Heyo
Veteran Member
So, NASA plans to, i.e. we don't have done it yet, i.e. have no expectation to have evidence now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for the Existence of Love
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Irrelevant. Ontology and epistemology are two distinct philosophical branches.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. It's fact.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's reactionary via chemicals in the body.
The science is there to prove it.
Hormones and Chemicals Linked with our Emotion - Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
Emotions are very complex and have different meanings to different people, but essentially, emotions are a conscious experience that are categorized by states of mind, external and internal reactions, and expressions.
I doubt that there is a vast vast vast vast vast majority of people that claim god is objectively evident.
Which is exactly what I said in post #150.
Agreed, but you didn't qualify this with "now" in your original statement.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I have never said that the vast majority of people claim gods are objectively evident though. I have said they claim gods are discrete entities that exist objectively.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Although the absence of evidence so far for existence of life outside of Earth is not evidence that it doesn't exist outside of Earth, the same can not be said about gods (or at least some of them). The reason for this is that there are many purported accounts of divine interaction through human history that simply don't match the evidence we do have about what transpired in the past.
Let’s find out: Does Your God(s) Exist Objectively?
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's an emotion. Emotions exist.
Love, Actually: The science behind lust, attraction, and companionship - Science in the News
by Katherine Wu figures by Tito Adhikary In 1993, Haddaway asked the world, “What is Love?” I’m not sure if he ever got his answer – but today, you can have yours. Sort of. Scientists in fields ranging from anthropology to neuroscience have been asking this same question (albeit less eloquently)...
sitn.hms.harvard.edu
No, it is not entirely and individual thing. Think of it in terms of "good health". Is that entirely subjective, and it can mean just about anything at all or really nothing at all? Of course not. It becomes really clear when things are working efficiently in the body. And it is common to one another, just as saying "health" has a common frame of reference to anyone who has experienced health.
The real issue here is that for someone who has never experience good health, you might as well be trying to describe the color green to someone who has never experienced eyesight. But to those with the experience of vision, green has an actual, shared, commonly experienced referent.
These are hardly nostrums. They have actual referents that are common. The experience of "Ultimate Reality" is something that is actually understood by those who have experience with it, not as a high and lofty ideal, but a tangible, real experiential reality, just as seeing the color green is to the sighted.
Well, that is your choice of course. But I see it as highly myopic, limited, and self-ignorant of the way the rest of the world understands and uses that term in common language to mean a spectrum of things, from a type of emotional feeling, to a philosophical attitude towards living, to the highest state of mind and being foundational to all of existence itself.
"It's just a chemical". Okay. Suit yourself if it makes life easier to deal with by reducing higher level abstractions down to nothing but mere atoms and molecules with nothing else above that level being actually real. That is your given faith of choice then.
As I've said, if believing that ultimate reality, ultimate truth and light comes through understanding the world as nothing but chemicals and processes, and strip away all that other extra business above and beyond that, then that is of course your faith choice. I don't find that well-supported, or very rational myself. I personally see as a bit of a faith based on an existential fear of the unknown. But I can imagine how in some ways it brings comfort. I can only say then, may your chemistry bring you ultimate Peace.
Last edited:
Such claims are absolutely useless! To claim that you have experienced "Ultimate Reality" is impossible -- because you can't actually say that it is "Ultimate Reality" just because you haven't experienced anything further. You are just as blind to that as the colour blind person is to green.
If you keep saying this, you may eventually believe it. BTW, "Ultimate Reality" does not refer to a fixed point, or an end or ceiling. It's seeing Openness itself, as opposed to a fixed formula that can be expressed mathematically.
"Openness itself?" What's that? Pumpkins become elephants just because there's nothing stopping it? Have you seen that?
Arthur Brain
Member
I wasn't disputing that there's chemical reactions involved.It's reactionary via chemicals in the body.
The science is there to prove it.
Hormones and Chemicals Linked with our Emotion - Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
Emotions are very complex and have different meanings to different people, but essentially, emotions are a conscious experience that are categorized by states of mind, external and internal reactions, and expressions.www.amrita.edu
Last edited:
Yerda
Veteran Member
@SalixIncendium
Good thread.
There are things that we can't provide evidence for in the typical use of the word. I would volunteer many of the actions of human beings and some other animals as the obvious product of love but to a person who cannot experience love it would mean nothing. Just a collection of weird behaviours perhaps.
If we take a look at human history we see care for others as a central feature of what makes us what we are. There is a good deal of material from the deep historical record detailing the survival of individuals who would not have survived without the intervention of other people, at the cost of those intervening. There are health care and elderly care and child care systems right here and now where people are given the resources they need to develop or return to health or to live with dignity...at the expense of strangers. I would suggest that the "force" that explains this is human compassion - love. This doesn't rise to the level of evidence we might expect from test tubes or petri dishes or hadron colliders, but it still seems to me to be evidence in the sense that it explains phenomena we might want explaining.
A reasonable person who could not experience love might still see value in the explanation. We might say to them that we feel a compulsion and a connectedness that draws us to give oursleves to others. And the word we use to capture that is love.
So, to the point. I'm a curious atheist. I don't believe in any of the gods I've heard described though some make more sense than others. I have seen the evidence that other people believe that gods exist in some or other fashion without seeing the evidence that they really do exist, if that makes sense. Especially where that god is taken to be a person, who has thoughts and feelings and goes about creating things and wants things from me.
I've read many of your posts here, and I have a great deal of time for Advaita Vedanta. I've spent considerably more time listening to those who practice that religious path than any other (save perhaps the brand of Catholicism I was raised with). I'm pretty much convinced at this point that well practiced meditators are experiencing something profound - maybe even something I would call God myself if I were to experience it. But I haven't and maybe I can't.
Good thread.
There are things that we can't provide evidence for in the typical use of the word. I would volunteer many of the actions of human beings and some other animals as the obvious product of love but to a person who cannot experience love it would mean nothing. Just a collection of weird behaviours perhaps.
If we take a look at human history we see care for others as a central feature of what makes us what we are. There is a good deal of material from the deep historical record detailing the survival of individuals who would not have survived without the intervention of other people, at the cost of those intervening. There are health care and elderly care and child care systems right here and now where people are given the resources they need to develop or return to health or to live with dignity...at the expense of strangers. I would suggest that the "force" that explains this is human compassion - love. This doesn't rise to the level of evidence we might expect from test tubes or petri dishes or hadron colliders, but it still seems to me to be evidence in the sense that it explains phenomena we might want explaining.
A reasonable person who could not experience love might still see value in the explanation. We might say to them that we feel a compulsion and a connectedness that draws us to give oursleves to others. And the word we use to capture that is love.
So, to the point. I'm a curious atheist. I don't believe in any of the gods I've heard described though some make more sense than others. I have seen the evidence that other people believe that gods exist in some or other fashion without seeing the evidence that they really do exist, if that makes sense. Especially where that god is taken to be a person, who has thoughts and feelings and goes about creating things and wants things from me.
I've read many of your posts here, and I have a great deal of time for Advaita Vedanta. I've spent considerably more time listening to those who practice that religious path than any other (save perhaps the brand of Catholicism I was raised with). I'm pretty much convinced at this point that well practiced meditators are experiencing something profound - maybe even something I would call God myself if I were to experience it. But I haven't and maybe I can't.