God, Free-will, and the knowledge of God - Is his knowledge causation?

[paarsurrey]

Which also makes me a determinist--what is known as a soft determinist rather than a hard determinist. I don't believe in most versions of libertarian free will.

The truth is in between, in the moderate views, right?

Regards

 

[Copernicus]

The truth is in between, in the moderate views, right?

Regards

Maybe in politics usually, but I prefer the term compatibilist to soft determinist. IMO, the problem with the rubric "determinism" in discussions like this, is that determinism often gets used as shorthand for hard determinism. That is, people have a tendency to associate determinism with a particular concept of "free will" that conflicts with the way in which the expression is normally used by English speakers in general contexts. So the term soft determinism sounds a bit contradictory in that soft determinists tend to propose a more descriptive definition of free will than hard determinists.

Another thing I've noticed about the use of these labels is that people tend to confuse compatibilists with those who advocate for libertarian free will. Libertarian free will usually conflicts with compatibilist definitions of free will and is considered incompatibilism. Libertarian free will advocates may not consider themselves determinists in that they can think of mental activity as somehow non-physical. That is, unlike determinists, they tend not to be materialists.

Sorry for all of the nuanced descriptions regarding terms. I think that all of the terms floating around are confusing, because not everyone knows what they mean or how they differ from each other.

 

[firedragon]

Which also makes me a determinist--what is known as a soft determinist rather than a hard determinist. I don't believe in most versions of libertarian free will.

Obviously.

 

[firedragon]

Another thing I've noticed about the use of these labels is that people tend to confuse compatibilists with those who advocate for libertarian free will.

Not those who have read up.

But the people who claim knowledge of God is evidence of "no free will" are not read up. That's a fact. They define free will in a completely skewed and wrong manner. It's rampant in this very thread. That's a point of contention that interlocutors are not addressing.

 

[Copernicus]

Not those who have read up.

But the people who claim knowledge of God is evidence of "no free will" are not read up. That's a fact. They define free will in a completely skewed and wrong manner. It's rampant in this very thread. That's a point of contention that interlocutors are not addressing.

Of course, if you've read up on my position, you know that I don't say that. My view is that God's omniscience precludes God from having free will or perceiving his creations as having free will. That is because God, unlike his creations, can see the future in their timelines and his own. That is, he is the all-knowing creator of all timelines.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course, if you've read up on my position, you know that I don't say that. My view is that God's omniscience precludes God from having free will or perceiving his creations as having free will. That is because God, unlike his creations, can see the future in their timelines and his own. That is, he is the all-knowing creator of all timelines.

How does the fact that God can see the future in human timelines and his own preclude humans or God from having free will?

 

[Link]

How does the fact that God can see the future in human timelines and his own preclude humans or God from having free will?

It is because at the moment of the decision and prior only one outcome is possible (the one that exists in the future which God sees).

Whether for 4d model which God sees the outcome or God creates it, it does not matter, because in both cases, only one outcome is possible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is because at the moment of the decision and prior only one outcome is possible (the one that exists in the future which God sees).

That is irrelevant. It is what causes the outcome that matters, when it comes to free-will.

 

[Link]

That is irrelevant. It is what caused the outcome that matters, when it comes to free-will.

That's not true. For example, a rock falls. It causes a grass to get squished. It doesn't mean free-will is involved.

For there to be free-will, more than one outcome has to be possible. Otherwise, it's an illusion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That is because God, unlike his creations, can see the future in their timelines and his own. That is, he is the all-knowing creator of all timelines.

I don't even know what that means.
As far as G-d's concerned, what we perceive as the future has "already happened" .. and that in itself
does not imply that G-d could not have influenced the occurred events. It would not be a matter of
"changing the future", for example..

 

[muhammad_isa]

For there to be free-will, more than one outcome has to be possible. Otherwise, it's an illusion.

There is no such thing as 'illusion' in this context .. either we have free-will or we don't.

 

[Link]

There is no such thing as 'illusion' in this context .. either we have free-will or we don't.

This is true, but when you do what if arguments , you put a suspense on reality and imagine what it would be in a different scenario. If future exists then we don't. It would be an illusion does not mean in the actual world it is an illusion.

You can construe it like this:

If future exists, we don't have free-will.
We do have free-will.
Therefore future does not exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is because at the moment of the decision and prior only one outcome is possible (the one that exists in the future which God sees).

Why, prior to the decision, was only one decision possible?

Only one decision is possible, the decision that God knows we will make, but prior to that decision other decisions could have been made, which is the essence of free will.

Whether for 4d model which God sees the outcome or God creates it, it does not matter, because in both cases, only one outcome is possible.

Only one outcome is possible because there cannot be two different outcomes, but prior to that outcome another outcome was possible.
That is the essence of free will.


Does the Quran say God is omniscient?

According to the Qur'an, God (Allah) is omniscient; he eternally knows whatever comes into being, be it universal or particular in character. He has known all things from before the creation of the world. His knowledge of things before their coming into existence and afterwards is exactly the same.
God in Islam - Wikipedia


Free will is the basis of all moral responsibility. If you are claiming that a man who murdered his wife had only one choice because God knew that man would murder his wife (the only outcome possible) then you are saying that man was not morally responsible for his actions.
Teachers Guide - Muslims | Teacher Center | FRONTLINE | PBS


What does the Quran say about free will?

Human free will, action, and responsibility. The Qur'an and Sunnah are clear in expressing the moral responsibility of humankind. Allah said: Each soul is responsible for its own actions; no soul will bear the burden of another.Jul 31, 2017
Predestination vs. Free Will in Islam: Understanding Allah's Qadr

 

[muhammad_isa]

..You can construe it like this:

If future exists, we don't have free-will.
We do have free-will.
Therefore future does not exist.

..back to 'same-old' infamous paradox.
We know the future exists, because 'today' was the future yesterday, but now has become the past.

i.e. the time blocks we call the future and past are of the same nature .. it is just we don't KNOW
what the future block is comprised of

..so it is not that we don't have free-will if the future is known .. that is an incorrect conclusion
that is based on human perception of time .. and not a logical necessity as many people assume.

 

[Trailblazer]

For there to be free-will, more than one outcome has to be possible. Otherwise, it's an illusion.

More than one decision is possible, right up until a decision is made.
There can only be one outcome -- stop for the red light or run the red light -- but before I ran that red light I could have chosen to stop for the red light.

 

[firedragon]

My view is that God's omniscience precludes God from having free will or perceiving his creations as having free will. That is because God, unlike his creations, can see the future in their timelines and his own. That is, he is the all-knowing creator of all timelines.

You said "God can see the future". Is that subjective to you as a human or ontological to God? To make it simple, do you think God has a future and he is seeing time as linear like we do?

Simple question. It's already answered in the OP but it's a clarification.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't even know what that means.
As far as G-d's concerned, what we perceive as the future has "already happened" .. and that in itself does not imply that G-d could not have influenced the occurred events. It would not be a matter of "changing the future", for example..

My point was that we have free will because of our ignorance of the future. We imagine alternative future outcomes that our choices could make happen, but we don't know what will happen in reality. OTOH, our putative omniscient God knows exactly what will happen, so even his own future is fixed and predetermined. Hence, we, in our ignorance, are forced to make choices, but God's perfect knowledge of the future means that he has no imagined alternative futures, just a future in which he always takes the one action he knows he will take, lest he cancel his own omniscience.

 

[Copernicus]

You said "God can see the future". Is that subjective to you as a human or ontological to God? To make it simple, do you think God has a future and he is seeing time as linear like we do?

Simple question. It's already answered in the OP but it's a clarification.

I can't answer the first question, because, although I sort of get what you are trying to ask, it actually poses a false dilemma. The word "subjective" contrasts with "objective", not "ontological". The answer to the second question is no. As I just wrote in my previous post, God's perception is different from ours because of his property of omniscience. Our future is unknown, and therefore undetermined. His is known to him, so his imagination is irrelevant. His future is fixed and immutable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

My point was that we have free will because of our ignorance of the future.

No .. not due to ignorance .. it is not 'the knowledge' that causes us to choose something.

We imagine alternative future outcomes that our choices could make happen, but we don't know what will happen in reality.

No, but that is not the point .. as far as we are concerned, the future has not happened yet, and
we have to make decisions that affect the future. They are real decisions, and they are not affected by
knowledge of an agent outside of space-time continuum.
i.e we are trapped in this space-time continuum .. tick-tock

OTOH, our putative omniscient God knows exactly what will happen, so even his own future is fixed and predetermined.

..but you assume that G-d "knowing what will happen" means He can see into the future, but for G-d,
the whole series of events of mankind from beginning to end have completed .. He sees all.
..so you are looking at it in the wrong context.

 

[muhammad_isa]

God's perception is different from ours because of his property of omniscience. Our future is unknown, and therefore undetermined. His is known to him, so his imagination is irrelevant. His future is fixed and immutable.

You are imagining time as something immutable, and that's the problem.
You need to consider HOW G-d knows our future. Hint: G-d has no clock on the wall