Does love prove the existence of God?

[izzy88]

That sounds an awful lot like what many religious people often do.

In fact, people who make religious claims that are unproven or which (for all we know) cannot be proved, often hold other, differently-minded people to a much stricter burden of proof than they are willing to place upon themselves.

Not at all true.

Religion and science are not the same thing, they're not doing the same thing. Scientific claims require empirical evidence because that's what science is, it's essentially just a term for "things that can be verified empirically".

But there are other things that cannot be verified empirically, and so are not science. Religion, properly understood, is one of these things. Religion, rather than examining the physical/material world, explores the world of Being, our subjective experience of existence.

Trying to disprove religion with science is just as misguided as trying to disprove science with religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

You haven't proven anything simply by stating that evolution is true, though; you haven't shown how evolution proves that a voluntary act of self-sacrifice is simply natural instinct.

I don't intend to prove anything...only to show that
presuming altruism to be not natural is an error
because it rejects alternative testable explanations.

I thought that the term "self-sacrifice" implied a free act of the will; apparently I was mistaken, since everyone who had replied so far has misunderstood what I meant by it.

"Free will" is an ill defined concept, which I find inapplicable.
But let's say that we do have it. We are still influenced by
desires which are inherent to being human. Desires exist
in all animals. So their existence isn't proof of supreme beings.

 

[Koldo]

They aren't doing it voluntarily; self-sacrifice, as properly understood, requires an act of the will. Bees do not have free will; they are simply acting according to their "programming".

How do you figure they are not doing it voluntarily?

 

[randix]

Trying to disprove religion with science is just as misguided as trying to disprove science with religion.

That certainly doesn't stop many religious people from trying to disprove science and what we have learned about reality, if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

In addition, I suppose it could be pointed out that one religion, in addition to not being able to prove itself, cannot disprove any other contrasting religion.

 

[exchemist]

You haven't proven anything simply by stating that evolution is true, though; you haven't shown how evolution proves that a voluntary act of self-sacrifice is simply natural instinct.



I thought that the term "self-sacrifice" implied a free act of the will; apparently I was mistaken, since everyone who had replied so far has misunderstood what I meant by it.

But he doesn't have to prove anything.

Simply showing a reasonable alternative explanation of love is feasible is enough to mean the love is not a "proof" of God, as the OP puts it. The existence of alternatives transfers the burden of proof onto the person asserting that love is proof of God, doesn't it?

 

[izzy88]

That certainly doesn't stop many religious people from trying to disprove science and what we have learned about reality.

Certainly, and those people are in error. That doesn't mean you are therefore justified in committing the same error simply because "they started it!"

In addition, I suppose it could be pointed out that one religion, in addition to not being able to prove itself, cannot disprove any other contrasting religion.

You still aren't really getting what I'm saying. Speaking at all about "proving" and "disproving" in regards to religion is committing a category error. You're trying to apply scientific concepts to something that isn't science.

 

[randix]

Bees do not have free will

To make use of your own challenge to others: do you have any proof that bees do not have free will? Does a bee have free will when it visits a particular flower of innumerable flowers in close proximity? Is it making a decision which flower to visit next? Does a rat in a maze have free will when it encounters two identical channels side by side, and veers into one instead of the other?

Do any species other than the human species have free will? Does a dolphin that rescues a human from drowning have free will? Does a horse have free will, when it resists (or acquiesces to) human control?

 

[izzy88]

But he doesn't have to prove anything.

Simply showing a reasonable alternative explanation of love is feasible is enough to mean the love is not a "proof" of God, as the OP puts it. The existence of alternatives transfers the burden of proof onto the person asserting that love is proof of God, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't, because there is no burden of proof, because there are no arguments

But he doesn't have to prove anything.

Simply showing a reasonable alternative explanation of love is feasible is enough to mean the love is not a "proof" of God, as the OP puts it. The existence of alternatives transfers the burden of proof onto the person asserting that love is proof of God, doesn't it?

You're misrepresenting the comment you quoted; it's several steps into a discussion about details which go beyond the OP.

 

[exchemist]

Certainly, and those people are in error. That doesn't mean you are therefore justified in committing the same error simply because "they started it!"



You still aren't really getting what I'm saying. Speaking at all about "proving" and "disproving" in regards to religion is committing a category error. You're trying to apply scientific concepts to something that isn't science.

Hang on. If speaking about proving religion involves a category error, wouldn't it then follow that attempting to prove the existence of God, whether by the existence of love or any other way, is falling into that very trap?

 

[exchemist]

No, it doesn't, because there is no burden of proof, because there are no arguments


You're misrepresenting the comment you quoted; it's several steps into a discussion about details which go beyond the OP.

There is a proposal for a proof in the OP.

It follows there must a burden of proof, in order to establish the truth of that proposition.

 

[izzy88]

Hang on. If speaking about proving religion involves a category error, wouldn't it then follow that attempting to prove the existence of God, whether by the existence of love or any other way, is falling into that very trap?

If by "proving" you mean empirically, then yes.

 

[exchemist]

If by "proving" you mean empirically, then yes.

In that case, you have now produced an argument against the truth of the proposition in the OP.

 

[izzy88]

There is a proposal for a proof in the OP.

It follows there must a burden of proof, in order to establish the truth of that proposition.

This is not a debate thread, this is a discussion thread.

I don't understand you guys. I was trying to create a philosophical discussion regarding the theological concept of love and how it relates to God. I posted this topic in the theological discussion forum, not the religious debate forum. Why do you need to try to turn everything into a scientific argument?

 

[izzy88]

In that case, you have now produced an argument against the truth of the proposition in the OP.

No, I haven't, and your continual misrepresentation of what's been said is getting very old.

 

[randix]

Animals cannot do this, because they cannot make choices

My dog certainly chooses which of two treats I offer it to eat first.

 

[izzy88]

My dog certainly chooses which of two treats I offer it to eat first.

So you believe that animals have free will?

 

[randix]

Speaking at all about "proving" and "disproving" in regards to religion is committing a category error. You're trying to apply scientific concepts to something that isn't science.

Does saying that science and religion exist in separate realms make the claims or assertions of religion any more likely? Does it exempt religion from rigorous examination or the need for evidence?

 

[izzy88]

Does it exempt religion from rigorous examination or the need for evidence?

If you're referring to evidence in an empirical sense, then yes.

Religion certainly isn't exempt from rigorous examination, though; on the contrary, it should be examined more rigorously than anything else in one's life.

 

[randix]

So you believe that animals have free will?

Yes, with a fair degree of confidence. In addition to any genetic imperatives or what we might call instinct, it seems to me that various species exhibit decision, choice and free will in numerous ways all the time, from choosing which of their species to bond or mate with, to which direction to move (open the gate to allow a flock of sheep to wander and graze, even sheep from the same genetic pool, and they will not all try to go to the same place; frighten the sheep with an unfamiliar and aggressive dog or other predator in their midst, and they will not all scatter in the same direction).

Place five or ten mice, one at a time, at the same starting point within a maze, and they will choose different paths, especially if you neutralize the scent between each mouse's traversal of the maze.

 

[randix]

If you're referring to evidence in an empirical sense, then yes [religion is exempt from that type of evidence].

Do you have any evidence or proof that what you might propose as evidence or support for certain religious claims constitutes actual, reliable or compelling evidence: evidence that can be persuasive to anyone, including atheists or "strict materialists"?

Or are you proposing that one can only prove the ideas of any particular religion by using its own "proofs," or see the truth of a particular religion only by believing in that religion first, like seeing fairies only if you believe in them?