Not all; along with those, god can also be shown to exist as word, as symbol, as myth, as sign... which is essentially to say, as idol.
Edit: To show god to exist is to idolize god.
-
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!
Would anyone care to prove that 'love' exists?
- Thread starter Wombat
- Start date
Edit: To show god to exist is to idolize god.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Sure, those things too. God can be shown to exist as any number of things - just not shown to exist.
God can be shown to exist, just not shown to exist. Okay.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Love is attachment.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I seriously hope you're not too dumb to see the difference between what you posted and what I posted. I know you like to play these little word games, but aren't you ever actually interested in actual communication?
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
I like to play word games...Scrabble is good...
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Scrabble is really fun. Then again, I memorized all the two letter words years ago, so I have a leg-up on most people I play.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
The concept represents something in idea form, something real; the emotion, a real-world response to real-world stimuli; the sign is a pointer, pointing figurative fingers at something else; the non-literal metaphor of myth captures hidden images; and the symbol entirely surrenders its identity to the thing it represents --like the words you're reading on the monitor do. Each of these things, in being what it is, is not simply what it is, and sometimes not what it is at all; and something, in being these things, is itself and sometimes something more.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Ooh my favourite subject...
My symbol, the one I identify with above all else, is the Dragon or the Serpent.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
One of 'those' players eh?
Just like my dear Nan...tut.
Yeah, an educated player.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Really...you don't find it somewhat prosaic at all?
Ahem...I play games for fun....
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Really...you don't find it somewhat prosaic at all?
Ahem...I play games for fun....
I don't equate more knowledge with less imagination or more fun. The more tools one has access to, the more imagination opens up.
Primordial Annihilator
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm....I equate fun in Scrabble terms whereby each player tries to use as many interesting and rarely used words as possible...a kind of vocabulary contest...you like my Nan play to win...thats fine if thats what floats your boat...I am not criticising your Scrabble Life Choice.
Wombat
Active Member
Certainly can be...
But attachment can also take the form of Co dependence- two addicts attached to each other in a mutually supportive downwards spiral. It may be at times loving...but I doubt such Co dependence attachment is love.
Then there is Ataraxis, a word/notion coined by an Australian therapist to distinguish between healthy loving attachment to another and the mere (romantic love/sexual conquest) excitement that comes with the possession of or by something/someone new.
Attaraxis is the excitement arising from the smell of a new car (attachment), Ataraxis is Im no longer in a relationship with her, but I couldnt stand her being with someone else (attachment)...
While love may be attachment not all attachment is love
Wombat
Active Member
Hmmmmm.....Not feeling the Scrabble love.
Alfred Butts, the American inventor of Scrabble, was a self confessed poor speller.
His wife once beat him by scoring 234 points, triumphing with the word 'quixotic'.
He never played Scrabble again.:sad4:
If she really loved him she would have let him win...?...
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, the brain scans of the person are real things, not the unicorns.
Because then we'd call them the different emotion. The behavior and consequences are what we're talking about when we talk about love. If it was different behavior and consequences, we'd call it hatred or apathy or anger, etc.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Same might be said for God
Yup, they might, but it wouldn't be the same thing. People claim God is a real thing. When people talk about God, they're not talking about their feelings or emotions; they're talking about an actual being. We know that people feel something they call God, just as we know people feel something they call love. In both cases there is no entity outside of that feeling; it's just that in the case of love, there's not supposed to be, while in God's case there is.
Wombat
Active Member
Oh that's good...because some people seemed to be suggesting that just because the Neuroimaging registers a response to particular stimuli (ie word/notion- 'love', 'God', ect) that the stimuli was thereby identified as a "real thing".
The only "real things" we have on the table thus far are the brain and brain scans..........and neither prove love or God...just that the brain responds when these notions are evoked.
You are assuming that we/all humans would know if our behaviour was motivated by love or self interest or lust or posessiveness or Ataraxis or Co dependance or power/controll.
I've worked in the Welfare Sector long enough to see a lot of bizzare "behavior and consequences" (knowingly and unknowingly) palmed off as "love"...when in fact it was abuse.
So, no, there can be lots of reasons and motivations for "behaviour" and "calling" the reason 'love' does not make it so....nor provide any proof of its existance.
Wombat
Active Member
No...not all theists do so...nor most scriptures...many deny and reject any 'form' 'substance' or 'thingyness' in regard God. Some even reject a pronouncable name in the effort to debar the conception of "thing".
>Some people< may do as you describe and talk " about an actual being" and others would consider that as shallow, inacurate and unrepresentative of God as saying 'love' is just sex.
For some talking about God is explicitly "talking about their feelings or emotions" and for them 'God is love'.
The sticking point appears to be the notions of thing, being, and entity located in space.
Without form or substance God may be a concious 'entity' but problems arise when you attempt to give God a 'geography'-ie "in God's case there is- supposed to be-an outside"
Is the "supposed to be" based on a familiar/common perception?...or drawn from a religious scripture? Because most scripture I am familiar with argues against this "supposed to be".
Likewise 'heaven'
Ask many people where/what 'heaven' is and they will describe a 'place'....problem is scripture indicating "Heaven is within"...and that indicates a condition (perhaps a feeling...perhaps a love)...............not a location.