Jamie_L

WJ got on about this all the time, and I felt disappointment that his arguements always descended into chaos. Why? Because this has been one of the most common responses I've gotten from everyday people when we get into mild arguements about atheism and naturalism.

It's the old "Well, you can't see love, but you believe in that, don't you?"

The first time I was hit with that, it through me a little - but I was 13 at the time. Now, it just seems like a non-sequiter. Why does this notion seem like such a convincing arguement to some people?

Jamie

Perchance

Hi Jamie,

Though I've usually heard the argument as, "Well, God is the cause of love, it can't be all chemicals," I think it's because love occupies a hallowed place in people's minds and in (American, at least) culture that this argument seems to convince people. Love, like God, is supposed to be something more than natural, not just the result of genetics and/or cultural training. And, of course, there are a lot of statements in the Bible talking about how God loves his people, and one of the Christian God's supposed charecteristics is being omnibenevolent.

I think the things combine in the minds of some people to confuse three quite distinct statements into one:

1) God, like love, is invisible.
2) God is (supposedly) the cause of love.
3) God and love are both supposed to be special.

So people wind up saying, "Love exists, therefore God exists."

Or so think I .

-Perchance.

PJPSYCO

The people that get converted because of that argument get converted because they want to beleive, and need an excuse. This is an easy excuse since if you don't have love, you must have hate. The problem is that with further study we find that love is not invisible it is just hidden near the center of the brain. It is simple basically being norepinephrin and dopamine. God on the other hand can not be found, all who say they know say that it is unknowable. So, we can't even find this 'god' to see if it even exists. So, love and god are very different things when you a smart, but both simply invisable and fleeting when you are stupid.

jdawg2

also known as the "Argument from I just saw the movie Contact"

I remember watching that scene and cringing at that supposedly "deep" argument for the existence of god.

"Did your father love you?"

"yes."

"prove it"

*deleted scene*

"Because ever since I was a baby, he has always gave me hugs, fed me, clothed me, groomed me, taught me things about life, played games with me, visited school events, etc. There's your evidence that my father loves me. Oh yeah, he's an actual physical person too. Now where is the evidence for your invisible superhero?"

ashibaka

You can tell in that movie where Sagan's guidance ends and the directors' arrogance begins...

I always saw the argument from love as:

1) Love exists.
2) Therefore, abstract concepts exist.
3) God is an abstract concept.
4) Therefore, God exists.

Kantian

False to the point of absurdity. Whenever the topic covers abstract concepts (God, mathematics, love) the illegitimate use of the word "existence" betrays a platonic attitude, which is the first step towards theistic thinking that licenses all those psychological defects as pompous theology, and dresses up this sophistry as something 'respectable.'

Existence is an empirical concept, not an a priori one, and that rules out all necessities or demonstrablities- that goes for assertions like "necessary existence."

Haven't you read your Kant?

~Transcendentalist~

Jobar

Whether God is logically necessary or not, I assure all that WJ is not a competent judge.

WJ. You said you were leaving for Andrew_theist's board- bon voyage!

Aerik Von

Love is like a wonderful drug...filled with chemical reactions!

So I indulge in it...

luvluv

Circumstantial. Perhaps your father pretended to love you because if he didn't he would lose sexual access to your mother. Perhaps he was playing the loving father in order to advance in his work. Perhaps he saw great financial potential in you and is nurturing you until he can reap the rewards from it.

None of these actions prove that your father loves you.

Dr S

The level of proof we are asking for around here is very low.
A Father doing those things with his child is quite sufficient.

We would accept a similar low level of proof that there was a god. Just have him show up like the father in the example.

As low and as poor a level as this proof is at...as prone to fraud as it might be...it is still too high for you to reach.
You want the total absence of proof to be your proof.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Dr S ]</p>