If Allah is perfectly omniscient, there's no way you can have freewill, you may think you have but it's just an illusion.

If Allah before creation have seen every decisions, steps, actions one make then that person can't act nor deviate outside his knowledge, all your fates are already established, one would be like a movie before Allah who already knows every move in the movie.

And if you say you have freewill then you can act outside Allah's knowledge, your fates has not been established, this made Allah not omniscient.

Omniscient and freewill are contradictory, if you don't agree, give us your reasons and please no fallacies.

Ah, Yes the infamous destiny, omniscient God and free will paradox.
And the Allah's test paradox if I may add.

Most of the questions you ask usually tend to end on this subject. This paradox seems to be at the heart of the major religions theology, the Abrahamic religions Islam, Christianity and Judaism in specific.

It's the issue of.
If everything is destined then freewill can't exist.
If God knows everything then what's the point of tests.
Or more conspicuous if God knows and destines everything then does he destine people to disbelief and hell and if so why, where would freewill fit into this?

The only solution to this paradox is if something was perhaps limited.

For freewill to exist and tests to make sense, then it would imply God's omniscience would have been limited, meaning there are somethings that he wouldn't know, maybe the specifics of one's choices or moral decisions and it would extend to destiny itself, meaning destiny would be ever changing or would be vague leaving out the choices one would make.

Or that freewill itself is what is limited. Similar to the "Game with multiple choices and multiple endings based on those choices" analogy I proposed to you a while back.
In this theory, God would know and had destined everything from start to finish except specific choices which should determine the ending (Heaven or Hell in this case) and you are the player in this. But this may mean you have only a limited number of possible choices, and one wouldn't have freewill between those choices hence the limited freewill.

Or the last theory. God is omniscient, destined everything from start to finish and freewill is just an illusion. Which would be unfair and uncharacteristic of a Just and Merciful God because eternal damnation is involved. Unless we were to bring God's character into question or even his existance.

Of the Abrahamic religions Judaism seems to be the only one that confronts this question in depth, the Christians discuss it in coded language that makes as much coherence as the Trinity and Muslims tend to avoid it and chock it up to the vagaries and mysteries of God.

This is the Jewish take on it I Personally find satisfying.

"Tzimtzum entails the idea that God "constricted" his infinite essence, to allow for the existence of a "conceptual space" in which a finite, independent world could exist. This "constriction" made free will possible, and hence the potential to earn the World to Come.

In granting free will, God has somehow "constricted" his foreknowledge, to allow for Man's independent action; He thus has foreknowledge and yet free will exists. In the case of Tzimtzum, God has "constricted" his essence to allow for Man's independent existence; He is thus immanent and yet transcendent."
Which kinda sounds like my first theory of God's limited omniscience, but in this case God would be intentionally limiting himself.

[This reminds me of the philosophical question of what does an infinite being lack?
The answer is the finite.]

Now as to which one of this it is, I don't know, I'm just exploring the idea.

IMAliyu:
Ah, Yes the infamous destiny, omniscient God and free will paradox.
And the Allah's test paradox if I may add.

Most of the questions you ask usually tend to end on this subject. This paradox seems to be at the heart of the major religions theology, the Abrahamic religions Islam, Christianity and Judaism in specific.

It's the issue of.
If everything is destined then freewill can't exist.
If God knows everything then what's the point of tests.
Or more conspicuous if God knows and destines everything then does he destine people to disbelief and hell and if so why, where would freewill fit into this?

The only solution to this paradox is if something was perhaps limited.

For freewill to exist and tests to make sense, then it would imply God's omniscience would have been limited, meaning there are somethings that he wouldn't know, maybe the specifics of one's choices or moral decisions and it would extend to destiny itself, meaning destiny would be ever changing or would be vague leaving out the choices one would make.

Or that freewill itself is what is limited. Similar to the "Game with multiple choices and multiple endings based on those choices" analogy I proposed to you a while back.
In this theory, God would know and had destined everything from start to finish except specific choices which should determine the ending (Heaven or Hell in this case) and you are the player in this. But this may mean you have only a limited number of possible choices, and one wouldn't have freewill between those choices hence the limited freewill.

Or the last theory. God is omniscient, destined everything from start to finish and freewill is just an illusion. Which would be unfair and uncharacteristic of a Just and Merciful God because eternal damnation is involved. Unless we were to bring God's character into question or even his existance.

Of the Abrahamic religions Judaism seems to be the only one that confronts this question in depth, the Christians discuss it in coded language that makes as much coherence as the Trinity and Muslims tend to avoid it and chock it up to the vagaries and mysteries of God.

This is the Jewish take on it I Personally find satisfying.

"Tzimtzum entails the idea that God "constricted" his infinite essence, to allow for the existence of a "conceptual space" in which a finite, independent world could exist. This "constriction" made free will possible, and hence the potential to earn the World to Come.

In granting free will, God has somehow "constricted" his foreknowledge, to allow for Man's independent action; He thus has foreknowledge and yet free will exists. In the case of Tzimtzum, God has "constricted" his essence to allow for Man's independent existence; He is thus immanent and yet transcendent."
Which kinda sounds like my first theory of God's limited omniscience, but in this case God would be intentionally limiting himself.

[This reminds me of the philosophical question of what does an infinite being lack?
The answer is the finite.]

Now as to which one of this it is, I don't know, I'm just exploring the idea.

Unbiase as usual. Kudos to your knowledge

IMAliyu:
Ah, Yes the infamous destiny, omniscient God and free will paradox.
And the Allah's test paradox if I may add.

Most of the questions you ask usually tend to end on this subject. This paradox seems to be at the heart of the major religions theology, the Abrahamic religions Islam, Christianity and Judaism in specific.

It's the issue of.
If everything is destined then freewill can't exist.
If God knows everything then what's the point of tests.
Or more conspicuous if God knows and destines everything then does he destine people to disbelief and hell and if so why, where would freewill fit into this?

The only solution to this paradox is if something was perhaps limited.

For freewill to exist and tests to make sense, then it would imply God's omniscience would have been limited, meaning there are somethings that he wouldn't know, maybe the specifics of one's choices or moral decisions and it would extend to destiny itself, meaning destiny would be ever changing or would be vague leaving out the choices one would make.

Or that freewill itself is what is limited. Similar to the "Game with multiple choices and multiple endings based on those choices" analogy I proposed to you a while back.
In this theory, God would know and had destined everything from start to finish except specific choices which should determine the ending (Heaven or Hell in this case) and you are the player in this. But this may mean you have only a limited number of possible choices, and one wouldn't have freewill between those choices hence the limited freewill.

Or the last theory. God is omniscient, destined everything from start to finish and freewill is just an illusion. Which would be unfair and uncharacteristic of a Just and Merciful God because eternal damnation is involved. Unless we were to bring God's character into question or even his existance.

Of the Abrahamic religions Judaism seems to be the only one that confronts this question in depth, the Christians discuss it in coded language that makes as much coherence as the Trinity and Muslims tend to avoid it and chock it up to the vagaries and mysteries of God.

This is the Jewish take on it I Personally find satisfying.

"Tzimtzum entails the idea that God "constricted" his infinite essence, to allow for the existence of a "conceptual space" in which a finite, independent world could exist. This "constriction" made free will possible, and hence the potential to earn the World to Come.

In granting free will, God has somehow "constricted" his foreknowledge, to allow for Man's independent action; He thus has foreknowledge and yet free will exists. In the case of Tzimtzum, God has "constricted" his essence to allow for Man's independent existence; He is thus immanent and yet transcendent."
Which kinda sounds like my first theory of God's limited omniscience, but in this case God would be intentionally limiting himself.

[This reminds me of the philosophical question of what does an infinite being lack?
The answer is the finite.]

Now as to which one of this it is, I don't know, I'm just exploring the idea.

Ok, good response. I learnt something new here.

There's still paradox if God limit his foreknowledge.

God is omni-scient, Omni means absolute or all. If God can limit his foreknowledge then he's not omni-scient, he doesn't know all and I agree freewill will make sense in this case.

The dilemma of omniscient would go like this, if omniscient God can know all, can he know he cannot know? If it's yes then God cannot be omniscient because it shows God cannot know and if it's no then God cannot be all knowing because he doesn't know he cannot know.

I hope you get this dilemma?

tintingz:


Ok, good response. I learnt something new here.

There's still paradox if God limit his foreknowledge.

God is omni-scient, Omni means absolute or all. If God can limit his foreknowledge then he's not omni-scient, he doesn't know all and I agree freewill will make sense in this case.

The dilemma of omniscient would go like this, if omniscient God can know all, can he know he cannot know? If it's yes then God cannot be omniscient because it shows God cannot know and if it's no then God cannot be all knowing because he doesn't know he cannot know.

I hope you get this dilemma?

I see.

Then such a being would loose the title of omniscient.

Such verses as this “Verily, they are plotting a plot (against you, O Muhammad). And I (Allah) am planning a plan.”
Suggests Allah is planning in real time and not pre-planned.
One would assume having had foreknowledge, and planned everything from the beginning the wording for such a verse would be a little different. Maybe I'm wrong and this is a translation issue.

Though there is a play (not a consistent definition) on the meaning of the word "All knowing" Al-aleem in the Quran.
One of them is "He knows your publicity and secrecy, He knows all of your secret thoughts and intentions, all that you wish or desire, and all that you hope for."

Another one is "He has knowledge of the workings of everything in the universe, because he made it. Including what we know and don't know [and from that maybe makes predictions]. The unknown"

Another is "foreknowledge" or a combination of all three.

Now we've moved to the question.
If Allah exists and he isn't omniscient to the full extent of the definition of the word, then what is the meaning of his title of the "All knowing"?

IMAliyu:


I see.

Then such a being would loose the title of omniscient.

Such verses as this “Verily, they are plotting a plot (against you, O Muhammad). And I (Allah) am planning a plan.”
Suggests Allah is planning in real time and not pre-planned.
One would assume having had foreknowledge, and planned everything from the beginning the wording for such a verse would be a little different. Maybe I'm wrong and this is a translation issue.

Though there is a play (not a consistent definition) on the meaning of the word "All knowing" Al-aleem in the Quran.
One of them is "He knows your publicity and secrecy, He knows all of your secret thoughts and intentions, all that you wish or desire, and all that you hope for."

Another one is "He has knowledge of the workings of everything in the universe, because he made it. Including what we know and don't know [and from that maybe makes predictions]. The unknown"

Another is "foreknowledge" or a combination of all three.

Now we've moved to the question.
If Allah exists and he isn't omniscient to the full extent of the definition of the word, then what is the meaning of his title of the "All knowing"?

The bolded question is the paradox.

It seems the writer of the Qur'an didn't think this through and knowing the logical implications.

A God who's all-knowing, who perfectly knows all, will know his own fate too, does such God have freewill? Imagine fore-knowing your own fates.

There can never be freewill if an all-knowing being exist, whether it's kept hidden or not, there's no freewill as long as such being exist and knows all your fates.

The title is contradictory to everything about Allah, it's either freewill is an illusion or Allah isn't omniscient and freewill exist.

The only one that can be possible is determinism, though you cannot know all fates with determinism nor be all-knowing but you can predicts one next moves withing short period of time.