Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hobbs · 07-30-2002, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
The question is thus: How can one prove the existence of the concept love?

Oh great, not this silly argument again.

Look, WJ, if you want to argue that God, like love, is a private, subjective experience that exists only in the experiencer's own mind and will die with the experiencer, you will get no argument from us. That, in fact, is precisely our point. I'm glad to see that you agree with us that your god is only in your head.

Quote:

So if an atheists denies the feeling of the religious experience as presumably caused by [the concept] God, what method does he use to affirm, deny or otherwise make judgements about his own feelings caused by [the concept] love?

"feelings caused by love"? What? 'Love' doesn't cause feelings. It is a feeling.

Has anybody here denied that you have experiences which you label as 'religious'? What we dispute are your explanations of what causes those experiences.

Again, if you want to draw an analogy between God and love, then you are agreeing with us: it's all in your head.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]

DRFseven · 07-30-2002, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Princess: This makes no sense to me. I don't think the two are as related as one might think. It is quite possible to have a concept without any experience. Take IPU. I have never experienced IPU. I have never seen IPU. I have never touched IPU. I have never heard IPU. I have never felt the presence of IPU. The only "experience" I've had is that I've heard of IPU.

Well, then, you HAVE had experience with the concepts of "invisible", "pink", and "unicorn", as well as with the concept of our beloved little mascot, here, the IPU. Do you think you could have a concept of it if you didn't know what "invisible", "pink", or "unicorn" meant? Anything perceived is an experience, including thoughts.

Typhon · 07-30-2002, 08:36 PM

Walroo!

I did read the post! You just didn't understand mine I think.

There is no need to "logically proof the concept of love." The act existed before the concept, as proof positive found in numerous studies of behavior and biology. It's simple!

Altruistic behavior exists in social animals, us included. It provides an important framework and set of advantages. We can show that this is true, and not limited to just man. Here is love, even of a partially non-sexual type, which exists before we had the concept or the ability to intellectualize it.

Show me that this isn't true, and we can go from there if you think you have something to discuss on this topic. Otherwise, there is your logical proof, no concepts needed, merely the actuality from which the wellspring of love and altruistic behavior as well as sexual! love does gush.

Gush. I like that word, it has nice round edges!

Tyfood

WJ · 07-31-2002, 04:00 AM

Reasonable!

Can you prove that love exists and describe its nature, thru which it causes humans (or using your words) or "triggers" fear in adults/children as part of its effect?

walrus

WJ · 07-31-2002, 04:14 AM

Prince!

Glad to see someone is reading the post. You said: "On the other hand, it is quite possible to have an experience without any concept of what that experience means. I would not say that experience derives from concepts. I would say that the meaning of an experience derives from concepts, and this is a big difference."

Can you provide an example that involves the feeling/phenomena of love as well as the religious experience using logic?

Then you said:"Do you believe that Keebler elves really exist and make cookies?"

No. The point is, do you believe in love, and if you do, prove it. You can't.

then you said: "Who invented the concept of Keebler elves? Does it matter to you if many eons past, my ancestor came up with the concept of love all by herself?'

Same problem of apple and oranges. Once again, your response is is proof of the atheist's logical inconsistency in making judgements about phenomena that exists. Why are you not able to make the connection between the experience of love and the experience of God?

Then you said:
"So... God is the one who makes the cookies, and not the Keebler elves? Why should I believe you? I've at least SEEN Keebler elves."

I've seen God. Have you seen love? Why should I believe you?

Well, guys, one down, more to go!

WJ · 07-31-2002, 04:19 AM

goliath!

You said;

"Since the emotion called love is natural, it is not supernatural. Since love has nothing to do with the supernatural, evidence suffices."

Please tell us the nature of love! We anxiously await your detailed reply!!!

Looks like another logical inconsistency here.

WJ · 07-31-2002, 04:24 AM

Jobar!

Well I'm glad we agree to the rudamentary stuff. Now lets get to the real issue. You said:

"Now, if you are trying to say that the actual reality of love is no more proveable than the existence of God, I will disagree. Love allows us to make many predictions, and test them for truth or falsity. What predictions can we make to prove or disprove the physical existence of God?"

Another logical inconsistency on your part. You cannot deny that a person experiences the presence of God any more than you can deny the persons experience of love. Do you wish to return to what a concept means for your rebuttal?

Jamie_L · 07-31-2002, 04:26 AM

Hmmm. I got out of bed this morning all ready to make some great points, but they've already been made. So, I won't repeat.

I will admit that my chair/love analogy is muddled at best - though I am fully prepared to back it up. I would explain, but I fear it would derail the thread and draw attention away from better arguements. If people really want to argue about love and chairs, we can certainly come back to it.

Jamie

WJ · 07-31-2002, 04:37 AM

Hobbs!

"That, in fact, is precisely our point. I'm glad to see that you agree with us that your god is only in your head."

Love is only in your head.

Then you said;

"feelings caused by love"? What? 'Love' doesn't cause feelings. It is a feeling.

Has anybody here denied that you have experiences which you label as 'religious'? What we dispute are your explanations of what causes those experiences.

Again, if you want to draw an analogy between God and love, then you are agreeing with us: it's all in your head."

Hobbs, I must say at least you are taking a position on something. Problem is, you cannot prove what you just said about love's primacy between feeling and the causal relationships. Can you? Just like you , I am disputing what causes feelings. Your response is just like in the original post; it just is. See the logical inconsistency? Otherwise, you are sounding like a theist, godidit!.

So, if you are saying love did NOT do it(which I think is what you imply), then what are you saying about the phenomena of love's existence? Is all in our heads?

explainations, explainations, explainations.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-31-2002, 05:18 AM

WJ, you simply have no idea what the hell you're saying.

Let's deconstruct your WJism:

Quote:

The point is, do you believe in love, and if you do, prove it. You can't.

What are you asking to be proved?

<ol type="1">[*]That somebody believes in love?[*]That the concept of love exists?[/list=a]

Or are you trying to get at something else entirely?

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ASKING US TO PROVE AND ARE YOU ASKING US TO "PROVE" IT ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF MODAL LOGIC OR IN THE SENSE OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION?

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

07-31-2002, 04:37 AM	#39
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hobbs! "That, in fact, is precisely our point. I'm glad to see that you agree with us that your god is only in your head." Love is only in your head. Then you said; "feelings caused by love"? What? 'Love' doesn't cause feelings. It is a feeling. Has anybody here denied that you have experiences which you label as 'religious'? What we dispute are your explanations of what causes those experiences. Again, if you want to draw an analogy between God and love, then you are agreeing with us: it's all in your head." Hobbs, I must say at least you are taking a position on something. Problem is, you cannot prove what you just said about love's primacy between feeling and the causal relationships. Can you? Just like you , I am disputing what causes feelings. Your response is just like in the original post; it just is. See the logical inconsistency? Otherwise, you are sounding like a theist, godidit!. So, if you are saying love did NOT do it(which I think is what you imply), then what are you saying about the phenomena of love's existence? Is all in our heads? explainations, explainations, explainations. [ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2002, 08:36 PM	#33
Typhon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mount Aetna Posts: 271	Walroo! I did read the post! You just didn't understand mine I think. There is no need to "logically proof the concept of love." The act existed before the concept, as proof positive found in numerous studies of behavior and biology. It's simple! Altruistic behavior exists in social animals, us included. It provides an important framework and set of advantages. We can show that this is true, and not limited to just man. Here is love, even of a partially non-sexual type, which exists before we had the concept or the ability to intellectualize it. Show me that this isn't true, and we can go from there if you think you have something to discuss on this topic. Otherwise, there is your logical proof, no concepts needed, merely the actuality from which the wellspring of love and altruistic behavior as well as sexual! love does gush. Gush. I like that word, it has nice round edges! Tyfood

07-31-2002, 04:00 AM	#34
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Reasonable! Can you prove that love exists and describe its nature, thru which it causes humans (or using your words) or "triggers" fear in adults/children as part of its effect? walrus

07-31-2002, 04:14 AM	#35
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Prince! Glad to see someone is reading the post. You said: "On the other hand, it is quite possible to have an experience without any concept of what that experience means. I would not say that experience derives from concepts. I would say that the meaning of an experience derives from concepts, and this is a big difference." Can you provide an example that involves the feeling/phenomena of love as well as the religious experience using logic? Then you said:"Do you believe that Keebler elves really exist and make cookies?" No. The point is, do you believe in love, and if you do, prove it. You can't. then you said: "Who invented the concept of Keebler elves? Does it matter to you if many eons past, my ancestor came up with the concept of love all by herself?' Same problem of apple and oranges. Once again, your response is is proof of the atheist's logical inconsistency in making judgements about phenomena that exists. Why are you not able to make the connection between the experience of love and the experience of God? Then you said: "So... God is the one who makes the cookies, and not the Keebler elves? Why should I believe you? I've at least SEEN Keebler elves." I've seen God. Have you seen love? Why should I believe you? Well, guys, one down, more to go!

07-31-2002, 04:19 AM	#36
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	goliath! You said; "Since the emotion called love is natural, it is not supernatural. Since love has nothing to do with the supernatural, evidence suffices." Please tell us the nature of love! We anxiously await your detailed reply!!! Looks like another logical inconsistency here.

07-31-2002, 04:24 AM	#37
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Jobar! Well I'm glad we agree to the rudamentary stuff. Now lets get to the real issue. You said: "Now, if you are trying to say that the actual reality of love is no more proveable than the existence of God, I will disagree. Love allows us to make many predictions, and test them for truth or falsity. What predictions can we make to prove or disprove the physical existence of God?" Another logical inconsistency on your part. You cannot deny that a person experiences the presence of God any more than you can deny the persons experience of love. Do you wish to return to what a concept means for your rebuttal?

07-31-2002, 04:26 AM	#38
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Hmmm. I got out of bed this morning all ready to make some great points, but they've already been made. So, I won't repeat. I will admit that my chair/love analogy is muddled at best - though I am fully prepared to back it up. I would explain, but I fear it would derail the thread and draw attention away from better arguements. If people really want to argue about love and chairs, we can certainly come back to it. Jamie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.