The philosophy of the meaning of life

1. The need to find out where we came from

Azad:      God? Religion? Purpose? Who cares? Why do I really care? Why should anyone care? Why can’t I just live my life how I feel? Just enjoy myself! Live life to enjoy it! YOLO (you only live once)!

Hakeem :              Well- to begin with, you are going to face problems in your life! And you will need answers to your problems in life- or a way to solve them!

Azad:      What problems are you talking about?

Hakeem:               Every man, like all animals- as part of his characteristics of being alive will have innate organic needs that must be satisfied otherwise he will die- these are food, water and warmth.

Every human also has innate internal drives or instincts that need to be satisfied once they are triggered by a reality external to the human. If these drives are agitated but not satisfied and tamed they can lead to misery and anxiety. These can be categorised into  survival, procreation and reverence - and  we can see the effects of these drives in man’s actions. 

For instance, the survival drive which  is all about the survival of the individual  leads you to check the road before crossing. It might be triggered by seeing someone driving a nicer car, or passing a nicer house than yours- causing you to feel anxious about your financial security or inadequate. The drive for survival can also be observed more primitively in the fight-or-flight response of an individual who thinks they are in danger or feels threatened. An example of when this is triggered could be when facing a dangerous animal; or walking alone at night and hearing footsteps getting closer thinking you might get robbed; or in the  modern  day the stress associated with fear of losing your job and maybe your house as a result, all causing you to feel anxious about your security.

The pro-creational drive on the other hand is not about the longevity or survival of the individual but of his fellow human being. This could be manifested in wanting to have children, have companionship, or a partner. It might be triggered by passing  a beggar in the street or seeing pictures of starving victims of a famine again causing you to feel anxious, agitated and guilty if you don’t help. Man is a social being – and will have relationships with other humans- parents, siblings, children, neighbours, partners etc. Problems can and will arise between them as a result of interacting- how is it best to resolve such problems?

The reverence instinct is the drive to admire or respect a greater entity. This could manifest in religion or celebrity worship or even a feeling of inadequacy and weakness in need of something greater to have hope in – this can be especially observed at times of weakness such as suffering from a critical illness or when someone is in a situation where he may expect to die and they start praying or hoping to be saved. They may feel anxious about the end of life that is approaching; and what happens after death; and question  if we are alone or is there a higher being that has caused our existence that will have some role in our lives and death.

Azad: So how do these characteristics lead to problems?

Hakim:  Now, how will you  live your life? What food will you eat? Who  do you have a relationship with for companionship? What choices do you make in living your life? What actions should you do in order to satisfy your needs and instincts? For example, should you steal, sell alcohol or drugs, beg, live off your family or get a job to satisfy your survival needs? Should you give some of your wealth to others less fortunate than yourself at the cost of your own enjoyment? How much would you help and sacrifice your own wealth? Would it just be to provide food? What about healthcare? Is that less important? What about education- so that they can skill themselves in order not to rely on you? Where do you draw the line?

How should you satisfy your companionship/pro-creational needs? Do you have one partner, multiple partners, hidden partners from your spouse? Should you be committed through  marriage, or have  no commitments, mistresses, or one-night stands? Should you be protective/jealous/worried when your partner seems to be getting very socially close to others from the opposite sex? Would you object if they were romantically involved with someone else too? Why? How can you be absolutely sure that their method of satisfaction of this need for companionship is not better than yours?

How should you satisfy your reverence instinct? What should you revere and worship? What happens after we die?  Does it make sense to believe in a higher being but not refer to it for guidance in this world-that it is just confined to answering questions about the after-life? Is there a higher being that one looks up to for answers about life and death? This is a problem for us to resolve and in fact the biggest problem as it affects how you live your life (more on this below).

If you get the above choices wrong it can lead you to pain and suffering!

Azad:      How?

Hakeem:               Because you don’t make the best choices to satisfy your needs and instincts. So as an example- if every time you felt hungry you thought it would be a good idea to eat chocolate- you would end up with more problems than your original problem of hunger- such as: diabetes, bad teeth, overweight issues, weak growth and immunity due to a lack of essential nutrients, and then less resistance to illness and eventually misery and death.

Likewise – if your survival and procreation relationships are constantly threatened or agitated as they haven't been satisfied adequately then it leads to  anxiety.

Also with the reverence instinct- if you worship or revere the wrong entity then in the next life after death (if proven that there is one) you end up suffering as you haven’t prepared for it –and in this world you suffer anxiety when  you realise your purpose in life is wrong.

2. Where you came from will help define your reason for existence- your purpose.

Azad:      how is reverence linked to purpose? 

Hakeem: your aim in this life must be linked to the next life (if it is established) for this life to be productive for yourself. When you ask where did you come from and where you are going it tells you what you are doing here- your purpose. Naturally, if there is a being that created us and is more powerful than us –then reverence should be for it too- and we can seek answers from it about why it created us and what our purpose is.

Azad:      So you need to make the best choices for life itself to carry on in satisfaction and contentment?

Hakeem:               Yes-

To every living thing, there is one primary choice, and that is to live or not -- to engage in the action required to further its own life or to engage in action that destroys its own life. The only other alternative is death.

Azad:      And how will you make the best choices to further your own life? Doesn’t that just mean doing what gives you instant gratification for whatever you feel like?

Hakeem:                No

Your life as your standard does not mean pursuing instant gratification, doing whatever you feel like. To look after your self-interest takes into account the long-term effects of every action.

Azad:      So why is that important? And why should we be different than animals in that regard? Animals seem to be doing ok just living in the moment.

Hakeem:               Man's mind is his tool for progressive thinking. It allows such long-range planning as required for farming, hunting, and tool making. These endeavours require the ability to conceptualize long-term cause and effect chains such as the need to make tools to hunt in order to eat for the following month. There may be some environments where people could survive for a while without long range planning, but without the results of knowledge like spears, fire, and other technologies, people would be victims of circumstances changing in their environment e.g. droughts/heat/cold/floods or even predatory animals.

Man's mind is his tool for survival, but like all tools, it must be properly used. The mind manipulates knowledge, and knowledge can only be obtained through studying the reality obtained through the senses. Without studying the reality, there is no knowledge, and thus no survival.

You must recognize reality and act in accordance with it in order to be successful. To the extent that you use reason as your method of judgment in knowledge and action, you will survive and flourish. To the extent that you ignore or evade reality, you will suffer and die.

Azad: But how are you supposed to think of every eventuality in the future and plan for the long-term without knowing what will happen in the future or even the effects of your actions on other people and how they will react.

So as an example if a person in a relationship starts to innocently become socially and emotionally involved with someone else- leading to becoming romantically involved-causing their partner to feel jealous and putting strain on their relationship- causing misery as now the family and children that they loved are at the risk of leaving or breaking up. How did the person know that their actions could have led to the destruction of his or her family?

And when we look at other decisions that are more difficult but represent dilemmas  you might have to face in life and which you may not have planned for before? To illustrate my point take the classical  problem of ethical choices in philosophy of killing one person to save five others  (for instance – the trolley problem: there is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice?)

Or even having to decide everyday decisions such as (with a  modern day twist): do you use a phone messaging service that you are boycotting -to warn others of something detrimental to them? Which is the better choice?

My point from the above is it can be impractical and even paralysing having to think through every decision you have to take and how it will impact on your life!

Hakim: we need to make decisions because fundamentally action is required to remain alive.

In other words - there needs to be a way of weighing up actions for good or bad to your life–if the wrong decisions are made then you will suffer.

Azad: and are we supposed to use the mind to figure out all the right choices in every action undertaken?

Hakim: as you highlighted above-the mind does not know everything- so can make many mistakes from not calculating all possible options- and over thinking can cause inaction and stress. So it is simpler to have a code e.g. "don’t lie", or "be compassionate", or "be wealthy".

These codes for our actions are usually termed values. Values are that which we seek to achieve or maintain in order to make those decisions and prioritise. Values are the motive power behind purposeful action. They are the ends of an action. Without them, life would be impossible. Life requires self-generated action to sustain itself. Without values, one could not act, and death would follow.

Values are important to men because they are the incentive to act. Purposeful action requires values.

Azad: so values give us certain codes for action? To be able to choose between different actions? But how do we know which values are the best?

Hakim:  Since there can exist many values, they need to be compared in order to decide which action to take. At a seemingly-emotional level, this is easy. Whichever value is wanted the most. However, since the values are based on a previous judgment, and on a goal to which the ends produce, the degree of wanting needs to be  determined. This is the goal of morality- it gives a criteria for action.

Morality is concerned with human actions, and the choice of those actions.

Once a person makes the choice to live, which is a pre-moral choice- the question becomes "How?" This is the same as "What do I do?" One can either go about it randomly or with a methodology designed for success. That methodology is called morality.

Azad: but aren’t we going around in circles and saying the same thing again but changing the word ‘values’ with the word ‘morals’?

Hakim: No- values are the results sought from doing an action. Actions are performed in order to fulfil our needs and drives. Sometimes values can clash- for example honesty and working to become wealthy- in which a trader may want to lie in order to sell more goods to seek a material value of wealth. An explicit morality therefore allows one to choose rationally among values. It makes the selection of values rational by providing a method to evaluate them. Values are compared to a moral standard, and prioritized according to how well they promote that standard. To make decisions easier, we develop virtues which are moral habits which tend to help gain values.

Footnote: [Ethics provides a system for a third person to evaluate those actions, the values and the morality that support  them.  Ethics  assume a standard. What is good and what is bad makes no sense apart from someone for which it is good or bad for, and a goal by which to measure "good" or "bad".]

3. Good and Evil depends on your purpose

Azad: so we need to do correct actions in order to live well– but how do we decide on our criteria for good and bad actions- our morality?

Hakim: right or wrong- the best action- depends on your aim. If you want to build a house, you should take certain actions and should not take others. Some actions are good and some are bad for your goal of building the house.

The same is true for the ultimate goal - our own life and the correct satisfaction of mans needs and instincts/desires.

As mentioned above, this criteria for good and bad results from understanding the aim- as actions are good and bad in relation to the aim they seek to achieve. Therefore we need to first understand the aim of life so that the values of good and bad will follow.

If the aim is different for people then they will have different ways of measuring what will help achieve their aim in life.

For a simple example- a person who has an aim of life of pleasing God may think that pre-marital sexual relations is a bad way of fulfilling his lust (because God’s law which is his moral criteria says so), whereas a person who has an aim of utilitarianism/personal happiness may think that there is nothing wrong with it (as his moral criteria is personal pleasure).

All choices of good and bad will be linked to an aim- if the aim for life is incorrect then those choices will be incorrect for life.

4.Where did everything around me come from and where is it going- and how do I fit into it?

Azad: What should be your aim? happiness? can happiness just be satisfaction of your desires? Why can't my aim be just to satisfy the needs of my life?

Hakim: The aim of life should be worked out in accordance to the reality that man lives in- without ignoring any part of it. Like any judgement- when it takes into account more parameters of the reality-it will be the more suitable judgement. For instance if I want to buy a table to study on and I just go into a shop and buy the first table I see without considering the reality of the table being able to take the weight of my books. I will suffer the consequence of my shallow decision when the flimsy table buckles under the weight of my books. If I become deeper in my thinking- linking it to  more of the reality – I will make a better decision for instance looking at the construction of the table and whether it is fit for purpose, how big the table is and if it will fit in the room and through the door etc. However I still may not make the best decision having bought an expensive table perfect for my needs -but without thinking about the debt I find myself in since I did not consider the other aspects of the reality of my life and how they are connected with the purchase of this table such as affording rent, utility bills, or food for instance for myself or family. The enlightened and best judgement would include taking into account the other realities in my life and connecting them to the reality of buying the table.

Azad: ok- so the best thought will take into account the most reality- so what will that be in order to have the most correct thought about the aim of our lives?

Hakim: You must link life to death – because it is the reality of the end of life so cannot be ignored (the rational being that considers the reality survives best) – in the same way you would not say I want to enjoy the thrill of a fast horse ride even though I can see the horse approaching the end of a cliff which will cause me to fall to my death- but that’s not the thrill of the present so I’ll just ignore it- that end of the journey is connected to your current journey and cannot be ignored. In the same way the end of life is connected to life and cannot be ignored.

Therefore our aim in this life has to be connected to what will occur to our life at the end of it- which is death and what may happen after death.

This is because it is the most definite reality of life that cannot be ignored-that death will occur. So what is the relationship between life and death? It must be taken into consideration when understanding the aim of life. if we could know what happens at death then it will have a bearing on forming an aim in life. For example - if after death there is accountability for the actions undertaken in this life then our aim could be different than if life just stops at death and there is no accountability as you might like to do what you like then. So the issue is if there is life after death and how is it connected to this life?

Azad: So to understand my aim of life, I need to know what happens at the end of life?

Hakim: Yes- and in order to leave nothing out, that is in order to have enlightened thinking (and study the full reality)- we must connect everything associated with our life to the judgement; so not only the end of life but also the beginning of life! Our aim in this life must also take into account the path of our lives from its beginning and even what brought it to that point- i.e. what was before our life, how did we get here? This will also have an impact on our aim in life, since we need to know what happens after death. But what lies beyond death is beyond our senses and so we cannot perceive it so we can thus only speculate. However, if our life and this universe is due to another source then that source of our life (and its removal-death) may be able to help answer this question.

Azad: But what if there is no source of our existence and this universe?

Hakim: Then that will help to inform us too of our aim- as then it may be that there is no plan after death and so our aim in this life would reflect that too.

Azad: So,  in order to understand what you are doing in this life, you must first ask where did my life come from and what will happen after my life has ended? How are we going to answer  these two questions accurately? Different people have different opinions- "there is no creator-life is evolving, so we are just here to pass on our genes"; "there is a creator to this entire universe that will account us on accepting its scriptures"; "life will be reincarnated and you will come back as another life form", which one is true?

Hakim: Knowing which one is true will only come after understanding how to know which is true?

5. How can we be sure what we know is correct? 

Azad: what do you mean how?

Hakim: Ask those people who have different purposes how they know their purpose and they will most likely give you different answers- "I felt a spiritual awakening when I went to the temple/church/mosque"; "My parents are Hindu so I am"; "their holy book makes sense"; "I was visited/saw it in a dream"; "I prayed for a sign and not long after that something happened which made me realise it was God answering my prayer - and that was my sign"; "science shows that we evolved" etc. The problem here is that everyone has different methods of arriving at the truth. So to arrive at the true correct aim, we must first understand what is correct knowledge and how to establish it.

Azad: OK- so what is the truth? How will we know what is true knowledge.

Hakim: This has been studied amongst philosophers throughout time and known as epistemology- the philosophy of knowledge.  Some philosophers (such as Descarte) would argue that knowledge  and truth are understood innately without having to rely on the external world for any truths, whereas others (like Locke) would propose that we are born as blank slates and that knowledge is acquired through our senses and what we experience- the empirical view.

The problem of scepticism has also been studied with the sceptics challenging everything that we could ever know to be true-leaving one to wonder if there is anything that one can know for certain.

Azad: So there is no real truth- only what we think is true?

Hakim: Truth by its definition is what cannot be denied- no-one can disagree with it or claim that it is false. This is the description of any statement that is true. A truth therefore must be objective - verifiable by all and not subjective. Therefore emotions/dreams/feelings which are subjective and not universal for all cannot be a source of truth. One person may enter a church and pray and feel like he has an answer to the meaning of life and another individual may not have that feeling.

Azad: So what can everyone agree on then?

Hakim: Everyone can access the physical world outside of their bodies and it does not change from person to person. We have access to this external physical world through our five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell.

Azad: But doesn’t everyone perceive the world differently? For example colour blindness? What if your senses don’t work?

Hakim: There is a substance that we can all perceive with our senses – the reality around us. There are basic elements of it that anyone who senses it can agree to- for example if we take a book that exists- it will have a certain dimension- it takes up a certain amount of space in the universe. You may have people disagreeing over the colour due to a problem or difference in sight- but they will still accept that there is a book- or at least an item – if for instance there  might be a problem with touch and cannot distinguish between the pages.

Azad: What if they don’t have that sense altogether?

Hakim: With the senses that do exist, then they are able to appreciate  the universality of the reality around them that applies to all. So if I can't see the book- then I could feel it through touch. If it was a plate of hot food that I could not see- then I could smell it.  We progress in life and are able to function to the extent that we appreciate the reality around us through our senses. If those senses do not work then the reality from our surroundings accessed –in order for the mind to make a judgement- will be restricted, resulting in faulty judgements of our world and then faulty actions. As an example- if I walk into my house and I did not sense (smell was not working due to a cold) that there is methane  gas in the air due to a leak from the gas pipe – I may well assume that it was safe to light a cigarette- unfortunately causing an explosion and harming or ending my life.

Ultimately even the sceptics cannot deny their reality otherwise they would suffer too, and not last very long within their environment. So for example if a sceptic was to walk into their house and smell a gas leak, they may choose to philosophise that we can’t be sure if they really exist and if the gas really exists- however when it comes to the action– they would have to base their actions on that knowledge of their reality otherwise they would die or be at a serious loss in any explosion!

This is the rational method – the thinking based on the sensed reality-that allows the human to make correct judgements about his environment enabling him to manipulate and control it and thus to progress. This method of acquiring knowledge and forming judgements must therefore also be utilised when answering the most important questions to do with our lives as discussed above i.e. where did we come from; what will happen after death; and what therefore is the relationship of  these with our life- our purpose of life?

6. Using the rational method to understand the origin of the universe

Azad: So how can you use this rational method to answer where we came from conclusively- after all people will still differ. Someone could say that based on observing the reality, we just came from our parents; while another would argue that our parents came from their parents and so on through evolving life forms after conditions became suitable for life since the Big Bang.

Hakim: In order to ensure our thinking upon the reality of where it came from is absolutely correct, as mentioned previously we must take into account the whole reality. The whole of the reality can be categorised into mankind, other life, and the non-living universe. If we observe these categories of our surroundings, we notice that they have certain limitations or restrictions and  dependencies . So for instance, man will be limited by his biology- he cannot breathe under water, will grow to a certain height and will be dependent on air, food and water. Similarly, other living non-human organisms such as animals and plants will be dependent on food etc. for life. The universe itself is made up of many limited and dependent objects, elements and compounds, such as planets, stars, helium gas, water etc. Planets have a certain size - limited by their mass. Stars will have a lifespan - limited by the amount of hydrogen fuel they have to keep burning before extinguishing. Even the elements that are around us -such as hydrogen itself- is dependent for its existence on things such as temperature, otherwise they would fuse to form a different substance (as what happens in stars in which the element hydrogen fuses to form helium).The universe itself is limited in its age and amount of its constituent matter.

Azad: But doesn’t the universe go on forever? In other words- isn’t it infinite?

Hakim: An infinite universe would exist in every direction forever, there could be nothing else- ONLY this universe. The universe cannot be infinite,  because it is expanding. It cannot be both infinite and expanding. It can only be infinite OR expanding, but CANNOT possibly be both, as that is a contradiction in terms- and we do know it is expanding. In 1920, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding by measuring the light from distant galaxies.

Azad: But what is the finite universe expanding into?

Hakim: This is a  question that can never be answered as we will never be able to escape the confines of the reality of our universe to find out. We can only theorise about this, and there are plenty of theories to choose from. However, we must keep our conclusions built on the reality that we can sense- in order to form rational correct judgements.

Now the key observation to realise from our study of the reality around us is that none of these limited and dependent objects have the ability or power to create either themselves or other entities. When we use the term ‘create’, we mean: ‘to make from nothing’. So for instance you can not just open your hand and ‘create’ a burger in the palm of your hand  from nothing. We do not walk down the street seeing trees, lamp posts, bees etc. appearing from thin air, having decided to ‘create’ themselves. Not even a speck of dust has ever been observed to appear from nothing. Not even a sub-atomic particle has ever appeared from nothing – but rather from the sub-atomic energy changes converting energy into mass and vice versa. In fact this observation is recorded as a scientific law of studying the nature of this universe  that ‘matter cannot be created or destroyed but only changed from one form into another’.

So going back to the original question of where did I (and the entire universe) come from?

We have 2 possibilities: 1) either this universe (with us included) came from a limited/dependent entity such as itself or another OR 2)This universe (with us included) has come from an entity that is NOT limited/dependent (in other words unlimited/independent).

Azad: Why are there only these 2 possibilities?

Hakim: Because being limited and not limited is a dichotomy- there can only exist these two states with nothing in between, since as soon as you place even one limitation or dependency on an unlimited entity (such as size, mass or colour etc) it becomes limited by that thing. In the same way that a lightbulb can either be on or off, or a switch can be open or closed. In such a dichotomy there are no states that exist between the two options in the way that you can have shades of grey existing between the colours of black and white.

We have already observed from our reality that  limited/dependent entities do not have the ability to create either themselves or other entities, and so the first option can be eliminated. This therefore leaves us with the second option and the conclusion that this universe (with us included) has come from an entity that is Unlimited/Independent. Although we cannot observe this Unlimited/Independent being – we know it must exist therefore by necessity as it is impossible for this limited/dependent universe to have created itself.

Azad: But  can you really believe in it without seeing or hearing it or observing it?

Hakim: It would be irrational to think otherwise and not to accept its existence. In a similar way that if we were to walk on the beach and see footprints we would have to rationally conclude that there must have been some other entity on that beach before us-even though we never observed it- because we know from reality that beaches do not have the ability to make footprints by themselves.

7.Knowing that something exists is different to knowing about the essence of it.

Azad: But if we cannot observe it then how will we know anything about it?

Hakim: From the nature of its definition as an unlimited/independent being, at least we know that this creator is not restricted by the limitations of the limited/dependent universe that we observe around us. For instance it has to be by definition unrestricted by time i.e. it is infinite and ever-lasting.

(by understanding where we came from and linking it to life then you will also be satisfying the reverence instinct- as reverence would be directed towards this more powerful cause ).

Azad: But doesn’t that create contradictions when we try to imagine its other qualities which posed problems for the philosophers of the past, who tried to for example to deal with the problem of evil from an all-loving god or an all-powerful god who wants us to do good (but can’t get us to do it)?

Hakim: Of course problems will arise when one starts to become irrational in their thinking. The creator does not exist within our observable reality and so it is irrational and a waste of time to start postulating about it. Imagine you were sat at home and you hear a knock on your door. Now all you can conclude with certainty is that there is someone or something behind that door– because from the observable reality you know that doors do not have the ability to knock themselves. However you would not be able to describe what it was behind the door- is it a woman, man, boy, girl, how tall they were, what colour their hair is, or even if it is human- is it a brick, a stone, a fallen branch from a tree? But the one thing you do know is that there is something behind that door. Likewise, there has to be a creator for this universe unlike anything we know, as proven through the universe’s lack of ability to create anything- but we cannot start to describe it as it is out of our observable reality. And so far as our fundamental questions about our purpose in life are concerned, we can at least know that the first question has a rational answer to it.

Azad: so does that mean it makes no sense to ask: if this creator created us then what created the creator?

Hakim: exactly- by asking who created the creator there is an error in thinking that the non-sensed characteristics of the creator is the same as the sensed characteristics of the creation. This is an irrational analogy to be making. An example of the absurdity of this question is like asking, “if bread has come from the baker whom baked it, then who baked the baker?” the error here is in thinking that the bread and baker share the same characteristics of being baked.

Azad: but can't we prove an unlimited and all-powerful creator does not exist by definition? So if an all-powerful creator exists, can it create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift? Whatever you answer- ‘yes’ or ‘no’, proves that this unlimited all-powerful being cannot exist as it shows some limitation.

Hakim: here this is a problem not with the nature of the creator itself but with the question. The question is illogical. The question forms a nonsensical and contradictory statement. If you break down the question to its meaning, you are asking: “is an unlimited being limited in some way (either in not being able to create or not being able to lift)?”

8. Understanding the creator

Azad: But  how will we answer anything else about it if we do not know it and cannot observe and communicate with it? Questions that would follow on from what we discussed earlier about purpose: Why it created this universe? What will happen after we die? Is there anything beyond death? What is the purpose of our lives?

Hakim: Well it is correct to say that as it is beyond our sensed reality to even communicate with- so then the only other option is that it would have to communicate to us.

Azad: But how or when? Why haven’t we seen any communication from this creator?

Hakim: Because maybe you are looking in the wrong place or looking for a wrong method of communication. Remember that one must keep their judgements rational in order to progress in life.

Azad: so how will we know if it has communicated with us?

Hakim: Well, some have claimed that this Being has indeed communicated with them a message to pass on to mankind- such as answers to the questions of what happens after death as well as guidance to life itself and the problems that we may face.

Azad: but anyone could make such a claim- we don’t know if they’re telling the truth! They could be lying or even delusional!

Hakim: Well there has to be a way of deciding otherwise we could be following falsehood or not following the truth!

Azad: What proof would be needed to tell if someone was telling the truth that they were receiving communication from this creator?

Hakim: the creator of the universe?

Azad: yes

Hakim: the creator that created the universe and the physical laws within it- that no human has the ability to change?

Azad: I see- so if a human could perform something that was impossible for humans to do as they have certain limitations- then this would only be due to the unlimited all-powerful creator allowing it to happen- to verify that they do indeed have authority from the creator- because only the creator would have the power to perform such an act!

Hakim: Exactly!- and this act of impossibility by a human in order to authenticate communication from the creator is what is termed a ‘miracle’.

Azad: so is there any such claim by anyone to have communication from the creator and has proved it with such an impossible ‘miracle’?

End of part one

Imad Shoubaki

If you would like  part 2 then please send an email: i_shoubaki@hotmail.com

 The Philosophy of Meaning in Life: Towards Understanding the Purpose of Life (part 1) (philosophy of life) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B06XXC1VFR/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_i_WYS6Db5A38CXF

