Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Philosophy (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-philosophy/)
-   -   So you don't believe in God; do you believe in love? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-philosophy/72781-so-you-dont-believe-god-do-you-believe-love.html)

Ramega 10-15-2004 08:24 PM

So you don't believe in God; do you believe in love?
 
You can't prove love exists. There's no scientific way to measure it. You only know it exists because you can feel it or you believe others when they say they can feel it. Do you believe that love exists?

Is that so different from God?

soma 10-15-2004 08:48 PM

Do you believe emotions other than love do not exist because there is no way to measure them?

hannukah harry 10-15-2004 09:33 PM

i believe in love because while i can feel it (which is what theists say about god), it's an internal feeling. god isn't internal.

i think a decent analogy is that you can kick me in the junk and i will *feel* pain, but i can't actually see the nads through the sac. i can feel 'em, but i can't see them, so i know their real. but if i kick you in the nuts, is it pain you feel or god?

/okay, maybe not a good analogy but at least i got to say nads and sac.

evilbeefchan 10-16-2004 01:52 AM

I think Haddaway said it best when they asked, "What is Love?"

I think Love is far different from God. Love is an emotion, a thought, an impulse from the brain. Emotions can be expressed, and we can gauge the intensity of those emotions. We do not have to set aside personal beliefs or bias to react to someone's emotions. I feel that in the case of looking out for the existance of any kinds of gods, we have to put on a certain perspective and look harder for proof. There's no clear cut definition as to what can prove the gods existance/non-existance, where as we can define what hate, love, sadness and glee are.

Macheath 10-16-2004 03:23 AM

Love is an oft irrational emotion of pleasure.

As an atheist, I live and love because it gives me pleasure. I don't believe either needs to be assigned a higher motive.

Maybe there is a rational analogy though.

The kind, gentle relaxed Christian is inspired by the teachings of Jesus and loves their neighbour. The fundamentalist screeches nonsensical fire and brimstone from Leviticus and Revalation.

The good husband loves his wife as a friend and companion but they know where to draw the line. The lovestruck fool still doesn't get it even when they've been cheated on for the fifth time.

I guess you should just love your partner and your God well, but not to the point of MADNESS.

tecoyah 10-16-2004 03:43 AM

Good question

There are an indefinable number of feelings we call "love" and they are all correct to the individual feeling them.

There are an equal amout of feelings we call "god" and they are also, in my opinion, all correct.

I would never tell someone they are not in love, as I would have no way of Proving they were not. I only wish everyone would show the same forethought when discussing this "God" thing, it would prevent so many deaths, and remove one of the number one reasons to hate each other.

connyosis 10-16-2004 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilbeefchan
I think Haddaway said it best when they asked, "What is Love?"

Actually I think Al Pacino said it best in The Devil's Advocate:
Kevin Lomax : What about love?
John Milton : Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate.

So there you go, biochemically love is measureable, God isn't. Now, I'm not going to claim that I know God does not exist, for all I know he just might, and if there some day will pop up proof that he does I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

ARTelevision 10-16-2004 08:50 AM

I don't "believe" in anything. I think and act upon that which I experience.

EmotivE 10-16-2004 09:10 AM

I think the main problem with agreeing whether love does or doesn't exist is simply the fact that everyone tends to view the concept of love differently. For example, Candians and American equally treasure the concept of freedom, but their concept of freedom fundamentally differs:
Canadians support a "postive" freedom where state intervention is necessary to permit the lower economic strata the "freedom to develop"
Americans (keep in mind these are simply generalizations) support a "negative" freedom, or a freedom from restraint: meaning the state interferes in their lives at a minimal level.
Where's the parallel?
Some people view love as a chemical response to ensure the survival of our genetic code, others view it as going "head over heels" or that they simply just "feel it" (by caring so much about one person to an almost unfathomable degree).
Conclusion: I think it would be difficult to declare that love as a broad concept does not exist. This is because people often define love according to their past relationships, i.e. "love is what I felt with (enter name here)". So, if you believe you're in love, you're in love (and vice versa).

Master_Shake 10-16-2004 09:19 AM

I don't believe in love. I know there's lust and socialization.

Lust is a biological urge to engage in sexual acts with another person. Mostly genetic and chemical.

Socialization is the process whereby society adds all kinds of nonsense to get in the way of lust. Mostly religious and superstitious.

CSflim 10-16-2004 11:33 AM

This argument is hopelessly flawed.

When you make the statement "I feel love", you are making a statement about how you subjectively feel (assuming you are not lying). You cannot be mistaken. If you think that you are feeling this emotion, then you necessarily must be feeling it.

When you make the statement "I am in pain" (again assuming you are not lying), then you genuinely are in pain. You cannot be mistaken about this.

When you make the statement "I am in pain, so someone must have shot me in the foot", there are many ways in which you could be wrong; maybe you were stabbed in the foot, maybe you stood on a nail, maybe you are a hypochondriac experiencing phantom pains. You [i]can[i/] be incorrect about the cause of a subjective experience, just not the existence of the subjective experience.

When you make the statement "I feel that god exists" you are not incorrect about reporting that you feel "spiritual", but just because you must be correct about the existence of this 'spiritual feeling' does not mean that you are correct about the cause of this feeling (in this case apparently the existence of god).

Therefore love is different to god.

10-16-2004 12:50 PM

love- life- God= all the same thing.

high_jinx 10-16-2004 02:58 PM

when you feel love, it's for tangible objects you witness or experience in reality. nobody just goes around feel a general feeling of love... there is always a target of that love that has affected you in one way or another. feeling god on the other hand is taking input and ideas from people around you and transferring the resulting emotions you experience to something you haven't ever actually seen or experienced. there's a huge difference there as one is anchored in reality and the other is completely abstract.

crewsor 10-16-2004 03:33 PM

I don't believe in God, but I believe a belief in God can be great thing. Religion is a excellent crutch for people who need something to believe in. Not to mention what the fear of God can accomplish. The threat of hell has most likely prevented more crimes than the death penalty.
I do believe in love because I experience it daily. It is undeniable. When God speaks to me I will believe.

Ramega 10-16-2004 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewsor
When God speaks to me I will believe.

And I promise you that will be a good day! :D

Kalnaur 10-17-2004 10:51 AM

I do not believe in love.

I know I have felt an emotion that would be labeled love, but I do not believe in the love that everyone else believes in. Why? because we are all different, and experience for "love" in different modes and types. Love, just like god (whichever one you believe in) is not measureable, true, and yet we still call it love. This is so that we can have a label, a name for something. Did you know that in Latin, the word for love is amare? not love, amare. so, while the word amare might mean the same or near the same thing as love, it is not the same word.

What i am trying to say, in a round about way, is that both love and God are open to interpretation.

wilbjammin 10-17-2004 11:06 AM

If God was simply a feeling, then I'm certain that the God of mythological canons doesn't exist. God then, to exist only as a feeling, would have to be redefined (as God is supposely more than just a feeling).

For love to exist, we just need to feel it, as it defined as something we feel.

Mr. Munchy 10-27-2004 02:39 AM

I believe in love because love can be defined as a specific set of chemicals and neuron patterns and firings in the brain. I do not believe in god because there is no such physical evidence for god.

RespectThat 10-27-2004 05:37 AM

Thats funny, god has been shot down so many time by science, now the believers say well.. god is love and i feel him and you cant prove i cant feel him

Stompy 10-27-2004 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramega
You can't prove love exists. There's no scientific way to measure it. You only know it exists because you can feel it or you believe others when they say they can feel it. Do you believe that love exists?

Is that so different from God?

Considering you can't feel god and "god" isn't an emotion... yes, it's different.

I think the question is more of like a "prove that the 'hot' you feel is the 'hot' I feel"

xepherys 10-27-2004 10:31 AM

Love vs. God:

I have a tangible, discreet understanding of love as it's an emotion I experience every day. I have love for my wife. I have love for my family. I have love for my friends. I have a special kind of love reserved only for my Xbox. Each of those feelings are a unique, seperate experience for me that I feel.

I have spirituality. I believe that there are higher beings out there, and that there is a collective ether of spirituality upon which all life is built. I don't feel it, and I don't KNOW it exists. That's why it's a belief.

There are some things that transcend the two. The love of my wife. I believe that she loves me. But I also can FEEL her love. It's an indescribable feeling of almost electric nature when we touch each other. A magnetic pulse when we look each other in the eyes.

God, god, goddess or other devine beings do not offer me such static proof of their existance. To say that nature, or snowflakes, or DNA is proof of god is assinine at best, completely foolish at it's worst. One can believe in something they do not feel. That is religion. You cannot disbelieve something you do feel. That would be nihilistic.

Sargeman 10-27-2004 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah
I only wish everyone would show the same forethought when discussing this "God" thing, it would prevent so many deaths, and remove one of the number one reasons to hate each other.

But there in lies the irony. Is it a "God" thing or is it a "love" of God that drives many to kill and hate in his name?

Zeraph 10-28-2004 12:44 PM

Love is one of the more indefinable emotions, God, even more so. :)

Halx 10-28-2004 02:03 PM

Love is a strong dissonance when one feels a strong compulsion towards another that was formed through attraction and circumstance. There's no need to mystify it.

the_marq 10-28-2004 02:09 PM

I believe in love,
and hate.

I believe in jealousy and
a smug sense of self-satisfaction.

***To paraphrase the guy above me, why do we need to apply a mystical aura to our emotions?

ScottKuma 10-28-2004 02:10 PM

I've seen this show up in some peoples' posts, and I certainly agree with it:

God = Love

I feel most "in tune" with the universe, spirituality, and God when I'm around those I love. Something just makes me feel "right" during those times. I used to have a similar feeling when I went to church - somehow it just felt right for me at that time. Since then, having fallen away from the Church, the times when I feel that "one-ness with God" is when I feel most in love with my wife, my child, my family and even myself.

hannukah harry 10-28-2004 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
I've seen this show up in some peoples' posts, and I certainly agree with it:

God = Love

I feel most "in tune" with the universe, spirituality, and God when I'm around those I love. Something just makes me feel "right" during those times. I used to have a similar feeling when I went to church - somehow it just felt right for me at that time. Since then, having fallen away from the Church, the times when I feel that "one-ness with God" is when I feel most in love with my wife, my child, my family and even myself.


but while you associate that with god, that doesn't mean that there is one. i get that feeling all the time too. and if that's god, then i need start praying to ben and jerry, my flavortilogical dieties.

ScottKuma 10-28-2004 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry
but while you associate that with god, that doesn't mean that there is one. i get that feeling all the time too. and if that's god, then i need start praying to ben and jerry, my flavortilogical dieties.

Nor does it mean that there is not a God.

Besides which, my belief in God is not in question -- my belief in love is.

But what's wrong with praying to Ben & Jerry? After all, they are God, I am God, Thou art God.

Shall we go drink the water of life? :)

adysav 10-28-2004 03:04 PM

CSflim said it best.
Automatically associating your general sense of well being with the existence of a God is just wishful thinking, possibly tinged with a lack of self-belief. You can make good things happen yourself you know.

ScottKuma 10-28-2004 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
CSflim said it best.
Automatically associating your general sense of well being with the existence of a God is just wishful thinking, possibly tinged with a lack of self-belief. You can make good things happen yourself you know.

Notice that I didn't attribute my good feeling to God. I said that I feel closest to God (and take that word for whatever you will) when I also feel loved.

For much of history, air existed, man breathed it, and didn't know what it was. Not believing in air didn't make it so that man couldn't breathe. Believing in air didn't make man breathe any better or worse. Eventually, we came to understand air; now everyone believes in it. I suspect that God will be much like this. God may or may not be a supreme "BEING", but for a lack of better understanding, that's how some of us choose to personify our experiences with God.

adysav 10-29-2004 03:10 AM

Air is a substance that exists in the real world. Belief in it is not an issue.
God is something created in the minds of man to explain the unexplainable and shift responsibility. If, one day, it is discovered that there is such a 'being', your belief in it is coincidental as it currently has no real foundation.

ScottKuma 10-29-2004 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Air is a substance that exists in the real world. Belief in it is not an issue.
God is something created in the minds of man to explain the unexplainable and shift responsibility. If, one day, it is discovered that there is such a 'being', your belief in it is coincidental as it currently has no real foundation.

Ah, but that's JUST what people might have said before air was understood. Same for any number of scientific discoveries.

Who are you to say that God does not exist in the real world? Just because you can't touch it/Him, or don't understand it/Him? I don't understand quarks, gluons, and all of the myriad things that engender particle physics. These tiny particles don't have any effect on me that I can put my finger on and say, "oh! Quarks!" Yet I believe the scientists who tell me that they exist.

Our lack of understanding or disbelief in a subject does not disprove its existence. Granted, our belief in a subject does not prove existence, either. I think that part of our struggle in being human is trying to keep an open mind to those things that are untouchable, undetectable. This is called faith. People have faith in different matters -- some in God, some in science, some in double-entry accounting, some in the fact that one day, the Boston Red Sox would actually win the World Series ( :) ).

If, someday, God is discovered & proven scientifically, I do not concede that my current belief in it/Him was coincidental. I feel & see God's effects all around me; just as people felt the effects of the wind, even when they could not explain it.

adysav 10-29-2004 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Ah, but that's JUST what people might have said before air was understood. Same for any number of scientific discoveries.

Before people knew of it's specific makeup and properties, people could see the effects of air, the way wind pushes things around, brushes against your skin and the need for people to suck it in and blow it out again.
The belief in God is not based on similar observations, but of the assumption that certain things are under the control of a higher being, which is probably what people of old thought of air and wind.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Who are you to say that God does not exist in the real world? Just because you can't touch it/Him, or don't understand it/Him?

If there is a God, then you do not understand him either. What makes you special that you can say that he does exist, but I cannot claim he doesn't. I am merely going with the current evidence, which currently stands at zero.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
I don't understand quarks, gluons, and all of the myriad things that engender particle physics. These tiny particles don't have any effect on me that I can put my finger on and say, "oh! Quarks!" Yet I believe the scientists who tell me that they exist.

These people have made observations of the real world and noted the effects of these things.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Our lack of understanding or disbelief in a subject does not disprove its existence. Granted, our belief in a subject does not prove existence, either. I think that part of our struggle in being human is trying to keep an open mind to those things that are untouchable, undetectable. This is called faith.

If I continually claimed there were invisible beetles crawling under my skin controlling my actions and thoughts, you'd call me a nutcase. To me, faith in an omnipotent God is just as arbitrary.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
If, someday, God is discovered & proven scientifically, I do not concede that my current belief in it/Him was coincidental. I feel & see God's effects all around me; just as people felt the effects of the wind, even when they could not explain it.

That's my point, you don't see the effects of God around you. Everything you feel, see, taste and touch is the product of your body's interaction with a pretty rational reality. You're emphasising my point that belief in God is simply a blanket to cover everything that you don't understand about the world.

ScottKuma 10-29-2004 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
If I continually claimed there were invisible beetles crawling under my skin controlling my actions and thoughts, you'd call me a nutcase. To me, faith in an omnipotent God is just as arbitrary.

Hey, I might think you're a nutcase for if you claimed that, but does that make your assertation any less valid? Honestly, maybe you're right!

I don't claim that God controls my actions or my thoughts. Nor do I necessarily believe that God is necessarily omnipotent. I don't subscribe to many of the Christian beliefs of God; never in my previous posts have I said that I do. I believe in an afterlife, but not necessarily one divided into Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. This is based on my belief that we are more than the sum of the chemical processes that exist in our bodies.

My belief in God is centered around the following: God "sets the rules" in some sense; we are left to play within those rules. The universe seems too well designed to have happened randomly. Order does not come from chaos - chaos only breeds MORE of itself. Entropy always increases & the like. However, so much order exists in the universe! And it repeats across scale - atoms look an awful lot like planetary systems, which in turn looks an awful lot like galaxies, etc. That order, and the rules that govern it, seems too well planned to be random, especially when I take into consideration these differences in scale & distance. Perhaps I'm wrong...and if that's your estimation, fine - you're welcome to it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
That's my point, you don't see the effects of God around you. Everything you feel, see, taste and touch is the product of your body's interaction with a pretty rational reality. You're emphasising my point that belief in God is simply a blanket to cover everything that you don't understand about the world.

Oh, but I do see the effects of God around me! See my previous paragraph on design. My good friend Xepherys has stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys
To say that nature, or snowflakes, or DNA is proof of god is assinine at best, completely foolish at it's worst.

Again, I completely disagree - maybe it's the romantic nature in me, but I can't get away from the fact that all of what I see around me seems too perfectly designed , for lack of a better term. I can't look at a tree, a sunset, a beautiful snowcapped mountain, or a beautiful newborn baby & not see the effects of the "design of God" (again, for lack of a better term).

Ultimately, though, my beliefs are no more or less asinine than believing in the Christian faith, believing that invisible beetles are telling you what to do, or any of the other myriad "crackpot" idea out there. The only thing that makes an idea "crackpot" is the fact that it does not coincide with our own beliefs or the collective beliefs of society.

Unfortunately, I fear that no matter how hard we try, the other side will always sound like the kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" to any concept s/he finds disturbing. Again, that's what makes these *beliefs*. What makes our collective society wonderful is the ability to discuss, debate, and compare these beliefs, while respecting each others' beliefs and maintaining our own.

At any rate - thanks for a good, reasoned discusson within a topic that doesn't contain much reason.

Bionic Monkey 10-29-2004 12:31 PM

Love, and all other emotions are a chemical reaction in our brains that can be measured. Most of these emotions also create a physiological reaction that can be measured. While we lack the ability to discern what emotion is being felt, we can most certainly determine that something is happening using the scientific method.

God provides none of these signs that prove existence.

xepherys 10-30-2004 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Again, I completely disagree - maybe it's the romantic nature in me, but I can't get away from the fact that all of what I see around me seems too perfectly designed , for lack of a better term. I can't look at a tree, a sunset, a beautiful snowcapped mountain, or a beautiful newborn baby & not see the effects of the "design of God" (again, for lack of a better term).

See, this is where I see them as natural selection on the universal scale. Billions of years of what has worked out, leaving behind billions of years of what has not. Humans are much different in their makeup than they were 200 years ago. They tend to be taller and less broad (or artists of yesteryear were REALLY bad). Our lifestyles have changed, and our physicalities have had to adapt. A sunset isn't amazing, it's the prismatic effect of the light you see everyday, bending around the earth. A snowcapped mountain? Of course! It snows up there... it's cold on top of tall mountains. A baby is a baby... human or otherwise. They're just little vesions of the parental creatures. Is it all wonderful and beautiful? Sure it is! Is it amazing? Not so much, no...

bill96ab 10-30-2004 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bionic Monkey
Love, and all other emotions are a chemical reaction in our brains that can be measured. Most of these emotions also create a physiological reaction that can be measured. While we lack the ability to discern what emotion is being felt, we can most certainly determine that something is happening using the scientific method.

God provides none of these signs that prove existence.


If you would like, read the short book by C.S. Lewis "Suprised by Joy". Lewis was an atheist too... for a while.

also,

What is love?

love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it is not selfseeking, easily angered, nor keeps a record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth, love always protects, always trusts, and always perseveres. Love never fails.

I believe this is what love is. As stated above, Love = God, and sure we can PET scan our brains to measure how it affects our brains, but you cant PET scan the universe to see where it came from.

peace out

K-Wise 10-30-2004 11:58 AM

No one will ever be able to fully understand God (those who believe in him that is) until maybe you are face to face with him in the afterlife. That is infact guaranteed to those who follow him and it's appropriate because for all the millions of questions we have about things we don't understand in the world it would take an eternity to explain each and every one of them. I'll quote something "If God were small enough for your mind, he wouldn't be big enough for our needs." Most athiests will probably remain so for the rest of their lives....Same cannot be said for most Christians. It is much easier to not believe in God than to believe in him completely. It's very hard to believe in something you cannot for the life of you understand completely at times. So Heaven is also the appropriate prize for having such undying faith and dedication for all those years without giving up. That is HARD. Very hard. May God be with you to those who believe and especially be with you to those who don't.

Feel free to critisize me about my signature as well. I'm not perfect and I wear it on my sleeve.

Asta!!

martinguerre 10-30-2004 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bionic Monkey
Love, and all other emotions are a chemical reaction in our brains that can be measured. Most of these emotions also create a physiological reaction that can be measured. While we lack the ability to discern what emotion is being felt, we can most certainly determine that something is happening using the scientific method.

God provides none of these signs that prove existence.

a wiser man than myself always tells me that "science and religion start in the same place. Awe and wonder."

Reductionism doesn't suit science well...it is grounded in a terrific curiousity, and the sense for the potential of the universe to be surprising.

Same with religion. If you can tell me about chemical reactions or signals... Why?

We don't understand the brain very well at all...we have a basic working knowledge of the mechanisms...but very little concerning the way in which it functions on higher levels. in the end...i'd much rather give myself space to be surprised, by both God and nature.

adysav 10-31-2004 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Hey, I might think you're a nutcase for if you claimed that, but does that make your assertation any less valid?

No, because it is completely invalid in the first place. There is no basis for my assertion, I just plucked it out of the air.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Order does not come from chaos - chaos only breeds MORE of itself. Entropy always increases & the like.

It's odd how you qualify a non-scientific argument with pseudo-scientific reasoning. I'm sure you know from experience that chaos does not only lead to more chaos, look around you. A complex, well-ordered organism can be grown from a seed or egg, and you can turn a few small lumps of rock into an Ipod.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
However, so much order exists in the universe! And it repeats across scale - atoms look an awful lot like planetary systems, which in turn looks an awful lot like galaxies, etc. That order, and the rules that govern it, seems too well planned to be random, especially when I take into consideration these differences in scale & distance.

Not really. Since both galaxies and planetary systems are both chiefly governed by the same force, gravity, it is obvious there will look very similar as they are practically the same thing just with differing numbers of bodies (there are also galaxies which do not follow the popular spiral or disc shape). Atoms, however, only look like planetary systems in school textbooks where you have a little blob of balls being orbited by other balls. It's not an accurate description of what an atom 'looks' like, if you can even use that term on an atomic scale.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
Again, I completely disagree - maybe it's the romantic nature in me, but I can't get away from the fact that all of what I see around me seems too perfectly designed , for lack of a better term. I can't look at a tree, a sunset, a beautiful snowcapped mountain, or a beautiful newborn baby & not see the effects of the "design of God" (again, for lack of a better term).

Oh dear, we seem to be going in circles :(
My point is... why do you attribute these things to a higher power that you call God? It's just like the wind argument from before. You do not understand something, therefore it must be caused by God.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma
The only thing that makes an idea "crackpot" is the fact that it does not coincide with our own beliefs or the collective beliefs of society.

The lack of a foundation in reality also helps.

If you disagree I'm sorry, the beetles made me do it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by bill96ab
If you would like, read the short book by C.S. Lewis "Suprised by Joy". Lewis was an atheist too... for a while.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Lewis was not a biochemist. Nor was "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" a research paper on the evolution of mammalian psychology.
Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
If you can tell me about chemical reactions or signals... Why?

Obviously all research that you do not immediately see the benefit of, is pointless.

Fibrosa 10-31-2004 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramega
You can't prove love exists. There's no scientific way to measure it. You only know it exists because you can feel it or you believe others when they say they can feel it. Do you believe that love exists?

Is that so different from God?


Not this old inaccurate strawman.

First, the obligatory: Proofs are only for math and alcohol.

Second, you can indeed give evidence that love exists. You can in fact measure it through scientific means.

Furthermore you can describe where love comes from and what it entails.

You can not do that for "God", as witness to your inevitable stumbling over the next few questions:

Is God material or immaterial? How do you know?

Is God omniscient? How do you know? Where does God keep all this knowledge?

Describe God. Give some primary positive characteristics, not negative characteristics such as God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, which all tell us what God is not limited by, but tells us exactly ZIP about God.

martinguerre 10-31-2004 01:39 PM

"It's odd how you qualify a non-scientific argument with pseudo-scientific reasoning. I'm sure you know from experience that chaos does not only lead to more chaos, look around you. A complex, well-ordered organism can be grown from a seed or egg, and you can turn a few small lumps of rock into an Ipod."

He is actually right, you know. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy does increase overall. All the counter examples you state require the input of outside energy.

"Obviously all research that you do not immediately see the benefit of, is pointless."

I certainly don't think that. My point did not concern the utility of theoretical research in any way shape or form. My point was that science doesn't answer some kinds of questions.

adysav 10-31-2004 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
He is actually right, you know. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy does increase overall. All the counter examples you state require the input of outside energy.

Yes, 'overall' being the important word there. Also most increases in entropy require an activation energy to start a reaction, which is why we don't all just instantly turn into a soup of warm particles.
Anyway, he said chaos only leads to more chaos.
Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
I certainly don't think that. My point did not concern the utility of theoretical research in any way shape or form. My point was that science doesn't answer some kinds of questions.

You'll never know whether or not it can answer them if you don't try. We could just pass up on research into how the physiology of the brain creates our emotions, but I don't think we should do that, especially just for the sake of retaining some of the mystery in the universe.

xepherys 10-31-2004 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
No, because it is completely invalid in the first place. There is no basis for my assertion, I just plucked it out of the air.

Strangely enough, that's how many theories start, whether they are incorrect or quite on the dot.


Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
It's odd how you qualify a non-scientific argument with pseudo-scientific reasoning. I'm sure you know from experience that chaos does not only lead to more chaos, look around you. A complex, well-ordered organism can be grown from a seed or egg, and you can turn a few small lumps of rock into an Ipod.

I'm not sure that most Physicists would approve of Chaos Theory being classified as psuedo-science. In fact, chaos (entropy) DOES increase as time moves forward. A tree is much more chaotic in nature than an acorn, and iPod much more than it's elemental components, especially since the components are man made (unnatural) and the manufacturing process creates further chaos with byproducts being introduced. Things that are complex are very rarely "well-ordered". How is a tree, or a sunflower, or anything of that nature more ordered than the seed from which it was produced?


Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Not really. Since both galaxies and planetary systems are both chiefly governed by the same force, gravity, it is obvious there will look very similar as they are practically the same thing just with differing numbers of bodies (there are also galaxies which do not follow the popular spiral or disc shape). Atoms, however, only look like planetary systems in school textbooks where you have a little blob of balls being orbited by other balls. It's not an accurate description of what an atom 'looks' like, if you can even use that term on an atomic scale.

Hmmm... you use gravity, part of particle physics as an explanation, though you denote chaos theory as psuedo-science. Next, gravity is a device used in common science, but since we have no exact grasp on it's forces, we have no clue if gravity works the same or even exists at all elsewhere in the galaxy. We assume it does based on our observations, but observations alone are not factual science.

In the end, I agree... the lack of explanation does NOT prove the existance of God. However, at least refute it with reasonable evidence.

martinguerre 10-31-2004 05:38 PM

"You'll never know whether or not it can answer them if you don't try. We could just pass up on research into how the physiology of the brain creates our emotions, but I don't think we should do that, especially just for the sake of retaining some of the mystery in the universe."

Again. Just in case i wasn't clear. you can imagine this in all caps if you like, in fact, please do. I believe in theoretical research.

Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

Science does not answer some kinds of questions, becuase it is a tool with a range of specific and wonderful uses. I do not support any curtailment of science, especially in the fascinating realm of neuro-science. Learning the how will only help us ask the why. Ideas support questions. Some will be answered by science. Some will remain questions, at least for a while. And some may be addressed by religious and ethical systems. Awe and wonder do not cease with learning. They only increase.

The mystery of the universe is not that we don't have any idea what's going on...it's in the very operations and existance of it that makes it amazing. Even when we know every last bit about how systems work, we can still marvel at their ability to function and adapt. Even if we knew exactly how chemicals created emotions, we could still have awe and wonder that such a system was with in us, giving us that lens with which to view the world.

What you're driving at, i imagine, is that the world might be completely deterministic, and that if we properly understood it, that it would cease to have any wonder for us. Inputs go to outputs, reliably and with out change.

Well...i don't think it's so. Part of that is wishful thinking...it's much more interesting to live in a world that isn't deterministic. Part of it is my beleif in science. Reading Hawking, Feynman, Einstien, and others...i see the same awe and wonder that drives me to ask questions about the universe. And i see them explain the way in which the universe ceaselessly produces more layers of complexity for us to examine.

I think it was Feynman who wrote that "Nature abhors a vacuum." He was talking about the universe's tendancy to make something happen when absolutely nothing was happening otherwise. But i think of it poetically. Where there is no matter, no energy, no life, no change, no awe, nor wonder....that pure isolation will always be disturbed. With out that, there can be no story worth telling. Another writer puts it well.

"In the beginning..."

:)

Bionic Monkey 10-31-2004 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill96ab
If you would like, read the short book by C.S. Lewis "Suprised by Joy". Lewis was an atheist too... for a while.

Whoever said I was an athiest? Regardless, what worked for Lewis will not work for everybody. The simple fact is, for every "Athiest turned Christian" you point out, I could point out another "Christian turned Athiest".

The truth is, this koan or blurb or whatever you want to call it is highly overused and easily dismissed by someone who can take an empiracle look at it.

Bionic Monkey 10-31-2004 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy does increase overall.

I just wanted to state, especially since this is so woefully misunderstood, that the Earth is not a closed system. It recieves massive amounts of energy every day from the sun alone. Nevermind the constant stream of debris and particles that are always entering our atmosphere.

martinguerre 10-31-2004 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bionic Monkey
I just wanted to state, especially since this is so woefully misunderstood, that the Earth is not a closed system. It recieves massive amounts of energy every day from the sun alone. Nevermind the constant stream of debris and particles that are always entering our atmosphere.

*nods

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bionic Monkey
The truth is, this koan or blurb or whatever you want to call it is highly overused and easily dismissed by someone who can take an empiracle look at it.

I'm shaking my head...i don't know what the original poster had in mind for this thread, but i know i wouldn't try to prove anything this way. the utility of this idea is to be a rough approximation of the way your mind might have to bend a bit to accomodate the idea of God. You don't have to keep it that way, and you're welcome to have a different experience of what it might mean...

But don't think that bringing the question down to a level of strict determinism is an intellectual victory. It is the path with the very least thinking one could possibly choose.

thriolith 10-31-2004 10:51 PM

Love is a feeling and I sure can't fell "God"...

yster 11-01-2004 01:13 AM

Even if a person doesn't believe in love, doesn't free them from its effects. Be it biochemical or spiritual, awareness of how one is being influenced does not free us =)
It might give us a better perspective, of course. I personally believe it is purely selfish (loving oneself through another) and biology, but isn't it great? =p

adysav 11-01-2004 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
Again. Just in case i wasn't clear. you can imagine this in all caps if you like, in fact, please do. I believe in theoretical research.

In the earlier post you said:
"We don't understand the brain very well at all...we have a basic working knowledge of the mechanisms...but very little concerning the way in which it functions on higher levels. in the end...i'd much rather give myself space to be surprised, by both God and nature."
To me that sounded like you didnt really approve of the research going any further. If I misunderstood then just ignore the previous posts.
Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys
Strangely enough, that's how many theories start, whether they are incorrect or quite on the dot.

Most theories are not plucked out of the air willy-nilly but are based on some kind of observation. Newton gets knocked on the head with an apple and thinks "hey something looks to be pulling that down". If I lose my keys however, I don't put it down to the fact that the invisible beetles must have been in control of my body when I last had them. Similarly, blaming a being which is undetectable yet omnipresent doesn't do it for me.
I could tell you that I made the first mobile phone in my garage, and to a lot of you that would be less plausible than the existence of a universe-wide, all seeing, all-knowing invisible father figure who is conspicuous by his absence in everyday life, until we die.
Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys
I'm not sure that most Physicists would approve of Chaos Theory being classified as psuedo-science. In fact, chaos (entropy) DOES increase as time moves forward.

It's thermodynamics, not chaos theory. I said pseudo-scientific because he was misquoting well known scientific laws to further his point.
Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys
A tree is much more chaotic in nature than an acorn, and iPod much more than it's elemental components, especially since the components are man made (unnatural) and the manufacturing process creates further chaos with byproducts being introduced.

Yes the overall entropy increases, but an Ipod is not less ordered than it's elemental components (what has being man-made got to do with anything?). If you don't see that then I don't know what I can say to help you understand.
A tree is more chaotic than an acorn? Several tons of roaming simple molecules are brought together to form a well structured biological factory.
Complex objects are well ordered, that's why they're complex.

martinguerre 11-01-2004 07:04 AM

"in the end...i'd much rather give myself space to be surprised, by both God and nature."

Rather than assume that it all works out deterministically? Yeah, i do. The Evangelically Atheist often push towards this assumption, that if it involves matter, that there's nothing special going on, and that the human brain is a computer that deterministically produces output systematically obtained from input. (The regular Evangelic often says a very similar thing about history...that God's dominion is inexorably expressed in history and is working towards a preordained moment for the second coming. i just find the parallel interesting...)

I'd much rather step back from that, and assume for the time being that i'm going to be surprised. Also, given the current facts at hand...i see absolutely no rational basis for in insistance that anything is "just" an chemical reaction when it comes to the brain. It's like saying the Saturn V is "just" a way of burning things. When i first see a Saturn V, i don't know it can send something to the moon. I look around the outside, see some vague schematics...i might guess that, but i'm sure as hell going to guess that it does *something* important.

A person can try to assume that things are small, definite, deterministic, and limited. Or they can assume otherwise...

I know what i choose...i've been trying to talk about why that is.

PS. That being surprised by nature part? That was a reference to the study of the continuing work of science.


Quote:

I could tell you that I made the first mobile phone in my garage, and to a lot of you that would be less plausible than the existence of a universe-wide, all seeing, all-knowing invisible father figure who is conspicuous by his absence in everyday life, until we die.
This analogy is not supposed to make you think "big grandfather in the sky." This analogy is one way of explaining how people move past that idea, and still claim a belief in God.

adysav 11-01-2004 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
I'd much rather step back from that, and assume for the time being that i'm going to be surprised. Also, given the current facts at hand...i see absolutely no rational basis for in insistance that anything is "just" an chemical reaction when it comes to the brain. It's like saying the Saturn V is "just" a way of burning things.

Well yeah, it is. Granted it would probably be the most expensive barbeque in history, but that's not it's reason for being. The thing is, reason for being doesn't really matter in this point. Essentially the Saturn V is a complicated machine for burning things in a very controlled fashion.
The human brain is just a machine for interpreting the stimuli you come into contact with and making decisions based upon them. I don't see any rational basis for this being anything but "just" chemical reactions.

As far as determinism goes, it's not a given for an atheist to think like that. The laws which govern subatomic interactions are indeterministic as far as we know.

martinguerre 11-01-2004 03:37 PM

see, and this is where i know that the argument has hit a brick wall. of doom.

Quote:

but that's not it's reason for being. The thing is, reason for being doesn't really matter in this point. Essentially the Saturn V is a complicated machine for burning things in a very controlled fashion.
Let's parse what you're saying.

To state: "Essentially the Saturn V is a complicated machine for burning things in a very controlled fashion," you have to omit *vast* amount of information to the point of extreme distortion. It's purpose for being is surely known, one of the most memorable speeches ever recorded commissioned it's flight.

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept..."
Full text and audio, at http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/ricetalk.htm

Okay. So you had to cut that out, and claim that it's irrelevant. But in the human experience...what mattered about at Saturn V? That it burned things? Ask anyone who can remember July 20th 1969. They will not tell you about an expensive barbaque.

Look...it's an analogy...if you don't want to get it...fine. Say its a costly matchstick. But honestly? That's a pretty silly answer, and i'd guess you know that.

adysav 11-02-2004 01:55 AM

I know what you're saying and despite the fact that our brains are phenomenal in complexity and achieve so much during our lifetime, they are still just bags of meat run by electrical and chemical interactions.

planets 11-02-2004 09:02 AM

"Well yeah, it is. Granted it would probably be the most expensive barbeque in history, but that's not it's reason for being. The thing is, reason for being doesn't really matter in this point. Essentially the Saturn V is a complicated machine for burning things in a very controlled fashion.
The human brain is just a machine for interpreting the stimuli you come into contact with and making decisions based upon them. I don't see any rational basis for this being anything but "just" chemical reactions."

Well... any claim for measuring the extent to which our brains are disengaged calculating machines is lost in its purpose, for these calculations and rationalizations are performed by the very entity that is being studied.

Besides that, your observations and conclusions, which may or may not be deterministic, tempered by the most objective logic or just unreasonable, improbable or founded in reality, are still inextricably your observations. you cannot dispel or discount others' opinions based on ur perception of what a certain event means, because perception is founded upon axioms particular to you. Take that into account with the point made in the preceding paragraph, and you have an inalienable obligation to respect others opinion.

adysav 11-02-2004 11:21 AM

Well you could argue that there is no point in discussing anything because everyone's perception is unique to them, so effectively everyone is discussing different events.

planets 11-02-2004 05:25 PM

haha that's a nifty excuse for social recluses... but discussions were never a means towards finding a perfect answer. The socratic dialectic is "an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue" (wikipedia). It is because we understand the impossibility of perfect sympathy towards others' points of view (due to the same brain thinking about brain argument), that debates and discussions must necessarily exist to arrive at a more coherent and socially accepted perception.
Of course then, anyone could argue that they were not really social animals (reducing the case to an excuse for social recluses), and are totally driven towards debates by the need to impose their views upon others. In which case they'd have to convince first why the heck their views are better than others', but that they'd never be able to achieve cos that requires disengaged consideration from others. Either way then, it's a lost cause and they'd probably be better off sitting at home telling their ideas to virtuagirl 2000. or something.

RedbeardUH 11-04-2004 06:59 PM

What do you guys think about this:

Pre 1500s or so, "love" didn't exist. Modern day love does not equal acienct idea of "love." How is this reconcilible?

Mantus 11-04-2004 08:13 PM

“Love” describes a state of being.

“God” describes a being.

The two terms are quite different in my opinion since the qualities of “love” are based on experience while some qualities of “God” are not.

hannukah harry 11-04-2004 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedbeardUH
What do you guys think about this:

Pre 1500s or so, "love" didn't exist. Modern day love does not equal acienct idea of "love." How is this reconcilible?

i think it's wrong and a pretty assinine statement.

/being honest

planets 11-06-2004 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedbeardUH
What do you guys think about this:

Pre 1500s or so, "love" didn't exist. Modern day love does not equal acienct idea of "love." How is this reconcilible?


If love didn't exist in ancient times, we have no definition of love to compare our current definitions of love against, thus both the statement you make and consequently the question you ask are vacuous.

Aside from the logical arguments. Maybe love was present in those times, but our primitive minds weren't sophisticated enough to define it. Perhaps we expressed love by clubbing members of the opposite gender over their heads and dragging them back to our caves. God on the other hand, must surely have been treated with unreasonable amount of respect. If we can't put into words the magnificence of a sunrise now, almost a millenia ahead (most rely on muted reverence i guess), we can imagine how people of the past might have expressed their awe.
I made a naughty assumption here - the ability to reason removes fear. Just as procuring knowledge has been thought of as a successive removal of the relevance of God. Granted, I am not justified, but some priests in the christian order (or was it catholic i don't recall) did think that long long ago.

adysav 11-06-2004 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by planets
you cannot dispel or discount others' opinions based on ur perception of what a certain event means, because perception is founded upon axioms particular to you. Take that into account with the point made in the preceding paragraph, and you have an inalienable obligation to respect others opinion.

I was thinking about this again, and I'm not sure if I agree entirely.
Yes, perception is unique to the person, but opinions are not purely based on perception. Opinions are filtered through people's bias, desire, social conditioning, inexperience and occassionally rational processes. I have no obligation to respect someone's opinion if it's clearly a load of shit.

Locs 11-09-2004 03:03 PM

adysav,

I have to totally agree with all your posts in this thread. I wish I could meld my words together like that, because that is exactally how I feel.

Yes, I really like the way you explain things.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360