Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Predestination Vs Free Will

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
Does God have a say on whether He can carry a rock so heavy He cannot lift?

no, he has no say in that. because it's logically impossible, as it contradicts the law of no contradiction. god has absolute power (not by choice, i might add). therefore, creating something that's beyond his power is impossible. god cannot do what is impossible. as they say (philosophers such as liebniz): he's only limited by contradiction.

Edited by Einstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

One day, Imam Ali Ibn Talib (A.S) stopped his horse near the door of the Mosque to pray. He found a man standing near the mosque, he asked him to take care of the horse and the saddle on the horse. Th

I heard a hadith of Imam Ali as that a man came and asked him do we have free will or is everything predetermined. Imam Ali as asked him to stand on 1 leg; after a brief pause Imam Ali as asked him to

Causality does not run horizontally but vertically.  I will try to explain what this means now.  Earlier you have read someone quoting Mutahhari where he said something along the lines that the entire

  • Advanced Member

no, he has no say in that. because it's logically impossible, as it contradicts the law of no contradiction. god has absolute power (not by choice, i might add). therefore, creating something that's beyond his power is impossible. god cannot do what is impossible. as they say (philosophers such as liebniz): he's only limited by contradiction.

 

Can God make Himself not to exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So God's existence in such that, logically, it cannot not exist.  How about the existence of His Will?  Is the existence of His Will such that it cannot not exist?   

 

i know where you're going with this. ;)

 

i guess that all of god's characteristics can't but exist, but that doesn't prove that god must be good, just, perfect, etc. (omnibenevolent). i have a serious problem accepting this, unless it's proven with absolute logical certainty, or i see/experience it myself (it hasn't been my experience thus far).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

i know where you're going with this. ;)

 

i guess that all of god's characteristics can't but exist, but that doesn't prove that god must be good, just, perfect, etc. (omnibenevolent). i have a serious problem accepting this, unless it's proven with absolute logical certainty, or i see/experience it myself (it hasn't been my experience thus far).

1- There is reality.

2- Reality cannot be other than itself. It cannot not be.

3- Reality is Absolute, Infinite, Eternal, Omniscient & perfect in every conceivable way.

What part don't you agree with?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1- There is reality.

2- Reality cannot be other than itself. It cannot not be.

3- Reality is Absolute, Infinite, Eternal, Omniscient & perfect in every conceivable way.

What part don't you agree with?

 

i disagree with 2&3.

 

2- i don't necessarily disagree with this point (though i'm uncertain of its trueness), but i do have the right to object to it, if it were true. don't tell me i can't ask "why does 1+1 equal 2?". i have every right to ask, and object, even though i accept that it's true. i might know that 1+1=2, but i don't have to like it.

 

3- i completely disagree with reality being perfect; it's anything but. it's imperfect in every conceivable way. i'm unsure whether it's infinite and absolute. i don't believe it's eternal itself, because it was preceded by god (even if just by logical priority), and saying that it's eternal just because its image was in god's mind, is meaningless. i don't know what you mean by reality being omniscient (unless you're saying that reality is god himself, which i think would be wihdat almawjood rather than wihdat alwujud, neither with which i'm too familiar).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2- i don't necessarily disagree with this point (though i'm uncertain of its trueness), but i do have the right to object to it, if it were true. don't tell me i can't ask "why does 1+1 equal 2?". i have every right to ask, and object, even though i accept that it's true. i might know that 1+1=2, but i don't have to like it.

 

One also has every right to be insane as well.  So you are skeptical of the principle of identity? Or that 1+1 = 2?  In other words you do not believe they are necessarily true.  ?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

One also has every right to be insane as well.  So you are skeptical of the principle of identity? Or that 1+1 = 2?  In other words you do not believe they are necessarily true.  ?

 

i believe that "1+1=2" and "the principle of identity" are necessarily true, but not necessarily "good" or "positive" things. the point i was trying to make is that one may accept that "god" can't be any other way, but that doesn't mean that one must be thrilled about it (with how "god" is). i'm unhappy with how "god" is, by virtue of how i am (how he made me).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

i believe that "1+1=2" and "the principle of identity" are necessarily true, but not necessarily "good" or "positive" things. the point i was trying to make is that one may accept that "god" can't be any other way, but that doesn't mean that one must be thrilled about it (with how "god" is). i'm unhappy with how "god" is, by virtue of how i am (how he made me).

So in that case you agree with #2?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

i'm not sure, but let's say yes.

 

I agree with you.

 

When one says  "there is reality"  it means not have multiple meanings. 
 
But existents don't have meanings, only concepts have meanings.
So when you say that "this reality is unequivocal", you are referring to the concept of reality, not the existent reality. 
(For example, the concept of "house" can have multiple meanings, but the house itself is just a house, it doesn't have any meanings since it is a physical existent. 
The concept "house" has meanings, and we attach one of the meanings of this concept to the actual physical house that exists in the external world.)
 
Of course there is a reality, and that reality is not ONLY a concept, but there is also the concept of reality, and this concept can be termed equivocal or not. 
 
As far as the actual reality is concerned equivocality does not even apply to it.
 
1 - Is a ship stable in our minds only, but not stable in the real world? 
Or is it stable in the real world as well?
2 - If the ship is stable in the real world, then does this stability exist in the real world?
 
wslm.
*
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ quisant;

 

i think ethereal was saying that the way things are (how reality is) couldn't have been any other way, or not exist at all. of course his argument is based on the idea that god can't but be what/how he is, and cant but do what he does. god can't be different or do otherwise.

 

2- Reality cannot be other than itself. It cannot not be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I agree with you.

When one says "there is reality" it means not have multiple meanings.

But existents don't have meanings, only concepts have meanings.

So when you say that "this reality is unequivocal", you are referring to the concept of reality, not the existent reality.

(For example, the concept of "house" can have multiple meanings, but the house itself is just a house, it doesn't have any meanings since it is a physical existent.

The concept "house" has meanings, and we attach one of the meanings of this concept to the actual physical house that exists in the external world.)

Of course there is a reality, and that reality is not ONLY a concept, but there is also the concept of reality, and this concept can be termed equivocal or not.

As far as the actual reality is concerned equivocality does not even apply to it.

1 - Is a ship stable in our minds only, but not stable in the real world?

Or is it stable in the real world as well?

2 - If the ship is stable in the real world, then does this stability exist in the real world?

wslm.

*

Any reason why you are presupposing the dogma that there is a Subject (res cogitation) that stands as apart from the Objective World (res extensas)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Imam Ali (AS), when asked by a man about destiny said, ‘[it is] a deep sea, so do not delve into it. The man asked, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, inform us about destiny.’ The Imam said, ‘It is the secret of Allah, so do not trouble yourself with it.’ The man then asked [again], ‘O Commander of the Faithful, inform us about destiny.’ The Imam said, ‘Seeing as you are refusing [and insisting], it is a matter between two extremes - neither predestination nor absolute free will.’

 الإمامُ عليٌّ (عَلَيهِ الّسَلامُ) ـ وقد سَألَهُ رجُلٌ عنِ القَدَرِ ـ : بَحرٌ عَميقٌ فلا تَلِجْهُ . قالَ: يا أميرَ المؤمنينَ، أخبِرنا عنِ القَدَرِ . قالَ: سِرُّ اللّه‏ِ فلا تَتَكَلَّفْهُ . قالَ: يا أميرَ المؤمنينَ، أخبِرْنا عنِ القَدَرِ . قالَ: أما إذ أبَيتَ فإنّهُ أمرٌ بَينَ أمرَينِ لا جَبرَ ولا تَفويضَ.

Kanz Al-`Ummal, No. 1567

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Imam Ali (as), when asked by a man about destiny said, ‘[it is] a deep sea, so do not delve into it. The man asked, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, inform us about destiny.’ The Imam said, ‘It is the secret of Allah, so do not trouble yourself with it.’ The man then asked [again], ‘O Commander of the Faithful, inform us about destiny.’ The Imam said, ‘Seeing as you are refusing [and insisting], it is a matter between two extremes - neither predestination nor absolute free will.’

 الإمامُ عليٌّ (عَلَيهِ الّسَلامُ) ـ وقد سَألَهُ رجُلٌ عنِ القَدَرِ ـ : بَحرٌ عَميقٌ فلا تَلِجْهُ . قالَ: يا أميرَ المؤمنينَ، أخبِرنا عنِ القَدَرِ . قالَ: سِرُّ اللّه‏ِ فلا تَتَكَلَّفْهُ . قالَ: يا أميرَ المؤمنينَ، أخبِرْنا عنِ القَدَرِ . قالَ: أما إذ أبَيتَ فإنّهُ أمرٌ بَينَ أمرَينِ لا جَبرَ ولا تَفويضَ.

Kanz Al-`Ummal, No. 1567

 

sorry my friend, but this doesn't solve anything. the imam knows very well that freewill is impossible, and he knows that anyone researching the issue thoroughly enough, and through reasoning alone, would reach that inevitable conclusion, so he he says things like "don't trouble yourself with it" and "it is the secret of Allah". perhaps it is the secret of Allah that 1+1=57, but most of us believe that it can't equal anything but 2, whether god likes it or not.

 

wslm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So, I a actually arguing for two things. ringtone is correct. But I was also making an ontological claim as the other brother mentioned.

What I am saying is this: that because reality cannot not be ontologically (and not just conceptually) do we have axioms such as 1+1= 2 or the Law of Identity (like A=A). The necessity we find in the truth of these axioms are nothing but expressions of the the ontological necessity of reality itself. But first we must agree that there is ontological necessity in reality itself. And Quisant says otherwise because he is arguing that concepts are not imbedded in reality. Concepts are of the mind and reality belongs to the physical world which is unintelligible, dead and lifeless. The problem with this objection is that assumes as true the dogma that we can never know things as such. It denies the possibility of knowing anything at all because it created an unbridgeable gap between subject and object, knower and known.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"Of course we're free, we haven't got any choice!"

 

I heard this quoted at a lecture but forgot the name of the Lord such and so who said it. Captures my thinking on the matter perfectly.

 

i fail to see the infallible logic behind "your thinking on the matter", unless the phrase you quoted is referring to compatibilism, as being genuinely free (even 0.0000001%) is beyond impossible logically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

i fail to see the infallible logic behind "your thinking on the matter", unless the phrase you quoted is referring to compatibilism, as being genuinely free (even 0.0000001%) is beyond impossible logically.

 

O! Hallo.

 

If you don't see any infallible logic, I strongly suspect it's because there isn't any.

 

I don't understand your objection either. What is compatibilism? Why the strange figure? Why is compatbilism beyond impossible logically? When you say something like that are you not under a kind of obligation to prove it?

 

The logic, though I don't think it should be termed infallible, behind the statement I quoted as exemplifying my own thinking quite succinctly here—is very straightforward. It's a humorous play quite rather underscoring why logic never is infallible. We are free and we have no choice in the matter.

 

First you smile, then you think about it and finally end agreeing there is something to it. Go ahead and try not be free. Even that decision not to be would be an act of free choice.

 

This is not logic. It's common sense. Like Moore's proofs of an external world. "Here is one hand," he said raising his right "And here is another," he concluded holding up his left. An ancient Greek with a sound sense of humour after hearing Zeno deliver his proofs against motion, took two steps forward by way of refutation. And who could forget Johnson's reply to Berkely's idealism. "I refute it thus!" he cried kicking a stone.

 

Anyway. If you wish to imagine you have no free will, that's up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

So, I a actually arguing for two things. ringtone is correct. But I was also making an ontological claim as the other brother mentioned.

What I am saying is this: that because reality cannot not be ontologically (and not just conceptually) do we have axioms such as 1+1= 2 or the Law of Identity (like A=A). The necessity we find in the truth of these axioms are nothing but expressions of the the ontological necessity of reality itself. But first we must agree that there is ontological necessity in reality itself.

 

Is 1+1=2 always true?

 

If you add a river to another river does it make 2 rivers?

Add a juicy apple to a rotten apple does it make 2 apples? (I know which one you can have)   :)

 

In Nature there aren't two completely identical things to add together and make two.

In Reality there are no straight lines, no precise triangles, no perfect circles.

They exist and are true in the mind.

Is this not worth mentioning?  

 

 

And Quisant says otherwise because he is arguing that concepts are not imbedded in reality. Concepts are of the mind and reality belongs to the physical world which is unintelligible, dead and lifeless. The problem with this objection is that assumes as true the dogma that we can never know things as such. It denies the possibility of knowing anything at all because it created an unbridgeable gap between subject and object, knower and known.

 

 

No, Quisant is saying that there are some pretty dim bulbs in your thinking room.

 

Namaste.

*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 1+1=2 always true?

 

If you add a river to another river does it make 2 rivers?

Add a juicy apple to a rotten apple does it make 2 apples? (I know which one you can have)    :)

 

 

1+1=2 is always true yes.

 

If I add a river to another river then this is not 1+1=2, but rather it is 2-1=1, since I'm taking one river away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This is not logic. It's common sense.

you and i differ 180,000,000,000,000 degrees. you give weight to common sense (observation), and i to logic.

 

Anyway. If you wish to imagine you have no free will, that's up to you.

and if you wish to imagine you do, that's "up to you" also.

Edited by Einstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@Einstein

 

Fair enough. But as Moore pointed out, I think we take the more reasonable horn of the dilemma.

 

Common sense has an intrinsic convincing quality to it that logic when in contradiction to the basic deliverances of sensory phenomena or our experience must necessarily lack. Logic in these cases, such as epiphenomenalism—the claim that all mental events including acts of conscious and deliberate free agency are physical and so deterministic, puts more strain on credulity than is reasonably acceptable and is as such a priori inherently implausible on the face of things. Certainly much less so than the common sense claims they are meant to displace.

 

It is more likely that there is something amiss in your thinking about the world, than in your and everyone else's basic perception of it. Even were I a physicalist, I would still realise that I should have to go about constructing some sort of an account in which physical mental events could accomodate free agency on the part of human beings and a good deal of other animals besides. To say freedom is illusory is sheer laziness so far as I can tell.

 

We wouldn't give up a Newtonian force even when it empirically seems to fail—but human freedom and personal accountability? Out the window with it! And why? No physical evidence dictates so drastic a move. Quite the contrary. All our experience is aboslutely against it.

 

Solipsism, nihilism, idealism, epiphenomenalism—most isms really, are all merely logic taking wrong turns. Common sense gets one back on the right track. I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Is 1+1=2 always true?

If you add a river to another river does it make 2 rivers?

Add a juicy apple to a rotten apple does it make 2 apples? (I know which one you can have) :)

In Nature there aren't two completely identical things to add together and make two.

In Reality there are no straight lines, no precise triangles, no perfect circles.

They exist and are true in the mind.

Is this not worth mentioning?

*

ao the mind is not a reality?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Einstein

 

Fair enough. But as Moore pointed out, I think we take the more reasonable horn of the dilemma.

says you and moore.

 

Common sense has an intrinsic convincing quality to it that logic when in contradiction to the basic deliverances of sensory phenomena or our experience must necessarily lack.

anything that contradicts logic is necessarily false, no matter how much "sense" it supposedly makes.

 

Logic in these cases, such as epiphenomenalism—the claim that all mental events including acts of conscious and deliberate free agency are physical and so deterministic, puts more strain on credulity than is reasonably acceptable and is as such a priori inherently implausible on the face of things. Certainly much less so than the common sense claims they are meant to displace.

i don't ever recall basing my argument on anything physical. you're starting to sound like "abu jafar herz" (who kept insisting on physicalizing my reasoning when we first started arguing). my argument is purely philosophical, so it applies to even the most metaphysical of beings as well. my argument is solely based on the principle of sufficient reason, which applies to all of existence, even to "god". by virtue of the absoluteness of this principle (all logical principles are absolute and unconfinable) nothing we do can be uncaused, and anything that's caused (the effect) has no say in anything (effects are absolute slaves to their causes). so the question that begs itself is this: are our decisions/choices caused or causeless? if you say caused, then they're not real choices. and if you say uncaused, then that entails randomness and coincidence, which is not only logically impossible (because it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason), but also can only lead to indeterminism (because order can only come from causality, and chaos from randomness), which, like determinism, entails absolutely no accountability whatsoever. in addition to that, indeterminism contradicts everyone's experiences, including yours and mine. i'd be very impressed indeed, if someone could demonstrate a third possibility that's neither causality, nor randomness/coincidence. i stick by my claim that causality and randomness are absolute contradictions, which by virtue of the laws of no contradiction and excluded middle, both (causality and randomness) can't be true or false at the same time.

 

It is more likely that there is something amiss in your thinking about the world, than in your and everyone else's basic perception of it. Even were I a physicalist, I would still realise that I should have to go about constructing some sort of an account in which physical mental events could accomodate free agency on the part of human beings and a good deal of other animals besides. To say freedom is illusory is sheer laziness so far as I can tell.

what is sheer laziness is you not reading any of my previous posts on the matter, and arguing against your own presuppositions of my position.

 

We wouldn't give up a Newtonian force even when it empirically seems to fail—but human freedom and personal accountability? Out the window with it! And why? No physical evidence dictates so drastic a move. Quite the contrary. All our experience is aboslutely against it.

all your experience is drastically against it. some of us have had much different experiences than yours. also, i don't think someone like you should be educating newton, einstein, hawking, etc., on the laws of physics. pretty much all scientists and physicists are determinists.

 

Solipsism, nihilism, idealism, epiphenomenalism—most isms really, are all merely logic taking wrong turns. Common sense gets one back on the right track. I think.

logic does not take wrong turns. if something takes a wrong turn, then it's by definition not logic anymore. i think you're confusing logic with philosophy.

Edited by Einstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

ao the mind is not a reality?

 

True, the mind is a reality.
The mind exists and we experience our mind. We solve problems presented to us and remember facts and manipulate ideas and use language to convey those ideas..
 
You might say, ideas also exist.
Well, it limits God to being only an idea, for a start.
 
Also, there are good ideas and bad ideas.
 
But ideas do not 'exist' in any meaningful way, any more than, for instance, speed 'exists':
they are both abstract concepts derived from our observations of a process.
For speed this is the process of motion: for ideas it is the process of thought. 
 
You're confusing ideas with the things they are ideas of.
To say that the concept of something exists and to say that the thing itself exists are two very different statements.
 
Consider this: "the lake is just a mirage, mirages exist, therefore there's a lake here". 
Well, no, there isn't, it's a mirage. Not a lake. 
The idea of God is not God, it's just an idea.
 
Why don' t you change the subject now and ask Servidor whom he would appoint as the 'Decisive Authority'  on common sense?
 
wslm.
*
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

True, the mind is a reality.

The mind exists and we experience our mind. We solve problems presented to us and remember facts and manipulate ideas and use language to convey those ideas..

 

You might say, ideas also exist.

Well, it limits God to being only an idea, for a start.

 

Also, there are good ideas and bad ideas.

 

But ideas do not 'exist' in any meaningful way, any more than, for instance, speed 'exists':

they are both abstract concepts derived from our observations of a process.

For speed this is the process of motion: for ideas it is the process of thought. 

 

You're confusing ideas with the things they are ideas of.

To say that the concept of something exists and to say that the thing itself exists are two very different statements.

 

Consider this: "the lake is just a mirage, mirages exist, therefore there's a lake here". 

Well, no, there isn't, it's a mirage. Not a lake. 

The idea of God is not God, it's just an idea.

 

Why don' t you change the subject now and ask Servidor whom he would appoint as the 'Decisive Authority'  on common sense?

 

wslm.

*

I am not confusing ideas for things ideas point to. I am questioning this whole Cartesian and Kantian bifurcation between subject and object to begin with. You should read up on the postmodern critique of subject-object dualism. Reality as such is neither "mind" nor "the physical". You need to come up with something a bit more coherent than imagining a "story" to explain your epistemology. Your story line is that a thing in the "outside" impinges upon our mind to create a kind of image or representation (which is similar but not identical) to the thing outside (so this is what you are calling knowledge). This is not knowledge but a mere story of your imagination (it is no better than believing in the pink fairy tale). It is not phenomenologically justified or verifiable. Knowledge is the unity between the knower and the known. In your story there is no unity, but merely two things which are similar to each other. So let me ask you simply. How do we know reality if there is no unity between the knower and the known (ie., reality)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I am not confusing ideas for things ideas point to. I am questioning this whole Cartesian and Kantian bifurcation between subject and object to begin with. You should read up on the postmodern critique of subject-object dualism. Reality as such is neither "mind" nor "the physical". You need to come up with something a bit more coherent than imagining a "story" to explain your epistemology. Your story line is that a thing in the "outside" impinges upon our mind to create a kind of image or representation (which is similar but not identical) to the thing outside (so this is what you are calling knowledge). This is not knowledge but a mere story of your imagination (it is no better than believing in the pink fairy tale). It is not phenomenologically justified or verifiable. Knowledge is the unity between the knower and the known. In your story there is no unity, but merely two things which are similar to each other. So let me ask you simply. How do we know reality if there is no unity between the knower and the known (ie., reality)?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about....
it must be as you say that I have not 'read up on the post-modern critique of subject-object dualism'.
Or Cartesian and Kantian bifurcation. 
 
You have marshalled an army of positive-sounding English words that do nothing to clarify your point. 
 
I am done with this conversation. Believe what you will.
 
All the best.
*
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

I have no idea what you are talking about....
it must be as you say that I have not 'read up on the post-modern critique of subject-object dualism'.
Or Cartesian and Kantian bifurcation. 
 
You have marshalled an army of positive-sounding English words that do nothing to clarify your point. 
 
I am done with this conversation. Believe what you will.
 
All the best.
*

 

 

All the best.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The problem is that the whole idea of predestination or determinism is only proved theoretically by using philosophy and logic, there is no practical proof or evidence. Philosophy or logic are important and they can be readily accepted too if practical side of things don't blatantly disagree with them; when common sense and practical knowledge are contradicting theoretical knowledge then it is an indication that something is wrong in the theory or some point has been overlooked, if nothing is wrong with the theory then logical explanation must be given for the reason and cause of contradiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/13/2015, 9:31:34, eThErEaL said:

you didn't even have to create me, anyone else, or anything; so why did you? perhaps it was for self gratification? i know i never asked to be created.

 

No, He created in keeping with His own eternal nature (Kataba ala Nafsihi Rahma).  If you say, this is not free will, then I will say that your notion of freewill doesn't make any sense.  

 

ethereal, would you expand on that ? how does being created in His eternal nature grants us free will and whats your notion of human freewill ? does it give any power to human to choose between right and wrong ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...