Your username is not fitting for you at all. Lol I like what you are posting here, really beautiful.
-
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!
Theistic Evolution?
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
Your username is not fitting for you at all. Lol I like what you are posting here, really beautiful.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Looking at this irrelevant post, obviously your answer to leibowde84's question is, "No, I can't support my claim that love is divine." Nice to see such straightforward admission of inability. Kind of rare around here.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Oh, but it does. If there was empirical evidence for God, that evidence would, by necessity, not be "supernatural", but, instead, "natural". So, in other words, science doesn't exclude God, it excludes anything that isn't supported by verifiable evidence. If God wants to provide verifiable evidence, then Science would consider God.
Again, if there was empirical evidence for God, science would be fine considering it. Can't blame science for the absence of evidence for God.
If there is no empirical/verifiable evidence for anything, science cannot consider it as plausible. It isn't due to animosity toward God, it is animosity towards accepting anything without verifiable evidence that doesn't rely merely on subjective experience. Obviously, subjective experience is flawed and unreliable. That's the purpose for the scientific method. It attempt to get beyond our biases and limitations as subjective organisms.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
This definition that you provided proves my point. There is no reason to necessarily associate "divine" or "love" with God. There are many things that aren't God that create "love", "beauty", etc. So, again (for the 3rd time I think), can you support your claim that the existence of love supports the existence of God?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
For the 4th time, can you support your claim that showing the existence of love shows the existence of God necessarily. Of course, without relying on scripture.
Looking at this irrelevant post, obviously your answer to leibowde84's question is, "No, I can't support my claim that love is divine." Nice to see such straightforward admission of inability. Kind of rare around here.
the post was taken from a common usage dictionary. you're disagreeing with commonly agreed upon definition of a word and putting words into another person's post?
says more about you than anyone else. rorschach test
i'm not speaking of a deity separate from self.
psychology and metapsychology are not hard sciences.
as i told another poster. it's a rorschach test.
Is that supposed to be a yes?
Skwim
Veteran Member
So what? You still failed to support your claim that love is divine.
An ad hom so soon? C'mon Fool, you're degrading yourself with such a retort. Of course, if that's all you have then so be it.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Then, define God in a way that doesn't equate God with things that exist with or without him. We know love exists, yet we don't know God exists. Thus, you can't use the existence of love to support your claim that God exists. Light exists, we know that. We, again, don't know that God exists, thus you cannot use the existence of light to support your claim that God exists. You have to differentiate God. Can you do that? What makes God different than love and light?
no, you simply refused to accept the definition given. that love is delightful and necessary in healthy psychological growth.So what? You still failed to support your claim that love is divine.
i yam what i yam
ehyeh asher ehyeh
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...onships-are-good-for-our-health-10129754.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=97679
you posted your interpretation of my post. love is not a respecter of persons, sex, space, time, culture, race, ethnicity, species, et al.
Last edited:
empirical evidence is open to interpretation. it is always redefined based upon further evidence.
like energy travels at a constant speed. this is untrue. light energy travels at a constant. dark energy doesn't travel at the same constant as light energy.
most holy books are not written for the uninitiated anymore than scientific papers are written for primary science classes. they have to be re-interpreted for lay people.
the language changes but the idea remains overall the same.
love is not exclusive to humans; so yes i can claim that love transcends humans and is divine. being loving is being loving like, or god like.
love is uplifting and this is why jesus said,
John 3:14
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
son of man is a jewish concept regarding humanity.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13913-son-of-man
love is not a respecter of person; if it were then it would promote injustice, inequality, and disparity.
people create differences out of their own mind and believe them to be true.
as the definition is given, yes. as further explained from the source of all being
http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=god
I hope you will understand why I find this semantic bait-and-switch to be less than compelling.
understanding the definition of a word in all its aspects is bait and switching?
LOL
Is that really what you think you're doing?
what i think is that the written and spoken languages of today are not the same written and spoken languages of 5000 yrs gone by, nor will it be 5000 yrs from now. metempsychosis is in the bible but reincarnation was not coined until the 1860s.
one should attempt to understand in context of the culture, time, and space of what is being expressed and not that it is expressed literally, or by one word vs another..
once an idea is understood the words are no longer necessary.
again language is not precise, even by today's standards.
I see no attempt at understanding in your posts. More just vague statements that try to open up enough uncertainty to push your agenda in.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You failed to address my questions. I'll give you another shot. You have to differentiate God (from light and love) as something that exists independently. Can you do that? What makes God different than love and light and/or the combination of both? If you can't do this, the concept of God, according to your logic, is superfluous. There is no reason for God, as we already have terms for love and light.