Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Options
1…2122242627…34

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    s1ippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭s1ippy


    nthclare wrote: »
    This is like new age woo... your post is not making any sense or reason.

    Can you post this in layman's terms please.

    It's hard on the head.
    He was referring to the other poster saying
    spirit is not man made, does exist and can be experienced both on a spiritual level and in this physical reality.
    and then
    The spiritual is not material, it cannot be seen under a microscope or measured with any of your scientific equipment.

    "If something can be experienced physically then it can be measured scientifically.
    If something cannot be in any scientifically measured, then how is it distinguishable from not existing?"

    Personally I can summon a feeling of awe or spirituality (in a non-Catholic sense) when confronted with beauty or the inexplicable. But the next person might say to me" I never feel spiritual". It's a matter of opinion.

    If I say "I feel cold" a person with me might say "I'm not cold" and we could measure the objective temperature of the room to see what the temperature actually is and where our thresholds are.

    The same doesn't work with the spirituality, because I can't reply to someone with no spirituality "you do feel spiritual!"

    I would probably tell them to go and watch Pocahantas or something so they can paint with all the colours of the wind. It's strange and sad to me if someone has never felt that way. Even the most staunchly atheist people I know have been able to feel it.


  • Options
    #693
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    nthclare wrote: »
    Absolutely, as long as you're happy why should anyone else try to convince you will be happy +++ if you close your mind with restrictions...

    Christianity is very restrictive and might I add vindictive...I found when I became a pagan I opened up to a whole new world that's amazing and all inclusive...

    Whether you're an atheist, Christian Mulsim Jew Buddhist we can all get along ok

    But being a dick head doesn't discriminate.

    Call a spade a spade, I notice a lot of anti religion and spirituality and point's being scored on this forum, collective thanking and moderators taking the atheists side more frequently, and shutting people down and ruining some banter and the odd squabble which could be sorted out here rather than face the rath of somewhere else to sort out the problems...

    So in effect if this forum represents Atheism as a whole on board's it's quite PC sterile and boring... don't question a mod, you're banned because you questioned a mod ?

    One more infraction and you're out, it's like school..

    Then the mod puts up a smart comment...so and so are taking a break for a few days to cool down and the usual happy clapper's giving it a like.

    Seriously, there needs to be a bit of room for heated debates and discussions...

    This place used to be very popular and entertaining now it's been run like a politically correct Californian college campus...one strike and you're infracted...

    A bit like what Atheism doesn't stand for...ye left the church and religion only to create something that's so similar.
    Very much like the Abrahamic dogma without the god head in charge.

    MOD

    This forum is moderated according to a charter - as is every other forum on boards - and it is there for all to read.
    IF you have an issue with the moderation of this forum there is a feedback thread.

    Do not drag other threads off topic so you can have a wee rant.

    I should also point out that you, personally, have been something of a time sink in terms of in thread warnings, infractions, and even received a one day ban - and yet here you are. Still able to post despite our alleged dogma.

    If you have difficulty abiding by the charter - as you seem to have - perhaps this is not the forum for you


  • Options
    #694
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nthclare wrote: »
    This is like new age woo... your post is not making any sense or reason.

    Can you post this in layman's terms please.

    It's hard on the head.

    Iceman700 made two claims:
    The soul can be experienced physically
    It cannot be measured scientifically.

    These contradict, as anything that can be experienced physically must be by definition measurable scientifically (as scientific measurements are recorded physical experiences themselves).


    I followed up, as a general aside, asking that if something cannot be measured scientifically, then how do you know if it exists at all?


  • Options
    #695
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    s1ippy wrote: »
    Personally I can summon a feeling of awe or spirituality (in a non-Catholic sense) when confronted with beauty or the inexplicable. But the next person might say to me" I never feel spiritual". It's a matter of opinion.

    If I say "I feel cold" a person with me might say "I'm not cold" and we could measure the objective temperature of the room to see what the temperature actually is and where our thresholds are.

    The same doesn't work with the spirituality, because I can't reply to someone with no spirituality "you do feel spiritual!"

    I would probably tell them to go and watch Pocahantas or something so they can paint with all the colours of the wind. It's strange and sad to me if someone has never felt that way. Even the most staunchly atheist people I know have been able to feel it.

    Why do think the "spirituality" you describe when confronting beauty or the inexplicable is something besides the sum of your emotions at that time?


  • Options
    #696
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    s1ippy wrote: »
    Personally I can summon a feeling of awe or spirituality (in a non-Catholic sense) when confronted with beauty or the inexplicable. But the next person might say to me" I never feel spiritual". It's a matter of opinion.

    Very much the same, I think having a strong sense of wonder and to find things awesome is in itself wonderful and awesome. I value having a strong imagination and would find life very dull without it it. I also find when walking, cycling or practicing taiji, I often feel very much in tune with, and a part of, my immediate environment. These are all facets of my own mind and how it responds to external and internal stimuli though. I wouldn't say that I ever feel "spiritual" if by spiritual you mean anything distinct or separable from my own mind.

    There seems to be a line of argument put forward by many religious types implying that science is essentially reductive and and lacks the ability to conceive their supernatural notions. My opinion is that the reverse is true, in that if you look at any great scientists one thing they have in common is an active imagination and ability to think outside the box. Larger religions by comparison are defined by dogma.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nthclare wrote: »
    Proselytizing isn't tolerated on the Atheist and Agnosticism forum, why should deconstructing people's beliefs be allowed ???

    Firstly, the charter is very clear that proselytizing is allowed on this forum and that's pretty much the thrust of the opening post. Secondly, atheist discussion regularly involves examining and deconstructing belief systems, including those purportedly held by atheists. You've done the same yourself plenty of times on this thread and others making sweeping generalizations about atheists, which is really just the type of point scoring nonsense you've been complaining about.


  • Options
    #698
    s1ippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭s1ippy


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why do think the "spirituality" you describe when confronting beauty or the inexplicable is something besides the sum of your emotions at that time?
    I absolutely accept that it could be that.

    But having taken hallucinogens as well, that kind of ruined my ability to chalk everything up to the rational. Now, I feel that everything in reality is connected; living, asentient, observable or occurring without observation. Tripping once flipped my entire life perspective on its head and changed my life for the better.

    I possibly won't even do it again but feel so glad to have this new, happier, more self-assured perspective. I've researched a lot of what is known about DMT and that area of the brain, it's quite incredible what humans, as complex machines, capable of.


  • Options
    #699
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    smacl wrote: »
    Firstly, the charter is very clear that proselytizing is allowed on this forum and that's pretty much the thrust of the opening post. Secondly, atheist discussion regularly involves examining and deconstructing belief systems, including those purportedly held by atheists. You've done the same yourself plenty of times on this thread and others making sweeping generalizations about atheists, which is really just the type of point scoring nonsense you've been complaining about.

    Ok point taken, that's very clear.
    We've all done it without thinking about it.

    Atheists make sweeping generalisations about religion and politics too...

    That's why I have a few less pane's in my glasshouse...so when I throw a stone it not going to hit anything because I can also look through the glass and nobody's in the way.


  • Options
    #700
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nthclare wrote: »
    Where's your evidence for me thinking my post's are entertaining or my banter is appreciated ?

    You were the one complaining that this forum is boring and it's mods don't seem to appreciate banter and heated discussions. I assumed you were including your posts in that assessment.
    nthclare wrote: »
    You assume that some people are deconstructing others belief's in front of them.
    I think that's quite egotistical to be honest.
    Cohesion isn't about destroying people's beliefs and using my post to validate your argument or discussion is a poor attempt to get your point across.

    This is a discussion forum, it's for discussion. People should be able to handle their beliefs being deconstructed. If they can't and they rail against the notion, then they are closeminded and anti-cohesion.
    nthclare wrote: »
    I'm not going to discuss this with you where you'll have the upper hand in a discussion.

    I am not a mod, I have no upperhand anywhere. I just suggested a thread which deals with that specific topic, so that we don't drag this thread off topic.
    nthclare wrote: »
    You've a right to your opinion and me mine.

    Never said otherwise.


  • Options
    #701
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    s1ippy wrote: »
    I absolutely accept that it could be that.

    But having taken hallucinogens as well, that kind of ruined my ability to chalk everything up to the rational.

    Why? You just have the sum of your emotions plus mind altering drugs. Why does that remove things from the realm of the rational?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You were the one complaining that this forum is boring and it's mods don't seem to appreciate banter and heated discussions. I assumed you were including your posts in that assessment.


    This is a discussion forum, it's for discussion. People should be able to handle their beliefs being deconstructed. If they can't and they rail against the notion, then they are closeminded and anti-cohesion.


    I am not a mod, I have no upperhand anywhere. I just suggested a thread which deals with that specific topic, so that we don't drag this thread off topic.


    Never said otherwise.

    If you're ever in North Clare or South Galway, PM me and I'd be happy to sit down for a coffee and desert in a café or funky restaurant...we can discuss this.. we'd probably have a good laugh about it anyhow.. and I'd be happy to pay for it :)


  • Options
    #703
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    I don't know whether God exists or not but I believe some form of intelligence formed life.


  • Options
    #704
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    I don't know whether God exists or not but I believe some form of intelligence formed life.

    And how did the intelligence that formed intelligent life come into being?


  • Options
    #705
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    smacl wrote: »
    And how did the intelligence that formed intelligent life come into being?

    Good question. Goggle Dna by design by Stephen Myers.
    The odds on one protein cell forming are astronomical.
    But who created that ? That intelligence. I don't think there is evidence there.


  • Options
    #706
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    I would postulate that a lot of organized religion is based on events we can't be certain of? The red seal parting etc.
    It's possible whatever intelligence created the world had nothing to do with organized religion.
    Until science can explain these astronomical odds achieving life then I'm with the intelligent design group .the odds on one protein cell developing astronomical but obviously more than one developed so..


  • Options
    #707
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    The odds on one protein cell forming are astronomical.

    That is a fallacius way to look at it though.

    Think of it this way. Get 4 decks of cards. Mix them together until they are random as you possibly can get. Then dealt hem out.

    The odds that you get the order of cards you just did are astronomical. You could spend the rest of your life dealing and redealing and never get the same order of cards ever again.

    But there is nothing special about the first hand you dealt. It is only if you PRETEND it is special and look back on that pretence retrospectively, that it seems special. But you could do the same thing no matter what first hand was dealt.

    Similarly we have NO IDEA how many different ways of forms life could have taken. So we look at something like a "protein cell" in situ, the same way as that randomly dealt hand of cards, and go "Wow, the odds of this are huge!".

    It is a very wrong, but very human, way of thinking that is misleading you there.

    All that said though, your sentence is very misleading and fallacious for a second reason too. The odds of a protein cell, like one from your body, forming as it is right now out of nowhere is indeed quite astronomical. People in the past have tried to liken it to a hurricane going through a junk yard and accidentally constructing a passenger jet.

    But that is NOT how our cells formed.... in one single formation. To our best knowledge it formed over millions of years of ever more complex iterations. Which is an entirely different thing altogether.


  • Options
    #708
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    iceman700 wrote: »
    I think it is fair to say that if someone sits there and asks for proof of God, it cannot be done, its not possible.

    I said as much earlier in the thread. In one of the posts that you seemingly ignored and did not reply to. Remember when I told you "Be careful with the word proof".

    The problem is not that you have no "proof" there is a god. The issue for me is you have absolutely ZERO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer thus far that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that our universe and/or life within it are the product of the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent.

    Put another way, you do not have proof, but you do not have ANY evidence either it seems. So do not get ahead of yourself looking for "proof" yet. Aim for getting off square one first.
    iceman700 wrote: »
    Once you have had personal experience, you will be in no doubt whether it is imaginary or not, and thats the bottom line, the evidence lies in your own experience.

    You are repeating yourself now, which is more evidence you are interested in soap boxing a sermon and not conversation. You already said the above about personal experience already. I replied before thusly:

    "Even when someone else has the SAME personal experience, that does not make it evidence (Careful with the word proof). For example many people have certain experiences during meditation. Some people interpret that experience as evidence there is a god or gods. Someone else having the exact same experience does not."

    There is a reason personal testimony is one of the worst forms of evidence.
    iceman700 wrote: »
    I would find it a more balanced view, if someone did partake in spiritual practice for a period of time and then proclaimed it didnt work.

    You have it already. On this very forum in fact. Here is a link.
    iceman700 wrote: »
    I do not believe it is a die-hard belief needed at the start, more so an open mind

    Which I have. But alas many people misunderstand when "have an open mind" actually means. What it DOES mean is being willing and open to changing your mind if and when evidence demands it. What it does NOT mean.... but alas what many theists here try to make it mean........ is to afford things undue credence as a default. But not all things. Just particularly the thing or things THEY are trying to make you believe when they admonish you to have an open mind.
    iceman700 wrote: »
    The other bugbear seems to be free will, was it not free will that was exercised when you got up this morning, when you decided to post on said forum

    To us it does FEEL like that was free will yes. But that does not mean it actually was free will. Giving a personal, possibly fantasy, anecdote of someone you know who SAID she has free will, is not evidence that it exists either. We can all find anecdotes of people expressing positions we agree with.

    I am short on evidence for free will so I must withold belief in it at this time. If I look at a glass of water and "chose" to pick it up, or not, I certainly FEEL like that is my free will making a choice. But feeling it is true does not make it true. Be that the existence of a god, or the existence of free will.


  • Options
    #709
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That is a fallacius way to look at it though.

    Think of it this way. Get 4 decks of cards. Mix them together until they are random as you possibly can get. Then dealt hem out.

    The odds that you get the order of cards you just did are astronomical. You could spend the rest of your life dealing and redealing and never get the same order of cards ever again.

    But there is nothing special about the first hand you dealt. It is only if you PRETEND it is special and look back on that pretence retrospectively, that it seems special. But you could do the same thing no matter what first hand was dealt.

    Similarly we have NO IDEA how many different ways of forms life could have taken. So we look at something like a "protein cell" in situ, the same way as that randomly dealt hand of cards, and go "Wow, the odds of this are huge!".

    It is a very wrong, but very human, way of thinking that is misleading you there.

    All that said though, your sentence is very misleading and fallacious for a second reason too. The odds of a protein cell, like one from your body, forming as it is right now out of nowhere is indeed quite astronomical. People in the past have tried to liken it to a hurricane going through a junk yard and accidentally constructing a passenger jet.

    But that is NOT how our cells formed.... in one single formation. To our best knowledge it formed over millions of years of ever more complex iterations. Which is an entirely different thing altogether.

    You are being terribly simplistic..it happened several times and even when spread out over millions of years still astronomical


  • Options
    #710
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That is a fallacius way to look at it though.

    Think of it this way. Get 4 decks of cards. Mix them together until they are random as you possibly can get. Then dealt hem out.

    The odds that you get the order of cards you just did are astronomical. You could spend the rest of your life dealing and redealing and never get the same order of cards ever again.

    But there is nothing special about the first hand you dealt. It is only if you PRETEND it is special and look back on that pretence retrospectively, that it seems special. But you could do the same thing no matter what first hand was dealt.

    Similarly we have NO IDEA how many different ways of forms life could have taken. So we look at something like a "protein cell" in situ, the same way as that randomly dealt hand of cards, and go "Wow, the odds of this are huge!".

    It is a very wrong, but very human, way of thinking that is misleading you there.

    All that said though, your sentence is very misleading and fallacious for a second reason too. The odds of a protein cell, like one from your body, forming as it is right now out of nowhere is indeed quite astronomical. People in the past have tried to liken it to a hurricane going through a junk yard and accidentally constructing a passenger jet.

    But that is NOT how our cells formed.... in one single formation. To our best knowledge it formed over millions of years of ever more complex iterations. Which is an entirely different thing altogether.

    I think you are talking through your hole. Look up anything by Stephen Myers on dna by design


  • Options
    #711
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Not sure why you are replying to me twice. Is once not enough? I am well aware of Mr Myers, and many of his kin like Behe and convicted criminal Kent Hovinid and many many more. You would do well not to assume I do not know the literature quite well indeed.
    Bobtheman wrote: »
    You are being terribly simplistic..it happened several times and even when spread out over millions of years still astronomical

    No, it is you being simplistic. Because as I said you are looking at a cell today, with all it's complexity, and trying to discuss the "odds" of it forming. Without even showing your workings. Whats your denominator for the "odds" exactly? How do you calculate it.

    You are being simplistic by leaving out the iterative steps over millions of years that formed it. You are being simplistic by leaving out all the other possible ways it could have formed. You are being simplistic by simply looking at the end result and working backwards.

    And finally you are being simplistic when forgetting the countless BILLIONS of planets in our universe, all with different conditions and parameters. The odds of winning the lotto seem high because if you play once, it is unlikely you will win. If you play 8 million times however, your chance of winning is nearly guaranteed. Similarly when considering the odds of life forming as it has, you have to factor in that that is a game we have rolled the dice on many many billions of times.

    So one of us is being simplistic sure, but to simplify it for you: It aint me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Also, to fit in with my "free will" and physics idea, look at experiments were they basically threw the bare chemicals into a tank and gave a spark of electricity, and low and behold, amino acids formed. While there were issues with the premise, the results showed a preference for forming of these molecules, so its not as much of a random thing as people make out. They are preferential when the ingredients are there, which sways the odds of the starting blocks happening far more favourable.


  • Options
    #713
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,114 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Bobtheman wrote: »
    I think you are talking through your hole. Look up anything by Stephen Myers on dna by design

    Myers is an advocate for ID. He is talking through his hole.


  • Options
    #714
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    I have to say Iam quite happy I posted here, its easy to converse with like minded people where everyone more or less agrees.
    I knew I was walking into the lions den, but felt I had to challenge my beliefs.
    I understand totally where you are all coming from and would like to thank everyone who took part.
    Not been able to give evidence for the existence of God, in a logical debate, was an eye opener, seriously,that is a problem.
    Again thank you to everyone who took the time, but may I ask one more question, and could we apply the same strict parameters of logic and science and dealing with the five senses.
    Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.


  • Options
    #715
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    iceman700 wrote: »
    Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.

    Actually I personally do not believe love exists.

    I think it is a placeholder term for a cascade of emotions that differs from person to person, and context to context.

    What "love" means to a parent holding their new born child differs to what "love" means to two teenagers lying in each others arms in secret down the hay barn and differs from what "love" means to the theist who is on their knees looking up in endless admiration at their Messiah on the Cross or the wet eyed emotions that spring out a of a Muslim thinking about their perfect human Mo.

    For me "love" does not exist in and of itself, in the same way that "cake" means many different things to different people and one cake can be very very different to the next. We just have one umberella term that vaguely describes a whole swath of human experience.

    All that said however we can very much evidence that peoples emotional reactions differ towards those they love than to anyone else they know, and differ yet further to complete strangers. We can put a brain under fMRI, or we can measure things like Galvanic Skin Response to show all the effects of love and it's constituent parts. And we have vast swaths of data on people giving their own life or suffering, despite all our evolved instincts towards self preservation, in the name of a person, place, or ideal that they love.

    As I said before, be mindful of the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I think we can strongly evidence the existence of "love" if we define it clearly..... but nothing is ever 100%. With the existence of god we can not even seemingly get off square one in evidencing it's existence. Especially as "god" is also often quite vaguely (if at all) defined by the people claiming it exists.


  • Options
    #716
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,409 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    iceman700 wrote: »
    Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.
    are you trying to draw a corollary between the task of proving god exists, and of proving love exists?
    love is an emergent property, and as nozzferrahhtoo points out, a moving target.
    though i guess god is a moving target also, the definition of god is many and varied.

    however, if god is an emergent property also, you certainly can't claim (s)he is the creator of all things.


  • Options
    #717
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    iceman700 wrote: »
    I have to say Iam quite happy I posted here, its easy to converse with like minded people where everyone more or less agrees.
    I knew I was walking into the lions den, but felt I had to challenge my beliefs.
    I understand totally where you are all coming from and would like to thank everyone who took part.
    Not been able to give evidence for the existence of God, in a logical debate, was an eye opener, seriously,that is a problem.
    Again thank you to everyone who took the time, but may I ask one more question, and could we apply the same strict parameters of logic and science and dealing with the five senses.
    Can anyone give proof/evidence for the existence of love.

    Love is an emotion, which is a subjective state of mind. It can be evidenced to a limited extent in some contexts by observing a persons behaviour. It is also a very ambiguous term, so I could reasonably say that I love my wife, I love my children, I love the new Fiona Apple album, I love the solace of cycling alone through the mountains at daybreak, I love getting into a warm bed after a long day, etc.. You might also add that you love your god. All of these things use the same term, love, to describe very different things. What they all have in common is that they describe a positive relationship between oneself and something or someone else, real or imagined. From that we can deduce that love doesn't exist in and of itself, it is a word we use to describe a state of mind. I would humbly suggest this is something that it has in common with belief in a god or gods.


  • Options
    #718
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Iceman700 made two claims:
    The soul can be experienced physically
    It cannot be measured scientifically.

    These contradict, as anything that can be experienced physically must be by definition measurable scientifically (as scientific measurements are recorded physical experiences themselves).


    I followed up, as a general aside, asking that if something cannot be measured scientifically, then how do you know if it exists at all?

    Just to clarify, maybe I didnt make myself clear, the results of spiritual intervention can be experienced in this physical reality.
    Heres a small story which might make it clearer.
    There was a great flood, many people were drowning, some managed to climb to their rooftops to escape the rising waters. One man, a pious man was steadfast in his belief God would save him. A boat came to his rescue, he refused to get in, telling the boatman go rescue the others, God will save me.
    The waters kept rising, another boat came, again he refused, same reason, God will save me. Later again a helicopter came and hovered above, again he refused. The water was now up to his neck, and he became frightened and called out to God, why have you forsaken me. A booming voice came out of the sky and said, I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more do you want.

    If something cannot be measured scientifically, then , how do you know it exists, how do you measure love, scientifically.


  • Options
    #719
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    So in your fantasy anecdote above, "god" is just the placeholder term for anything that happens at all. If you need money and you win the lotto, you can just call that "god". If you need help in a flood and a boat comes: "god".

    By that standard you can simply see the hand of god in anything you want. Which is the "belief before evidence" we spoke of before where you can similarly see evidence for an unfaithful spouse in anything at all. The spouse is not hungry today? Clearly because they had a meal with their other lover! The spouse is late home from work? Clearly spending time with their other lover!

    If you select a belief first, you can contrive any narrative to it later. I have heard the phrase, and it was even a country song "Thank god for unanswered prayers". That is win win. If you pray for something and you get it, that was god! If you do not get it, that was also god! When a positive AND negative result of a test can BOTH be taken as validation for a premise.... the test is a joke.


  • Options
    #720
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    smacl wrote: »
    Love is an emotion, which is a subjective state of mind. It can be evidenced to a limited extent in some contexts by observing a persons behaviour. It is also a very ambiguous term, so I could reasonably say that I love my wife, I love my children, I love the new Fiona Apple album, I love the solace of cycling alone through the mountains at daybreak, I love getting into a warm bed after a long day, etc.. You might also add that you love your god. All of these things use the same term, love, to describe very different things. What they all have in common is that they describe a positive relationship between oneself and something or someone else, real or imagined. From that we can deduce that love doesn't exist in and of itself, it is a word we use to describe a state of mind. I would humbly suggest this is something that it has in common with belief in a god or gods.

    Love as an emotion is the result of complex brain chemistry. It has evolutionary benefits it terms of survival of our species
    Humans greater strength is the development of strong social groups. This involved the ability of complex communication, co operation and ultimately love.
    There was an anthropologist that was asked what was the first evidence of humanity developing. She said the discovery of a healed femur, that had been broken.
    That meant the person was cared for as their injury healed.
    That is love.. human biology.
    I no way want to diminish love it is paramount to our existence. But it has a biological basis.

    (Sorry, I meant to respond to a different post, the one above I agree with)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    smokingman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭smokingman


    The polyfilla arguement...I don't know, but it fills the gaps...


Advertisement