Jan Ardena:
Your reply to me avoided addressing several significant points I made, and continued your refrain of claiming that I am in denial. And you still manage not to address direct questions I put to you inquiring into
your understanding of your God. You say you want honest discussion, but with you it is all take and no give.
If you want to be convinced of something, you have to play the game of
the one trying to convince you. Every question I ask you, I expect an honest answer. This way I can know how to approach you.
I have answered your questions honestly. I have not answered all of your questions, especially ones that infringe on my privacy. Since there is no reciprocity, I don't think you're entitled to my personal experiences.
Me explaining love to you, does nothing to convince you of the reality of God.
You haven't explained love to me. In fact, you have declined to explain either love or God, despite repeated requests that you do so.
Neither does denial at every stage.
Meh. You're just trying to be annoying now.
There's nothing that you have said that leads me to think you believed in God.
Oh, we're back to that are we? I have already addressed that claim at length. You'd very much
like to think that I never believed in God, but I really did.
You seem scared to talk about God in a positive light even though you believe He doesn't exist.
How can one talk about a person who doesn't exist?
What positive things would you like me to say about God? Oh, your God is really impressive, Jan! Oh, how wonderful it is to believe in God! Oh, God is so powerful, wise and good! Are those the kinds of things you want me to say about your God?
Let's start with: Why did you believe in God?
Let's not. Let's assume that the reasons I believed in God were similar to the reasons that many people believe in God. We can discuss that in terms of generalities if you're not sure why people believe in God. I'm sure you'll come back at this with the question "Why do you think people believe in God?" I suggest that, before asking me that, you do a little research yourself. Surveys have been conducted on this kind of thing. Go and find out what people say about why they believe in God. It's probably safe to say that I shared some of those reasons.
I've made no claim as to what love is, but I did ask you a couple of questions, and you have avoided (yet again) answering.
Which question(s) do you think I haven't answered? You asked "what is love" and I gave you some examples. I also went into some detail (twice!) about how we can identify love from behaviours and attitudes that people display. That's on the objective side, of course. Subjectively, love is a feeling of intense devotion, as I have explained. In fact, that's how it tends to be defined in dictionaries, too.
Do you think you could answer the questions without trying to switch them back to me?
Do you think you could answer some of the questions put to you rather than trying to switch them back to me? Conversations with you can feel like a kind of power struggle, because you always seem to be trying to control and direct the conversation. You want those who you converse with to reveal personal things about themselves and to explain their views in great detail while you push them to precisely define every term they use. And at the same time, you give away as little as possible of your own thoughts and knowledge, avoid any
quid pro quo in an exchange of views on something (like what your experience of God is, for example), ignore important points of contention and indeed entire posts when it suits you, and take things back to square one if it looks like there's a possibility of progress in the discussion. And your constant claims that others have inferior knowledge and are "in denial" and the like are tiresome, especially as you refuse to enlighten the poor ignorant souls whom you disparage.
See my response to Sarkus.
This is quite important. Could you please address this question directly:
"Given two superficially identical bricks (or buildings, if you prefer), one made with love and one without, what tests would you suggest that would allow us to determine which was which?"
I say that any appropriate test will reference the subjective feelings of at least one person. But
you seem to want to claim that love can be objectively present in something like a building.
I think Sarkus is correct when he says that your ideas of what the terms "subjective" and "objective" mean may be a bit off.
Can you elaborate on [love being an emergent phenomenon]?
I think I already did. I explained that love is identified objectively from circumstantial evidence, drawing on one's own knowledge of the subjective experience of the emotion involved. The "causes" of love are many and varied. They, too, depend on circumstances, and also on certain human propensities related to biology.
Do you believe that you can outwardly tell if someone has love in their heart (or brain)?
Not if they don't act on it, or tell somebody about it. Actions provide the circumstantial evidence I mentioned above, and telling about it communicates the subjective experience.
Not really. Just what is ''intense devotion''
Are you saying love IS this ''intense devotion'', and without that ''intense devotion'' there is no love despite what one thinks?
"Intense devotion" is one definition of love. "Warm affection" is another. There are others. Yes, I am saying that love is intense devotion to and/or warm affection for another. Something like that. Ultimately, it's a feeling that human beings have.
What do you think love is?
There's no love in holding your baby in your arms, they are simply carrying out a function like carrying a table. By your logic there's no
love in anything we do, yet you say you can tell people love because of how they behave. How is that possible?
Imagine you are an alien just arrived on Earth. You see a mother holding a baby. Knowing nothing about human reproduction (or even the difference between an adult and a child), do you see love? No. You see one being carrying another, just like carrying a table.
As a human being watching this scene, you may well perceive love. How? The answer is actually quite interesting, and I can only give an outline here. It turns out that most human beings are very good at making mental models of other minds. It's an incredibly useful skill for all kinds of reasons. What it involves is imagining yourself in the position of another human being. In this example, you see a mother with a child. You
know she is a mother (or similar carer). You may have experienced the feeling of love of a parent for a child, either as a parent yourself, or as a child with a parent, or even remotely through stories or films or other communications. So, watching this scene, you are able to put yourself mentally in the position of the mother and imagine what she is feeling. This is how you see the love. It's not
just imagination, though. There are
some external signs that the whole love thing is happening here. Maybe the mother holds the child gently. Maybe she smiles at the child. Maybe you know how she puts herself out to care for this other human being. There are many objective indicators of love, but you need to know what to look for.
I have never, by the way, said "there's no love in anything we do". Quite the opposite. I said that love exists
precisely in what we do, and that it does not exist independently of people. I am surprised that you have got my argument completely the wrong way around. Perhaps you need to re-read my previous posts on this matter.
The universe is God is a start? Ok. So, how do you get from that to a God who answers prayers, cares about humans on an individual level, decides who goes to heaven or hell (or is reincarnated or whatever), etc. - as detailed in the "scriptures"?
I don't get what ''the problems'' are. You believe those things are man made concepts, I just agree that they are man made.
Tell me the concepts and give the names of the people who created them, then let's read up on how those objects came about.
*sigh* You really want to persist with the silly claim that no human idea can last more than a single lifetime?
Ok. Pick an example at random. Isaac Newton's theory of gravity. How did it come about? Answer: something about apples falling on Isaac's head, plus a lot of time doing maths yada yada yada. That was 400 years ago. And guess what? Newton's ideas are still in the modern textbooks.
It looks to me an
awful lot like this idea lasted longer than Isaac. But then, you knew that already ... didn't you?
I just think you'll have a good, honest, comprehensive knowledge, on what and who God is. Then maybe we can have some good discussions. At the moment you're in denial city.
Maybe you have more knowledge than you're letting on, it wouldn't surprise me. But your reluctance to discuss God, seriously,
and honestly, is probably more intense than you're willing to admit. Either way it becomes very tedious engaging you in discussion.
There's that "denial" accusation again. And now you're adding "dishonest" to the list of my flaws. And "reluctance".
I have being asking and asking you to tell me all about God, but you refuse. It looks to me like you're the one who is reluctant to discuss God. It looks like you just want to play games by telling me that every idea I have is wrong or false or a "denial" of the "real" God, whatever that is supposed to be. And who knows? You're not saying. Oh, it's in the "scriptures". Well, I've read those. Now what?
