Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-30-2002, 10:28 AM

P1: Human language is made up of words for the purposes of communication.
P2: "Love" is one of those words.
Therefore
C: Love exists.

Oh...Was that not what you were talking about, WJ, even though every single thing you have posted would lead us to this pointless syllogism, because of your grotesque inability to actually make any salient argument of any kind?

Jamie_L · 07-30-2002, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Perhaps the simple approach is to logically prove that love exists. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't know. Why should I use logic to prove love exists? I don't use logic to prove my chair exists. I experience love as readily as I experience my chair. It seems odd to demand a grand logical arguement.

Jamie

WJ · 07-30-2002, 11:34 AM

Toobad!

"That was the end of the sentence."

That would support the above [atheist's] head-in-the-sand-approach, assuming you believe every event has a cause.

Koy!

Surely you would not agree to:

P1: Human language is made up of words for the purposes of communication.
P2: ["God"] is one of those words.
Therefore
C: [God]exists.

Thus your method is not very meaningful as it appears strictly analytic and apriori. You haven't proved [God] or Love exists. You sound like you would embrace the theist's ontological argument based on pure reason alone. And surely, that's not the what you mean to imply.

You may want to rethink your logic as in fact it seems inconsistent with your stance on EOG.

(?)

WJ · 07-30-2002, 11:41 AM

Jamie!

I think I understand you. Just to confirm my interpretation of what you just said, do you 'objectify' the concept of love's existence? In other words, since "a chair" is your analogy in verifying the concept love, what would be the difference in associating the concept God (experience)with objects as well?

Walrus

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

Princess of Peace · 07-30-2002, 11:55 AM

I'm sorry. I just don't understand. Are you trying to ask whether God can be experienced, and therefore exists?

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-30-2002, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Surely you would not agree to:

P1: Human language is made up of words for the purposes of communication.
P2: ["God"] is one of those words.
Therefore
C: [God]exists.

Thus your method is not very meaningful as it appears strictly analytic and apriori. You haven't proved [God] or Love exists.

You simply cannot be that stupid.

All evidence to the contrary.

In case you hadn't noticed all either of our syllogisms "proved" is that the words God and Love "exist," which was, of course, my point.

Jayhawker Soule · 07-30-2002, 12:16 PM

The map is not the territory - and some folks aren't even on the map.

Typhon · 07-30-2002, 12:23 PM

Waleye!

What's your point! Love is a biological and emotional response to stimuli, simple and verifiably so. And it has been! So there is your proof of love's logical basis, even if love itself is often an emotion that does not seem natural. Yet it is, as is the movement of the stars and protons!

Sexual love is related to reproduction, without which, as a sexually reproducing species, we would not be here if we were otherwise. You see, thus is love in part, so excellent!

Platonic or social love is related to group survival, interpersonal bonding, power hierarchies of friends/allies/relatives, and the again, well tested and verified altruistic behavior which is common not just to the human species, but to all species where social grouping is of vital importance.

Love, in all its incarnations, is nothing more and nothing less, than good evidence of and for, naturalistic causes. No mystery here!

For if the philosopher and the naturalist can see as one, and gain the insight of forethought added to hindsight, which comes of rationality and logical exploration of the universe, we can all agree to shake hands on the topic of god's nonexistence, yes? Yes, great!

Think! Enjoy the love.

Typhoon

WJ · 07-30-2002, 12:36 PM

Hi prince!

Re "Are you trying to ask whether God can be experienced, and therefore exists?"

One argument is that I'm drawing the distinctions between logically proving the existence of the concept love and the existence of the concept God. And in doing so, am finding there are direct analogies and similarities in using logic to make judgments/claims about such existence. The most direct one would be the similarities between the actual feeling of [the concept]love and the actual feeling of [the concept] God and/or the religious experience.

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?

Perhaps the main point is the inconsistency in how and when some atheists apply logic to things that are experienced. Koy is a good example of this inconsistent use of logic viz. EOG.

Walrus

WJ · 07-30-2002, 12:41 PM

Typoon!

Did you not read the initial thread? If you had, I doubt whether you would have said what you just said. How does your explaination logically proof the existence of love?

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

07-30-2002, 10:28 AM	#11
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	P1: Human language is made up of words for the purposes of communication. P2: "Love" is one of those words. Therefore C: Love exists. Oh...Was that not what you were talking about, WJ, even though every single thing you have posted would lead us to this pointless syllogism, because of your grotesque inability to actually make any salient argument of any kind?

07-30-2002, 11:34 AM	#13
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Toobad! "That was the end of the sentence." That would support the above [atheist's] head-in-the-sand-approach, assuming you believe every event has a cause. Koy! Surely you would not agree to: P1: Human language is made up of words for the purposes of communication. P2: ["God"] is one of those words. Therefore C: [God]exists. Thus your method is not very meaningful as it appears strictly analytic and apriori. You haven't proved [God] or Love exists. You sound like you would embrace the theist's ontological argument based on pure reason alone. And surely, that's not the what you mean to imply. You may want to rethink your logic as in fact it seems inconsistent with your stance on EOG. (?)

07-30-2002, 11:41 AM	#14
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Jamie! I think I understand you. Just to confirm my interpretation of what you just said, do you 'objectify' the concept of love's existence? In other words, since "a chair" is your analogy in verifying the concept love, what would be the difference in associating the concept God (experience)with objects as well? Walrus [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

07-30-2002, 11:55 AM	#15
Princess of Peace Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western Washington Posts: 109	I'm sorry. I just don't understand. Are you trying to ask whether God can be experienced, and therefore exists?

07-30-2002, 12:16 PM	#17
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	The map is not the territory - and some folks aren't even on the map.

07-30-2002, 12:23 PM	#18
Typhon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mount Aetna Posts: 271	Waleye! What's your point! Love is a biological and emotional response to stimuli, simple and verifiably so. And it has been! So there is your proof of love's logical basis, even if love itself is often an emotion that does not seem natural. Yet it is, as is the movement of the stars and protons! Sexual love is related to reproduction, without which, as a sexually reproducing species, we would not be here if we were otherwise. You see, thus is love in part, so excellent! Platonic or social love is related to group survival, interpersonal bonding, power hierarchies of friends/allies/relatives, and the again, well tested and verified altruistic behavior which is common not just to the human species, but to all species where social grouping is of vital importance. Love, in all its incarnations, is nothing more and nothing less, than good evidence of and for, naturalistic causes. No mystery here! For if the philosopher and the naturalist can see as one, and gain the insight of forethought added to hindsight, which comes of rationality and logical exploration of the universe, we can all agree to shake hands on the topic of god's nonexistence, yes? Yes, great! Think! Enjoy the love. Typhoon

07-30-2002, 12:36 PM	#19
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hi prince! Re "Are you trying to ask whether God can be experienced, and therefore exists?" One argument is that I'm drawing the distinctions between logically proving the existence of the concept love and the existence of the concept God. And in doing so, am finding there are direct analogies and similarities in using logic to make judgments/claims about such existence. The most direct one would be the similarities between the actual feeling of [the concept]love and the actual feeling of [the concept] God and/or the religious experience. 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? Perhaps the main point is the inconsistency in how and when some atheists apply logic to things that are experienced. Koy is a good example of this inconsistent use of logic viz. EOG. Walrus

07-30-2002, 12:41 PM	#20
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Typoon! Did you not read the initial thread? If you had, I doubt whether you would have said what you just said. How does your explaination logically proof the existence of love?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.