Proof of the existence of God

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

What kind of stuff do people do, that makes you describe their actions as ''love''?

I'm not quite sure what you hope to gain by pursuing this line of inquiry. See my response to tali89 above for some straightforward examples.

It's got to the point where I know you are going to continue to dodge this question, rather than concede that ''love'' is more than chemicals. I just want to see how far you're prepared to gol

Ok, but I don't see how this amounts to progress for your cause.

I don't have a cause. It's just fun discussing this stuff.

It's all a bit circular, though, isn't it? How do we know everything comes from God? Because the scriptures say so. How do we know the scriptures come from God? Because everything comes from God. How do we know that everything comes from God? ...

This isn't the ''Does God Exist'' thread. We're talking about the character of God. The most commonly known trait is that God is the original cause, meaning everything is caused by Him.
Do you have a problem with that?

But they would say that, wouldn't they?

Who's ''they''?

I disagree, and you've given me no reason to think that I might be wrong.

I've given you at least a couple of reasons. You just don't accept them.

Probably you didn't mean to say this. See the comments of others, above. Obviously, it's wrong.

I did mean to say it, and it's not wrong.

Why are ancient writings so important in this day and age?

This shows where you really stand on science. Everything from the ancient world is important on so many different levels.

Did the people of the past have greater understanding of and access to God than modern people do?

It is my opinion that they did. Yes.

Yes, of course. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. And you're in no different position to me in that respect.

You realised that you were deluding yourself?
How do you know that you're not deluding yourself now.

You're making assumptions based on scant evidence.

But tell me: what should I have been taught about God and about the nature of God?

You're the one who is giving the information.

Were you taught about the nature of God?

The New Testament talks of God that way to some extent.

Examples please?

Although, if one were to summarise the main point the bible, the best summary would probably be that one must believe in the right God and follow his commands.

Can you explain why you think this?

Sure. If you start from the position of belief in God, then you don't question God's existence. Instead, you take that as a given and allow your confirmation bias to run riot.

You don't have to belief, you merely have to accept.

As for the run riot nonsense, I think you just threw that one in as a distraction.
The reality, once again, is that you don't have to believe in God, to accept his definitions.

Maybe you should put less effort into trying to guess at what I can best relate to, and more into explaining things as you think they should be explained.

Already have done.
I think your denial is affecting your comprehension.

That's the description that is usually given these days, I know. If you read the Old Testament, though, God used to be somebody who could talk directly to human beings and manifest himself. God spent a fair amount of time being carried around with the Ark of the Covenant. And God used to live in the sky - not figuratively, but literally. What has happened is that, as people have become more sophisticated and knowledgable, God has been redefined. Nowadays, for him to be undetectable by science and the like, he has to be invisible and "non-material". Anything else would be accessible to scientific testing and hence falsifiability.

This is you, at work, denying God.

You're right. I don't see any good evidence for anything supernatural, or any need to introduce supernatural elements to account for any material occurrence. If God interacts with the material world, how does he do it? By magic? Is that what I need to accept before I can understand God?

The first requirement is to stop kidding yourself.

You seem to be delaying getting to the important stuff. If you know who and what God is, please tell me. I can benefit from your superior understanding of the scriptures.

I try James R, I try.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

I've just told you.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I've just told you.

No, you've told us about the objective existence that is a result of the subjective emotion.
Care to try again?

 

[James R]

tali89:

Are you still here? You said you were leaving this thread twice, but you're still here. Why?

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?

While you were foaming at the mouth about your personal politics and past grudges, and crowing about what large penis you have and how far you can kick people with it, you completely failed to address the substantive issues put to you. No surprise, really, because that's not why you're in this thread, is it?

If you do ever decide to address the actual issue that you raised, you might want to start by addressing this post:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/proof-of-the-existence-of-god.144082/page-28#post-3291107

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.

It's only a single issue you need to address. If you addressed it, it would be addressed for everybody reading the thread. You act like you want a kind of metaphorical kung fu fight against a number of "opponents", in which you will win a glorious and ego-boosting victory for yourself. But when a number of people come out against you - surprise! - you back off. For somebody who spends such an effort crowing about his ability to kick the atheists to the curb, don't you think this "one thing at a time or little old me will feel overwhelmed" whine is a bit inconsistent? One minute you're the all-conquering hero of your personal narrative, and the next you're the victim being unfairly ganged up upon.

Man up, tali89. You got yourself into this. You could slink away like you said you were going to. If the heat's too much, get out of the kitchen, right? Or, you could show us all your amazing argumentative kung fu.

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

If we all held to that rule, nobody would address you at all.

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).

Read the post I linked above.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

With tali89 getting in the way and trying to spoil the thread, you've missed a few of my posts. Or at least you haven't responded to several of them. I wonder whether you've missed part of what I've said, because I feel like I'm repeating myself. Don't let tali89 distract you.

It's got to the point where I know you are going to continue to dodge this question, rather than concede that ''love'' is more than chemicals. I just want to see how far you're prepared to go.

I have not claimed that love is "just chemicals". What I have said is that love is a feeling of intense devotion. It is a subjective experience that a person has. I have also said that we can perceive love by looking at how people act in respect of one another, and I gave a few examples of how love might be manifested in behaviour. Nobody yet addressed my point that love is not a thing that has any existence independent of human beings. Love isn't "out there" floating around waiting to be found. Love is an emergent phenomenon manifest in the emotions of human beings and evidenced by how people act.

Now, tali thought that he was the bees knees because he pointed at that a particular action by a human being might be motivated by love or by something else. Before he even posted that "rebuttal" I had already anticipated the argument and dealt with it. What people mean when they talk about demonstrations of love is the collection of actions that are motivated by the intense feeling of devotion that we call love. The same action, if not motivated by an intense feeling of devotion towards the other, is not an act of love.

You say the Taj Mahal was "built because of love". Indeed. Its construction was motivated by an intense feeling of devotion that one person had in respect of another. You say that therefore love "has manifested itself in the world". But the Taj Mahal is just a building. Unless one knows the purpose of the building there's no sense in which it communicates love. When people see the Taj Mahal and know the story, then they might relate to the love. They have made a personal connection to the story. But there's no love inherent in the building itself.

As Yazata has pointed out, if you want to argue that God is like love, then you're essentially arguing that God is a set of feelings and emotions and subjective experiences that people have. But, also as Yazata point out, theists typically want to claim not just this kind of emergent, subjective existence for God, but an objective existence. It's like claiming that God has manifested himself in St Peter's Basilica, because that cathedral was built by people for the worship of God. Once again, if one came to that building without knowledge of what a cathedral is for, then it would just be a building. God is in human intention and feeling and imagination. God isn't something that is "out there" in the world.

This isn't the ''Does God Exist'' thread. We're talking about the character of God. The most commonly known trait is that God is the original cause, meaning everything is caused by Him.
Do you have a problem with that?

I have no problem with your defining God as the "original cause". But if that is all that God is, then I don't see how God is any different from the universe.

Who's ''they''?

The scriptures. They exist to promote God.

"Nothing that man creates, including concepts, remain in tact within a lifetime, let alone thousands of years (at least)." I did mean to say it, and it's not wrong.

It's obviously wrong.

The pyramids were created by man, and they have remained intact for thousands of years.
The concept of a spherical Earth (as opposed to a flat one) was created by man, and has also remained intact for thousands of years.

I wonder whether tali89 will be satisfied with these examples, or whether he will try to refute this point, too. I don't know why you're disputing it.

This shows where you really stand on science. Everything from the ancient world is important on so many different levels.

Again, that is clearly false. The ancients had lots of wrong ideas that have since been uncovered. And a lot of what they did was so unimportant that no record of it was kept and all knowledge of it is now lost. This is not unique to the ancient world, either. Most of what people do is ultimately unimportant.

It is my opinion that they did. Yes. [i.e. the ancients had greater understanding of and access to God than modern people do]

Why? And what happened such that people lost that understanding and access?

You realised that you were deluding yourself?
How do you know that you're not deluding yourself now.

How does anybody know he's not deluding himself? How do you know?

You're the one who is giving the information.

Were you taught about the nature of God?

Yes, I was taught about the nature of God. And I'm sure you'd claim I was taught poorly, or taught incorrect things or whatever, so there's little point in talking about it. Besides, you're not sharing what you were taught, or indeed much else about your personal history.

Examples please?

No. I'm sick of being sent off on errands to find information for you. When I see you doing some work in this discussion, then I might reciprocate.

Can you explain why you think this?

Because I have read the bible.

You don't have to belief, you merely have to accept.

As for the run riot nonsense, I think you just threw that one in as a distraction.

Do you know what confirmation bias is?

The reality, once again, is that you don't have to believe in God, to accept his definitions

His definitions? You mean he has defined himself? Where? How?

I think your denial is affecting your comprehension.

You keep using the word "denial". I might just as well say that you're in denial about God's non-existence. Pointless.

Denial is when you keep refuting something that has been established - like climate change deniers claiming that the planet isn't warming, or holocaust deniers claiming that the Nazis didn't carry out a program of extermination against the Jews.

The existence of God is the topic of debate here. The thread is called "Proof of the existence of God" - only none has been provided. If it had been, then I might be in denial.

This is you, at work, denying God.

I'm just telling you what happened, historically. Maybe these are inconvenient facts you prefer to overlook.

The first requirement is to stop kidding yourself.

I notice that you avoided addressing the questions I asked you. Do you have no answers? If so, wouldn't that be you kidding yourself, and not me?

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

With tali89 getting in the way and trying to spoil the thread, you've missed a few of my posts. Or at least you haven't responded to several of them. I wonder whether you've missed part of what I've said, because I feel like I'm repeating myself. Don't let tali89 distract you.

I don't see how asking you to provide examples of love, a way of spoiling this thread considering you made a specific claim.

I am trying to respond to each of your responses, but am also interested in responding to other posts, including yours.

I think you are repeating yourself anyway. We need to get passed the denial.

I have not claimed that love is "just chemicals". What I have said is that love is a feeling of intense devotion.

Why is it only a feeling?
Why is the devotion intense?

It is a subjective experience that a person has.

So every subjective experience that a person has remains subjective?

Now, tali thought that he was the bees knees because he pointed at that a particular action by a human being might be motivated by love or by something else. Before he even posted that "rebuttal" I had already anticipated the argument and dealt with it. What people mean when they talk about demonstrations of love is the collection of actions that are motivated by the intense feeling of devotion that we call love. The same action, if not motivated by an intense feeling of devotion towards the other, is not an act of love.

What is the source of this ''intense devotion''?

You say the Taj Mahal was "built because of love". Indeed. Its construction was motivated by an intense feeling of devotion that one person had in respect of another. You say that therefore love "has manifested itself in the world". But the Taj Mahal is just a building. Unless one knows the purpose of the building there's no sense in which it coWhatmmunicates love.

...

Should guilty seek asylum here,
Like one pardoned, he becomes free from sin.
Should a sinner make his way to this mansion,
All his past sins are to be washed away.
The sight of this mansion creates sorrowing sighs;
And the sun and the moon shed tears from their eyes.
In this world this edifice has been made;
To display thereby the creator's glory.

...Here is the purpose of the building as explained by Shah Jahan himself.

When people see the Taj Mahal and know the story, then they might relate to the love. They have made a personal connection to the story. But there's no love inherent in the building itself.

How do you know?
(please answer this one)

As Yazata has pointed out, if you want to argue that God is like love, then you're essentially arguing that God is a set of feelings and emotions and subjective experiences that people have. But, also as Yazata point out, theists typically want to claim not just this kind of emergent, subjective existence for God, but an objective existence. It's like claiming that God has manifested himself in St Peter's Basilica, because that cathedral was built by people for the worship of God. Once again, if one came to that building without knowledge of what a cathedral is for, then it would just be a building. God is in human intention and feeling and imagination. God isn't something that is "out there" in the world.

My point wasn't that ''God is like love'', that is just an assumption. I said if you want to find proof for the existence of God, then it is in the same category as finding proof for the existence of love. Something we all (or probably most) agree exists. The Taj Mahal is a good example of how something subjective can manifest itself as an objective thing.

I have no problem with your defining God as the "original cause". But if that is all that God is, then I don't see how God is any different from the universe.

It doesn't matter what you call Him. The first cause is what God is.

It's obviously wrong.

The pyramids were created by man, and they have remained intact for thousands of years.
The concept of a spherical Earth (as opposed to a flat one) was created by man, and has also remained intact for thousands of years.

What is the concept of the pyramids? Their shape? Or is it the idea of a burial spot?
Either way, do you really believe these ideas came about from the mind of a person?

I wonder whether tali89 will be satisfied with these examples, or whether he will try to refute this point, too. I don't know why you're disputing it.

I'm disputing it because you're wrong.

Again, that is clearly false. The ancients had lots of wrong ideas that have since been uncovered. And a lot of what they did was so unimportant that no record of it was kept and all knowledge of it is now lost. This is not unique to the ancient world, either. Most of what people do is ultimately unimportant.

We're talking about what is left over from ancient history, and what we can learn about the ancient past. A scientific mind would be interested in gaining knowledge, but it seems you are perfectly willing to deny it. Why? To keep your world view intact?

Why? And what happened such that people lost that understanding and access?

I don't know for sure.

How does anybody know he's not deluding himself? How do you know?

I'm not the one claiming to have once been deluded.

Yes, I was taught about the nature of God. And I'm sure you'd claim I was taught poorly, or taught incorrect things or whatever, so there's little point in talking about it. Besides, you're not sharing what you were taught, or indeed much else about your personal history.

I disagree that there is little point in talking about it. As we're discussing proof of the existence of God, your explanation of who and what God is, is very relevant. So spill.

I've told you, I'm a theist, and I taught myself about God from scriptures. What more do you think you need to know?

No. I'm sick of being sent off on errands to find information for you. When I see you doing some work in this discussion, then I might reciprocate.

Well don't make claims like The New Testament talks of God that way to some extent if you're not prepared to back them up when asked. Just because you may think it is obvious, the fact is , I don't.

Because I have read the bible.

Have you?
You think the best summary of the Bible is that ''one must believe in the RIGHT God and follow His commandments? And you wonder why I don't rate your explanations?
Your response does not cut it.

Do you know what confirmation bias is?

Yeah, it's where one interprets something to confirm one's own belief. A bit like what you constantly do. Why?

His definitions? You mean he has defined himself? Where? How?

I thought you said you read scriptures, and were taught God's nature. Why ask me?
Let's talk about what you know about God (without the need for denial at every stage).
I'm fairly sure you will still be an atheist afterwards.

You keep using the word "denial". I might just as well say that you're in denial about God's non-existence. Pointless.

God's non existence is a nonsense (I think we all know that). But if God didn't exist, I wouldn't need to be in denial.

Denial is when you keep refuting something that has been established - like climate change deniers claiming that the planet isn't warming, or holocaust deniers claiming that the Nazis didn't carry out a program of extermination against the Jews.

You deny everything that postulates the existence of God, by any intellectual means necessary, it totally obvious. Even Anthony Flew had to come to his senses and admit that the evidence for God is overwhelming.

The existence of God is the topic of debate here. The thread is called "Proof of the existence of God" - only none has been provided. If it had been, then I might be in denial.

Then walk away. For you God does not exist. Bye!

I'm just telling you what happened, historically. Maybe these are inconvenient facts you prefer to overlook.

I'll get my history lessons from somewhere else, if okay with you. I find yours to be a little denial-ly.

I notice that you avoided addressing the questions I asked you. Do you have no answers? If so, wouldn't that be you kidding yourself, and not me?

You haven't answered any question to clarify the claims you made, and I doubt you ever will.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, you've told us about the objective existence that is a result of the subjective emotion.
Care to try again?

No. I told you that the Taj Mahal was built out of love.
Now if you have any information that proves that false, then be my guest.

You need to explain why it wasn't built out of love, and why something objective cannot be the result of the subjective.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

No. I told you that the Taj Mahal was built out of love.
Now if you have any information that proves that false, then be my guest.

Of course it is false: it was built predominantly out of marble.

You need to explain why it wasn't built out of love, and why something objective cannot be the result of the subjective.

The fact that it was built out of physical materials is sufficient to explain why it wasn't built out of love.
As for why something objective cannot be the result of the subjective, I am not arguing that it can not be the result of. I even said that all you have told us is "about the objective existence that is a result of the subjective emotion."
I'll post it again, as it is still a valid response to your latest effort as well as your previous one:

No, you've told us about the objective existence that is a result of the subjective emotion.
Care to try again?

Love is not an objective thing. It is subjective. Buildings can be inspired by the subjective emotion, but not built out of them.

So again, where in any of what you have said is any objective existence of that emotion?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Looks like we've reached that unproductive phase of the cycle again. You've reduced yourself to making empty claims that I'm in denial, rather than trying to convince me that your God is real.

I don't see how asking you to provide examples of love, a way of spoiling this thread considering you made a specific claim.

I provided five or six examples when tali initially asked the question. But I might ask you the same question I asked him: can't you come up with sufficient examples of love on your own? Do you really need me to explain love to you?

I am trying to respond to each of your responses, but am also interested in responding to other posts, including yours.

Ok. I hope you'll get to them eventually.

I think you are repeating yourself anyway. We need to get passed the denial.

Is this where you tell me once again that all atheists are closed minded, and that I just need to get with the program and start accepting God, then I'll be able to join the happy band of believers? But I've been there and done that, and come out the other side. You're the one stuck in the middle of the process.

Why is [love] only a feeling?
Why is the devotion intense?

If you want to claim that love is not "only a feeling", then you could start by suggesting what it is. Then we could have an open discussion rather than one whether you ask all the questions and expect me to come up with all the answers.

Non-intense devotion is called "like", not "love". Compare a casual acquaintance with a loved one and you might start to recognise a difference in intensity of feeling. Once again, I'm puzzled that I have to walk you and tali through basic points such as these.

So every subjective experience that a person has remains subjective?

By definition. How could it be otherwise?

What is the source of this ''intense devotion''?

That's complicated. As I explained previously, love is an emergent phenomenon. That is, we identify it by examining a range of situational and behavioural factors. Essentially, your question amounts to asking why one human being feels love for another. There are many possible reasons. For example, I could, in principle, walk you through each of my 5 or 6 examples of love, and in each case the reason for the feeling would likely be different. If you're interested in an "ultimate source", then that source is the source of all human emotion, namely the brain. No brain, no love. Love is something that brains do, not something that buildings do.

...Here is the purpose of the building as explained by Shah Jahan himself.

Right. And it is the telling of the story of the building that gives us the human connection that is required to perceive the love and devotion that led to its creation. The building itself is just a collection of inanimate materials. There's no love built into the stones or marble.

How do you know?
(please answer this one)

Suppose that - somehow - love could be infused into a brick. Then what? Would it magically ooze out and infect nearby human beings? What form would the love have while in the brick? How could it be detected objectively? Given two superficially identical bricks, one with love and one without, what tests would you suggest that would allow us to determine which was which? If you cannot suggest a suitable test, then it seems to me pointless to discuss whether there might be love in a brick. And on a related point: even if it's there, if it has no effects on the outside world then why should it concern us?

My point wasn't that ''God is like love'', that is just an assumption. I said if you want to find proof for the existence of God, then it is in the same category as finding proof for the existence of love. Something we all (or probably most) agree exists. The Taj Mahal is a good example of how something subjective can manifest itself as an objective thing.

You have failed to establish that there is any love inherent in the bricks of the Taj Mahal. At best it manifests love by proxy, via human beings who share a story. And you presumably want more for your God than that.

It doesn't matter what you call Him. The first cause is what God is.

If you are equating the universe with God, then God is a purely natural being, not a supernatural one. God then also lacks the personal traits that you would like to attribute to him/her/it.

I mention in passing that the question of whether the universe as a whole requires a "first cause" is debatable. In fact, I think that debate has been had here before.

What is the concept of the pyramids? Their shape? Or is it the idea of a burial spot?
Either way, do you really believe these ideas came about from the mind of a person?

You think people are two stupid to put stones together into the shape of a pyramid? Or to conceive of idea of a stone pyramid? Or to solve the problem of what to do with decomposing corpses? Do you think God is required to solve those problems?

I'm disputing it because you're wrong.

I am content to let the record show that you believe that no human can create an idea that lasts longer than one human lifetime. I don't really think that such a silly notion needs further refutation. Let us move on then.

We're talking about what is left over from ancient history, and what we can learn about the ancient past. A scientific mind would be interested in gaining knowledge, but it seems you are perfectly willing to deny it. Why? To keep your world view intact?

I'm actually quite interested in some aspects of ancient history. A particular interest of mine is in the development of knowledge, and in particular how we got to here from there. I'm not sure what you think I'm denying about ancient history, exactly. I'm quite willing to consider any ancient history that you wish to present, if it is relevant to suppporting your argument that God exists. Similarly, I don't know why you think that having more knowledge of ancient history would shake my world view on the question of God. Perhaps you will explain these points.

I don't know for sure.

That's fine. What's your hypothesis?

 

[James R]

(continued...)

I'm not the one claiming to have once been deluded.

Like I said, I was once where you are, then I progressed. Maybe one day you'll get to the enlightened stage of being similarly able to say that you were once deluded.

I disagree that there is little point in talking about it. As we're discussing proof of the existence of God, your explanation of who and what God is, is very relevant. So spill.

I've told you, I'm a theist, and I taught myself about God from scriptures. What more do you think you need to know?

If all I need to know is contained in the scriptures, then what I know about God must be approximately the same as what you know. We both have access to the same scriptures.

Well don't make claims like The New Testament talks of God that way to some extent if you're not prepared to back them up when asked. Just because you may think it is obvious, the fact is , I don't.

I'm sorry, but I'm not about to go trawling through the bible to find particular verses that talk about how God loves us, and that God is like a father, and that believing in Jesus will lead us to heaven. Once again, I think that would be a poor use of my time. Suppose I did quote a number of such verses to you. Then what?

Have you?
You think the best summary of the Bible is that ''one must believe in the RIGHT God and follow His commandments? And you wonder why I don't rate your explanations?
Your response does not cut it.

Once again, you point out that my one-sentence summary of the bible is wrong, while providing no better alternative yourself. You seem constantly reticent to provide me with the benefit of your knowledge and learning and expertise on matters of God and religion. Why is that?

Yeah, it's where one interprets something to confirm one's own belief. A bit like what you constantly do. Why?

Actually, I was thinking of the tendency to only look for confirming evidence of one's beliefs, and to ignore evidence that tends to speak against that belief.

If I was lost in the mire of confirmation bias myself, then I would still be a devout believer in God today. But I'm not. i note that you are, however, which is at least consistent with my comment.

I thought you said you read scriptures, and were taught God's nature. Why ask me?
Let's talk about what you know about God (without the need for denial at every stage).

No. Let's talk about what you know about God. We've spent enough time talking about me for now.

God's non existence is a nonsense (I think we all know that). But if God didn't exist, I wouldn't need to be in denial.

Wrong on both counts. Clearly we don't all know that, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if God turns out not to exist then denial on your part would be one understandable reaction to the news, seeing as you've invested so much in rooting for his existence.

You deny everything that postulates the existence of God, by any intellectual means necessary, it totally obvious.

You're confusing "deny" with "refute". I have no problem at all with anybody postulating anything. I'm interested in where the rubber meets the road. Your theory that there is a God is all well and good, but what evidence backs the theory? Is there any?

Also, you speak of reason as if it's a bad thing. I ask again: am I supposed to switch off my critical faculties when I consider the question of God, and just blindly accept that God is real? Why is God a special case? You wouldn't advise me to do that with Bigfoot or JFK conspiracy theories, I assume. Is God exempt from critical thinking?

Even Anthony Flew had to come to his senses and admit that the evidence for God is overwhelming.

Even Anthony Flew? You've really got that guy on a pedestal, haven't you? Should I list some other prominent atheists who haven't said that God is real, to put Tony in perspective for you? Should I list some prominent priests who have become atheists, perhaps? Is this a popularity contest?

Then walk away. For you God does not exist. Bye!

In terms of living my daily life, you're right. I admit the possibility that God may exist, but since God apparently has no effects in the world, I may as well live as if he doesn't exist. Besides, the probability that God exists seems very low.

It is important to add, though, that this doesn't mean that I think religion and belief are unimportant features of human societies. Culturally, historically and politically, belief in God is vitally important because it affects what people do. Most people believe in God. That there is probably no God doesn't alter that fact.

I'll get my history lessons from somewhere else, if okay with you. I find yours to be a little denial-ly.

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the particular points I mentioned that you think are mistaken, and explain why.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Of course it is false: it was built predominantly out of marble.

It material manifestation, yes, but the building exists out of love. It is an expression of one's love for another.

The fact that it was built out of physical materials is sufficient to explain why it wasn't built out of love.
As for why something objective cannot be the result of the subjective, I am not arguing that it can not be the result of. I even said that all you have told us is "about the objective existence that is a result of the subjective emotion."

Well there's your connection of how something subjective can be expressed through objective matter.
Art is an excellent example of this.

Love is not an objective thing. It is subjective. Buildings can be inspired by the subjective emotion, but not built out of them.

I'm not saying that love is in the materials. In fact the materials of have no real form of expression of which to speak of. It was the intention that guided the transformation of matter into the building.
It was a conscious, intelligent, powerful agent, who carried out his will, with what he had at his disposal.

jan.

 

[James R]

It was a conscious, intelligent, powerful agent, who carried out his will, with what he had at his disposal.

You're referring to Shah Jahan, right?

 

[Sarkus]

It material manifestation, yes, but the building exists out of love. It is an expression of one's love for another.

So the love aspect of the building remains subjective.
Care to try again with your notion of love somehow being more than a subjective emotion?

Well there's your connection of how something subjective can be expressed through objective matter.
Art is an excellent example of this.

Never disputed. But "can be expressed through" does not alter whether it is objective or subjective.
So, care to try again: where in any of what you have said is any objective existence of that emotion?

I'm not saying that love is in the materials. In fact the materials of have no real form of expression of which to speak of. It was the intention that guided the transformation of matter into the building.
It was a conscious, intelligent, powerful agent, who carried out his will, with what he had at his disposal.

Again, where in any of what you have said is any objective existence of that emotion?

All you have done, and continue to do, is to state that the objective can be driven, caused, created by the subjective, in this case a subjective emotion that is wholly generated by the internal machinations of the human body... no external existence whatsoever.
So care to try again? Or do you just intend going round in circles as if that somehow makes your point?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

So the love aspect of the building remains subjective.

The ''love aspect'' is the will, the motive, the method, and the result.
What he had in his mind became an objective reality.

Care to try again with your notion of love somehow being more than a subjective emotion?

Hey! If that's what love is for you, then be my guest. But you're in no position to tell me how to define love.
But please feel free to explain how you know that his intention is not woven into the design and detail of the matter he arranged. That is art, and art is very personal. A brilliant replica of a Monet classic is not as valuable as an original. How do you think they can spot a brilliant fake from an original?

Never disputed. But "can be expressed through" does not alter whether it is objective or subjective.

Aren't all created things simply expressions of some kind or other (unless people create stuff for absolutely no reason).

So, care to try again: where in any of what you have said is any objective existence of that emotion?
Again, where in any of what you have said is any objective existence of that emotion?

If you can't see it, then there's nothing I can say.

All you have done, and continue to do, is to state that the objective can be driven, caused, created by the subjective....

Exactly.
The driving force behind all created things.

Good boy!

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

The ''love aspect'' is the will, the motive, the method, and the result.
What he had in his mind became an objective reality.

No, love did not become, and is not, an objective reality but remains a subjective emotion, even though something objective (a building, for example) might result.
All you have done is confirm that it is subjective, but then deemed any objective effect of that subjective emotion to be an example of how love is somehow objective. That position is flawed: the cause and effect in such scenarios do not share the same nature of being objective.

Hey! If that's what love is for you, then be my guest. But you're in no position to tell me how to define love.

You haven't defined it yet but you're trying to show how it is more than a subjective emotion. You haven't done that yet. Despite repeatedly being shown the error of your thinking.

But please feel free to explain how you know that his intention is not woven into the design and detail of the matter he arranged. That is art, and art is very personal.

Irrelevant drivel, but thanks for spewing.
Any artwork is inspired by some emotion or thought, but that is entirely subjective to the artist.
And that emotion or thought remains subjective in the artwork - not everyone will observe it and identify it, even though they see the same objective piece of work.

A brilliant replica of a Monet classic is not as valuable as an original. How do you think they can spot a brilliant fake from an original?

Through close inspection of the objective nature of the painting: the brush strokes, the pigments used, the canvas etc.

Aren't all created things simply expressions of some kind or other (unless people create stuff for absolutely no reason).

Yes - and that expression remains entirely subjective - it relies on the person viewing it sensing whatever the painter is trying to express, or seeing in it some other emotion, or similarly subjective aspect.

If you can't see it, then there's nothing I can say.

Ah, yes, it's my fault. Of course. You spout drivel and then it is my fault for not believing you to be correct even though I have argued your position to be fallacious, and in response you have simply repeated your position.

Exactly.
The driving force behind all created things.

No it's not. Other emotions, desires and causes also drive creations.
But aside from that, all you still continue to do is to state that the objective can be driven, caused, created by the subjective. At no point do you show how that cause is also objective.
Until you do you're just spouting more incessant drivel.

Good boy!

Your condescension is insultingly misplaced and unwarranted.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

No, love did not become, and is not, an objective reality but remains a subjective emotion, even though something objective (a building, for example) might result.

Nobody said ''love became'' anything. The building is an extension of what he intended in his mind.
Now please explain how that isn't the case, instead of asserting it isn't.

You haven't defined it yet but you're trying to show how it is more than a subjective emotion. You haven't done that yet. Despite repeatedly being shown the error of your thinking.

Who's showing me the error of my thinking? You? James?

Irrelevant drivel, but thanks for spewing.

Why is it?

Any artwork is inspired by some emotion or thought, but that is entirely subjective to the artist.

As is any thought or emotion.
I think, I want to go to London on Friday, and providing I do perform the necessary actions, I go. So what started out as a subjective thought ends up being an objective reality.

And that emotion or thought remains subjective in the artwork - not everyone will observe it and identify it, even though they see the same objective piece of work.

It doesn't matter how it is perceived, the will, and the intention, is the reason for that object. Deny it if you must (you deny most other things), but that is a fact.

Through close inspection of the objective nature of the painting: the brush strokes, the pigments used, the canvas etc.

Yes the objective nature of the painting, or of any painting painted by the painter.
These become character traits, naturally unique to that particular artist.

Yes - and that expression remains entirely subjective -

Until it is expressed in the objective world. That object becomes a representation of that expression.

...it relies on the person viewing it sensing whatever the painter is trying to express, or seeing in it some other emotion, or similarly subjective aspect.

It has nothing to do with other perceptions. It is what it is.

Ah, yes, it's my fault. Of course.

I didn't say it was your fault. I didn't even imply that it is a fault.
You're paranoid.

You spout drivel and then it is my fault for not believing you to be correct even though I have argued your position to be fallacious, and in response you have simply repeated your position.

Oh shut up about fallacious, you don't even comprehend what we're discussing you're so busy in denial. Sheesh!

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Nobody said ''love became'' anything. The building is an extension of what he intended in his mind.
Now please explain how that isn't the case, instead of asserting it isn't.

An extension through objective media, but the intention is subjective and remains subjective within the objective media. There is no objectivity to that intention.

Who's showing me the error of my thinking? You? James?

Both.

Why is it?

Because you are still merely showing how the objective can be driven, caused, created by the subjective. At no point do you show how that cause is also objective.
Until you do you're just spouting more incessant irrelevant drivel.

As is any thought or emotion.
I think, I want to go to London on Friday, and providing I do perform the necessary actions, I go. So what started out as a subjective thought ends up being an objective reality.

Wrong. Not all thoughts are subjective. You don't seem to comprehend what it means to be subjective or objective.
A thought of a specific action that would hold irrespective of the person thinking it is objective in nature.
In your example the desire to go out is subjective, but the specific actions you think about are objective.
There is no objective desire in your going to London on Friday. They are objective actions driven by subjective emotion.
Similarly with love and the Taj Mahal.

It doesn't matter how it is perceived, the will, and the intention, is the reason for that object. Deny it if you must (you deny most other things), but that is a fact.

Irrelevant for the reasons stated.
The cause can be subjective, the result objective. It doesn't mean the subjective transfers to the objective.
Point to the objective thing called "love" in the Taj Mahal and prove me wrong.

Yes the objective nature of the painting, or of any painting painted by the painter.
These become character traits, naturally unique to that particular artist.

Objective character traits, yes.
Your point is...? Given that this suggests (and which you seem to agree) that subjective emotion is not part of the testing? You seem to be arguing against your own position now.

Until it is expressed in the objective world. That object becomes a representation of that expression.

And so we go round in circles....
Being a representation intended by the artist does not mean it is objective. It is still a subjective matter, reliant upon the subject (the viewer) to interpret it (subjectively) as the artist intended.

It has nothing to do with other perceptions. It is what it is.

As I suspected, you appear to have zero comprehension of what it means to be objective or subjective.
It has everything to do with perceptions, the artists and others.

I didn't say it was your fault. I didn't even imply that it is a fault.
You're paranoid.

You're quote: "If you can't see it, then there's nothing I can say." You are disowning responsibility through that statement, which suggests you are making it ipso facto my fault. There is no paranoia. Just you being unable, as seems part of your MO, to comprehend what you yourself write.

Oh shut up about fallacious, you don't even comprehend what we're discussing you're so busy in denial. Sheesh!

Round and round and round we go.
To quote JamesR, as it seems so apt:
"Looks like we've reached that unproductive phase of the cycle again. You've reduced yourself to making empty claims that I'm in denial, rather than trying to convince me..."

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

An extension through objective media, but the intention is subjective and remains subjective within the objective media. There is no objectivity to that intention.

I see what your problem is. You are focusing on the terms subjective and objective.
The way I look at subjective thoughts, concepts, etc.. that are only present in the individual mind. Objective is when something is out in the open, and can be witnessed by other people.
If you're not happy with those definitions the forget the terms and go with the definitions.

Both.

In your dreams pal.

Because you are still merely showing how the objective can be driven, caused, created by the subjective. At no point do you show how that cause is also objective.

I'm saying the the Taj Mahal was built out of love. This means that without that love, it would not exist as the Taj Mahal. That is an extension of the will, intent, and desire of Shah Jahan.
Feel free to explain how this isn't the case.

Wrong. Not all thoughts are subjective. You don't seem to comprehend what it means to be subjective or objective.
A thought of a specific action that would hold irrespective of the person thinking it is objective in nature.
In your example the desire to go out is subjective, but the specific actions you think about are objective.
There is no objective desire in your going to London on Friday. They are objective actions driven by subjective emotion.
Similarly with love and the Taj Mahal.

So if from my desire, I end up in London on Friday, am I not in London because of a subjective thought?
That thought contained the will and the intent, the reason why I'll be in London on Friday.

The cause can be subjective, the result objective. It doesn't mean the subjective transfers to the objective.

I don't know what you mean by ''transfers''.
Saha Jahan built the Taj out of love. His love. His will. His effort.
It is a lot simpler than you think.

Point to the objective thing called "love" in the Taj Mahal and prove me wrong.

The building itself, the poem written by the SJ.
Can you prove him wrong?

Objective character traits, yes.
Your point is...?

It means it's original, and it means more than the picture itself.

Given that this suggests (and which you seem to agree) that subjective emotion is not part of the testing? You seem to be arguing against your own position now.

Neither is the picture itself, but we're not talking about what is part of the testing. My point is that his character is in the painting. It is his interpretation, his view, that people are interested in, not just the picture. There is a reason for this, and that is our actions are different expressions of ourselves.

People do things for all kinds of reasons, love is simply one of them. If you don't believe that to be the case, fine, it is subjective after all. But you cannot argue that it is not the case, especially by going ape-s-it over a couple of words.

And so we go round in circles....
Being a representation intended by the artist does not mean it is objective. It is still a subjective matter, reliant upon the subject (the viewer) to interpret it (subjectively) as the artist intended.

The Taj Mahal is a representation of Saha Jahan's desire right? His desire was to dedicate his love to his late wife, right? So out of his love, the Taj Mahal now stands as a monument.
That's what I'm saying.

That is the way something that cannot be seen to exist can manifest itself in the form of things.

You're quote: "If you can't see it, then there's nothing I can say." You are disowning responsibility through that statement, which suggests you are making it ipso facto my fault. There is no paranoia. Just you being unable, as seems part of your MO, to comprehend what you yourself write.

It simply means you can't see it, or you are denying it.
You're getting caught up in the words, and not seeing it for what it is.


jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I see what your problem is. You are focusing on the terms subjective and objective.
The way I look at subjective thoughts, concepts, etc.. that are only present in the individual mind. Objective is when something is out in the open, and can be witnessed by other people.
If you're not happy with those definitions the forget the terms and go with the definitions.

As I suspected, you have an incorrect comprehension of what subjective and objective means.
So no, I'm not happy with your definitions as they are wrong. You are confusing subjective and objective with mental and physical.
If I go with the definitions you use then it changes the sense of the argument from the outset.
And it is just another sad indictment of your MO when you fail to comprehend what you yourself write.

In your dreams pal.

Given that you have been arguing using incorrect definitions, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

I'm saying the the Taj Mahal was built out of love. This means that without that love, it would not exist as the Taj Mahal. That is an extension of the will, intent, and desire of Shah Jahan.
Feel free to explain how this isn't the case.

Why should I indulge your red herring?

So if from my desire, I end up in London on Friday, am I not in London because of a subjective thought?
That thought contained the will and the intent, the reason why I'll be in London on Friday.

Learn what objective and subjective mean.
Don't continue to use your incorrect definitions.

I don't know what you mean by ''transfers''.
Saha Jahan built the Taj out of love. His love. His will. His effort.
It is a lot simpler than you think.

Learn what objective and subjective mean.

The building itself, the poem written by the SJ.
Can you prove him wrong?

I don't see love in either of them to be honest, certainly not in the building. A bit of a monstrosity, to be frank.

It means it's original, and it means more than the picture itself.

Only to those who value owning the original. I.e. it is subjective.

Neither is the picture itself, but we're not talking about what is part of the testing. My point is that his character is in the painting. It is his interpretation, his view, that people are interested in, not just the picture. There is a reason for this, and that is our actions are different expressions of ourselves.

And that interpretation, his character, would be in a brilliant forgery as well. But not everyone sees his interpretation, sees his view, sees the message or the emotion he is trying to convey.
So again, learn what objective and subjective mean.

People do things for all kinds of reasons, love is simply one of them. If you don't believe that to be the case, fine, it is subjective after all. But you cannot argue that it is not the case, especially by going ape-s-it over a couple of words.

Oh, I agree people do things for all kinds of reason. But that does not change love from being subjective to objective.
If you comprehended what the terms meant, rather than coming up with your incorrect definitions, you would realise that.
And I'm not going ape over anything other than your typical inability to comprehend what you yourself write. If you're going to discuss the nature of love, whether it can be subjective or objective, it behooves you to understand what those terms mean.
But again you try to deflect fault onto those of us who don't use your incorrect definitions.

The Taj Mahal is a representation of Saha Jahan's desire right? His desire was to dedicate his love to his late wife, right? So out of his love, the Taj Mahal now stands as a monument.
That's what I'm saying.

Again, where in any of what you have said is any objective existence of that emotion?

That is the way something that cannot be seen to exist can manifest itself in the form of things.

Again, where in any of what you have said is any objective existence of that emotion?

It simply means you can't see it, or you are denying it.
You're getting caught up in the words, and not seeing it for what it is.

I am responding to the words you write, Jan. If you can not use words as they are defined, but instead expect me/us to use whatever definition you come up with, is it any wonder you have difficulty trying to make other people understand what you are going on about.
But again, your MO is to deflect fault to those not using your incorrect definitions.

So, when you comprehend what I, what JamesR, what others mean by the terms objective and subjective (hint: look them up in a dictionary), perhaps you will go back and show how love can be anything more than a subjective emotion, whether it causes, drives, results in something objective or not. (Hint: merely showing how it can result in something objective is therefore not a valid response).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

As I suspected, you have an incorrect comprehension of what subjective and objective means.

Explain what's wrong with my comprehension.

If I go with the definitions you use then it changes the sense of the argument from the outset.

Why does it ?

Why should I indulge your red herring?

What red herring?

I don't see love in either of them to be honest, certainly not in the building. A bit of a monstrosity, to be frank.

What does love look like?

Only to those who value owning the original. I.e. it is subjective.

It is the same regardless of ignorance.
It is what it is.

And that interpretation, his character, would be in a brilliant forgery as well.

No it wouldn't.

But not everyone sees his interpretation, sees his view, sees the message or the emotion he is trying to convey.
So again, learn what objective and subjective mean.

Why would it matter whether everyone sees his interpretation?

Oh, I agree people do things for all kinds of reason. But that does not change love from being subjective to objective.

So people can make stuff out of love.

Again, where in any of what you have said is any objective existence of that emotion?

He built it out of love for his late wife. The building has manifested for everyone to see.

jan.