Evidence for the Existence of Love

[Windwalker]

Only if they claim that is where God resides. Then we'd have to take them at their word. And then move on.

I see it as the same as saying love exists in the mind/heart. But it is also something that exists in other's hearts and minds as well. And there can be a shared experience of love, that is greater than either or all of its participants.

So isn't it fair then to say that when people speak of God, that is what they are pointing to as well? They do say "God is Love", and yet people don't doubt love exists because it is experienced subjectively/intersubjectively and not existing as an entity outside of themselves, like a person named "love".

Love is also a result. An effect caused by one's sense of a bond to another, perhaps their empathy for them. If I were to claim to you I loved you and a minute later demonstrated other wise, a claim of love can be falsified. An act of love can be demonstrated and repeated.

And by that demonstration, we know there is something real behind it. Something tangle, something demonstrable, even those love is a sense, a feeling, an attitude, and not a solid object. Is it then any different to speak of the reality of God that same way?

Can't God be demonstrated through the actions and effects it has in others, the same way we can see love demonstrated? Isn't that evidence of the reality of God, just as love has evidence of its reality?

The person saying God exists in the mind must let others know what that means, if they even know what they mean.

Typically when I've heard people say God only exists in the mind, they are trying to say it's not real. But when you look at love, it seems to be operating the same way, but a skeptic doesn't generally deny the existence of love. What is the difference? Why is one real and the other seen as a make believe non-reality?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I see it as the same as saying love exists in the mind/heart. But it is also something that exists in other's hearts and minds as well. And there can be a shared experience of love, that is greater than either or all of its participants.

So isn't it fair then to say that when people speak of God, that is what they are pointing to as well? They do say "God is Love", and yet people don't doubt love exists because it is experienced subjectively/intersubjectively and not existing as an entity outside of themselves, like a person named "love".

And by that demonstration, we know there is something real behind it. Something tangle, something demonstrable, even those love is a sense, a feeling, an attitude, and not a solid object. Is it then any different to speak of the reality of God that same way?

Can't God be demonstrated through the actions and effects it has in others, the same way we can see love demonstrated? Isn't that evidence of the reality of God, just as love has evidence of its reality?

Typically when I've heard people say God only exists in the mind, they are trying to say it's not real. But when you look at love, it seems to be operating the same way, but a skeptic doesn't generally deny the existence of love. What is the difference? Why is one real and the other seen as a make believe non-reality?

I don't think love exists outside the mind. I think it's a product and process of the mind. I certainly don't think of love as an external force of agency the way many theists do with gods. Working independently of human thought, feeling and expression of those thoughts and feelings. Same as any emotion.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think love exists outside the mind.

But yet it clearly produces many wonderful things in the world outside of the mind, does it not?

I think it's a product and process of the mind.

That depends on what you mean by mind. If by mind you mean the heart in the deeper sense of something before and beyond consciousness thought, then certainly, it does manifest itself through the heart, or takes shape or form through the heart. But would anything be seen or know if it weren't for some process through forms?

I certainly don't think of love as an external force of agency the way many theists do with gods.

Yet, we do envison love that way, and speak of it as a "thing", even if we are aware it isn't some disembodied spirit floating around getting sucked into the fans and thrown out through us?

We do understand it in terms of an "energy" from within us, from others, and exchanged between us, don't we? We don't have a problem with understanding that, do we?

Working independently of human thought, feeling and expression of those thoughts and feelings. Same as any emotion.

Metaphorically speaking, poetically speaking, we may speak of love, or Wisdom in terms of an object, or a person, for the point of communicating abstract ideas of intangible, but real things. We do this all the time in human language, and only the very young or concrete-literalists for whom imagination is a strain, can't understand the use of language like this.

Could it be that it's not an issue that God isn't real, but with their inability or lack of vision to see the subtle and think of it outside of concrete literalism?

 

[Heyo]

We've had several threads that have atheists asking theists for evidence for the existence of God. But that's not what this thread is about.

Do you believe love exists? Why or why not?

Are you able to provide evidence of love? If so, please do so here.

Love does exist and can be scientifically measured. Apart from behaviour which we can observe (though somewhat subjective) there is also oxytocin.
That is a lot more than can be said about gods.

 

[exchemist]

The common element in gravity on is attraction. I find nothing absurd about considering the idea of attraction at very different levels.

I don't find recourse to "common understanding" to be of overwhelming importance and challenging a concept should not be considered "damaging" that concept. If a concept is damaged by a different perspective, it's a very weak concept in the first place.

Love is an emotion, as @Evangelicalhumanist says.

If you start ascribing love to insensate bodies , you are either implying they have emotions (pass the straitjacket, Alice), or you are pretending love is not an emotion but just anything in nature that attracts, which makes its meaning so woolly that it becomes fairly useless as a term.

Furthermore, it creates the wrong idea that the essence of love is attraction. The essence of love, surely, is the urge to take care of someone or something selflessly. Often, e.g in the case of sexual love, but not necessarily, it can be blended with an urge to possess the desired person or thing in some way, which is where the idea of attraction comes in, but nobody would suggest the Earth has an urge to possess an apple, surely?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Love is never having to say sorry.

People don't go to war for love, they don't (usually) attempt to impose their love on all and sundry. Apart from that both love and gods are a product of the human mind. And i understand some other mammals can also experience love, i don't think i can say the same about gods

Never heard of the Trojan wars?

 

[ChristineM]

So, love means doing something that hurt someone else, and never apologizing for hurting them? Okay.

If you don't understand love to then don't pretend you do.

Nor is war religion.

Eh?

Do you believe love only exists in the mind and therefore isn't actually real?

No,i believe it exists in the mind and it is as real as the electrochemical reaction.

Would you know if they were? Do you know forms that might take? Maybe one of those low moos was the cow's way of a praying. How would you know? Do you speak cow?

And maybe it wasn't.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Love is an emotion.

This is an oversimplification. Love can bring forth emotions, but it's not an emotion in and of itself.

 

[ChristineM]

Never heard of the Trojan wars?

Abduction, theft of property.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Love does exist and can be scientifically measured. Apart from behaviour which we can observe (though somewhat subjective) there is also oxytocin.
That is a lot more than can be said about gods.

The exact same thing can be said for experiences of god(s).

 

[SalixIncendium]

Love is an emotion, as @Evangelicalhumanist says.

See post #48. Furthermore, I'm not finding any dictionary definitions that agree with this. I've checked Cambridge, Collins, and M-W.

 

[ChristineM]

The exact same thing can be said for experiences of god(s).

MRI scans can show distinct areas of the brain that "light up" when thinking of god(s) and of love.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Another thought as occurred to me: One who has never experienced love may be as inclined to say love does not exist as one who has never experienced god(s) may be inclined to say god(s) does not exist. Since love is as objectively evident as god(s), one who hasn't experienced one, the other, or both may be inclined to deny their existence.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Another thought as occurred to me: One who has never experienced love may be as inclined to say love does not exist as one who has never experienced god(s) may be inclined to say god(s) does not exist. Since love is objectively evident as god(s), one who hasn't experienced one, the other, or both may be inclined to deny their existence.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

I basically agree, minus the wording about both being objectively evident. (I have to maintain very unsimplictic views regarding the objective as part of my worldview that involves Existentialism)

Another thing I thought of: People may "experience" God, but then fall out of faith with God anyway. And people may "experience" love, but then fall out of faith with love anyway.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I basically agree, minus the wording about both being objectively evident. (I have to maintain very unsimplictic views regarding the objective as part of my worldview that involves Existentialism)

Sorry, unfortunate wording on my part. I omitted the word 'as.' I was making a comparison between the level of being objectively evident between the two, not stating either was actually objectively evident. I fixed it.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Love is never having to say sorry.

How do you mean @ChristineM ?

That your love for your children makes you act perfectly towards them, always?

That they love you unconditionally and therefore never feel that you make mistakes that require forgiving?

That they love you in a manner that means that they forgive your shortcomings towards them a-priori and you therefor feel that you needn’t apologise when you fail them?

I don’t understand what it is that you mean.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Heyo]

The exact same thing can be said for experiences of god(s).

I don't know if it is connected to any hormones but yes, it can be detected by fMRI.

But note that it says only something about the spiritual experience, nothing about gods.

 

[Heyo]

Another thought as occurred to me: One who has never experienced love may be as inclined to say love does not exist as one who has never experienced god(s) may be inclined to say god(s) does not exist. Since love is as objectively evident as god(s), one who hasn't experienced one, the other, or both may be inclined to deny their existence.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

Disagree. As I said above, the experience of love is love, the experience of god is not god - except you define the experience as god. That would explain why gods can only ever be found in the imagination of people and why every god is different from the next. I think most believers would disagree with that definition.
(But then, they would disagree with any other other definition also.)

Is that really what you want to say, that god is an emotion?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Disagree. As I said above, the experience of love is love, the experience of god is not god - except you define the experience as god. That would explain why gods can only ever be found in the imagination of people and why every god is different from the next. I think most believers would disagree with that definition.
(But then, they would disagree with any other other definition also.)

Is that really what you want to say, that god is an emotion?

To use the word "divine" in an abstract sense, I'd personally see love as the divine passion, and God as the divine wisdom.

However, whether there's a physical being known as "God" is another matter, and it actually makes the term "God" a bit more complex than even the term "love", for that reason.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't know if it is connected to any hormones but yes, it can be detected by fMRI.

But note that it says only something about the spiritual experience, nothing about gods.

So if someone says they have an experience of an interaction with Kali, that's nothing about gods? Why not?