it doesn't.

Given a choice between 'all knowing' (in the sense that you portray God) and a 'just' God, I'd go for a Just God.

My understanding of God allows Him to be 'all knowing' as well as 'just'. I just don't understand why not allow me to have that one?

exits thread

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

^ The way you responding is telling you desperation :D
Just quoting my posts doesn’t mean you are refuting them. That is funny way to argue.
No, I am not using science to prove anything, but rather asking you to prove your claim. The reason I am rather asking you is you believe that physical laws of the earth are the absolute reference to understand things. And I believe not in science but in religion. If you do so then you are supposed to bring some proof which you are avoiding.

I openly admit that I am avoiding you paradox with reason that it is not verifiable. But you are unable to get this simple bit.
It is interesting that you cannot even understand that i am not making any claim here, but asking you to prove your claim.

[kakaballi]

Re: "All knowing"

enters thread

... And I believe not in science but in religion....

Funny that you do not believe in science but refuse to answer my questions because according to you they cannot be proven "scientifically" (Logic is not scientific enough, I suppose).

exits thread

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

enters thread

Funny that you do not believe in science but refuse to answer my questions because according to you they cannot be proven "scientifically" (Logic is not scientific enough, I suppose).

exits thread

The fact stays that your claim that foreknowledge implies predetermination is NOT VERIFIABLE.
Now its up to you, what you choose to believe in, a not all powerful God or an all Powerful God.

[kakaballi]

Re: “All knowing”

enters thread

@ajazali

The fact stays that your claim that foreknowledge implies predetermination is NOT VERIFIABLE…

That is not a claim. That is a logical deduction which you are unwilling to admit.

The fact stays that existence of God (all knowing, all powerful, or both) is not verifiable. Why don’t you reject existence of God as well?

Here from the psyah’s own link:

23. Everything happens according to His decree and will, and His will is accomplished. The only will that people have is what He wills for them. What He wills for them occurs and what He does not will, does not occur.

24. Everything happens according to Allah’s will, knowledge, predestination and decree.

If this is not predetermination, I wonder what is!!!

exits thread

getting tired of these entries and exits

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

That is not a claim. That is a logical deduction which you are unwilling to admit.

...

Then you are the only person on the earth that can deduce logically without taking any instance into observation. :D

[kakaballi]

Re: "All knowing"

Then you are the only person on the earth that can deduce logically without taking any instance into observation. :D

Not really. Most theoretical sciences rely on logic and mathematics without empirical experiments.

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

enters thread

The fact stays that existence of God (all knowing, all powerful, or both) is not verifiable. Why don't you reject existence of God as well?

oh, missed this point. Maybe you didnt notice "choose to believe" bits in my post. or you just look at post after deleting things you dont like to respond. :D

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

Not really. Most **theoretical sciences **rely on logic and mathematics without empirical experiments.

lolz, you said logical deduction!

[kakaballi]

Re: "All knowing"

lolz, you said logical deduction!

What's so funny about it? Logical deduction is one of the most important foundations of theoretical sciences.

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

What's so funny about it? Logical deduction is one of the most important foundations of theoretical sciences.

Did you even read the falsifiability link you give?
Go and read the deduction part there.
you are making inferential claim, not deducing logically.

[kakaballi]

Re: “All knowing”

^ Not correct. Lets agree to disagree here if you like.

Here is what I understand from your and psyah’s posts:

1. God knows everything that is going to happen.

2. God’s knowledge is perfect and absolute.

3. Human beings cannot choose to act contrary to that knowledge because God’s knowledge is perfect and absolute.

4. Being predetermined means that there must not be any chance or choice involved in that event.

5. Therefore, our actions have been predetermined.

I don’t see what is wrong with it.

You don’t believe in predestination?

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

^

When you jump from point number 3 to 4, you miss the empirical validation for how foreknowledge implies per-detereminism. that is my concern. If you dont wnat to respond it, then it is your option.

answering your question.
I am yet to see an empirical proof of absolute determinism, sampling human beings.
maybe you dont bother about the implication of word 'believe'.

[kakaballi]

Re: "All knowing"

^

When you jump from point number 3 to 4, you miss the empirical validation for how foreknowledge implies per-detereminism. that is my concern. If you dont wnat to respond it, then it is your option.

.....

So, you mean there is a chance that things might happen which are contrary to Allah's Knowledge of what would happen? Number 5 will be false only if that is the case. Number 4 is just the definition of predetermination.

Be careful here! It is not ANY foreknowledge. It is God's foreknowledge which is perfect.

Why do you keep returning to empirical proof when you don't believe in science? Empirical proofs only satisfy people who believe in science and we have yet to empirically prove existence of God.

And again, Do you believe in predestination?

[ajazali]

Re: "All knowing"

.. Number 4 is just the definition of predetermination. ...

OK, I thought you are writing steps of some logical inference where you are required imply your step from previous step. its ok if you are giving me definitions :D

[QUOTE]
And again, Do you believe in predestination?
[/QUOTE]

So you want make it circular logic :D
Allah knows, but we also have free will. that is my claim.
now you are supposed to give empirical evidance that free will is not possible with foreknowledge.
I can ask you question similarly, but I would avoid. because my purpose here is not to confuse others.

[sceptic]

Re: "All knowing"

@kakaballi

Can easily be validated using negation.

If someone knows what is going to happen, and that does not happen, it means his foreknowledge was wrong.

If someone knows what is going to happen, and no force in the universe can change what he knows is going to happen (foreknowledge is always correct), then it simply means that it has been predetermined.

^ This. Takes us back to the starting argument, the trait of 'all knowing' is not compatible with freewill and judgment.

I don't believe we have free will, but for other reasons, which I will save for some later time.

@Iconoclast

Just to throw in something more for you people, to think about.

Shia beleive in aqeedah of Bada. Have heard different explanations of it, which goes something like this, God can change his will or destiny, accordingto his wish. They believe somethings are written in indelible ink (figuratively speaking) in Louh (or the book) while others can be erased and rewritten.

"Changing mind" is a rather human trait, shouldn't apply to god. If his knowledge is alpha and omega, he knew everything from its nothingness to coming into existence till it goes back into nothingness, there isn't much margin for a change of mind. Don't know if this is the right way to put it, if he had to change his mind at some point, he would have known already that he would change his mind.

Iconoclast - I appreciate your input brother, but poetry really doesn't cut it for me. I do appreciate poetry, art, music etc. But when it comes to 'believing' in something, you need facts and logic. Unfortunately, religion seems to have a problem with logic. This is where we throw in the towel and leave it all to faith in the unknown and unseen. Wish it worked for me, it doesn't.

Here is a quick test ...

For those who are complaining - that since God Knows everything then He has not given them free will ... and that for them is cause to deny God ... So if that is the case then their disbelief is from God ... and to prove that God is not Real then all they need to do is to believe in God and repent to demonstrate that they do have free will and they can change their ways from their own decisions and they are not governed by God, but this change needs to happen in their own hearts. But then to believe in God they will no longer be able to deny Him ... so the position they have taken up is itself a contradiction.

If on the other hand they believe they have free will and there is no Qadr of Allah (SWT) then make a claim to delay death or change the course of the sun.

Empirical evidence suggests both are true ...

If they believe in God, but want to say that their Qadr makes them disobey God ... then they are saying that God wants them to disobey Him ... which is unfounded. God only asks from us that what is possible within our ability.

psyah - I really like how you build up an argument, although I wish you wouldn't be too generous with words, but its quite interesting and thought provoking.

I do see your point about submission and I respect that since it is your belief, but when you say "We submit because we recognise the boundaries of human intellect", I take it as an insult to intellect. Intellectual boundaries are not constant, they are ever expanding. What was a mystery a few decades ago is a well understood fact now. Look at how far we have come, and there is a long way ahead. You just can't justify believing in the supernatural on the plea that human intellect is too limited to understand god.

May I point towards the concept of 'the god of gaps', human beings have always been associating everything they did not have any understanding of to the supernatural. Whatever the mind couldn't comprehend, was associated with spirits, angels, god(s) etc. As the horizon of human understanding has expanded, so has the 'scope' of supernatural. Associating mysterious phenomenon with the supernatural is not merely something entirely related to abrahamic religions. The mayans did it, the greeks did it, egyptians did it, it has been going on since the dawn of time. Abrahamic religions are a more advanced form of this 'submission'. While we are far away from fully understanding how things work, we do have a much better idea now. As the gaps are shrinking, so is the scope for the supernatural.

Not believing is god is a neutral position, not a claim. Belief in god is a claim and a claim warrants justification. Not liking football is not a hobby.

[sceptic]

Re: "All knowing"

Bloody hell man this discussion has done some mileage! I am finding it hard to catch up. Need to go through kakaballi and ajazali's back and forth.

Thank you for finding the time to participate in this discussion breathren.

[sceptic]

Re: "All knowing"

Dare I mention the verse from the Quran that nothing happens without Allah's permission, and if a mere fly took something from you, you don't have the power to take it back unless it were by his decree. Why would he allow someone to committ a crime, having the complete authority to stop him in his tracks, and then burn him in hell fire for eternity?

^ That is only going to make it messier I guess. Although I am sure there is a particular way of interpreting that, which seems to be the case for quite a few of the rulings.

Also, if psyah or anyone else here would be kind enough to reflect on the incidents of damnation of satan, adam's punishment etc. that I mentioned somewhere earlier (buried somewhere in the comments now). I think psyah missed my earlier request to comment on those issues. Psyah don't get me wrong, I am not saying you will have all the definitive answers, just wanted to get a staunch believer's perspective on the basics.

[sceptic]

Re: "All knowing"

ajazali - mention of science and empirical evidence while debating the existance of god is a rather bold move. Religion doesn't seem too compatible with logical reasoning and science.

You either believe in miracles, or you believe in science.

You either believe in evolution, for which a lot of evidence exists if I may add, or you believe in religion.

I have a feeling that this discussion might have run its course, for pretty much all discussions involving religion end up in god's mysterious ways and our inability to comprehend his miracles and signs. Let's see how long we have before that card is dealt.

Having said that, and having possibly offended some of you for which I offer my sincere apologies for that was not the intent, I deeply appreciate your input and perspective. And thank you psyah for your patience.