Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I will add a bit more (just to pass the time before I finish for the day)

 

Knowledge (be it true or false) is all that is known.

The unknown is everything else.

The sets are mutual exclusive.

Interestingly, while knowledge can be false, the unknown can never be false.

For something to be false it must be known.

If something is known by a single person, it is knowledge.

If it is not known by anybody, it is not knowledge.

There are no other criteria or qualifications.

Anything that is not conceived of by a sentient mind is unknown. It may very well exist, but until it is conceived it remains unknown.

 

Really I am just waiting to see which other point you were going to make, but now my internet time is over.

wslm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Quisant said:

But let's carry on... or at this pace we will be here for a very long time :)

 

1

Thank you, I don't think I disagree with your definitions. 

Moving on: 

Divine knowledge attaches to the source of an event from its particular cause and effect. In other words, Divine knowledge does not detach from the cause to link directly to the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event. 1 For example, the alarm has the effect of waking you up. But we won’t say that God knew that you will wake up. We will instead say that God knew that the alarm has, or will have, the effect of waking you up.

Let’s make it slightly complicated. Suppose that you would have gone to the washroom after waking up. Here we have two ways of looking at the system of cause and effect.  In a broader scheme, it can be said that the alarm was one of the agents that played its role in taking you to the washroom. But specifically, it was your voluntary act of getting up (instead of snoozing the alarm and continuing to sleep) that took you to the washroom.  Unlike the alarm, your decision to get up is a free agent because it had the capacity to choose.  Since it has already been explained that Divine knowledge links to the source of an event from its particular cause and effect, the reasonable argument is that God knew that, after waking up from the alarm, you will freely choose to go to the washroom [Even though you had the option to stay in bed].

Therefore, returning to Omar Khayyam blaming Divine knowledge for his wine drinking problem, I say that he is mistaken. Because it was not forced drinking or plain drinking that God knew. Instead, it was a voluntary act of drinking that God knew. The causes and agents vary in nature. Some of them are natural, others are conscious. Similarly, some are free agents, having the capacity to choose, while others are not.  2

This is how I understand it and look forward to reading your thoughts. Thank you.

-------------------------------------------

 1- Man and His Destiny - Ayatullah Murtadha Mutaharri. 

2 - Ibid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abbas. said:

This is how I understand it and look forward to reading your thoughts.

 

Apologists often engage in sophistry, in order to avoid the reductio of their arguments exposing the flaws in them, and I sorry to say that I feel you're doing it now, by playing with with semantics/words. 

Whilst I am sure that you genuinely believe what you say, you are presenting me with an apparently feasible word salad which conveniently limits God to knowing some things and not being aware of other things. 

Is the dictionary definition of "omniscient" not accurate? 

According to the dictionary Omniscience means:
Having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omniscient

I would suggest that the definition stands, but if you disagree, then let me know your definition, because I believe the dictionary definition is the general accepted consensus.

If everything that exists has a ‘reason’ for its existence and the source of that reason is ‘random chance’ then you do have some free will.
But if the source of that ‘reason’ is God then you have no free will.

My sincerest thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to have an exchange of views with me, it is greatly appreciated. :)

All the best.
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

If everything that exists has a ‘reason’ for its existence and the source of that reason is ‘random chance’ then you do have some free will.
But if the source of that ‘reason’ is God then you have no free will.

 

If everything that exists has a 'reason', there has to be a conscious source that emanates the reason. 

Anyway, I see that our discussion bears no further fruit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • We say bazaar too. But it is different from a "maghazeh". Bazaar is bigger.
    • Salam What do you want to know?
    • وَأَمَّا الْجِدَارُ فَكَانَ لِغُلَامَيْنِ يَتِيمَيْنِ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ وَكَانَ تَحْتَهُ كَنْزٌ لَهُمَا وَكَانَ أَبُوهُمَا صَالِحًا فَأَرَادَ رَبُّكَ أَنْ يَبْلُغَا أَشُدَّهُمَا وَيَسْتَخْرِجَا كَنْزَهُمَا رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكَ ۚ وَمَا فَعَلْتُهُ عَنْ أَمْرِي ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَأْوِيلُ مَا لَمْ تَسْطِعْ عَلَيْهِ صَبْرًا {82} [Shakir 18:82] And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father was a righteous man; so your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure, a mercy from your Lord, and I did not do it of my own accord. This is the significance of that with which you could not have patience.
      [Pickthal 18:82] And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father had been righteous, and thy Lord intended that they should come to their full strength and should bring forth their treasure as a mercy from their Lord; and I did it not upon my own command. Such is the interpretation of that wherewith thou couldst not bear.
      [Yusufali 18:82] "As for the wall, it belonged to two youths, orphans, in the Town; there was, beneath it, a buried treasure, to which they were entitled: their father had been a righteous man: So thy Lord desired that they should attain their age of full strength and get out their treasure - a mercy (and favour) from thy Lord. I did it not of my own accord. Such is the interpretation of (those things) over which thou wast unable to hold patience." ***** Whatever is in the Qur'an is for our understanding not to have a court case to judge Allah(awj) creation. Usually, we spend a lot of time, judging the conduct of Allah(awj) creation, if they sinned or not. There is Law for Humans to follow, and violation of it is called a Sin.So, apparently, they are saying that the one who is to Teach us the Book, Law and Wisdom broke the law? Because what is a Sin, A sin is going against  the Sharia(Law)? If it is the Will of Allah(awj) try not to look at it from the measure that is for humans to be judged. ( Sharia (Law). So, like Prophet Musa(as) some may look at things , based on the Law/Book. Read the answer in Bold in the verse.  Second. Every on is Mortal. Don't let them play with terms and words and verse warfare.( Surah 3:Verse 7) Discuss Concepts. They who say these things are probably human  like Prophet Isa(as) ask them to read the quran, maybe their were raised alive and will be returned. Issue, is the sect survival relies on bringing the Prophet to the level of their choice personalities and the Sins/Errors/Mistakes need to be hidden, what better way to show the leader was not immune. 
    • Of course men not used to see women will stare. Now I suppose Arabs have dressed the way they do even before Islam. Sun is dangerous in the desert. Not like here in Scandinavia where winter is dark and the Sun often covered by clouds. Being covered here is not very healthy, we need the Sunrays. In the rainforest people almost do not dress at all. It is warm and humid. Are men staring at the almost naked women there. Dont think so, they are used to it. On Swedish beaches girls lie topless in summertime. Why stare, it is normal. A refugee from Syria would probably stare a week or so. Or at least until he has gotten used to it.
    • “If the eyes of a female cry over a man that oppressed her, angels will curse him with every step he walks”— Imam Ali
×