Proof of the existence of God

[Yazata]

Jan Ardena seems to have suggested that God is analogous to love, something that is directly given in experience and doesn't require further evidence or justification. Pleasure and pain might be more examples. It wasn't a bad argument to attempt. It's a variant on the familiar argument from religious experience.

Sarkus and others have already made the point that these kind of experiences are subjective. They are basically statements that the subject is making about him/herself. That seems to have been the intent of James' "warm and fuzzy" remark as well.

An argument for the existence of something from direct subjective experience would be fine if the thing whose existence is being argued for is merely a subjective psychological state. But theists typically want to make much stronger claims about their God's existence. They want to insist that God has objective existence that isn't dependent on and constituted by an individual's personal experience. God isn't supposed to be dependent on us, we are supposed to be dependent on God. God is supposed to have the deepest and most ultimate kind of Being.

Once the argument from religious experience pushes off from the affective realm of personal subjective experience into the wider world of objectivity, when theists begin to insist "God doesn't just exist for me, He exists for you too, whether you acknowledge Him or not", all of the cognitive stuff, the evidence and justification concerns, come flowing right back in and once again becomes necessary and relevant.

 

[Kristoffer]

I think Tali89 is Foreigner!

Yes..

I went there.

Thanks a lot, bells. Now I got that damn song stuck in my head.

 

[Bells]

Thanks a lot, bells. Now I got that damn song stuck in my head.

My work here is done.

 

[Yazata]

I demonstrated how the actions you listed do not necessarily demonstrate love, and instead of arguing your point of view, you have instead taken to posturing...

In conclusion, I'll chalk this up as another militant atheist being all flash and no substance. Thanks, I was worried you might actually been a drain on my time, but this was a slam dunk.

Love isn't always onanistic self-fascination. It may indeed be a personal subjective state, but it often has an object other than the the lover him/herself. Typically that's another person.

We try to project our love towards those we love, hoping to arouse a corresponding feeling in them towards us. We tell people we love them. We hug them. We are solicitous of their welfare. We are concerned with their feelings. We practice little acts of kindness intended to make them happy.

Obviously all of this might exist without the one doing it feeling any emotional attachment for the object of his/her attentions. People obsess all the time about whether they are really loved.

But what does any of this have to do with the existence of God?

How does pointing out that expressions of love can sometimes be false constitute a "slam dunk" victory against atheism? What do you think your remarks contribute to the subject of this thread?

 

[tali89]

It seems like I poked the hornets' nest when I kicked a self-proclaimed cardinal of the atheist religion to the curb. Five atheists have crawled out of the woodwork (one of whom I have caught in a number of lies in the past), all to prop up James and ridicule me. Sorry folks, it's over. James R made a specious claim that he couldn't support, and I exposed his supposition for what it was. Instead of engaging in the same old tired rhetoric I've come to expect from militant atheists and left-wingers, why not actually try to finish what James R started? That is, provide a concise list of actions which demonstrate love.

Oh, by the way:

You're clearly out of your depth here. You're also ill mannered and unpleasant to converse with.

You sound angry, James. Why so mad, bro?

Hint: That's an ironic echo, in case you're wondering.

 

[James R]

Providing a comprehensive list of things that demonstrate love is like providing a comprehensive list of things that demonstrate hunger, or happiness, or tiredness, or the colour blue. It's a silly request on its face.

My point that love emerges from what people do, rather than being 'out there' waiting to be found has not been touched, let alone ' kicked to the curb'.

Tali89: it may be best if you stop attempting to analyse emotions. this is just one more thing you're not good at.

 

[Daecon]

You sound angry, James. Why so mad, bro?

Having to deal with nutjobs like you on a science forum would test anyone's patience.

 

[Bells]

It seems like I poked the hornets' nest when I kicked a self-proclaimed cardinal of the atheist religion to the curb. Five atheists have crawled out of the woodwork (one of whom I have caught in a number of lies in the past), all to prop up James and ridicule me.

I think it is astounding that you feel anyone needs to be propped up when debating you.

Sorry folks, it's over. James R made a specious claim that he couldn't support, and I exposed his supposition for what it was.

Well, what you did establish and expose is your inability to understand human emotion and how that pertains to something like love. Which is sad.

Instead of engaging in the same old tired rhetoric I've come to expect from militant atheists and left-wingers, why not actually try to finish what James R started? That is, provide a concise list of actions which demonstrate love.

You need a list? Why? You don't know what love is?

Anything and everything can be a demonstration of love.

And that is what you seem incapable of understanding. A parent's devotion can demonstrate love, just as it can demonstrate the legal duty that parent has to that child. An arm wrapped around someone's shoulder can demonstrate love, just as it can demonstrate friendship without love. Opening the car door for someone can be a demonstration of love, just as it can not be a demonstration of love when done for someone else.

Do you understand how and why this is the case? For example, a parent can cook something they know their children love to eat and it is a demonstration of love, but it can also be a duty to feed their child. It depends on the emotions of those involved and the connection one has towards the other.

Unless of course you feel that atheists are incapable of feeling or understanding love? So you feel that as a theist, you need to analyse it to explain how it is not love? Or do you not know what love is and you want to be shown what it is? Do you feel what love is? Or do you want to be shown? (Sorry Kristoffer, too hard to resist)..

Oh, by the way:


You sound angry, James. Why so mad, bro?

Why are you so keen for people to be angry?

Hint: That's an ironic echo, in case you're wondering.

I don't think you actually know what that even means.

 

[Kristoffer]

It's ok, bells. Found a nice little cartoon on YouTube called Bravest Warriors that contains the song in question, which'll help me get over it lol.

 

[Sarkus]

It seems like I poked the hornets' nest when I kicked a self-proclaimed cardinal of the atheist religion to the curb.

JamesR has made no such proclamation regarding his lack of belief, whether you erroneously call it a religion or not.

Five atheists have crawled out of the woodwork (one of whom I have caught in a number of lies in the past), all to prop up James and ridicule me.

Certainly a number of us were on this thread long before your attempt at a "hit and run"... but think of that as "crawling out of the woodwork" if it helps you sleep better.

Sorry folks, it's over.

Bye, then.

James R made a specious claim that he couldn't support,...

He supported it.

...and I exposed his supposition for what it was.

No, you merely exposed your own character in this regard.

Instead of engaging in the same old tired rhetoric I've come to expect from militant atheists and left-wingers, why not actually try to finish what James R started? That is, provide a concise list of actions which demonstrate love.

Where does James say that there is such a "concise" list? He has provided ample example of actions which can demonstrate love, which you rejected for no apparent reason other than they may also be actions that demonstrate other emotions or motives.
But you haven't shown how they are necessarily not actions that demonstrate of love, which is what you requested of him.

If you want to change your strawman to "actions that can only demonstrate love" then change it and see who bites.
But as it is, he has answered your request, and you have rejected it because of your fallacious reasoning.

Do you have anything else to offer?

 

[tali89]

I think it is astounding that you feel anyone needs to be propped up when debating you.

I don't see why you find that astounding, considering you are often rushing to James' defense whenever he is caught with his pants down.

You need a list? Why? You don't know what love is?

James made a dubious claim, and I asked him to support it. Isn't that how things work in a discussion? Certain participants in this thread have seen fit to rake Jan over the coals, so I find it rather hypocritical that they think their own claims should be immune from critique.

Anything and everything can be a demonstration of love.

Similar to how some theists claim that anything and everything can be a demonstration of God's existence? Thank you, you just proved Jan's point. Perhaps you atheists should all get in a huddle and get your story straight *before* you go on a rant and contradict each other.

Why are you so keen for people to be angry?

I'm not. I'm pointing out that James R sounds angry, just as he did to both Jan and myself. The only difference is that while James is pitching a hissy fit, I wasn't angry at James. If anything, he's a class comedy act. It's almost as though he got his education at a clown college, rather than a university.

In conclusion, all I have to say is: I came, I saw, God conquered.

Fin.

 

[Sarkus]

Similar to how some theists claim that anything and everything can be a demonstration of God's existence? Thank you, you just proved Jan's point. Perhaps you atheists should all get in a huddle and get your story straight *before* you go on a rant and contradict each other.

No, Jan's point isn't proved unless Jan is claiming God is merely an emotion, with the individual subject as the origin and with no external or independent existence?
Is that what you think God is? Merely an emotion?

Secondly, while the examples JamesR listed can be examples of love, they are - as you yourself have indicated - not always.
This is vastly different to the claim, such as Jan's, that anything and everything is evidence of God's existence: this latter claim is an absolute - contrast and compare: "if the action is performed then it is a demonstration of love", with "if the action is performed then it could be a demonstration of love".

The issue then is how one shows that the action is a demonstration of what it is claimed to be. That is a different matter and relies upon the definition of the concept.

So please: define love for the purposes of this discussion?

 

[James R]

Please don't invite tali89 into the conversation, Sarkus. He was only here to try to score some ego points, and he has already promised that he will leave the thread twice.

Off you toddle, then, tali89.

 

[wellwisher]

For the sake of argument, say there is no God. A question I often pondered was, why did the concept of God appear, in the first place, as civilization begins to form? This is when written records appear. Whether you believe God is real or not, the concept of God played a key role in modern human history, throughout the earth, being the motivator of grand things; from the sublime to the atrocious.

One may deny the existence of God, but it is hard to deny the impact of the concept of God on human history. Why did this concept evolve and is God a natural part of the human mind, connected to human evolution? Religion offered natural selection to the great civilizations. In that respect it was connected to selective advantage and human evolution. For example, in Egypt, the pharaoh was a god with a connection to the Gods. This united his people like an instinctive herd. Before civilization only small family groups were united by instinct. Now tens of thousands were united by common gods. In modern times, billions of humans are united by common Gods.

Religion impacts people, almost like an instinctive imperative. I would guess this evolved as a counterpoint to will power and free choice. Will power and choice allows humans to choose unnatural instincts' pleasure principle. For example, one can choose to overeat to the point of becoming unhealthy. Animals do not do this, unless humans are involved to alter their natural instincts; pets. God became an extension of natural instinct, offering a counter point of view to the hazards of free will and choice. Natural instinct is part of the DNA and is very conservative even with choice and free will.

 

[Bells]

I don't see why you find that astounding, considering you are often rushing to James' defense whenever he is caught with his pants down.

You seem to have this need to have others gathering forces against you.

Got your smiting pants on today as you wield your cross to face off with the evil atheists as you praise Jeebus?

James made a dubious claim, and I asked him to support it.

What dubious claim?

Isn't that how things work in a discussion?

Usually yes. But once again, what dubious claim did he make?

And you aren't taking part in this discussion. You are simply trying to flame it.

Certain participants in this thread have seen fit to rake Jan over the coals, so I find it rather hypocritical that they think their own claims should be immune from critique.

Ah, I see now. You were rushing to Jan's defense.

Similar to how some theists claim that anything and everything can be a demonstration of God's existence?

Which would make your God a mere emotion, with no existence except for how one feels. Do you pray to your emotions often?

Thank you, you just proved Jan's point.

Jan had a point?

That would be a first. Jokes aside, Jan is much better at this discussion than you appear to be. Jan is able to keep up and actually discuss this like an adult. You aren't helping him/her.

Perhaps you atheists should all get in a huddle and get your story straight *before* you go on a rant and contradict each other.

Hmm.. Jan is arguing that God exists and is real and like many theists, holds the belief that God created all. If God is an emotion, like love is an emotion that is interpreted and exhibited differently by each individual and sometimes does not exist at all, how would this be a demonstration of God's existence? You do understand this goes to the crux of the ridiculous claim you are trying to make, yes?

And what about people like you, who do not know what love is and need a "concise list". By your reckoning, you do not believe in God, because you are incapable of understanding the very existence of love or even emotion.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that James R sounds angry, just as he did to both Jan and myself.

His words sounded angry on the screen?

I see you have an emotional need for James to be angry. I suppose even negative attention is still attention, eh Tali89?

The only difference is that while James is pitching a hissy fit, I wasn't angry at James.

Sadly, the bizarre display you are putting on in this thread says differently.

If anything, he's a class comedy act. It's almost as though he got his education at a clown college, rather than a university.

Is this you not pitching a hissy fit or getting angry? Good grief man! What's going to be next? Are you going to lob a spitball at him? Make a "Yo mamma so fat" comments?

You should perhaps try to join the discussion instead of trying to flame it with childish insults. It might help people take you seriously.

In conclusion, all I have to say is: I came, I saw, God conquered.

Ah the jokes that could be made here.

Do you think God conquered because you came? Do you feel the power of God in your veins, Tali89? Are you praising Jesus in his name?

I take it you missed the class about Jesus and humility?

 

[Photizo]

Ah the jokes that could be made here.

 

[Photizo]

So please: define love for the purposes of this discussion?

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish waysbehind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully*, even as I am fully known (sounds close to omniscience).
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

*A promise for all those who thirst after knowledge.

 

[Yazata]

Sorry folks, it's over. James R made a specious claim that he couldn't support, and I exposed his supposition for what it was. Instead of engaging in the same old tired rhetoric I've come to expect from militant atheists and left-wingers, why not actually try to finish what James R started? That is, provide a concise list of actions which demonstrate love.

Go back and read my posts #541 and #544. Then try to craft an intelligent and thoughtful reply.

The questions that I put to you still stand:

What does this trollish little ego-game that you are trying to play have to do with proving the existence of God?

How does pointing out that expressions of love can sometimes be false constitute a "slam dunk" victory against atheism?

What do you think that your remarks contribute to the subject of this thread?

You need to put less effort into juvenile attempts to anger people, and more effort into actually thinking about the issues that are being discussed.

 

[Trooper]

The difference here is that atheists aren't making any historical or supernatural claims. We’re simply making statements about the nature of experience and the possibilities.

It's certainly not a license to be a condescending asshole, though.

"Some people are so defensive about their 'atheism' that they treat it like it is religious. It becomes a religious mantra. We often see it here on this site. Perhaps it is reactionary, but often, it is just overly defensive posturing."

 

[Sarkus]

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish waysbehind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully*, even as I am fully known (sounds close to omniscience).
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

*A promise for all those who thirst after knowledge.

So you're not actually going to define love? You have said plenty about what it is not, about what one might be without it, but are you going to define it?
A brick does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, rude, self-seeking, easily angered and keeps no record of wrongs.
So are we looking for something like a brick?
The YMCA protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres (or so their motto claims), so is the YMCA your definition of love?
The rest is just... well... not saying too much at all about a definition of love.