WJ

Walross/Devilnut, et al;

To follow-up on our recent discussion about proving the existence of love from the misc. religious forum, I will now make a direct case for the logical inconsistency that the atheist employs when making judgements about the EOG (one's beliefs), in the face of the existence/experience of love and/or the religious experience.

The question is thus: How can one prove the existence of the concept love?

Metaphysician: We are not concerned with things in themselves, but merely with things as the objects of possible experience. The sum total of these is what we properly call nature. º How is it possible to know a priori the necessary laws regulating things as objects of experience?

The bringing together of images in a consciousness is judgment. Thus thinking is the same as judging or referring images to judgments in general. Experience consists of synthetic linking (association) of phenomena (perceptions) in a consciousness. Judgments, considered merely as the condition for bringing together given images in a consciousness, are rules. These rules, in so far as they present the togetherness as necessary, are a priori.

Therefore, I understand perfectly the concept of cause as a concept belonging necessarily to the mere form of experience, and I understand its possibility as a synthetic linking of perceptions in a consciousness in general. But I do not understand at all how a thing in itself is a possible cause, because the concept of cause does not at all mean a condition attached to things, but only attached to the experience. Experience can only be objectively valid knowledge of phenomena and of their sequence in time, in so far as the antecedent can be united to the consequent according to the rule of hypothetical judgment.

Theist: So are you saying that ,say, an atheist can only assume the phenomena of love exists thru his experience of 'it', the 'it' being the thing we call love itself-the concept?

Metaphysician: Concepts function only within experience, only to interpret sensibility. Concept without sense content are empty. The use of concepts is limited to experience because their possibility is grounded solely in the relation of the mind to experience. This is true not because concepts are derived from experience, but because EXPERIENCE IS DERIVED FROM CONCEPTS. This completely reversed mode of thinking never occurred to Hume.

Theist: This is confusing. Are you saying that the will to act and experience love (and life) is initially concieved in the mind as a concept in need of such experience?

Metaphysician: Yes.

Theist: That implies a sort of apriori or innate need to develop concepts, no? I mean, I thought our will 'to be' is based on the need to experience life, in this instance, love first, then from experience develop concepts about it.

Metaphysician: No. Just as there is an innate apriori need to want to experience love, there is an innate need to first develop concepts. The question is, who first developed or invented the concepts love and God? And are they mutually exclusive? And if so, who invented the concept love?

Theist: Well, regardless of which came first, let me now turn to the atheist and ask him to prove then that the innate need to experience love is something thru which we can objectively infer its existence. To this end, I will ask him how do you conclude that the concept love exists in your mind, yet you conclude that God does not?

Atheist: Because I've never had the innate need to experience God. Nevertheless, I do have a need for love, or at least I have had the experience of love so that I can at least speak to the phenomena and that 'it' exists.

Theist: Well, if a theist claims they experience the phenomena of [the concept of] God's existence or presence, how can you refute it? In otherwords, who invented the concept God? And who invented the concept love?

Atheist: Well, I guess you're right, I can't refute it and I don't know who invented the concept love, but I maintain I have no innate need to seek or experience God in my life. I can rightly regard the objects of sense experience as mere phenomena thereby admitting that each such object is based upon a thing in itself which is unknown in themselves, and perhaps are entirely distinct from these phenomena. Specifically, I do not care to know the nature of the thing called love itself. It, love, just exists. And I like it.

Theist: That seems inconsistent with how you arrive at the denial of experience that other's claim to have about their God. How is this any different in the inference that the concept love exists, as well as the concept God, as in say explaining the ultimate cause for conscious existence and experience and/or the phenomena of the innate need for love? Why are you unable to put the apriori of concepts and aposterior of experience together? Do you not agree that all events have causes? Why do you even believe that?

Further, in this context of love, simply not caring enough about the nature of the thing or a causal relationship is not a sufficient or consistent reason in denying anything, it is merely an arbitrary choice you've made. It's beginning to sound like the atheist version of 'Godidit' only for no reason, you've concluded that there is no ultimate cause and purpose to these things we experience or these concepts we invent; you just experience them. At least the Theist has sufficient reason to conclude or believe God is the cause for much of life's phenomena.

Thoughts?

Jayhawker Soule

If verbosity is next to Godliness you have a self-fulfilling philosophy.

Koyaanisqatsi

What the hell are you talking about? Do you mean, How can one prove the existence of the concept of "Love?"

In which case no one would need to. Concepts are a dime a dozen.

Or is this some stupid attempt to end run God, in which case the same thing applies.

Nobody questions whether or not people have god concepts.

(edited for lysdexia - Koy)

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

WJ

Is love a concept or an experience or both?

Koyaanisqatsi

Who gives a shit?

TooBad

Neither concepts nor experiences can exist without someone to do the conceiving or experiencing.

Jamie_L

First of all, I will again issue complaints that I've voiced in response to others: you are making atheists out to be naturalists, which is not necessarily the case. While many of us are metaphysical naturalists, it's not a requirement of atheists. If your problem is with naturalism, as it appears to be, then focus on that.

Is love a concept or an experience? Both.

I don't quite follow how you got to "innate needs" to experience love or develop concepts. At first glance, this seems to be a strawman. At least, I (as both atheist and naturalist) don't subscribe to that notion.

Jamie

WJ

Toobad!

...and? Keep going!

Walrus

WJ

Jamie!

Perhaps the simple approach is to logically prove that love exists. Wouldn't you agree?

Walrus

TooBad

That was the end of the sentence. Did you have a question...?