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!

    • Hmm not sure what you mean brother. But the chaos in middle east, that we have seen in recent years, the unstable state of government and nations surrounding israel is not a conspiracy and the growth of israel over occupied land and its increased influence and involvement in the chaos is not a conspiracy either.  
    • From a moral perspective i can understand this. However, i know hardly anything about politics and millitary strategies. I am sure sayyid Nasrallah (may Allah bless him) knows what he is doing. But surely, by empowering and protecting palestinians, who in turn decide to join ISIS and our enemies, we are kind of damaging ourselves? A bit like an own-goal.
    • Popular Contributors last week! Congratulations! @LeftCoastMom @hasanhh @Sirius_Bright @Smiles786 @Kazemi @Mohamed1993 @Jebreil @.InshAllah. @laithAlIRAQI @E.L King @Son of Placid @AmirAlmuminin Lover @kirtc @Darth Vader  
    • Salam brother, If you want to be a shia of imam Ali(as), then it is better you take after his akhlaq, he had respect for the the wife of the Prophet(S) as shown in the battle of Jamal, lets also have some level of respect in honor of our 1th Imam(as) and our Prophet(S) and let Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى be the judge.
    • ـ الإمام الصادق (ع): امتحنوا شيعتنا عند ثلاث: عند مواقيت الصلوات كيف محافظتهم عليها ، وعند أسرارهم كيف حفظهم لها عن عدونا ، وإلى أموالـهم كيف مواساتهم لإخوانهم فيها. Imam al-Sadiq (AS) said, ‘Test our Shi`aa with regard to three things: the prayer times to see how well they observe them, their secrets to see how well they guard them from our enemies, and their wealth to see how they help out their fellow brothers with it. [Bihar al-Anwar, v. 83, p. 22, no. 40]
×