theIPU

I had some problems refuting the following argument....

a theist came up to me and asked, "Do you love your parents?" and I said, "Yes."

the theist then asked, "Can you prove that?" and I replied, "Yes, because I show affection towards them."

the theist replied saying how that only proves that I show affection towards my parents, not love. The theist then said that if love can exist without proof, so can God.

any answers would be appreciated

Luiseach

I think you could say that your friend is drawing up a false (or imperfect) analogy between the emotion of love and the existence of God. The analogy does not hold water, in other words.

A better comparison could be made between love and faith, rather than love and God....I think.

The objects of your love (your folks) do exist, but the object of faith (God) doesn't (or there isn't any verifiable evidence for his existence).

philechat

One way to show his fallacy is to show that the idea of "love" is based on experience (a phenomena that is, like color). It does not require the object of experience to actually exist in the form perceived. It is a labelling term that designates a collection of experience (i.e. perception) of things, rather than the things itself.

Color does not exist apart from the eye's perception. Love does not exist independent of the person experiencing the various states of mind he calls "love". This alone will strip away any attempt to prove the objective existence of God.

Wiploc

He is absolutely correct, and it is proper to say so: god could exist without proof. But then point out that if god exists without proof, there is no reason to believe in him. Ask him if there are logical reasons to believe in god, "or is belief in god illogical?"

You know you love your parents. That love is personal and internal, existing only in your mind. It is a state of mind. That's why you can't offer evidence. Belief in god may be a state of mind, but god himself is not. If he exists at all, it is not as somebody's personal mental state. Therefore, if there is a logical reason to believe in him, that reason can be --- and should be --- articulated and shared. "So tell me a good reason to believe in god."

"If you thought there were real reasons to believe in god, reasons that could be communicated from one person to another, then you wouldn't be offering analogies between god and things that cannot be proven, right?"

If he thinks he can communicate a reason to believe in god, let him do so. If he thinks no such reason can be communicated, why did he bring it up?
crc

Phanes

Well this is just the same thing others have said, but...

The mere fact that you think you love is more or less proof that you do love. Whenever you talk about personal mental states, feelings, or perceptions in general, the only real evidence is the very sensation. If I think I am happy, I am happy. If you think you love someone, you love that person.

Of course there are two potential problems here:

1. Do both people agree on the meanings and connotation of the word? This is why a ten year old boy who says "I love Jenny" is not exactly correct. It's probably true that he has feelings for the girl, maybe even strong ones, but he probably isn't using the word "love" the same way an adult would.

Next time someone asks you the question, ask them for some objective criteria on how love is different from affection. If they can't give it, all you have to go on is your own experience.

2. Is the sensation a reflection of some objective reality? This is where the God analogy breaks down. If I say that I saw an angel, and I am neither lying nor incorrectly remembering the event, then the fact is that I did see an angel. But that does not mean that it was some particular entity (namely an angel) that was responsible for what I saw. What people see and what is actually there are often quite different. Here's a better analogy: If I have poor eyesight, then I may see many things as blurry. Of course we all know that this isn't an accurate reflection of something independent of my own perception - it is true that I see blurry people, but that doesn't mean there are blurry people walking around.

The same idea works with respect to feelings and whatever other sensations you can imagine. When you say you love someone, the only thing being referenced is some mental state of yours, i.e. something subjective. There's no problem there; if anyone knows what's true about your mind, it's you. And if someone tries to claim they have the same feelings and whatnot with regards to God, that's absolutely fine... just so long as they think God is a subjective mental state. The second they claim God is something that exists outside and independently of themselves, they're no longer working on automatic authority.


This is all in my very, very humble opinion, of course. I'm sure there are many philosophers and laymen alike who would rip into me for suggesting this sort of thing.

Steven Carr

I can't prove Cindy Crawford loves me, which is probably why the court took out that restraining order.......

Still, at least I can get it rescinded, now I know that I just don't need proof.

I hope you will all be jealous when Cindy and I are finally together.

Wiploc

Hey, theIPU, welcome to the II boards.

Perfect! TheIPU, your answer is to say, "Are you telling me god is subjective?" That will make the Christian really ... comfortable.

crc

ps: Hey, that's probably why they say god is love.

JEST2ASK

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Shadowy Man

So God is an emotion that people feel?

That sounds about right.

Yes, God is like love. It doesn't exist outside the context of the human mind and human culture.

rainbow walking

Love is an abstract concept. If the believer is willing to accept that god is nothing more than an abstract concept, then you can let him think he's won the argument.