Question to Atheists: Living for here and now or living for a place with God in the next.

[firedragon]

Same old threshold problem: what real thing ─ thing not purely imaginary/conceptual, thing with objective existence ─ is intended to be denoted by the word "God" (or in this case the pronoun IT)? What objective test will tell us whether any real candidate we find is God or not?

I remember. You are the gentleman who said that science addresses metaphysics.

I am still waiting for a scientific paper, reviewed, in metaphysics.

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

No.......... I am a Deist, who like atheists does not believe in an involved, interested or even aware God.

So you think there was a creator?

 

[Mock Turtle]

There are many ranks in this world, from prestige, reputation, richness, career, etc.

The Quran argues the variance in ranks in the next world are even bigger but those depend on our deeds and faith and state we die in.

Let's take away fear of hell for one moment. Say everyone enters paradise.

To me, even this was the case, because this are chance to attain rank with God, and prove ourselves to Him, we shouldn't live for just temporary moments, but for God and the Next World.

We should try to attain as much as possible speed in traveling towards God and ascending to him.

Now the fact is, since, preferring temporary pleasures and gains, over God and next, aside from that usually those pleasures are based on intoxication from Iblis' magic, but say it was not a falsehood and had truth. Just from the viewpoint that God is better and more lasting in reward, makes such a decision to choose this world over God so evil, an act of great insolence towards God, that he does merit his wrath in the next world.

So how foolish is it given missing out on reward from God and not racing towards ranks that remain and reward and relationship with God that is everlasting, for temporary gains, and but how more so with the threat of fire.

Why choose this world? The Quran shows it comes out of one thing and one thing only. People doubt God and next world.

Take away that doubt, and people would choose God and next world.

So why doesn't God just remove doubt off everyone?

To me this is the trial. Evil deeds build up uncleanness, the uncleanness is that disquiet doubt. However, we can slay it. We can slay the darkness within.

The moment a soul decides to slay the disquiet doubt with reason, is the moment it sees God clearly.

There is also the leap of faith one can take, and talk to who they believe would be God's representatives. In this case, they can also cleanse us of the dark murk and destroy the doubt, by connecting with us and connecting us to God and making us see the light and higher realms.

This method might seem impossible, but in fact, it's practical. People can doubt at various degrees but know which religion would be truth if God existed. Then you take a leap of faith and ask the interceders to intervene on your path and help you by God's permission.

God should also be prayed to even if one doesn't know for sure he exists.


My question to atheists or people who doubt God, have you tried reaching out to Mohammad (s) and his family (a) and asking God to intercede on your path through them appearing as light? Or do you find this impossible to sincerely do as long as you doubt God? If so, please explain why.

Do you not think that many of those with different religious beliefs might have done exactly as you propose but where they have come out with a different result than yourself? Why would you suspect them of being in error rather than yourself? Perhaps because you accept Islamic texts over anything else? You think any response would undoubtedly point me towards Islam?

Some of us no doubt lack trust in past religious material, as to its truth and/or provenance, for example, and hence whatever kind of response we might get from asking such questions, we might be more inclined to see such as psychological in nature rather than being something external to ourselves. When I look at religious texts I have no way of knowing the truth and/or provenance, and I suspect those who chase into the depths of any one are mostly just performing self-indoctrination - since they too will not have any real way of knowing the truth of any, apart from just accepting them in some way. And why wouldn't anyone do such for all religions - to be fair of course?

And in opposition to your notion, if there is nothing after death, the religious will not even know they were wrong, but the atheists perhaps will know - possibly being destined for Hell or wherever - if some of the religious beliefs are indeed correct. If no life after death then the atheists are in exactly the same position as the believers. So perhaps the atheists are the actual winners.

 

[oldbadger]

So you think there was a creator?

A creator of what? Of whom?
A creator of God? Everything is part of God, so you'd have to ask me if God was created.

My answer? I don't know.

 

[firedragon]

A creator of what? Of whom?

Ah. One of those.

Its alright. Sorry I asked you.

 

[blü 2]

I remember. You are the gentleman who said that science addresses metaphysics.

I am still waiting for a scientific paper, reviewed, in metaphysics.

Have you gone on the net? Asked a librarian? Checked if you have a metaphysician practicing in your area? You know what they say ─ where there's a will ...

Meanwhile, the problem remains that on all the evidence so far, if the topic is a real God, no one actually has any idea of what being, what real thing, they're talking about. This problem doesn't arise if God is purely conceptual or purely imaginary, of course.

 

[firedragon]

Have you gone on the net? Asked a librarian? Checked if you have a metaphysician practicing in your area? You know what they say ─ where there's a will ...

Meanwhile, the problem remains that on all the evidence so far, if the topic is a real God, no one actually has any idea of what being, what real thing, they're talking about. This problem doesn't arise if God is purely conceptual or purely imaginary, of course.

Err. Still, you said science speaks of metaphysics. So you should demonstrate it.

 

[Kfox]

Right. So a rhetoric like that can be repeated.

C'mon; everybody has knows there is a necessary being.

Do you know of somebody who does not have a great, great, grandfather? I doubt it. As far as "necessary beings", some beings are necessary, others are not.

 

[firedragon]

Do you know of somebody who does not have a great, great, grandfather? I doubt it. As far as "necessary beings", some beings are necessary, others are not.

Obviously not.

 

[blü 2]

Err. Still, you said science speaks of metaphysics. So you should demonstrate it.

You speak metaphysics. I speak metaphysics. Didn't I quote you David Armstrong's outline before? He said ─

there are a great number of notions that [...] we can call topic neutral notions. Instances are cause, class, property, relation, quality, kind, resemblance, quantity, number, substance, fact, truth, law of nature, power, and others. These notions are perfectly general, are very difficult to analyse and interconnect, and give rise to controversy, sometimes to bitter controversy, when we (and the ‘we’ here includes scientists as much as philosophers) try to discuss them. They are not exhausted by logic or mathematics. It is these sorts of notions, I suggest, that metaphysics strives to give a systematic account of.

─ Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics p. 3​

Meanwhile, the question "what real entity or thing is intended to be denoted by the word God?" continues, as far as I can tell, to be answered, none. As it was in the beginning, it is now ...

​

 

[Nimos]

The Islamic conception is that human beings are born with a Fithrah. So they are all born moral. That is why you are moral.

Maybe you won't believe it. But that is the concept of Islam. Even if you dont accept it Im just saying what is Islamic.

Cheers.

So what causes people to do immoral things according to Islam and immoral behavior is measured against the Quran I assume?

Are Muslims considered more moral than Christians for instance? or what are the "benefits" or what to say in being a Muslim over a Christian or something else?

 

[Link]

What is it that prevents you from understanding this simple fact: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR NOR A NEXT LIFE.

Please, make a tiny effort to understand: these are fantasy ideas to me. I do not accept them. Therefore there is nothing I need to do about them. This is not hard...

I know, but I've presented a "what if" perspective, if it's uncleanness from sins that causes humans to doubt God.

 

[Altfish]

My question to atheists or people who doubt God, have you tried reaching out to Mohammad (s) and his family (a) and asking God to intercede on your path through them appearing as light?

No, I was a Christian until my early teens, never dabbled with Mo or his family.

Or do you find this impossible to sincerely do as long as you doubt God?

I don't doubt god, it is beyond doubt. God is a man-made entity.

If so, please explain why.

I'm very happy with my life based on believing in no gods; why should I change?
I do not need to worship anyone; I do not need to waste time praying/attending services/reading holy books; I've got better things to do.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

There are many ranks in this world, from prestige, reputation, richness, career, etc.

The Quran argues the variance in ranks in the next world are even bigger but those depend on our deeds and faith and state we die in.

Let's take away fear of hell for one moment. Say everyone enters paradise.

To me, even this was the case, because this are chance to attain rank with God, and prove ourselves to Him, we shouldn't live for just temporary moments, but for God and the Next World.

We should try to attain as much as possible speed in traveling towards God and ascending to him.

Now the fact is, since, preferring temporary pleasures and gains, over God and next, aside from that usually those pleasures are based on intoxication from Iblis' magic, but say it was not a falsehood and had truth. Just from the viewpoint that God is better and more lasting in reward, makes such a decision to choose this world over God so evil, an act of great insolence towards God, that he does merit his wrath in the next world.

So how foolish is it given missing out on reward from God and not racing towards ranks that remain and reward and relationship with God that is everlasting, for temporary gains, and but how more so with the threat of fire.

Why choose this world? The Quran shows it comes out of one thing and one thing only. People doubt God and next world.

Take away that doubt, and people would choose God and next world.

So why doesn't God just remove doubt off everyone?

To me this is the trial. Evil deeds build up uncleanness, the uncleanness is that disquiet doubt. However, we can slay it. We can slay the darkness within.

The moment a soul decides to slay the disquiet doubt with reason, is the moment it sees God clearly.

There is also the leap of faith one can take, and talk to who they believe would be God's representatives. In this case, they can also cleanse us of the dark murk and destroy the doubt, by connecting with us and connecting us to God and making us see the light and higher realms.

This method might seem impossible, but in fact, it's practical. People can doubt at various degrees but know which religion would be truth if God existed. Then you take a leap of faith and ask the interceders to intervene on your path and help you by God's permission.

God should also be prayed to even if one doesn't know for sure he exists.


My question to atheists or people who doubt God, have you tried reaching out to Mohammad (s) and his family (a) and asking God to intercede on your path through them appearing as light? Or do you find this impossible to sincerely do as long as you doubt God? If so, please explain why.

It sounds like you are trying to be a good person and a productive member of society. You want to help others feel happy and fulfilled, and stop them from making mistakes that have immense consequences. You have urges to do selfish things, but you refrain because it is the morally right and virtuous thing to do. You feel good when you choose the right path, and also when others acknowledge, accept, and love you for what you do and who you are.

If my (huge) assumptions are correct, then you and I are the same. The only difference is i operate without God.
I am kind to others and help when I can because it intrinsically makes me happy and fulfilled and because of the golden rule. I try to be productive and effective because there is only one life to live and I want to make the most of it. I feel bad when I am selfish probably because humans have evolved that way. Selfish societies fail. I want recognition and love from my friends, family and community. I want to prove myself to them; they are what matters. I don't do things to win favor of God or to avoid being punished in hell, that seems selfish to me (the thought that I'm only going to help someone because God is watching and I don't want to burn in hell).

A major part of being happy, effective, and fulfilled is sacrificing what you want now for what you want eventually. But eventually is not the next life, it's in this one. When you complete goals after refusing selfish impulses.

 

[firedragon]

You speak metaphysics. I speak metaphysics. Didn't I quote you David Armstrong's outline before? He said ─

there are a great number of notions that [...] we can call topic neutral notions. Instances are cause, class, property, relation, quality, kind, resemblance, quantity, number, substance, fact, truth, law of nature, power, and others. These notions are perfectly general, are very difficult to analyse and interconnect, and give rise to controversy, sometimes to bitter controversy, when we (and the ‘we’ here includes scientists as much as philosophers) try to discuss them. They are not exhausted by logic or mathematics. It is these sorts of notions, I suggest, that metaphysics strives to give a systematic account of.

─ Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics p. 3​

Meanwhile, the question "what real entity or thing is intended to be denoted by the word God?" continues, as far as I can tell, to be answered, none. As it was in the beginning, it is now ...

​

So what is Armstrong saying? That science proves or disproves metaphysics? Or is it metaphysics of science?

 

[firedragon]

So what causes people to do immoral things according to Islam and immoral behavior is measured against the Quran I assume?

Are Muslims considered more moral than Christians for instance? or what are the "benefits" or what to say in being a Muslim over a Christian or something else?

What causes people to do immoral things? Well. Some things are mentioned in the Qur'an. Like some people worship their own desire/ego as God. Some worship their wealth as God.

No. Muslims are not considered more moral. If you read the Quran it is speaking to righteous people. This word is Thaqwaa. Thats not necessarily Muslims.

Try and understand something. If Islam is the right path, and you understand it as the right path, you embrace it. Its not about benefits alone. There are some who look purely for benefits. The Qur'an is not only teaching to live for benefits alone. That is a self worship.

 

[blü 2]

So what is Armstrong saying? That science proves or disproves metaphysics? Or is it metaphysics of science?

If you read his words carefully, you might agree that you and I and science all employ metaphysical concepts that are not supernatural. The quote contains a partial list.

I notice you haven't come up with a definition of God appropriate to a being with objective existence, such that if we find a real candidate we can determine whether it's God or not. But should you do so, grateful if you'd let me know, since I've never found one either.

Nor indeed have I had any luck with a useful definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack. So should you come across such a thing, again I'd be grateful to be kept in the loop.

 

[firedragon]

If you read his words carefully, you might agree that you and I and science all employ metaphysical concepts that are not supernatural. The quote contains a partial list.

I notice you haven't come up with a definition of God appropriate to a being with objective existence, such that if we find a real candidate we can determine whether it's God or not. But should you do so, grateful if you'd let me know, since I've never found one either.

Nor indeed have I had any luck with a useful definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack. So should you come across such a thing, again I'd be grateful to be kept in the loop.

I think you already have a conception of God.

Nevertheless, maybe I will start a thread on this very topic. I can tag you if you are okay with it.

Nevertheless, science does not deal with metaphysics. Metaphysics deals with science. Basics.

 

[blü 2]

I think you already have a conception of God.

Indeed, but an imaginary one. If God is real then my conception of God should be as specific as my concept of a cat or car or carrot.

Nevertheless, maybe I will start a thread on this very topic. I can tag you if you are okay with it.

My own attempts eg >here< and >here<, went on and on but revealed no definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not. But I'm happy to wish you better luck and contribute.

Nevertheless, science does not deal with metaphysics. Metaphysics deals with science. Basics.

Well, science deals with metaphysics in the sense of using them in the sense I mentioned.

As for the supernatural sense of 'metaphysics', well, that looks pretty naked until we find a real God or accept that God exists only in purely conceptual / imaginary terms.

 

[firedragon]

Indeed, but an imaginary one. If God is real then my conception of God should be as specific as my concept of a cat or car or carrot.

I understand.

My own attempts eg >here< and >here<, went on and on but revealed no definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not. But I'm happy to wish you better luck and contribute.

Alright. So no new thread. Thanks.

Well, science deals with metaphysics in the sense of using them in the sense I mentioned.

what is the sense you mentioned?

As for the supernatural sense of 'metaphysics', well, that looks pretty naked until we find a real God or accept that God exists only in purely conceptual / imaginary terms.

What do you mean "supernatural sense of metaphysics"? and what is your epistemology?