Evidence for the Existence of Love

[Trailblazer]

Though their concept of god may vary, "god" is still seen as something external to themselves that exists objectively. And that's what "skeptics" say doesn't exist.

Based upon what? Why do you think that if God exists God could be located and seen objectively?
That my friend is the hundred-dollar question.

 

[Alien826]

Based upon what? Why do you think that if God exists God could be located and seen objectively?
That my friend is the hundred-dollar question.

I was describing what people believe, not whether it could be justified. It was in response to a claim ... eh, look it it up, I have to go to dinner.

 

[Windwalker]

Consider what you're saying, then. If, as you seem to have agreed, love demonstrates itself by the behaviours that it prompts in us, how often have you seem that expressed as, "because I love you, I will have to burn you at the stake, or excommunicate you from the congregation because your beliefs aren't orthodox," or cause you to shout from the pulpit and denounce to death those who happen to be different, like gays and lesbians?

How often have you seen those who claim love kill others out of jealous rages? I don't see what your point is here. Just because they use the word love, does that mean they are acting consistently with what the word represents? God, by its very construction is "Good".

How do any of the behaviors you are describing fit with the meaning of Good, or God? They don't. They are not examples of demonstrating God in the least, anymore than the stalking boyfriend is demonstrating love. Do you say love is not actually love because of abusive boyfriends? Do you say God is not real because of pedophile priests?

Apparently, if you want to put it as you have, God then does that.

Then according to you by this same logic, love acts in fits of murder.

 

[Windwalker]

The problem is that most people that say they believe in god don't see the object of that belief as existing only in their minds.

Most people see that love is something that exists outside themselves as well. If you doubt that, just look at how most people seek to find happiness outside of themselves. They believe if they find the right person, they will find love. They are looking for love to come into their lives through others.

Externalizing, love, or happiness, or God for that matter, are not matters of belief. They are matters of maturity. Most people, which you cite, don't understand that love is something that they realize within themselves first, and then it flows out to others. But still they seek for it in others. Same thing with believers in God. They seek to find God "out there", just like they seek to find love "out there". But mature believers, or mature adults in matters of love, realize that the reality of these things are found within them. Relatively "few there are that find that", however.

Now, that is not at all the same thing as dismissively saying it exists only in they minds. When you realize God, or love within yourself, you see it everywhere in the world. But you can't really see it, until you realize it in within yourself. Then you see it is not just "in your mind", but in the very fabric of existence everywhere. It is both within, and without.

An 'easy' way to understand that is to realize that the universe is not "out there" in the sky, or outside your window. You are the universe too. But it's not just "in you" only. You are in it, and it is in you. You are it, and it is you. It it both without, and within.

Though their concept of god may vary, "god" is still seen as something external to themselves that exists objectively. And that's what "skeptics" say doesn't exist. I doubt anyone denies the existence of a god that is simply an idea in someone's mind.

The "skeptic" is just as short sighted as they are. It's the same thing, just in reverse.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How often have you seen those who claim love kill others out of jealous rages? I don't see what your point is here. Just because they use the word love, does that mean they are acting consistently with what the word represents? God, by its very construction is "Good".

How do any of the behaviors you are describing fit with the meaning of Good, or God? They don't. They are not examples of demonstrating God in the least, anymore than the stalking boyfriend is demonstrating love. Do you say love is not actually love because of abusive boyfriends? Do you say God is not real because of pedophile priests?

Then according to you by this same logic, love acts in fits of murder.

Then we have resolved the issue. You were trying to make the case that "if love exists and can be demonstrated through actions, then so can God." What we have now established is that both (love and God) are only what the mind defines them to be, and they are thus mere fabrications (the reasons behind their fabrication in the mind are not important for this discussion). Those who claim love and use it to justify killing have simply mistaken love for desire for control, or possession. That is NOT "love," and therefore defeats your attempt to define it that way. Likewise for God -- you may suppose that "God" acts in the world through believers, but if the believer supposes that "God" is expecting them to kill their atheist neighbours, is that really God?

I have maintained all along that "love" is not a "thing in the world," but an emotion, and emotions are our biochemical means of communicating biological needs to action driver (our brain) that can lead us to try to satisfy those needs. But they can backfire -- biology (nature) is not perfect, it is not goal-directed, it simply is. So, the parents of the Michigan highschool killer Ethan Crumbley (Jennifer and James Crumbley) were charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter after prosecutors argued they provided their son with a gun and ignored warning signs about his behavior before the killings. They provided him with what they believed he needed, no doubt out of feelings of "love." But what did "love" wreak upon the world as a consequence?

So, no, "love" is not a thing that operates on its own -- it is an extension biochemical actors who express it. Often it works for good, often enough not. In this sense, your version of "God" is not a thing operating in the world, either -- merely an extension of the biochemical actor who believes in (some version of) God, and expresses it in the world. Take away that actor, and the God it expresses goes with it.

 

[Windwalker]

Then we have resolved the issue.

Not the way you describe it as resolved we haven't.

You were trying to make the case that "if love exists and can be demonstrated through actions, then so can God." What we have now established is that both (love and God) are only what the mind defines them to be, and they are thus mere fabrications

No, we haven't established that these are "only what the mind defines them to be" and that they are "mere fabrications". They are hardly fabrications. They are words which have actual referents in lived human reality that extend beyond just the individual. They are pointers to actual shared experiences, and ways or modes of living which have the effect of promoting life and wellbeing. When we don't act in ways that are in accord with these, then things move out of balance.

They are words, but words we use to put a face upon some principle or way of living and energy of life which promotes or acts in accord with balance, health, harmony, and happiness. To call that a "mere fabrication", is shortsighted to say the least.

(the reasons behind their fabrication in the mind are not important for this discussion).

If you mean words themselves are fictions, I wouldn't disagree with that. But if they are good words, then they have actual referents. Both love, and I'll argue God, are words with actual referents. It's just that those referents are not material objects. But they can been made visible however through material objects, I'll add.

Those who claim love and use it to justify killing have simply mistaken love for desire for control, or possession. That is NOT "love," and therefore defeats your attempt to define it that way. Likewise for God -- you may suppose that "God" acts in the world through believers, but if the believer supposes that "God" is expecting them to kill their atheist neighbours, is that really God?

Correct. That is not really love, and it is not really God. So when we reject God, what are we really rejecting? Are we rejecting the valid referent, or the misuse of the word as an alibi for the destructive actions of the human ego? I believe modern atheism, the anti-theist version of that, is nothing other than a rejection of bad behaviors hiding behind the name God.

People could reject "love" too, in the same way for the same reasons. But is that a reasonable application of logic, or just a misplaced target? If we were to get rid of the idea of God, does that somehow release the human ego from its tendencies towards inflicting misery on itself and others? No, it simply finds a new name to hide itself behind, which it already does, such as "The reason I hit you is because I love you".

I have maintained all along that "love" is not a "thing in the world," but an emotion, and emotions are our biochemical means of communicating biological needs to action driver (our brain) that can lead us to try to satisfy those needs.

I find this philosophical interpretation of these things to be woefully inadequate. It's basically like cutting of our nose to spite our faces.

They provided him with what they believed he needed, no doubt out of feelings of "love." But what did "love" wreak upon the world as a consequence?

I would argue that enabling others is not act act of love at all. Love gets trapped in a web of other relational dysfunctions and gets lost and confused and unable to act. It becomes distorted because of illness. Co-dependencies for instance are not healthy expressions of love. They are a sickness.

So, no, "love" is not a thing that operates on its own -- it is an extension biochemical actors who express it.

Of course it doesn't operate on its own. It has to have some medium through which it creates and takes form. Think of it not as a "thing", but as a principle or "way" that brings health and wellbeing and happiness and life when life is in balance.

Think of it as "health". Health is not a thing "out there" that you go to the store and pick up off the shelf in a can. But it does exists everywhere in the word as a "way", whether you are healthy or not. And then when you are back in balance, then that "health" which exists in the world becomes known in you, and its fruits become to be manifest and made known. Health now becomes a tangible, visible, factual reality through us.

I hope this helps the mind to see these things as not just "mere fabrications", but as actual, abstraction of real, genuine realities. Try envisioning things like love, health, and God as atmospheres in which we "live and move and have our being", and then you can see they have actual, legitimate referents in reality, beyond just mere fabrications of the mind.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not the way you describe it as resolved we haven't.

No, we haven't established that these are "only what the mind defines them to be" and that they are "mere fabrications". They are hardly fabrications. They are words which have actual referents in lived human reality that extend beyond just the individual. They are pointers to actual shared experiences, and ways or modes of living which have the effect of promoting life and wellbeing. When we don't act in ways that are in accord with these, then things move out of balance.

They are words, but words we use to put a face upon some principle or way of living and energy of life which promotes or acts in accord with balance, health, harmony, and happiness. To call that a "mere fabrication", is shortsighted to say the least.

If you mean words themselves are fictions, I wouldn't disagree with that. But if they are good words, then they have actual referents. Both love, and I'll argue God, are words with actual referents. It's just that those referents are not material objects. But they can been made visible however through material objects, I'll add.

Correct. That is not really love, and it is not really God. So when we reject God, what are we really rejecting? Are we rejecting the valid referent, or the misuse of the word as an alibi for the destructive actions of the human ego? I believe modern atheism, the anti-theist version of that, is nothing other than a rejection of bad behaviors hiding behind the name God.

People could reject "love" too, in the same way for the same reasons. But is that a reasonable application of logic, or just a misplaced target? If we were to get rid of the idea of God, does that somehow release the human ego from its tendencies towards inflicting misery on itself and others? No, it simply finds a new name to hide itself behind, which it already does, such as "The reason I hit you is because I love you".

I find this philosophical interpretation of these things to be woefully inadequate. It's basically like cutting of our nose to spite our faces.

I would argue that enabling others is not act act of love at all. Love gets trapped in a web of other relational dysfunctions and gets lost and confused and unable to act. It becomes distorted because of illness. Co-dependencies for instance are not healthy expressions of love. They are a sickness.

Of course it doesn't operate on its own. It has to have some medium through which it creates and takes form. Think of it not as a "thing", but as a principle or "way" that brings health and wellbeing and happiness and life when life is in balance.

Think of it as "health". Health is not a thing "out there" that you go to the store and pick up off the shelf in a can. But it does exists everywhere in the word as a "way", whether you are healthy or not. And then when you are back in balance, then that "health" which exists in the world becomes known in you, and its fruits become to be manifest and made known. Health now becomes a tangible, visible, factual reality through us.

I hope this helps the mind to see these things as not just "mere fabrications", but as actual, abstraction of real, genuine realities. Try envisioning things like love, health, and God as atmospheres in which we "live and move and have our being", and then you can see they have actual, legitimate referents in reality, beyond just mere fabrications of the mind.

The problem with all that is very simple: there are lots of notions of God out there, and as many ideas of what "the medium through which it creates and takes form" wants of people as there are God-believers. You cannot say "health" includes terminal cancer or chronic cirrhosis of the liver or congestive heart failure. You cannot say "love" includes hatred or mistrust of others. And yet, God can certainly include both welcoming and shunning -- based only on what others believe. You cannot say "love" involves adjusting the beloved to fit your personal preferences, yet "God" can certainly include proselytizing in the attempt to make others accept your version as their own.

You see, the problem is and remains -- and will continue to remain -- the lack of a coherent definition of "God." You haven't got one. The Pope hasn't got one. The Rabbi and Imam don't have any, either. That is the reason these arguments go on interminably -- because one side simply refuses to actually and fully explain what the heck it is talking about.l

 

[Windwalker]

The problem with all that is very simple: there are lots of notions of God out there, and as many ideas of what "the medium through which it creates and takes form" wants of people as there are God-believers.

The same can be said of the meaning of "love". Isn't it really up to us to find what that is as the ideal and live that in our lives, and thus help better define what that means, or is supposed to mean?

You cannot say "health" includes terminal cancer or chronic cirrhosis of the liver or congestive heart failure. You cannot say "love" includes hatred or mistrust of others. And yet, God can certainly include both welcoming and shunning -- based only on what others believe. You cannot say "love" involves adjusting the beloved to fit your personal preferences, yet "God" can certainly include proselytizing in the attempt to make others accept your version as their own.

All this is true. I would no more accept God means you get to force your views on others, as you would accept love means you get to do that either. Yet you don't disbelieve in love because of the misuse of it to hide egoistic manipulation of control of others behind, but rather try to elevate the meaning of it and live up to what it is supposed to mean as a word, don't you?

You see, the problem is and remains -- and will continue to remain -- the lack of a coherent definition of "God."

Is there a coherent definition of love? Isn't it something that as word, evokes a positive thing that we both wish for ourselves and others to aspire towards for the benefits it brings? Seek good, rather than evil? Isn't is up to use to define what that means, by how we live it in our lives?

How is any of that different than reclaiming the word God away from those who claim God, and yet do not in the least reflect the meaning of that word? There's nothing wrong with the word God. But there is plenty wrong with the abuse of it, just like the boyfriend who smacks his lover around and says its because he loves them.

You haven't got one.

Certainly I do, as do others mostly so. God means Ultimate Good. God is Love. God is Life itself. God is all that we as humans aspire to that is the highest form of the fulfilled life. It represents transcending all that creates suffering and misery and embraces compassion and unity instead. It's a good word.

The Pope hasn't got one. The Rabbi and Imam don't have any, either. That is the reason these arguments go on interminably -- because one side simply refuses to actually and fully explain what the heck it is talking about.l

I make it simple. If it bears good fruit in our lives and in the world for others, then it is valid. If it doesn't, it's not. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their doctrinal beliefs. Any view of God that brings love into the world, is good. Any view that does not, is to be rejected. I define love by what is good. I define God the same way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God means Ultimate Good. God is Love. God is Life itself. God is all that we as humans aspire to that is the highest form of the fulfilled life. It represents transcending all that creates suffering and misery and embraces compassion and unity instead. It's a good word.

I can't ascertain what that even means. "God is Love," so therefore God is not an entity, not a person, only a feeling. "God is Life itself," so again, not an entity, merely a biochemical process? And, really, isn't "the highest form of the fulfilled life" an entirely individual thing?

All those nostrums sound good, but they really don't seem to convey any real meaning at all. Exactly like that banal phrase earlier in the thread, "Love means never having to say you're sorry." Really? That's it?

I'll stay with my definition: love is an emotion, and emotions are the means through which our biological needs are brought to our attention so as to be acted upon. When the doctor taps just below your knee and your foot kicks, that's a reflex -- you don't need any emotion for that reaction to happen, therefore the entire event is registered in your brain only after it is all complete. Love is not a reflex, nor are hunger, thirst, fear, anger, lust -- they all require the mind to spur our physical selves to action. And unlike the reflex (you can't prevent that), you can squash the emotion and refuse to respond.

 

[Alien826]

Most people see that love is something that exists outside themselves as well. If you doubt that, just look at how most people seek to find happiness outside of themselves. They believe if they find the right person, they will find love. They are looking for love to come into their lives through others.

Are you saying that "most people' see love as something that exists as a separate entity from a person that feels love? In other words, that it should be possible to say something like "here's a chunk of love sitting on my desk"? That's how people typically see god, that is that god exists as a separate entity from themselves. When people look for love from others they mean that they want to be loved by others, that is they want others to feel love for them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

True. But that does not mean God does not also exist outside of the mind.

There is absolutely nothing at all to even suggest a possibility.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is absolutely nothing at all to even suggest a possibility.

Nothing that you can see.

 

[We Never Know]

Nothing that you can see.

I once heard if you can see love, you can see god, because both exist in the mind.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nothing that you can see.

Oh it can be seen definitely.

It's well established there is nothing going on except people and their imaginations and fantasy making all this stuff up.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh it can be seen definitely.

It's well established there is nothing going on except people and their imaginations and fantasy making all this stuff up.

No, that is not established, because if it was established it would be a fact.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

Nobody has ever proven that God does not exist, nor has anyone ever proven that God exists, so the nonexistence or existence of God is not a fact.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, that is not established, because if it was established it would be a fact.

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

Nobody has ever proven that God does not exist, nor has anyone ever proven that God exists, so the nonexistence or existence of God is not a fact.

Of course it's a fact.

There is absolutely no evidence of the existence of any God.

Can't get more factual than that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course it's a fact.

There is absolutely no evidence of the existence of any God.

Can't get more factual than that.

It is not a fact that God does not exist because it is not known or proved to be true.

There is evidence for the existence of God, you just don't recognize it as evidence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Oh it can be seen definitely.

It's well established there is nothing going on except people and their imaginations and fantasy making all this stuff up.

Show me where.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is not a fact that God does not exist because it is not known or proved to be true.

There is evidence for the existence of God, you just don't recognize it as evidence.

The only evidence is that God only dwells conceptually in people's minds and imagination and is absolutely nowhere else.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Show me where.

God or whatever alternative avatar is desired, is located in people's own imaginations and fantasy where in that realm , it comes alive and talks and walks or whatever one pleses it to do.