The attribute of an All Knowing Allah
-
peace Imraan,
It is a classic/common question.
My understanding, at present is that if God knows that I will make a choice that will impact me negatively when presented with an option & His knowledge is certain, then there is no way that I can make the choice that will impact me positively. This would remove any perceived choice that I have.
Your statement implies you are forced into choosing a certain option. Assuming no coercion/duress in your choice, this is not the case. Quite simply, do you feel compelled when making choices? No.
Secondly, you do not know what God's "certain" knowledge is, thus to you, it is a free choice.Past threads
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7368
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7990 -
Peace Wakas
Quote
My understanding, at present is that if God knows that I will make a choice that will impact me negatively when presented with an option & His knowledge is certain, then there is no way that I can make the choice that will impact me positively. This would remove any perceived choice that I have.Your statement implies you are forced into choosing a certain option. Assuming no coercion/duress in your choice, this is not the case. Quite simply, do you feel compelled when making choices? No.
Secondly, you do not know what God's "certain" knowledge is, thus to you, it is a free choice.I am not assuming any coercion/duress in this matter. I do not feel compelled in making choices. I also don't feel that I am using the term "certain" in the same way you are.
What I mean by my statement is this
If God knows it, it must happen because if it does not happen, then God's knowledge is faulty. This is also what I mean by His knowledge being certain.
Past threads
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7368
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7990I have been through the links you posted. I have found a number of inconsistencies in the explanations put forward, but I would like to investigate them a little further before commenting on them.
Also, I would appreciate some help in making some of my work a little easier. Just in case I miss some of the relevant verses when researching this, can anyone post some references from the Quran where God says that he knows the future (specifically in terms of what we will do in our lives)?
Imraan
-
Peace Wakas
I am not assuming any coercion/duress in this matter. I do not feel compelled in making choices. I also don't feel that I am using the term "certain" in the same way you are.
What I mean by my statement is this
If God knows it, it must happen because if it does not happen, then God's knowledge is faulty. This is also what I mean by His knowledge being certain.
I have been through the links you posted. I have found a number of inconsistencies in the explanations put forward, but I would like to investigate them a little further before commenting on them.
Also, I would appreciate some help in making some of my work a little easier. Just in case I miss some of the relevant verses when researching this, can anyone post some references from the Quran where God says that he knows the future (specifically in terms of what we will do in our lives)?
Imraan
You're confusing philosophical concepts here. Why does knowledge equate to compulsion? You're simply stating that as brute fact, without realizing it's an assumption on your part.
If a being exists outside of time (and is consequently able to view all times - present or future - at once), why is that tantamount to the being forcing the time-based beings into certain actions? You, as a time-based being, have a choice between X and Y, which you make within the constraints of time. The Being outside of time sees your choice (and indeed all choices, past and future) at once. You have free will. This being has omniscience. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
-
Peace CavemanDoctor
You're confusing philosophical concepts here. Why does knowledge equate to compulsion? You're simply stating that as brute fact, without realizing it's an assumption on your part.
If a being exists outside of time (and is consequently able to view all times - present or future - at once), why is that tantamount to the being forcing the time-based beings into certain actions? You, as a time-based being, have a choice between X and Y, which you make within the constraints of time. The Being outside of time sees your choice (and indeed all choices, past and future) at once. You have free will. This being has omniscience. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Is there any quranic evidence to support your view?
Imraan
-
Peace CavemanDoctor
Is there any quranic evidence to support your view?
Imraan
Sure. The concept of free will pervades the quran. Many, many verses. A few include 1829, 2256, etc.
The quran also speaks of God's omniscience many, many times. Too many verses to cite.
Is there a verse in the quran that says word for word what I said in my previous post? Of course not. But we must use our God-given intellect. The implication of the verses on free will and omniscience is quite clear we are given free will, and God is omniscient. How does that happen? Simple, in the way I described. Certain beings (us) are bound by time, and we cannot see the future. Another being (God) is not bound by time as He is the one who created time. We act freely (of course this also happens to wholly be validated by our experience; I could have chosen to not answer you on this message board. I made the conscious decision to do so) within time, and God (who is outside of time) views/knows the entire universe of actions taken place, both past and present. In a way, there is no past or present to God.
-
Peace Caveman
Sure. The concept of free will pervades the quran. Many, many verses. A few include 1829, 2256, etc.
The quran also speaks of God's omniscience many, many times. Too many verses to cite.
Is there a verse in the quran that says word for word what I said in my previous post? Of course not. But we must use our God-given intellect. The implication of the verses on free will and omniscience is quite clear we are given free will, and God is omniscient. How does that happen? Simple, in the way I described. Certain beings (us) are bound by time, and we cannot see the future. Another being (God) is not bound by time as He is the one who created time. We act freely (of course this also happens to wholly be validated by our experience; I could have chosen to not answer you on this message board. I made the conscious decision to do so) within time, and God (who is outside of time) views/knows the entire universe of actions taken place, both past and present. In a way, there is no past or present to God.
First I would just like to clarify something.
-
Do we agree that Allah has the power to interfere in the decisons we make if He chooses to do so?
-
If we agree on point 1, do you accept that God chooses not to do so? I accept this because if I don't accept this, freedom of choice is pointless.
-
If we agree on the second point, wouldn't it make more sense that we apply the same concept in that God, by giving us the freedom to choose, Himself chooses not to have knowledge of what our choice will be rather than putting it down to concepts of time that we cannot understand. The reason that I say this is because whether or not God has advance knowledge of our lives and the choices we make (not the universe at large as these are governed by laws that do not change) is something we need to understand because it obviously affects us directly in that once God knows it, it must happen. The difference between the choices we make & the laws under which the universe operates is that we don't have to follow those laws if we choose not to. The concept of God being in the eternal now is moot in my opinion. The apparent contradiction is therefore cleared up for me by God choosing not to know & hence truly giving me the choice to decide. In fact we cannot draw conclusions on any subject in relation to the "time" in which God exists until we understand this "time" (1736). We can only draw conclusion on it in relation to any descriptions that may be given to us through the revelation. We must limit our conclusions to that which we have clear knowledge of until such time as we have made appropriate study and drawn conclusions from knowledge rather than supposition.
If we don't agree on the first two points, I would prefer to move that discussion to another thread as I stated in my original post.
Now, after the statement that I have made, I must demonstrate why my understanding is grounded in knowledge rather than supposition.
We know that God has the power to interfere in our decisions if he so chooses. If He doesn't have this power, He is not All Powerful, which would contradict many verses in quran where God uses this attribute to describe Himself.
Also we know that God has set the permanent laws of nature by giving it its measure. All things in the universe with the exception of man follow these laws faithfully (1649 among others).
We know that God has bound Himself to these laws (612 & 654 where He has made "Rahma" compulsory on Himself; 10103 where He says He is obliged to protect the "mu'minoon"; among other verses). Furthermore, when putting forward the argument against the concept of Jesus being the son of God, it is asked How can anyone be God's son when He has no wife (6101). This demonstrates further that God has bound Himself to laws that He put in place as He shows that if He were to have a son, it would require a wife.
Do we not then have more indication that God, if He so chooses, not only can, but does at times place restrictions upon Himself to remain within the bounds of the laws He has put in place rather than delving into concepts of time which do not make things any clearer (as far as I have come across anyway), because we do not find the knowledge of it in AQ & therefore cannot draw conclusions from (again, only as far as I have seen in AQ).
Imraan
-
-
- If we agree on point 1, do you accept that God chooses not to do so? I accept this because if I don't accept this, freedom of choice is pointless.
The problem with this is that our Lord has told us that everything that happens is from him. You imply some sort of dichotomy whereby events happen, but God doesn't cause them. Even if He "simply" put the laws in motion, He still knew what would happen and when it would happen, so ultimately He did choose for those things to happen to you. As well, for God to "choose not to intervene" is itself logically an intervention. This whole argument though is based on a false assumption regarding the nature of time.
- If we agree on the second point, wouldn't it make more sense that we apply the same concept in that God, by giving us the freedom to choose, Himself chooses not to have knowledge of what our choice will be rather than putting it down to concepts of time that we cannot understand.
An all knowing being cannot be deficient in knowledge, it's self contradictory. How one understands time is essential to your argument though, it is an assumption you have smuggled in and are now asking us not to question. "Time" as we consider it, is solely our mental construct because we are finite creatures who cannot act, except sequentially, as we cannot do everything at once. Our Lord is not bound by this because He is infinite. Now don't misunderstand me, "time" might be illusory but it is a necessary illusion for finite beings because of our nature.
The reason that I say this is because whether or not God has advance knowledge of our lives and the choices we make (not the universe at large as these are governed by laws that do not change) is something we need to understand because it obviously affects us directly in that once God knows it, it must happen.
I agree, and our Lord has answered it for us; He has said that He is all knowing. "Once God knows it,it must happen"? This is the "time" assumption you've made, there is no "now He knows and then it happens" for God. Whatever has happened or will happen, has already happened for God, as it were. However, as I said above, because we are finite we can only exprience these things "later".
The difference between the choices we make & the laws under which the universe operates is that we don't have to follow those laws if we choose not to. The concept of God being in the eternal now is moot in my opinion. The apparent contradiction is therefore cleared up for me by God choosing not to know & hence truly giving me the choice to decide.
The "contradiction" is cleared up once we recognize "time" as a purely human/finite creature concept, and not as something that exists objectively, in and of itself. God "choosing not to know" only opens up more contradictions, not only simple logical ones, but rather blatant contradictions with scripture. Your "free will" is a necessary illusion based on the fact that you are finite and understand your world as governed by "time". If you think about the very concept of free will, it requires the existance of contraints. That is, the concept of "freedom" can only exist if one can be constrained in some manner; as an example, would God have "free will"? Clearly not, since He cannot be constrained in anyway. Thus the idea of God being "free" to do this or that would be nonsensical.
In fact we cannot draw conclusions on any subject in relation to the "time" in which God exists until we understand this "time" (1736). We can only draw conclusion on it in relation to any descriptions that may be given to us through the revelation. We must limit our conclusions to that which we have clear knowledge of until such time as we have made appropriate study and drawn conclusions from knowledge rather than supposition.
I mostly agree.
If we don't agree on the first two points, I would prefer to move that discussion to another thread as I stated in my original post.
It's hard to discuss your original post, if we can't discuss its underlying assumptions.
Now, after the statement that I have made, I must demonstrate why my understanding is grounded in knowledge rather than supposition.
We know that God has the power to interfere in our decisions if he so chooses. If He doesn't have this power, He is not All Powerful, which would contradict many verses in quran where God uses this attribute to describe Himself.Again more "time" assumptions. God does not have to wait for man to act, He is not bound to "exprience" events sequentially. He does not choose to intervene, everything which happens is of Him, this is why He is all powerful. WE have to wait to experience events because of our nature, for God there is no "choosing" if there were it would imply some form of contraint. Whatever He set out from the beginning of creation is the way we will experience it. Trying to understand the infinite is impossible for us, but what we can be sure of, is that applying verbal metaphors to God, such as choosing etc are wholly figurative and cannot be used literally.
Also we know that God has set the permanent laws of nature by giving it its measure. All things in the universe with the exception of man follow these laws faithfully (1649 among others). We know that God has bound Himself to these laws (612 & 654 where He has made "Rahma" compulsory on Himself; 10103 where He says He is obliged to protect the "mu'minoon"; among other verses). Furthermore, when putting forward the argument against the concept of Jesus being the son of God, it is asked How can anyone be God's son when He has no wife (6101). This demonstrates further that God has bound Himself to laws that He put in place as He shows that if He were to have a son, it would require a wife.
Yes He has bonded Himelf through His promise, His word, since He is literally truth itself. However, He is not bound to it in the sense you are implying. How can the infinite be bound by finite laws? I don't believe that the "laws" you have cited from the quran are of the same nature as the laws that govern the world/universe. For instance, do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? If you do, then wouldn't this divinely revealed truth contradict a natural law, of which God, according to your understanding, has bound Himself? Or Moses staff? or the signs sent to pharaoh? If you don't believe these events transpired in "supernatural" ways then okay, but if you do then there is seemingly a contradiction between your claims and what the scripture says.
Regarding the "son of God" refutation the verse you cited is not directly addressing Christian beliefs, but similar language is used in other passages which do. The use of Waw-Lam-Dal in those verses is extremely important, in contrast to 4316, for example. It is not that God is "bound" to this "law", rather Trinitarian claims are that the Son and the Father are one "in substance" and that this "oneness" is achieved because the Son was begotten (Waw-lam-Dal), not made. Furthermore, trinitarians drop this literal understanding of begotten when they say that the Father and the Son are "co-eternal"...well obviously a son and a father are not the same "age" by definition, the father must have come before the son. Since trinitarians would never say God took a spouse (obviously God has no gender and cannot take a spouse), they are caught in their own contradiction, for without the spouse there is no "begotten", waw-lam-dal. So these verses are, in fact, subtle and brilliant refutations of Christian dogma regarding Jesus, not simply stating that if one has a son, one would need a wife to produce it. So, far from indicating that God is "bound" by the laws of nature, it is strictly stating the opposite That the laws of nature do not apply to God in any fashion, He cannot beget because He cannot "take a spouse" because He has no gender, these properties are exclusive to finite creatures.
Do we not then have more indication that God, if He so chooses, not only can, but does at times place restrictions upon Himself to remain within the bounds of the laws He has put in place rather than delving into concepts of time which do not make things any clearer (as far as I have come across anyway), because we do not find the knowledge of it in AQ & therefore cannot draw conclusions from (again, only as far as I have seen in AQ).
I think what is clear is that you assume that God is constrained by time, in order to make your case for objective "free will" and God "choosing and not choosing". In essence you've assumed the very thing you are attempting to prove.
-
Peace hoppean
I am not married to any idea regarding this or any other issue. I would appreciate some quranic references to the concept of time as you understand it (not because I necessarily disagree, but rather to bring the concept into our realm of knowledge).
At times in your response you have mixed up references to the physical laws that govern nature with the fact that we, unlike the forces of nature don't always act in line with these laws. This is our very freedom of choice.
An all knowing being cannot be deficient in knowledge, it's self contradictory.
This is only self contradictory when it is assumed that God is not All Powerful and able to exercise His will. His very granting us the freedom He has necessitates us being free to act. I do not see this as an illusion because that would be tantamount to a game which for me is contrary to what God as stated as our purpose. Illusions have nothing to do with the service we owe to God. When we occupy ourselves with other than being in the service of God, we are dealing in illusion, not the striving to serve Him.
That is, the concept of "freedom" can only exist if one can be constrained in some manner; as an example, would God have "free will"? Clearly not, since He cannot be constrained in anyway. Thus the idea of God being "free" to do this or that would be nonsensical.
Again, this is based on God not being able to exercise His will. God can obviously not be constrained by us. However there are verses I have quoted among others that clearly indicate God binding Himself to a contract & He is true to His contract. This clearly indicates God being constrained, not by anyone or anything, but by exercising His will as He Himself chooses.
Yes He has bonded Himelf through His promise, His word, since He is literally truth itself. However, He is not bound to it in the sense you are implying. How can the infinite be bound by finite laws? I don't believe that the "laws" you have cited from the quran are of the same nature as the laws that govern the world/universe. For instance, do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? If you do, then wouldn't this divinely revealed truth contradict a natural law, of which God, according to your understanding, has bound Himself? Or Moses staff? or the signs sent to pharaoh? If you don't believe these events transpired in "supernatural" ways then okay, but if you do then there is seemingly a contradiction between your claims and what the scripture says.
Regarding the "son of God" refutation the verse you cited is not directly addressing Christian beliefs, but similar language is used in other passages which do. The use of Waw-Lam-Dal in those verses is extremely important, in contrast to 4316, for example. It is not that God is "bound" to this "law", rather Trinitarian claims are that the Son and the Father are one "in substance" and that this "oneness" is achieved because the Son was begotten (Waw-lam-Dal), not made. Furthermore, trinitarians drop this literal understanding of begotten when they say that the Father and the Son are "co-eternal"...well obviously a son and a father are not the same "age" by definition, the father must have come before the son. Since trinitarians would never say God took a spouse (obviously God has no gender and cannot take a spouse), they are caught in their own contradiction, for without the spouse there is no "begotten", waw-lam-dal. So these verses are, in fact, subtle and brilliant refutations of Christian dogma regarding Jesus, not simply stating that if one has a son, one would need a wife to produce it. So, far from indicating that God is "bound" by the laws of nature, it is strictly stating the opposite That the laws of nature do not apply to God in any fashion, He cannot beget because He cannot "take a spouse" because He has no gender, these properties are exclusive to finite creatures.
Again these are based on the assumption that God cannot exercise His will. This assumption is what truly attempts to rob God of His power, while He clearly does exercise His will in the sense that you deny Him.
As for the Jesus story, the fact remains, imo, that the argument is based on the natural laws not being contravined. It is a clear argument against the miracle proofs that the majority of Christians are so fond of. It would be easy for Christians to argue through miracle evidence that God does not require a wife to have a child since He is All Powerful. God has through this argument clearly shown that miracles is not a valid argument even where He is involved. This will also answer your question on whether or not I believe in the immaculate conception & miracles.
I think what is clear is that you assume that God is constrained by time, in order to make your case for objective "free will" and God "choosing and not choosing". In essence you've assumed the very thing you are attempting to prove.
The only constraint that I accept on God is that which He clearly states He has Himself put in place in the verses I have quoted through the exercising of His own will.
I look forward to the presentation of your time argument with reference to Quranic evidence.
Imraan
-
I am not married to any idea regarding this or any other issue. I would appreciate some quranic references to the concept of time as you understand it (not because I necessarily disagree, but rather to bring the concept into our realm of knowledge).
Ok read these passages 541, 161, 5722. The first two are very well known verses for being conjugated in the past/present tense, while clearly referring to a future event. The last one unambiguously teaches God's foreknowledge of ALL things. As well, I'd point out that God has stated that He alone knows the hour several times, see 1799; now if I understand you correctly, you claim that God must undergo a voluntary "forgetting" in order for His knowledge not to impugn on our "free will". Therefore, if this is correct, how do you reconcile this with the scriptural fact that He has set a "term" for us? If we have a definite term set then God knows when we will be raised and what our judgment will be, in fact see chapter 56 where in the latter days those who are close to God "almuqarraboona" will be few, as well as the repeated assertions that most people will not believe (6116, 12103). Also see 6117, 132. Thus, scripture tells us that God clearly knows when man will be raised and what his destiny will be, this is not possible if He had "chosen to forget" certain actions of men.
By these passages is also demonstrated the fact that our Lord is not bound by time, as we conceive it. See especially 2247
At times in your response you have mixed up references to the physical laws that govern nature with the fact that we, unlike the forces of nature don't always act in line with these laws. This is our very freedom of choice.
It's interesting that you do not see in your own words that this "freedom" is purely illusory, since if we choose to violate such laws we face consequences. The only reason we have the concept of "free will" is because we are in fact constrained to make a choice. We cannot realize all our efforts at once, if we could, then we would not have to choose between alternatives, and thus ironically we would have no concept of "free will".
Think of it like this from what exactly is your will free? It is certainly not free from God's causal laws that govern existence, nor is it free from final judgment. A more accurate term might be "finite will". Thus, freedom has no meaning without the notion of constraint, God being unconstrained does not have "free will". He is literally the cause of all, and thus can have no cause of His own, nor be subject to causal laws.
This is only self contradictory when it is assumed that God is not All Powerful and able to exercise His will. His very granting us the freedom He has necessitates us being free to act. I do not see this as an illusion because that would be tantamount to a game which for me is contrary to what God as stated as our purpose. Illusions have nothing to do with the service we owe to God. When we occupy ourselves with other than being in the service of God, we are dealing in illusion, not the striving to serve Him.
My argument is that God's omnipotence or omniscience cannot be constrained without contradiction. If a being does not know something, he cannot be said to "know all". Your argument amounts to saying He is all knowing, but can choose not to know something.
The illusion is in the human mind, not in God's reality. We must act as if Time is an objective reality, but we are capable of recognizing that it is not. We must make choices, but this does not mean that our will is free, in fact it means our will is finite, limited, constrained.
Again, this is based on God not being able to exercise His will. God can obviously not be constrained by us. However there are verses I have quoted among others that clearly indicate God binding Himself to a contract & He is true to His contract. This clearly indicates God being constrained, not by anyone or anything, but by exercising His will as He Himself chooses.
Yes the verses regarding God "self-imposing" the law of grace and mercy and saving those who believe. However, my objection still stands, you have failed to demonstrate why the kataba, (decree, word) of grace, is of the same nature as the physical laws of the universe. I do not recall any verse that says that God has bound Himself to any physical/temporal law. Without reconciling this illogical jump you cannot conclude that God can will upon Himself something which contradicts His nature. Similarly if you tell a Christian that Jesus cannot be God, because the former was a man, while God is God, you will not get anywhere; and they will answer, as you have, that God is capable of everything. The error of course is that God cannot contradict His nature, not because He is deficient, but rather because He is the primary cause; the creator fashions the creation, he is not of the same nature as it.
Again these are based on the assumption that God cannot exercise His will. This assumption is what truly attempts to rob God of His power, while He clearly does exercise His will in the sense that you deny Him.
Not at all! You would have us believe that He is capable of contradictions. A contradiction is a lie. Do you believe God is capable of lying? I do not, but this is no deficiency on His part.
As for the Jesus story, the fact remains, imo, that the argument is based on the natural laws not being contravined. It is a clear argument against the miracle proofs that the majority of Christians are so fond of. It would be easy for Christians to argue through miracle evidence that God does not require a wife to have a child since He is All Powerful. God has through this argument clearly shown that miracles is not a valid argument even where He is involved. This will also answer your question on whether or not I believe in the immaculate conception & miracles.
I made my point in the previous post that these verses demonstrate that God is not bound by physical laws, because they do not logically apply to Him. you look at these same verses and see that God is impotent in the face of the very laws which He created.
The only constraint that I accept on God is that which He clearly states He has Himself put in place in the verses I have quoted through the exercising of His own will.
Yet ironically you ignore the passages that tell of His foreknowledge of all things, and cling to passages that do not even make reference to physical/temporal laws, while claiming that our Lord has bound Himself to them.
-
Peace Hoppean
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts. My apologies for not responding to your comments. I was snowed under with work suddenly and haven't had the time. I will respond soon.
Imraan
