Knowledge is dependent on the known -1-

We had stated that the two issues had to be understood very well to understand the issue of destiny. One of them is the pre-eternity of God. We analyzed this issue with its details and we understood that the knowledge of God encompasses all times, the past, the present and the future at the same moment. God knows our all deeds before we make them by His pre-eternity.

Now, we will analyze the second issue which must be understood very well. This issue is the rule of “knowledge is dependent on the known.” When this issue is also understood, you will see that destiny is not an enigma. On the contrary, it is a concept that can be understood very easily. To be able to understand the issue of destiny, we must understand the rule of “knowledge is dependent on the known” as well as “pre-eternity of God.” Therefore, we will give ten examples related to this rule. After these ten examples, a question like “God wrote me as a sinner in destiny. Then, what is my fault?” will no longer come to our minds.

EXAMPLE 1:

Knowledge is the shape of things in the brain;

The thing known, is defined as the real state of that thing outside.

For example, we will look at the apple. The apple’s shape in our mind is knowledge. The shape of the apple outside is the thing known.  Does the apple have this shape because I know it in this shape? Or do I know the apple in this shape because the apple has this shape? Namely, is my knowledge about the apple dependent on the thing known (the shape of the apple)?

Or is the thing known (the shape of the apple) dependent on my knowledge about the apple? In other words, if I had known the apple as a watermelon would the apple have turned into a watermelon? Certainly not; because the thing known (the shape of the apple) is not dependent on my knowledge. That is, the shape of the apple outside does not have to be in accordance with the shape we know. I know the apple with this shape because the apple has this shape out of my knowledge. Then, knowledge (its shape in my mind) is dependent on the thing known (the shape of the apple outside)

EXAMPLE 2:

Suppose that 500 lira is available in my safe box and I know that in my safe box 500 lira is available. My knowledge about the existence of 500 lira in my safe box is knowledge. 500 lira in my safe box is the thing known. Now, we will ask the same question: Is 500 lira available in my safe box because of my knowledge about it? Or do I know it because 500 lira is available in my safe box? Namely, is my knowledge dependent on the thing known? Or is the thing known (the money in my safe box) dependent on my knowledge?

Doubtlessly, knowledge is dependent on the thing known. In other words, “In my safe box 500 lira is available because of my knowledge” is wrong. On the contrary, I know it because 500 lira is available in my safe box. If its opposite had existed, namely, instead of the rule of “knowledge is dependent on the known”, the known had become dependent on knowledge, then, instead of 500 lira in the safe box when I suppose there are 500 million lira in the safe box, 500 million lira would have become in the safe box. However, it does not become so. The cause is the rule of “knowledge is dependent on the known.” Namely, “the known is dependent on the known” is wrong and impossible.

EXAMPLE 3:

Suppose that we are at a hill. In the bottom of the hill, there is a curved railway. You are at the hill so you can see both the right and the left side of the railway. And you see that there are two trains going on the same rail from opposite directions. You see that they will crash in two minutes; so you wrote: “They are going to crash in two minutes.” in your notebook. And the trains crashed after two minutes. Now, if you say to the engine drivers who were saved from the crash: “Here; this is my notebook.” I wrote this accident before the accident happened.”

Do the engine drivers have the right to say this?: “We crashed because of you. If you had not written this accident in your notebook, we would have not crashed. We crashed because of your writing. You are the cause of this accident.” Doubtlessly, they can never say so because your writing, namely, knowledge is dependent on the accident, namely the thing known.

In other words, you saw that they would crash so you wrote this writing. Your writing did not cause this accident. You were in the hill; so, you saw that they were going on the same rail but they could not see it as they were not on the hill.

In addition, your writing only shows the thing known. It does not force and it is not the cause of the accident. If the accident had happened because of your writing, then this would have happened: You would have written about these trains, “they are not going to crash” and they would have not crashed although they were on the same rail coming from opposite directions. Instead of the rule of “knowledge is dependent on the known”, if the thing known had been dependent on knowledge, the accidents would have never happened in the world. A man would have written in his notebook, “today no accident is going to happen” and he would have prevented the accidents. However, it never happens. Now, we will summarize this example:

1-   The cause of the crash is not your writing. On the contrary, you wrote it because you saw that they would crash.  Namely, your knowledge and writing is dependent on the known, namely, the accident.

2-   The second, your writing does not cause them to escape from the responsibility because they caused this writing to be written.

EXAMPLE 4:

When we buy a calendar at the beginning of the year, we see that in all days of the year, the times of sunrise and sunset are written. For example, when we look at the 31th December, we see that the sunrise is at 7:15 and the sunset is at 16:45.

This writing in the calendar is knowledge.

The thing known is the sunrise and the sunset at these times. Our question is same: Does the sun rise and fall because of the writing in the calendar? Namely, is the known (the time of the sunrise and the sunset) dependent on knowledge (the writing in the calendar)? Or was knowledge about the times of sunrise and sunset written in the calendar because of the calculations about them? Namely, is knowledge dependent on the known? Doubtlessly, the second one is true.

Namely, the rule of “knowledge is dependent on the known” is true because the times of the sunrise and sunset were calculated and written. If its opposite had happened, then the known would have been dependent on knowledge and when we had written in the calendar  the sunrise as 12:00  instead of 7:15, the sunrise at 12:00 would have been necessary and when we had written as “today the sun is not going to rise” not rising of the sun would have been necessary. However, none of them happens. The cause is evident. Knowledge (the writing in the calendar) is dependent on the known (the sun itself).

Now, let us think of this: Although man is extremely weak, ignorant, dependent on time and place, he can know the next year’s dates of the sunrise and the sunset in advance and so he writes them in the calendar. And nobody thinks this: “In the calendar, the times of sunrise and sunset were written so the sun is compulsory to rise and fall at these times. If this writing had not existed, the sun would not have risen and fallen at these times.” Nobody thinks such a wrong thing.

And yet, God, who has infinite power, infinite knowledge, who is free from time and place, who is eternal, can write on the destiny board, which is like a calendar, the day we would be born and the day we we would die and our all deeds between these times. Why cannot we understand it?

We know that the cause of sunrise is not the writing in the calendar.  Then, why cannot we understand the fact that the cause of our deeds is not the writing in the destiny calendar; on the contrary, they were written as we will make these deeds in the future; namely, the knowledge of God is dependent on the known (our deeds) We try to blame destiny due to our sins.

EXAMPLE 5:

The distance between Istanbul and Ankara is almost 300 miles. Our knowledge about the distance and the writing it in the books are knowledge. The thing known is the distance itself. The situation is the same here, too. Our knowledge is dependent on the known. In this example, the known is a distance of 300 miles between Istanbul and Ankara. Instead of the rule of “our knowledge is dependent on the known”, if the known had been dependent on knowledge, namely, this distance had been 300 miles because of our knowledge, then when we had supposed the distance as 600 miles the known (the distance) would have gone up to 600 miles. When we had supposed the distance as one meter then reaching from Istanbul to Ankara with one step would have been necessary. However, none of them happens. Under no circumstances has our knowledge any effect on the thing known. Only when we know the distance as 300 miles, we know it truly. In our other assumptions, we know it wrongly.

Likewise, the distance between our birth and our death and in this distance our all deeds are the thing known. The knowledge of God about “the thing known” and writing it on the destiny board, that is, the title of the knowledge of God is “knowledge”.

What was our rule? “Knowledge is dependent on the known. Then, the cause of our deed is not the writing of God. God knows our all deeds at all times with His infinite knowledge and He wrote them on the destiny board. Here, the important point is thinking of the rule of “knowledge is dependent on the known”    together with the pre-eternity of God. Without understanding the pre-eternity, understanding this rule is impossible. Therefore, before the explanation of this rule, we tried to understand the pre-eternity of God with different examples. The pre-eternal knowledge of God about our all deeds is never a cause of enforcement. It is only a determination.

God knows our all deeds which we make them with our partial free will. Although this is the truth, thinking its opposite by saying: “I am doomed to destiny” and blaming destiny is extremely meaningless. Their statements mean that knowledge is not dependent on the known but the known is dependent on knowledge. Namely, according to them God decided that this servant was going to be one of the people of Hell and so he became one of them or God decided that this servant was going to go to Heaven and he or she became one of the people of Heaven.

However, it is not the case. On the contrary, the knowledge of God is dependent on the events that will happen in the future. Namely, God knows whatever will happen and so God wrote them on the destiny board. In fact, people who claim this wrong idea mean this: To be responsible for the deeds, God should know our deeds after we made them; namely, God should not know tomorrow. However, not knowing is not suitable to the glory of God because not knowing is a fault and a lack; God is free from all faults and lacks. Joa hausarbeit gliederung ich frag auch mal, ob ich das infomaterial hierher geschickt bekommen kann

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir

Güvenlik testi *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.