Women are proof of the existence of God

[dfnj]

Since you're argument is essentially something is beautiful therefore god exists, I can argue on the same logical ground and reasoning: since imperfections were created in nature and in humans then either god is not perfect, did it on purpose when he could have done otherwise or does not exist.
However, this argument still rests on presuppositions, no evidence and biased reasoning. For instance, in this line of reasoning, I see no issue saying aliens created beauty or anything I'd like to assume but I know why you chose your god. You are emotionally invested to choose your god or a god as the prime suspect.

This is a very poor line of reasoning.

I do not think the experience of a woman's beauty is "poor". On the contrary, it is one of the very best experiences. My experience of woman may be different than yours which is why my argument does not carry the same weight with you as it does for me.

But I see your point. For you all experiences are equal with no one experience being more valued than any other. I think our experiences of God's creation give evidence of God's blessings in our lives. I choose to use the word God to represent those experiences. So for me, these experiences are proof of God's existence.

Since my subjective experience is my own, I did not mean to imply this was an objective proof for the existence of God that you are trying to make it out to be. I think I was pretty clear in my original post my argument was from a purely subjective mindset.

 

[ChristineM]

People only insult you because let them. Stop letting me because I was not trying to.

Should I be insulted by your implication I am lacking something. Just like you, your insults do not work. I would say objectivity and subjectivity are equal. I was wondering if you were putting one above the other which does seem to be the case. I think you need both in equal proportions. Otherwise, how would know what is important. And how would you know what is silly superstition.

I'm curious though, why are you so anti-God? Did you parents abuse you with Sunday school or something?

Then stop making judgements about other people that you know squat about.

The difference is, i stated 'i consider' and was being general, you were being personal (consider rule 1)

Objectivity (reality), beats subjectivity (opinion) every time.

More implied insults, no it was christians who abused and mocked a 14 year old child for her disability, there do you feel better now?

Edit, thats not anti god but rather showing christians for what they are, judgemental and petty. As for anti god, in exactly the same way as as anti harry potter. I.e. nothing to be anti about

 

[dfnj]

Marry one and live with her for 50 years, then come back and tell us that women are proof of God's existence.

An ant is also proof of Gods existence.

Even more so!

 

[dfnj]

Then stop making judgements about other people that you know squat about.

The difference is, i stated 'i consider' and was being general, you were being personal (consider rule 1)

Objectivity (reality), beats subjectivity (opinion) every time.

More implied insults, no it was christians who abused and mocked a 14 year old child for her disability, there do you feel better now?

Edit, thats not anti god but rather showing christians for what they are, judgemental and petty. As for anti god, in exactly the same way as as anti harry potter. I.e. nothing to be anti about

Harry Potter is great!

Sorry to hear you are so judgmental about other people's imperfections. People mocking and abusing a 14 year old child with regards to her disability is not exactly an expression of the greatness that is God. I'm sorry the girl was mocked and abused. I'm not happy with it. I don't know why you would think I would be happy with someone abusing a 14 year old about anything.

You seem to hate God or the idea of God is the only judgment I was making. Even so, I'm sure you are still a good person worthy of my respect.

I disagree with you opinion about subjectivity. I think subjectivity is important. I do not think we can ever escape the role of subjectivity with regards to appreciation of our experiences.

 

[Niblo]

It is hard to disagree..

Brilliant!

 

[dfnj]

Brilliant!

She's probably somebody's mother.

 

[blü 2]

Women are just so amazingly beautiful. You could say it is just simply animal lust feelings created by our genes. But I do not think so. There is absolutely nothing more beautiful and sacred than a woman with her newborn. It is a most powerful experience. I think women are a direct conduit to God.

The feelings we associate or attach to our experiences are based on subjective judgments. The realm of spirit exists in our mind-space. The source of all the meaning in our lives comes from the Universe of ideas floating around in our mind-space. Our subjective experiences determines the reality we experience.

Our subjective experiences may be driven by forces and patterns in our unconscious mind but a lot of it can be brought to the forefront through the making of conscious choices. We can choose exactly how we wish or want to interpret the meaning of our experiences. I do not need a science to prove something I just know or choose to believe about the way we associate meaning to our experiences. I just know we have a choice in how we experience our lives.

I choose to experience the curves of a woman's body and the texture of her skin as divine.

What you're saying is proof of the existence of evolution.

The reason why you're here is that every single one of your ancestors, going back 3.5bn years or more, survived long enough to breed, and did.

And your talk suggests evolution has you on that track.

 

[Niblo]

I used to spend time in Holmfirth, i had friends there. We often lunched in the white horse pub of last of the summer wine fame. We would often see the actors including Kathy Staff in there.

Last year we spent a lot of time in Perigueux, one day, walkingin the city waiting for test results a women shouted across to us in a broad yorkshire accent "ere! I know you" it was the landlady, they retired to northern dordogne.

Coincidence happens 99 times out of 100 ;-)

Hi Christine.

My wife and I once got locked in the Holmfirth shopping mart, at the end of the day. The young policewoman who waited outside for two hours (winter time) until the key-owner came to release us was in fits of laughter - as were we. She asked permission to include our tale in a section of the police intranet dedicated to 'you'll never believe this' cases. We agreed, of course! No winter whine from us.

Have a great day, and very best regards.

 

[charlie sc]

I do not think the experience of a woman's beauty is "poor".

This is not what I said or meant.

For you all experiences are equal with no one experience being more valued than any other.

The intensity of the experience or emotion has nothing to do with what I said. For all you know, I value female's beauty more than you.

I think our experiences of God's creation give evidence of God's blessings in our lives. I choose to use the word God to represent those experiences. So for me, these experiences are proof of God's existence.

Sure, for you this is reasonable but for others it's not. We're pointing out the fault in it's reasoning. For instance, how you can apply this line of thought for almost anything. Hence, without considering the same argument for a different entity would be employing double standards.
Nonetheless, if you want to choose, subjectively, beautify proves the existence of god then by all means.

Since my subjective experience is my own, I did not mean to imply this was an objective proof for the existence of God that you are trying to make it out to be. I think I was pretty clear in my original post my argument was from a purely subjective mindset.

Ok, that's fine, but I should point out the only meaningful conversation you can have then is people that agree with you. It would be pointless to argue against subjectivity based on other subjectivity(For obvious reasons) and you're not looking for objective criticism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I choose to experience the curves of a woman's body and the texture of her skin as divine.

This sentence holds the key to the relative "reality" of your entire post. You "choose" to see it as divine. It is subjective, and nowhere near objective. Meaning it is not "real" in any meaningful sense - except to the individual experiencing it. And this can be demonstrated all too easily:

1. Do sea turtles find human women beautiful, do you think?
2. What about very young boys, who yet have far lower levels of gender-specific hormones running through their systems, and flatly and easily call all girls (who aren't their moms) "yucky?"
3. What about gay men? How do they stand in opposition to the "obvious" injection of divinity into women's physiognomy?
4. You, yourself - do you honestly find ALL human women to be beautiful? Your post #10 in this thread, in direct response to post #3 would say otherwise.

Point being - it's okay for some people to like some things, and others not to. Just like I don't like calling things "divine" or attributing things to "god." And its fine that I don't. Isn't it?

 

[Quintessence]

An excellent argument for polytheism where all the Gods are women.

Speaking as a polytheist, I find this to be a rubbish argument for polytheism. Or theism in general, to be honest.

I'm reminded of how sexism doesn't always come in the form of denigrating one sex as less than. It can also come in the form of putting one sex (and not the others) on a pedestal. That's what the opening post reminded me of, though I doubt this was intended by the OP. It's a major reason why I never liked the "goddess spirituality" movement. When coming from women, I understood it though. Since the rise of Abrahamic religions in Western culture, women have not been allowed to be viewed as divine and reclaiming that was (and still is) important. When this comes from men, though? It's just creepy.

 

[dfnj]

This sentence holds the key to the relative "reality" of your entire post. You "choose" to see it as divine. It is subjective, and nowhere near objective.

I think I was pretty clear in the original post I was NOT being objective. Why are you thinking I was trying to be objective? Or, more importantly, why is being objective the primary consideration of what is "good".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think I was pretty clear in the original post I was NOT being objective. Why are you thinking I was trying to be objective?

Wow. Seriously?

Women are proof of the existence of God

There is absolutely nothing more beautiful and sacred than a woman with her newborn.

And then a lot of statement using the word "subjective", but also equating it with "spiritual" reality. A lot of "our subjective experience has us thinking we only feel this way, but..." It's the "but" that gets you into trouble.

 

[dfnj]

Wow. Seriously?
And then a lot of statement using the word "subjective", but also equating it with "spiritual" reality. A lot of "our subjective experience has us thinking we only feel this way, but..." It's the "but" that gets you into trouble.

I don't understand what you are not getting from what I am saying. I am saying the beauty I experience in women, for me, proves the existence of God purely from the quality of the experience.

 

[dfnj]

What you're saying is proof of the existence of evolution.

The reason why you're here is that every single one of your ancestors, going back 3.5bn years or more, survived long enough to breed, and did.

And your talk suggests evolution has you on that track.

Evolution is God's plan. We are all sons and daughters of the same two parents at some point in history.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't understand what you are not getting from what I am saying. I am saying the beauty I experience in woman, for me, proves the existence of God purely from the quality of the experience.

I see. And you have no expectation that this be compelling proof to anyone else?

 

[Stevicus]

Women are just so amazingly beautiful. You could say it is just simply animal lust feelings created by our genes. But I do not think so. There is absolutely nothing more beautiful and sacred than a woman with her newborn. It is a most powerful experience. I think women are a direct conduit to God.

The feelings we associate or attach to our experiences are based on subjective judgments. The realm of spirit exists in our mind-space. The source of all the meaning in our lives comes from the Universe of ideas floating around in our mind-space. Our subjective experiences determines the reality we experience.

Our subjective experiences may be driven by forces and patterns in our unconscious mind but a lot of it can be brought to the forefront through the making of conscious choices. We can choose exactly how we wish or want to interpret the meaning of our experiences. I do not need a science to prove something I just know or choose to believe about the way we associate meaning to our experiences. I just know we have a choice in how we experience our lives.

I choose to experience the curves of a woman's body and the texture of her skin as divine.

It's interesting to ponder the possibilities, although I don't think it's any actual "proof" of God's existence. One could just as easily surmise that since (some) men consider themselves "God's gift to women," if true, that could also be suggested as proof of God's existence.

I would imagine the same basic argument could be used in any number of situations. There may be those who love beer so much that its very existence could be cited as proof of God's existence.

 

[dfnj]

This sentence holds the key to the relative "reality" of your entire post. You "choose" to see it as divine. It is subjective, and nowhere near objective. Meaning it is not "real" in any meaningful sense - except to the individual experiencing it. And this can be demonstrated all too easily:

1. Do sea turtles find human women beautiful, do you think?
2. What about very young boys, who yet have far lower levels of gender-specific hormones running through their systems, and flatly and easily call all girls (who aren't their moms) "yucky?"
3. What about gay men? How do they stand in opposition to the "obvious" injection of divinity into women's physiognomy?
4. You, yourself - do you honestly find ALL human women to be beautiful? Your post #10 in this thread, in direct response to post #3 would say otherwise.

Point being - it's okay for some people to like some things, and others not to. Just like I don't like calling things "divine" or attributing things to "god." And its fine that I don't. Isn't it?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So proof of God's existence is different for each person.

 

[dfnj]

It's interesting to ponder the possibilities, although I don't think it's any actual "proof" of God's existence. One could just as easily surmise that since (some) men consider themselves "God's gift to women," if true, that could also be suggested as proof of God's existence.

I would imagine the same basic argument could be used in any number of situations. There may be those who love beer so much that its very existence could be cited as proof of God's existence.

I don't know what other situations this type of proof can be used. From my perspective, God is primarily a subjective experience. Why should a proof of God's existence occur outside of the realm of subjective experience. It seems to me subjective experience is the the place this type of proof should be considered.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know what other situations this type of proof can be used. From my perspective, God is primarily a subjective experience. Why should a proof of God's existence occur outside of the realm of subjective experience. It seems to me subjective experience is the the place this type of proof should be considered.

Well, some people might say that they've seen God, talked to God, felt God's presence, etc. For them, their experience is sufficient proof of God's existence, but it's only for them. It's nothing that anyone else can experience or prove/disprove.