Proof of the existence of God

[Yazata]

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.

I would respect you a lot more if you weren't so juvenile, always trying to push emotional buttons.

James made a dubious claim, and I asked him to support it. Isn't that how things work in a discussion?

Participation in a discussion requires that one understand and engage intellectually with the issues under discussion. You haven't shown any ability to do that. All you've done so far is try to derail the discussion, apparently hoping to start a flame war.

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.

Then post some intelligent critique. Nobody is stopping you. Stop trying to anger everyone, then playing victim because none of us think much of your intelligence or your emotional maturity.

If you want people to be impressed, post something impressive.

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.

I don't think that you would survive in a university environment, Tali.

You can't just fly apart emotionally whenever somebody disagrees with you. You need to be able to follow the thread of discussion and understand what the issues are. You need to keep your remarks relevant to those issues. And most emphatically, you can't devote all of your efforts to emotional provocations, in hopes of derailing discussion by reducing it to nothing more than an exchange of insults.

You fail on all of those counts.

The only way to do better, is by doing better. You really need to improve your game.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

I'll assume that you know that these actions can be done, and are being done without ''love''.
That aside, can you explain where the love lies in these actions?

Or another way of putting it. What is the objective difference between these actions done out of love, or not love?

jan.

 

[Bells]

I'll assume that you know that these actions can be done, and are being done without ''love''.
That aside, can you explain where the love lies in these actions?

Or another way of putting it. What is the objective difference between these actions done out of love, or not love?

jan.

You don't know the difference?

Or you can't tell the difference?

Opening the door for a loved one and opening the door for a stranger out of politeness. Can you understand why one can be done out of love and one can be done without love? Do you understand the human emotion that would drive both and how one can be love and the other not out of love?

 

[tali89]

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

I'm simply stating a fact. Ever since I kicked James to the curb by exposing his inability to back up his conjecture, the beehive of atheists here has swarmed to defend their queen.

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

Who is 'Jeebus'? Oh, are you referring to Jesus as 'Jeebus' in order to childishly ridicule literally hundreds of millions of people who follow Christianity. I'd be offended if I were Christian and held you in any esteem whatsoever. Luckily you've shown yourself incapable of comprehending basic English or reading the posts of your idols in their totality, so I'm taking what you say with a grain of salt.

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

I politely asked James to support a statement he made. And here you are trying to pick a fight with me (yet again) after he flubs his answer. What's with this compulsive need of atheists to close ranks whenever one of their own is spanked in a debate? For a supposedly non-religious group, you sure behave a manner reminiscent of a cult.

Which would make your God a mere emotion

Nope. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists criticizing theists for believing in something that they feel is ill-defined and lacking in empirical evidence, when said atheists believe in 'love', which they can't concisely define and provide empirical evidence of.

His words sounded angry on the screen?

He sounds butthurt because he was called on a claim he couldn't support. That's usually how atheists react when they are shown to be just as religious in their beliefs as even the most devout theist. Then after they have been verbally spanked in an argument, they scuttle off to a moderators' forum to try and get that person banned. Sound familiar, Bells?

Is this you not pitching a hissy fit or getting angry?

My words sound angry on the screen? Hint: That's an ironic echo. Look it up. While you're at it, look back at James' post where he claimed both myself and Jan sounded 'angry', despite both of us simply attempting to hold a dialogue in good faith. I know, I know, it's common for you to hold your opponents to higher standards than your allies, but can you demonstrate some integrity just this once. Please?

Anyway, that's another atheist soundly trounced. Currently the score is Theists: 2 vs Atheists: 0.

Next!

 

[Sarkus]

I'm simply stating a fact. Ever since I kicked James to the curb by exposing his inability to back up his conjecture, the beehive of atheists here has swarmed to defend their queen.
...
What's with this compulsive need of atheists to close ranks whenever one of their own is spanked in a debate?

You do have a rather biased view of things: I see no kicking to any curb, no "spanking", and I do see James backing up his statement. It may not have been how you liked, but your criticism of his responses appear (as previously argued) to be fallacious.

Nope. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists criticizing theists for believing in something that they feel is ill-defined and lacking in empirical evidence, when said atheists believe in 'love', which they can't concisely define and provide empirical evidence of.

So are you saying the 'God' is an emotion? Something only felt by, and caused by, an individual?
Or are you trying the logical fallacy of claiming that because there is one thing that is purported to exist that you consider "ill-defined and lacking in empirical evidence" that to lay claim to the existence of another thing "ill-defined and lacking in empirical evidence" means that it must be accepted as existing?

He sounds butthurt because he was called on a claim he couldn't support.

You mean other than when he supported it??

That's usually how atheists react when they are shown to be just as religious in their beliefs as even the most devout theist.

Please name one such belief that atheists have?

Then after they have been verbally spanked in an argument, they scuttle off to a moderators' forum to try and get that person banned. Sound familiar, Bells?

Again you see "spanking" when there has been none.

Anyway, that's another atheist soundly trounced. Currently the score is Theists: 2 vs Atheists: 0.

Trounced? You think someone is trounced when you merely reply with claims of "spanking" and "kicking to the curb" and of atheists closing ranks?
Maybe with such parameters to go by we should all just lace our replies with equally choice phrases and claim some victory.

 

[Bells]

I'm simply stating a fact. Ever since I kicked James to the curb by exposing his inability to back up his conjecture, the beehive of atheists here has swarmed to defend their queen.

Wow..

Don't you feel embarrassed when you write these things?

James listed examples of what can render emotions and the feeling of love. Just because you are incapable of understanding such feelings or emotions does not mean he is wrong.

Who is 'Jeebus'? Oh, are you referring to Jesus as 'Jeebus' in order to childishly ridicule literally hundreds of millions of people who follow Christianity.

It is actually from The Simpsons. But I understand how someone highbrow like yourself could never lower yourself to the lowly forms of entertainment like The Simpsons. This is evidenced by your coming into internet forums and giving every cliche one could imagine a high school jock giving from a football themed movie from the 80's.

I'd be offended if I were Christian and held you in any esteem whatsoever. Luckily you've shown yourself incapable of comprehending basic English or reading the posts of your idols in their totality, so I'm taking what you say with a grain of salt.

Awww.. Is that meant to be a dig? Is this you kicking my "ass" to the curb? Yeah, you go girl.

I politely asked James to support a statement he made.

Tali89, the only things you have been posting since you joined this site has been rude and offensive and your sole role here has been to abuse and insult the moderators. You have rarely ventured out of this mindset. As a result, you come off looking like an uneducated hack like Sarah Palin clutching her big gulp in her hot little hands. To suggest you have been polite is to suggest that Clint Eastwood was not talking to an empty chair on that stage. We all know the chair was empty. Just as we all know you probably do not even know or understand the meaning of polite. Ergo, no, you were not polite. You were just being true to form.

And here you are trying to pick a fight with me (yet again) after he flubs his answer.

Firstly, he didn't flub any answer. Just because you do not understand human emotions, does not mean he flubbed his answer.

Secondly.. Good heavens. Are you incapable of having a discussion without resorting to ridiculous violent imagery? "Fight", "kicking ass to curb", "spanked"..

For a supposedly non-religious group, you sure behave a manner reminiscent of a cult.

By responding to unreasonable beliefs with reason?

THE HORROR!

Nope. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists criticizing theists for believing in something that they feel is ill-defined and lacking in empirical evidence, when said atheists believe in 'love', which they can't concisely define and provide empirical evidence of.

He did provide evidence of it. This has been explained to you, even with simple small words. Love is an emotion that manifests itself through words and actions, which he clearly gave examples of. No such claims can ever be made about God.

Unless you wish to claim that God is an emotion that is incapable of manifesting itself at all?

Knock yourself out. I don't think you are doing Jan or other theists any favours, but hey, it's your call.

He sounds butthurt because he was called on a claim he couldn't support.

How does one sound butthurt? Can you please demonstrate?

Because at no time did he not support his claim, nor did he fail to answer your question.

That's usually how atheists react when they are shown to be just as religious in their beliefs as even the most devout theist.

What beliefs do atheists have? Can you please provide a "concise list"?

Or is it because atheists react by providing examples and explaining them? Is that what the problem is?

Then after they have been verbally spanked in an argument, they scuttle off to a moderators' forum to try and get that person banned. Sound familiar, Bells?

Ah Tali89. Usually we have a bit of a laugh. Other times, we discuss reports about an individual.

We often get reports about other members, yourself included and we action those reports as per this site's rules. And after your.. ermm.. display in this thread, it isn't a matter of trying to get you banned, but frankly, trying to discuss why you should not be banned. That discussion has not taken place about you or this thread as yet. But it will. The reports are starting to come in, so it is just a matter of time. Of course, when this happens, the individual will blame everyone else instead of looking at how they are responding and behaving. Thus, it becomes a conspiracy, of them vs us, of how the moderators try and get a person banned. Tali89, if I wanted you banned, I'd simply ban you if I saw that you had breached this site's rules to the point that an instant ban was necessary or if you had acquired enough infractions that would see you banned.

It is interesting that you have failed to address the very good points from Yazata and Sarkus, for example, not just about how you are conducting yourself in this thread, but because of the claims you have made in this thread. Then again, your object in this thread is not to discuss the topic of proving the existence of God, is it? It is to try to go on an ego trip by trying to insult the staff and this is evidenced by the very terms you use and how you respond.

My words sound angry on the screen?

Not only do you seem upset, but also over emotional and incapable of understanding what those emotions are.

Hint: That's an ironic echo. Look it up. While you're at it, look back at James' post where he claimed both myself and Jan sounded 'angry', despite both of us simply attempting to hold a dialogue in good faith.

But you do seem angry and upset. Hence your constant use of words like "spanked", "kicking ass to curb", etc. Why do people use words like that in an emotional response if they are not upset or angry?

I know, I know, it's common for you to hold your opponents to higher standards than your allies, but can you demonstrate some integrity just this once. Please?

See, you don't get to get away with that, especially when you follow it with:

Anyway, that's another atheist soundly trounced. Currently the score is Theists: 2 vs Atheists: 0.

Next!

I don't think you even know what integrity means.

 

[tali89]

So now that Bells has failed to provide a concise list of actions that prove the existence of love, instead laughably claiming that "Anything and everything" demonstrates love, it's on to the next atheist in this beehive. Are there any atheists here who are actually going to back up James R's claim for him, or am I just going to assume that all of the atheists who have participated in the thread have forfeited, or disagree with James?

Also, please note that I'm not going to address more than one participant at a time. While I'm sure the half-dozen of you would like me to be addressing all of your 'arguments' simultaneously, I'm not going to play the game of getting ganged up on and worn down via attrition. You don't like this? Then don't engage in discussion with me. Also, I'm not going to address any remarks that are irrelevant. For example, how I define love is a red herring, since I'm simply asking James (or any of his acolytes) to provide me with a concise list of actions that define love (as per James R's assertion). Finally, once I've proven you wrong, I'm not going to discuss the issue with you any further. Don't keep trying to rattle my chain, since you'll just look like a sore loser. It would reflect on you far better if you just slink off with your tail between your legs.

 

[wellwisher]

Love is the most spatially integrated of all the emotions. Love can connect even unrelated people and things that do not seem to have any obvious connection. If one was full of love, their perception of the world and all its creatures become connected in some abstract way, that may only be felt with intuition. The young lovers in spring, feel a unity with all of nature. This perception is based on biochemistry and how these chemicals impact memory; filter of the mind.

The opposite of love is not hate, but fear. Fear is differential instead of integral and isolates one into uniqueness. This is necessary for survival, where the animal needs to detach from everything to escape. Later it sort things out; reattach. This is also biochemical and also creates a filter of the mind where nothing appears to be connected; randomness.

When memory is created, the limbic system in the core regions of the brain, adds an emotional tag to memory when it writes the memory to the cerebral matter. Our memory is binary and has both feeling and data content. This is natural and allows an animal's sensory systems to trigger previous memory; food or threat, and react via the induced/attached feeling. He may eat or flee in an instant.

Because our memory is a binary or data and feeling, we can induce the attached feeling via the related thought; the sight of spring brings the feeling of joy, or we can induce a thought via a feeling. If I feel hungry, food items might appear in my mind. To trigger the spatially integration POV of love, one only has to remember a memory of love; binary, to trigger the feeling of love. The idea is to fixate until one can fill the brain with love chemicals. As this chemical fills the cerebral spinal fluid, the world becomes integrated to this feeling, so even unrelated things start to unite. Love is why Christians sense an ordered universe. Love spatially integrates the universe from alpha to omega.

The idea of love your enemy ,is connected to loving the enemies of your mind; personal memories with fear and hate tones, in an attempt to change the feeling tag; rewrite. When these memories or feelings appear, they won't as easily shift the chemical balance to hate or fear, so one's POV begins to isolate to justify the fear and hate.

With enough practice and habit, the fires of love appear as an internal chemical stream that stays on. This fountain of love chemical is even useful for being creative, since unrelated data begins to assemble via the integration of love.

.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You don't know the difference?

Or you can't tell the difference?

Opening the door for a loved one and opening the door for a stranger out of politeness. Can you understand why one can be done out of love and one can be done without love? Do you understand the human emotion that would drive both and how one can be love and the other not out of love?

I asked you.

What is the difference?

jan.

 

[Bells]

I asked you.

What is the difference?

jan.

And I gave you the answer.

So now that Bells has failed to provide a concise list of actions that prove the existence of love, instead laughably claiming that "Anything and everything" demonstrates love, it's on to the next atheist in this beehive.

You still don't understand?

There is no "concise list".

Are there any atheists here who are actually going to back up James R's claim for him, or am I just going to assume that all of the atheists who have participated in the thread have forfeited, or disagree with James?

His claims do not need to be backed up.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can understand that. Which is probably why only you and Jan are asking for a list.

Also, please note that I'm not going to address more than one participant at a time.

Well heaven forbid you spread yourself too thinly. We wouldn't want you to strain that great intellect of yours.

While I'm sure the half-dozen of you would like me to be addressing all of your 'arguments' simultaneously, I'm not going to play the game of getting ganged up on and worn down via attrition.

Come on, Tali89. You strike me as a balls to the walls type of fellow. Your language and your manner and lack thereof certainly point that way.

You don't like this? Then don't engage in discussion with me.

It's not a matter of liking you. It's a matter of you coming across like a twat.

Also, I'm not going to address any remarks that are irrelevant.

In other words, you are unable to address anything that remotely challenges your ridiculous claims. For example:

For example, how I define love is a red herring, since I'm simply asking James (or any of his acolytes) to provide me with a concise list of actions that define love (as per James R's assertion).

It is a matter of putting up or shutting up. If you can't take your own questions or argument being applied to you, perhaps you should simply, to use your method of debate "shut yo mouth".

I don't think you are even capable of understanding human emotions. The fact that you asked for a "concise list" about what constitutes love clearly shows that and the fact that you have such difficulty in understanding how and why the examples James gave could constitute displays of love clearly shows that. He answered your question. Just because you are incapable of understanding the answer is not his or anyone else's fault. I think the fact that you refuse to answer any such questions and fob them off as being red herrings is telling. I mean, who are you to demand anything from anyone? The question was answered. It is not our problem if you're not mature enough to get the answer.

Finally, once I've proven you wrong, I'm not going to discuss the issue with you any further.

It isn't a matter of proving you wrong. You were never right to begin with.

It is more about trying to understand how you are you and the thought processes that bring about such pathetic displays were have been unfortunate enough to be privy to. Even people brought up by wolves understand emotions like love and those feelings. The fact that you are incapable of addressing the very crux of what this thread is about, based off your own questions is ridiculous. And to have you prance around declaring how you are apparently beating people up or whipping their "ass" and the rest of the childish forms of argument while ignoring efforts of everyone to get this thread back on track shows just how immature you actually are.

Don't keep trying to rattle my chain, since you'll just look like a sore loser. It would reflect on you far better if you just slink off with your tail between your legs.

Once again, why are you incapable of explaining why you are trying to point out that the existence of God is like an emotion, like the existence of love is emotion based? This was your very argument, remember? It might behoove you to understand what you are getting into, before getting involved in a discussion.

I could ask you for a concise list of why God exists. But I don't think you are mature enough to understand that either.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

Participation in a discussion requires that one understand and engage intellectually with the issues under discussion. You haven't shown any ability to do that. All you've done so far is try to derail the discussion, apparently hoping to start a flame war.

I think that is a strong accusation considering his/her first response to James R...

Love emerges from what people do

Can you provide us with a concise list of things people 'do' that demonstrate love?

People love their children, but the love didn't emerge from them having sex and getting pregnant.
So why do people love their children, and why is it obvious to us, that people love their children? They can protect and care for them purely out of duty, meaning love is not a necessary component.

jan.

 

[Bells]

People love their children, but the love didn't emerge from them having sex and getting pregnant.
So why do people love their children, and why is it obvious to us, that people love their children? They can protect and care for them purely out of duty, meaning love is not a necessary component.

jan.

It is a matter of a strong emotion. That feeling of being connected to someone, in a variety of ways. And those emotions are driven by our hormones. Which is not unusual or unexpected. Hormones like Oxytocin are involved in many aspects of how we express or feel those emotions, like love and bonding to our children.

 

[Yazata]

Nope. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists criticizing theists for believing in something that they feel is ill-defined and lacking in empirical evidence, when said atheists believe in 'love', which they can't concisely define and provide empirical evidence of.

If God was just supposed to be a feeling that some people have, a subjective emotional state that they might try to express through their behavior, the love-God analogy might have merit. But theists typically want to make much stronger claims about the objective existence of their deities.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

It is a matter of a strong emotion. That feeling of being connected to someone, in a variety of ways. And those emotions are driven by our hormones. Which is not unusual or unexpected. Hormones like Oxytocin are involved in many aspects of how we express or feel those emotions, like love and bonding to our children.

Strong emotion? What is that?

When you say ''that feeling of being connected to someone'' do you mean something like ESP, or a sixth sense?

Are you saying that chemicals like Oxytocin, or combination of such chemicals are ''love''?

Can you be a little more specific?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If God was just supposed to be a feeling that some people have, a subjective emotional state that they might try to express through their behavior, the love-God analogy might have merit. But theists typically want to make much stronger claims about the objective existence of their deities.

The '' Taj Mahal'' was built because of love.
In that sense, the feeling has manifested itself in the material world.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

And I gave you the answer.

No you didn't....

Opening the door for a loved one and opening the door for a stranger out of politeness. Can you understand why one can be done out of love and one can be done without love?

No I don't understand how you differentiate between actions done with love, and actions done without love. How do you conclude that love is the motive?

Do you understand the human emotion that would drive both and how one can be love and the other not out of love?

I understand that the only thing stopping this from being gobbeldy-gook, the words are put in an order that appears to make sense. Soz!

jan.

 

[Bells]

Bells,



Strong emotion? What is that?

Emotions that are strong. What part of that is hard for you to understand?

When you say ''that feeling of being connected to someone'' do you mean something like ESP, or a sixth sense?

No Jan. Not like ESP or sixth sense.

Are you saying that chemicals like Oxytocin, or combination of such chemicals are ''love''?

You didn't read the link, did you? Might help if you did.

Can you be a little more specific?

jan.

I was very specific.

No you didn't....

Yes I did.

Not my problem if you cannot understand what emotions are.

No I don't understand how you differentiate between actions done with love, and actions done without love. How do you conclude that love is the motive?

That must make life very tricky for you.

And very tricky for the strangers you may deal with in your day to day life.

I understand that the only thing stopping this from being gobbeldy-gook, the words are put in an order that appears to make sense. Soz!

*Shrugs*

They make sense to me and to others who understand what emotions are. What, exactly, don't you understand about human emotions like love?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Emotions that are strong. What part of that is hard for you to understand?


No Jan. Not like ESP or sixth sense.


You didn't read the link, did you? Might help if you did.


I was very specific.


Yes I did.

Not my problem if you cannot understand what emotions are.


That must make life very tricky for you.

And very tricky for the strangers you may deal with in your day to day life.


*Shrugs*

They make sense to me and to others who understand what emotions are. What, exactly, don't you understand about human emotions like love?

What does my understanding of human emotions have to do with you answering the question?

The reality is, you cannot answer it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doubled.

 

[Sarkus]

The '' Taj Mahal'' was built because of love.
In that sense, the feeling has manifested itself in the material world.

No, the feeling has not "manifested itself".
Humans have made the feeling manifest in the building... only in as much as it might be obvious (to some at least) that it was the source of inspiration for the construction, and might also evoke the same emotion in those observing the structure.

But where in this is any objective existence of that emotion?