Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hobbs · 07-31-2002, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
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?

Are you asking us to prove to you that there is some objective entity called 'love' that exists apart from us? I doubt any of us non-theists believe that, so why would we want to try to prove what we don't think is true? If you want to say that 'God' is a term labelling a subjective experience of yours, that's fine with me: I agree with you. If you want to claim that either the term 'God' or the term 'love' is a label for some objective entity that exists apart from us, it is up to you to prove it to us.

WJ · 07-31-2002, 05:48 AM

Hobbs!

At the risk of repeating the original post, one main theme is that the atheist uses a logical inconsistency in making judgements about the concept God by using that same apriori logic that defines God (like Koy reapeatedly does) by trying to demonstrate the logical existence of love. That is because at the same time he asserts that the concept love exists thru experience, he denies the concept God can also exist thru the same experience.

The atheist seems to be saying:

EOG= is [dis]proved by the apriori of concepts.
Love= is proved by the aposterior of concepts.

Now, you mentioned objectivity. Are you saying what Jamie was saying?

Walrus

Hobbs · 07-31-2002, 06:00 AM

WJ, see if this explains what is wrong with your "challenge."

I love my wife. I can't prove that to you. The reason I can't prove it to you is that my love for my wife is a private, subjective experience of mine. It is not something that objectively exists apart from me. It is not something you can, even in principle, have access to. You could not experience my love for my wife without being me. So I cannot give you any objective proof that I experience what I feel about my wife. But, so what?

I use the term 'love' to label those feelings, because I have heard other people describe their feelings and call it 'love,' and those descriptions fit what I feel, so I call my feelings 'love.' I can describe my feelings to you, and you can know from my descriptions what I mean. But i can't prove to you that I have those feelings.

I can, however, prove to you that my wife exists. She exists objectively, independently of me. I can point her out to you. Then I can show you her driver's license and passport so you can look at the pictures, verify that they are her identification documents, and verify her name from them. Then I can show you the papers that confirm that she and I are married.

I suppose I could be unmarried, and have an ideal in mind of what I would want as a wife, and feel 'love' for that ideal. But that ideal would just be a concept in my head; it wouldn't exist apart from my thinking of it.

I don't think any of us doubt that you have feelings which you label 'religious.' I doubt any of us would ask you to prove that you have such feelings. I am sure you have such feelings, and that you have learned from parents, preachers, and sunday school teachers to label them as 'religious' experiences and to explain them as experiences of 'God.' I also don't think that any of us doubt that you have a concept of 'God' in your head, a concept which you have learned from those same parents and preachers and sunday school teachers. What we doubt is that there is some objectively existing entity [God] that is the cause or the object of those feelings, or that the concept in your head matches.

I can't prove to you that I love my wife, just as you can't prove to me that you have religious experiences. But I can prove to you that my wife exists. Can you prove that your god exists?

Do you get it now? Do you see why your challenge misses the point completely?

WJ · 07-31-2002, 06:26 AM

Hobbs!

Thank you for the time in that explaination. i believe you've missed the point. I'm not talking about truth being subjectivity in the form of the 'SK variety' which I believe is what you are saying. It is simply true that no other human person can get inside your head and feel exactly what you feel.

The fact remains that the concept of love is something that most all people can feel. You must agree with that statement (or if you would like to change some of the words...). If we can agree with the major thrust of that premise, and if we can safely assume that the atheist is a minority in his feelings about the concept God, which are both realized thru the aposterior, then we have to ask ourselves why the inconsistency? The onus is on the atheist to show why he believes in love but not God.

You mentioned the ability to relate to an object, your wife. Is love objectivity? That question is a very important question and quite paradoxical if not contradictory if you care to go there.

Nonetheless, in this context of logic, to be consistent:

God= is proved by the aposterior of concepts.
Love= is proved by the aposterior of concepts.

Further, the same argument you made about feelings, experiences, and beliefs associated with the concept God, as derived from childhood, etc. can be made about the concept Love. Right? So you have not demonstrated that they are mutually exclusive.

My question is why the logical inconsistency?

Walrus

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

DRFseven · 07-31-2002, 06:49 AM

Hi, WJ. My granddaughter truly and deeply loves her plastic toy horse, "Spirit." It stands by her plate while she eats, so she can gaze at it in admiration. Yesterday, she had me sew it a little blanket trimmed in pink ribbon. Without a doubt, she loves this toy horse, yet her love demonstrates nothing about the horse; it demonstrates something about her. The object of your love proves nothing about the object.

WJ · 07-31-2002, 06:54 AM

...nor does it prove that love's objectivity exists.

Goliath · 07-31-2002, 07:00 AM

WJ,

Quote:

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

Love is an emotion. What else did you need to know?

The very fact that it is an emotion places it within the realm of the natural. Therefore love is not supernatural.

Quote:

Looks like another logical inconsistency here.

Explain.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Hobbs · 07-31-2002, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
My question is why the logical inconsistency?

My point is that there is no logical inconsistency.

There is a logical inconsistency only if the concept 'love' and the concept 'god' are labels for the same sort of idea. If the concept 'love' refers to a subjective emotion and the concept 'god' refers to a subjective emotion, then there would be a contradiction in using different criteria to "prove" one than to "prove" the other. But if your claim is that both 'love' and 'god' refer to subjective experiences, then you are not disagreeing with atheists. We have no reason to doubt that you have a concept of 'god', and we agree that the concept refers to a subjective experience.

If, however, the concept 'love' refers to a subjective emotion and the concept 'God' refers to an objectively existing entity, then of course there would be different criteria to "prove" one than to "prove" the other, and there is absolutely no contradiction in saying that what can "prove" one cannot "prove" the other, because a subjective emotion and an objectively existing entity are two different categories of concepts, thus subject to different types of explanations, descriptions, or "proofs." Thus, there is no logical inconsistency in claiming that people do experience the subjective emotion labeled 'love' and that people's idea of 'god' does not match any actually existing objective entity, even though they do have subjective experiences they label as 'religious' and they claim are due to experiences of 'god' (again, we do not disagree that people have these experiences).

I think, though, that you seem to be under the impression that 'love', like 'God', is meant to refer to some sort of objectively existing entity, and this is the source of your problem. You asked "Is love objectivity?" I don't know why you can't see that I have repeatedly explicitly said that 'love' is a subjective experience. Do you think that it is "objectivity"? If so, then you have something else to prove in addition to your claim that your god objectively exists. You have to prove to us that 'love' refers to an objective entity.

In saying that 'love' is subjective, I'm not saying that it is not real. The feelings, the experiences, are real. I'm saying that the concept does not refer to something that exists independently of those feelings. When I say 'God' does not exist, I am not saying that no one has religious experiences and that no one understands or explains those experiences as being caused by an objectively existing entity. I am sure you do have such experiences, and that the experiences are very real. My claim is that your experiences, though real subjective experiences, are not experiences of anything that exists objectively, independently of those experiences.

I'm not talking about truth being subjectivity. I'm pointing out that the concept 'love', as we are using it anyway, refers to a subjective experience, whereas the concept 'God' as you use it is meant to refer to an objectively existing entity. We do believe that the concept of 'God' exists, and that most people experience what they believe to be a god or gods of some sort. We also believe that the concept of 'love' exists, and that the concept of 'unicorns' exists. What I am trying to get you to see is that these are different categories of concepts: 'love' refers to a subjectively experienced emotion, whereas 'god' refers to an allegedly objectively existing entity.

Why can't you see the difference between God and love? Do you think they are both objective entities? If so, then your challenge is pointless, because we disagree with you. The concept 'love' is not meant to refer to an objective entity. The concept 'God' is meant to refer to an objective entity. We do not dispute that the concept of 'God' exists. We do dispute with your claim that there is an objectively existing entity that the concept of 'God' matches. If you are claiming that the concept of 'love' is meant to refer to an objective entity, we disagree with that, too: there is no objectively existing entity that the concept of 'love' matches.

'Love' refers to a subjective experience. 'God' refers to an (allegedly) objectively existing entity. Can you still not see the difference?

Hobbs · 07-31-2002, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ (to DRFseven' horse analogy):
...nor does it prove that love's objectivity exists.

Why would she try to prove something that isn't true?

WJ · 07-31-2002, 07:12 AM

Goliath!

"Love is an emotion. What else did you need to know?

The very fact that it is an emotion places it within the realm of the natural. Therefore love is not supernatural."

Are emotions logical? In other words, does love cause logical affects or influences like smoking affects health? Can the concept love and associated emotional affects be illogical and not rational? Which came first, emotions or reason?

In other words, let's assume that the concept love is natural, what is the nature of the concept love? How does it relate to our Being?

07-31-2002, 06:26 AM	#44
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hobbs! Thank you for the time in that explaination. i believe you've missed the point. I'm not talking about truth being subjectivity in the form of the 'SK variety' which I believe is what you are saying. It is simply true that no other human person can get inside your head and feel exactly what you feel. The fact remains that the concept of love is something that most all people can feel. You must agree with that statement (or if you would like to change some of the words...). If we can agree with the major thrust of that premise, and if we can safely assume that the atheist is a minority in his feelings about the concept God, which are both realized thru the aposterior, then we have to ask ourselves why the inconsistency? The onus is on the atheist to show why he believes in love but not God. You mentioned the ability to relate to an object, your wife. Is love objectivity? That question is a very important question and quite paradoxical if not contradictory if you care to go there. Nonetheless, in this context of logic, to be consistent: God= is proved by the aposterior of concepts. Love= is proved by the aposterior of concepts. Further, the same argument you made about feelings, experiences, and beliefs associated with the concept God, as derived from childhood, etc. can be made about the concept Love. Right? So you have not demonstrated that they are mutually exclusive. My question is why the logical inconsistency? Walrus [ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

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

07-31-2002, 05:48 AM	#42
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hobbs! At the risk of repeating the original post, one main theme is that the atheist uses a logical inconsistency in making judgements about the concept God by using that same apriori logic that defines God (like Koy reapeatedly does) by trying to demonstrate the logical existence of love. That is because at the same time he asserts that the concept love exists thru experience, he denies the concept God can also exist thru the same experience. The atheist seems to be saying: EOG= is [dis]proved by the apriori of concepts. Love= is proved by the aposterior of concepts. Now, you mentioned objectivity. Are you saying what Jamie was saying? Walrus

07-31-2002, 06:00 AM	#43
Hobbs Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 929	WJ, see if this explains what is wrong with your "challenge." I love my wife. I can't prove that to you. The reason I can't prove it to you is that my love for my wife is a private, subjective experience of mine. It is not something that objectively exists apart from me. It is not something you can, even in principle, have access to. You could not experience my love for my wife without being me. So I cannot give you any objective proof that I experience what I feel about my wife. But, so what? I use the term 'love' to label those feelings, because I have heard other people describe their feelings and call it 'love,' and those descriptions fit what I feel, so I call my feelings 'love.' I can describe my feelings to you, and you can know from my descriptions what I mean. But i can't prove to you that I have those feelings. I can, however, prove to you that my wife exists. She exists objectively, independently of me. I can point her out to you. Then I can show you her driver's license and passport so you can look at the pictures, verify that they are her identification documents, and verify her name from them. Then I can show you the papers that confirm that she and I are married. I suppose I could be unmarried, and have an ideal in mind of what I would want as a wife, and feel 'love' for that ideal. But that ideal would just be a concept in my head; it wouldn't exist apart from my thinking of it. I don't think any of us doubt that you have feelings which you label 'religious.' I doubt any of us would ask you to prove that you have such feelings. I am sure you have such feelings, and that you have learned from parents, preachers, and sunday school teachers to label them as 'religious' experiences and to explain them as experiences of 'God.' I also don't think that any of us doubt that you have a concept of 'God' in your head, a concept which you have learned from those same parents and preachers and sunday school teachers. What we doubt is that there is some objectively existing entity [God] that is the cause or the object of those feelings, or that the concept in your head matches. I can't prove to you that I love my wife, just as you can't prove to me that you have religious experiences. But I can prove to you that my wife exists. Can you prove that your god exists? Do you get it now? Do you see why your challenge misses the point completely?

07-31-2002, 06:49 AM	#45
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	Hi, WJ. My granddaughter truly and deeply loves her plastic toy horse, "Spirit." It stands by her plate while she eats, so she can gaze at it in admiration. Yesterday, she had me sew it a little blanket trimmed in pink ribbon. Without a doubt, she loves this toy horse, yet her love demonstrates nothing about the horse; it demonstrates something about her. The object of your love proves nothing about the object.

07-31-2002, 06:54 AM	#46
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	...nor does it prove that love's objectivity exists.

07-31-2002, 07:12 AM	#50
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Goliath! "Love is an emotion. What else did you need to know? The very fact that it is an emotion places it within the realm of the natural. Therefore love is not supernatural." Are emotions logical? In other words, does love cause logical affects or influences like smoking affects health? Can the concept love and associated emotional affects be illogical and not rational? Which came first, emotions or reason? In other words, let's assume that the concept love is natural, what is the nature of the concept love? How does it relate to our Being?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.