Goliath

WJ,

Of course not.

I have no idea, and furthermore, I don't really care. Why do you ask?

Since love is natural, it's safe to assume such a thing.

It's an emotion. If you want a more specific answer, you're going to have to ask a more specific question.

What do you mean by "Being"?

Sincerely,

Goliath

WJ

Reasonable!

Re: EOG. For one, numbnut's thread about 'logical arguments' presupposes the [his] importance of and makes the logic of, the apriori paramount with respect to proofs, judgements and convincing criteria, etc... . Secondly, why does the ontological argument fail? You should know that one.

Pomp

ReasonableDoubt,

Where does the atheist say the "EOG= is [dis]proved by the apriori of concepts"?

He says it in WJ's made up dialog, did you miss it?

Xyzzy

Let's see if this post still makes sense if we replace the word "Love" with "Excretory Pleasure" (or the relief we all feel when we need to go..).

Theist: Well, regardless of which came first, let me now turn to the atheist and ask him to prove then that the innate experience of excretory pleasure is something thru which we can objectively infer its existence (i.e. excretion). To this end, I will ask him how do you conclude that the concept excretory pleasure 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 to shit, or at least I have experienced the relief of shitting so that I can at least speak to the phenomena and that 'it' exists. Indeed, the shit I see in the crapper after the experience of relief clearly signifies the existence of shit.

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 of excretory pleasure?

Atheist: Well, I guess you're right, I can't refute it and I don't know who invented the concept of excretory pleasure, 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 excretory pleasure. It, shitting, must be done however if one does not want a distended or ruptured bowel.

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 of excretory pleasure exists, as well as the concept God, as in say explaining the ultimate cause for conscious existence and experience and/or the phenomena of feeling relief when we excrete? Why are you unable to put the apriori of concepts and aposterior of experience together? Do you not agree that all events have causes, including excretion and the relief it brings us? Why do you even believe that?

Further, in this context of excretory pleasure, 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.

Atheist: So, since we feel pleasure in the relief of excreting, that also means that God exists, because both of these things are feelings that we feel, and the feelings have to come from somewhere. And since we know that shit is real because of the relief we feel when we shit, therefore God is also real because of similar feelings. After all, all experiencial feelings must have a cause, both excretory relief and spiritual bliss.

It is all so clear to me now.

Hobbs

Again, you are equivocating on "love" and "the concept of love." The concept of love does not refer to an objective entity; it refers to the emotion, a subjective experience. Love, the emotion, usually, but not always, does refer to an objective entity, i.e. that which the lover loves. Of course, the 'object' of my love could be a character in a movie or a novel, i.e. someone who does not really objectively exist.

I experience love for my wife. And I can prove that she exists outside of my head, that she is not some ideal I am in love with. You have religious experiences of your god. Can you prove that your god exists outside of your head?

Of course not, and neither have you.

edited to add: I have experienced love. And I have experiences that I used to interpret and understand as experiences of God, but I have since realized that I was misunderstanding and misinterpreting those experiences.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

Jamie_L

OK. Another thought:

There seems sometimes to be an assumption that emotions are not logical. What does this mean?

Emotions are a biological response to certain stimuli. Input the proper stimulus, and it is logical to expect the corresponding emotion. If my children input the stimulus of trusting in me, believing in me, and relying on me, my brain responds with feeling of love.

Now, emotions may lead us to take actions that are not rational, because we are programmed to respond strongly to our emotions, especially to strong emotions. But that does not make the emotions "illogical". Given the psychology that results from our biology, even these irrational responses can be said to logically follow from the situation.

So, let's stop saying emotions aren't logical. They are.

Edited to add:
Another thing. We can't "see" love, no more than we can "see" the computations a computer performs on its CPU. However, we CAN observe the results. We see people expressing their feelings of love all the time. THIS is what I was getting at when I talked about the chair. Not only do I observe my feeling of love, I observe indirect evidence of the love felt by other people. I observe that all the time.

With respect to God, I observe the indirect evidence of people's BELIEF in God all the time. This evidence is clear and compelling. I do not, however, observe clear and compelling evidence that a separate entity known as "God" which exists apart from that belief.

Compare this to "love". There is no entity "love" that exists apart from people's feeling of love. Therefore, I do not have the same issues with love. The indirect evidence of people's behavior is sufficient to prove that they are feeling love, just as the behavior of theists is sufficient to prove that they believe in God.

If someone were to say that I have no evidence of the existence of an objective entity "love", I would agree. That is not a problem, as I do not believe such an entity exists. I don't think anyone does.

Jamie

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Finally we agree on something.

"Purged?" I did no such thing. I desperately tried to make some sort of coherent sense out of your confused gibberish.

We were until you came along.

Wow. You're not just showing your colors, you're projectile vomiting them.

If you're capable, please read that sentence again and try, for once in your life here, to word it coherently. Unless I've got something better to refute my own logical inconsistency with?

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Well, you'll certainly pretend to, of course.

"Market" my "politics"? I'd assume you're talking about my point in regard to what atheism means, but it's abundantly clear that whenever I assume anything in regard to your posts, it ends up making an ass out you.

No, I cannot and neither can anyone else.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not the only one asking you what the fuck you're talking about.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Jayhawker Soule

Please answer my question.
Fail what?
What a pompous pile of Apollo poop!

Mad Kally

I have a feeling this is the Truth.

Jayhawker Soule

It must be. It is, after all, a concept.