Lets stop debating on God. Does Love exist ?

[Audie]

Hi atheist !
Lets stop debating on God.

Now the question is:
Does love exist ? what do you say ?

Western style romantic love, no.

No more than your "god'.

 

[Audie]

I think of it as describing things like behaviors and the like, but not a thing in itself because love has multiple meanings and covers a fair amount of variation on how the concept is portrayed.

We dont talk "love".
It's in what you do.

 

[ChristineM]

But we do know that life exists here, and that the probability of it doing so has been calculated to be somewhere in the region of 10^10^123.

In statistical terms this is effectively a miracle, since in probability theory any outcome with odds less than 1 in 10^70 is considered an impossibility.


https://wyynd.tripod.com/rp.pdf

Penrose has been shown to be wrong on several occasions and freely admits he has been wrong on his big bounce idea

As it stands at the moment it is impossible to know if other life exists elsewhere in our universe.

Kepler is learning new stuff every day and has found indicators that life may exist on other planets, take exoplanet K2-18b for example.

 

[Heyo]

Doesn't omnipresent mean present in all places at all times?

Does gravity exist in intergalactic space?

Yes, for all practical purposes it does. In the intergalactic space between the Milky Way and Andromeda you are in a gravitational well of either one or, at very rare points, of both equally but still in a well respective to the cluster. And even the Laniakea super cluster is gravitationally bound to the Great Attractor.
There are hypothetical points of net zero gravity if Dark Energy has the effect of negative gravitation (which we don't know yet). Then you could be at a rare point in a giant void between superclusters where gravity is zero.
But even then it would be false to say that gravity doesn't exist. If you have 10 bucks in your pocket and you owe me 10 bucks, you have effectively zero money. Does that make money non existent? Remember, 0 ≠ {}.

 

[Eddi]

If I had the choice of making God exist or love exist in a universe where neither existed I would choose love everytime

Yes, a God could make love exist if you choose him to exist. But what if the God you got wasn't very nice?

Also, I would rather the existence of love not be dependent on any other thing, such as a God

However, all that aside I believe in both God and love but if either of these had to stop existing I would choose God to stop existing, everytime!

 

[Heyo]

Hi atheist !
Lets stop debating on God.

Now the question is:
Does love exist ? what do you say ?

I answered that question in my OP 5 Planes of Existence which I keep on citing and people keep on not reading.

Not a thing

The English language allows us to substantivise verbs and adjectives. That creates artificial, only grammatical "things" that aren't. That's why I reject the idea to include a plane for emotions. Love is not a thing, it is something we do.

This is why you will fail to compare any mythical beings to love, it's a category error.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Penrose has been shown to be wrong on several occasions and freely admits he has been wrong on his big bounce idea

As it stands at the moment it is impossible to know if other life exists elsewhere in our universe.

Kepler is learning new stuff every day and has found indicators that life may exist on other planets, take exoplanet K2-18b for example.

Penrose is a Nobel laureate so I’ll at least give his ideas consideration. Besides which, he’s not the only physicist to attempt to calculate the probability of a bio-friendly universe emerging from it’s initial state; the figure arrived at is always astronomical.

The discovery of life elsewhere in the universe, would not make it’s emergence any less miraculous, since what’s at issue here is the improbability, amounting to complete statistical insignificance, of the universe itself evolving in a manner that allowed it support life.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, for all practical purposes it does. In the intergalactic space between the Milky Way and Andromeda you are in a gravitational well of either one or, at very rare points, of both equally but still in a well respective to the cluster. And even the Laniakea super cluster is gravitationally bound to the Great Attractor.
There are hypothetical points of net zero gravity if Dark Energy has the effect of negative gravitation (which we don't know yet). Then you could be at a rare point in a giant void between superclusters where gravity is zero.
But even then it would be false to say that gravity doesn't exist. If you have 10 bucks in your pocket and you owe me 10 bucks, you have effectively zero money. Does that make money non existent? Remember, 0 ≠ {}.

Money only exists if a conscious observer is present to acknowledge it’s existence. Who is to say that’s not also true of gravity?

 

[ChristineM]

Penrose is a Nobel laureate so I’ll at least give his ideas consideration. Besides which, he’s not the only physicist to attempt to calculate the probability of a bio-friendly universe emerging from it’s initial state; the figure arrived at is always astronomical.

The discovery of life elsewhere in the universe, would not make it’s emergence any less miraculous, since what’s at issue here is the improbability, amounting to complete statistical insignificance, of the universe itself evolving in a manner that allowed it support life.

Being a nobel laureate does not mean he can't be wrong

André Linde has proposed a multiverse of 10^10^16 iniverses that we would consider as universes. Life could possibly exist in any of them

I don't think life is miraculous but a sequence of events using common materials. It is no coincidence that life is made of the most basic elements this universe has produced.

 

[chinu]

If only there was some powerful being, some "god" somewhere that could fix all this and bring us all to true enlightenment. That would really be something...if only.

There’s nothing to fix. Everything is already fixed.

God = Love
God isn’t a being.

For the sake of your question, here I would like to compare God/Love with Fire.

Fire loves to burn all the time, not to stop.

 

[chinu]

If I had the choice of making God exist or love exist in a universe where neither existed I would choose love everytime

Yes, a God could make love exist if you choose him to exist. But what if the God you got wasn't very nice?

Also, I would rather the existence of love not be dependent on any other thing, such as a God

However, all that aside I believe in both God and love but if either of these had to stop existing I would choose God to stop existing, everytime!

Isn’t formless, shapeless, colourless God = Love ?

 

[Heyo]

Money only exists if a conscious observer is present to acknowledge it’s existence. Who is to say that’s not also true of gravity?

Are you serious or is that only a creative/funny comment?

 

[chinu]

No more than your "god'.

How ?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Okay you said: I love my children, i love my husband, i love my parents, to a lesser degree i love my relatives and friends. So yes, i experience love all the time, both giving and receiving.

And I have a follow-up question for you:
Q: Isn't love omnipresent ?

No, it is not. Love is an emotion that is experienced by many creatures. It evolved to encourage certain behaviours beneficial to survival, and thus to propagate the species. It is, in that sense, the same sort of thing as fear, hate, worry, anger, amusement, disgust and so on.

 

[Audie]

How ?

How your god dorsnt exist? Same way
that batboy and batnan dont.

 

[osgart]

Love is the product of character traits and understanding. Emotions are products of character traits. Character traits exist and I see no reason to believe that character traits are chemical. Emotions change, and they come and go.

I see that love exists, it can exist rather if a person has the character of it.

People experience emotions that are either good, bad, or somewhere in the middle. They easily and often gauge things on their emotions. I gauge things on understandings that I have.

Love can often take on negative emotions, as well as positive emotions. Love can take on adversity. It's not fickle.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are you serious or is that only a creative/funny comment?

It’s an idea to which I’ve given serious consideration, since self evidently, objective external reality cannot be shown to exist independently of a conscious observer. Because to show, prove, or speculate about the existence of any phenomena, necessarily requires the action of a conscious agent.

We may fervently believe that the moon exists independently of our observation of it, but since all of our experience of reality takes place within the realm of consciousness, we can’t possibly know the world as it would be if we weren’t there observing it.

It’s not just me who has entertained these ideas though, and they are certainly not original; see also, Renee Descartes, Immanuel Kant, John Berkeley, Nils Bohr, John Wheeler, Christopher Fuchs, lots of people.

What I’m offering for consideration might sound like solipsism or anti-realism, but those are extreme positions. Whereas, the idea that all distinctions are arbitrary, and that the object, the observer, and the act of observation are inseparable, is not extreme at all, it’s logically coherent. We may think of it as a paradox, one which at some point becomes unavoidable, in philosophy, in cosmology, in quantum mechanics.

 

[Heyo]

What I’m offering for consideration might sound like solipsism or anti-realism,

... because it is anti-realism at least if not pure solipsism.
Anti-realism if you deny reality and solipsism if you deny the validity of all perception.
Anyway you leave the realm of science. You have to disregard either the first or the third axiom of science.

 

[bobhikes]

Hi atheist !
Lets stop debating on God.

Now the question is:
Does love exist ? what do you say ?

What is your definition for Love?

 

[dybmh]

Isn’t formless, shapeless, colourless God = Love ?

Love is a motivating force, but, it cannot create nor do anything independently. It is powerless in isolation. That is how to know for certain that God is not love. God creates in isolation. God is independent. Love cannot create in isolation. Love is not idependent. God possesses love, but God is not love.

Equating God with love is like equating the driver with the car. From the ouside, from beyond the car, the driver is occulded and obscured, and without the driver the car doesn't do anything. It would be silly to imagine a car driving itself. ( Pre AI, of course ). In the same way, God's love is observable. God's love cannot do anything without God. But unlike the car, God is not occluded and obscured, God is completely hidden. Because of this, it makes sense to make the mistake and think that God is love, even though that is just one of the infinite capabilites and qualities of God, but that is woefully incomplete. Perhaps all that individual can see or imagine is love, and cannot perceive God beyond the actions of "loving". That is a limitation on the individual.

The other problem with equating God with love, is, if an individual is suffering, and struggling through no fault of their own, this naturally produces doubt and/or a crisis of faith. So, the equivilance is not only incomplete, it's also potentially harmful.