Does love prove the existence of God?

[rational experiences]

Consciousness, awareness, information, input of information, study of life and bodies, and inference, living.

The mind and psyche, human and feeling.

What lives before our own life that displays love in its Nature, and also love to a human being?

Animals do.

Yet we claim that feeling and define it as a human in the experience of it.

Now if a human says to self, what is before me in science is God as science stone philosophy, that is falsification of natural life, natural awareness and natural order.

Stone does not love you....animals do.

We love each other.....our lives get recorded as proven by image and also voice naturally in atmospheric conditions, and that makes one world community very large aware recording of humans loving and being loved.

Now if you ask me is spirit real....and I will say to you yes, in a multi variation of causes, some manifested and some natural.

We are as a human a natural spirit.

The eternal spirit is also natural, and always existed. It communicated its presence to my life via my Mother's spiritual life recording...of everything the first self as an adult experienced about where we came from, why we were forced out of spirit as a higher self to become a human.

And that spiritual memory and record, affected my bodily personally in such a way that is indescribable. And as I have experienced the stigmata chemical changes, I know it was nothing like that sacrifice on body/chemical experience.

This experience caused me to want to be with it, and to not be forced to live in this lower suffering life body. And the conditions of utter and complete love came out of its body into my own.

Why I knew that a human was just naturally loving because we came from a higher original loving spiritual being, and being spiritual is natural.

 

[viole]

I watched a great movie recently called The Ninth Configuration, made by William Peter Blatty (of Exorcist fame). I won't give away any spoilers, but one of the topics it explores is whether the existence of love proves the existence of God. The story posits that love cannot be explained naturally, that true love is self-sacrifice, and self-sacrifice goes against our natural instincts.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe this is a convincing line of reasoning? Do you believe love can be explained naturalistically? Or do you believe that love doesn't actually exist?

Love is a natural adaptation. For instance, romantic, long term love, is a consequence of our kids taking so long to become independent. And therefore their survival crucially depend on the stability of the relation between the food providing parents.

"Till death set us apart" is, ultimately, a biological statement.

But even if leave aside the naturalistic origins of love, its existence cannot be used to prove God without begging the question. Namely, without using the implicit assumption that God is love, or that love can only come from God, or whatever other theory about the conclusion we want to prove. And that is circular reasoning.

It would be like saying that since God is a Meatball, the fact that I appreciate meatballs is evidence of His existence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Aupmanyav]

It would be like saying that since God is a Meatball, the fact that I appreciate meatballs is evidence of His existence.

^^^
"Does love prove the existence of God?": Love proves the existence of charlatans, who would like to fool the gullible for their interest.

 

[PureX]

I watched a great movie recently called The Ninth Configuration, made by William Peter Blatty (of Exorcist fame). I won't give away any spoilers, but one of the topics it explores is whether the existence of love proves the existence of God. The story posits that love cannot be explained naturally, that true love is self-sacrifice, and self-sacrifice goes against our natural instincts.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe this is a convincing line of reasoning? Do you believe love can be explained naturalistically? Or do you believe that love doesn't actually exist?

Matter, life, consciousness (conscious self-awareness), and 'love' are all examples of metaphysical transcendence. These are "proof of God" is we define God as being a state of metaphysical transcendence. But then if we were to define God as "wetness", any manifestation of water would be proof of God.

I think what's important, here, is that metaphysical transcendence is a real existential phenomena, the limits of which we humans do not know. So the possibility of God's existence is certainly evident, though unproven.

 

[PureX]

Matter, life, consciousness (conscious self-awareness), and 'love' are all examples of metaphysical transcendence. These are "proof of God" is we define God as being a state of metaphysical transcendence. But then if we were to define God as "wetness", any manifestation of water would be proof of God.

I think what's important, here, is that metaphysical transcendence is a real existential phenomena, the limits of which we humans do not know. So the possibility of God's existence is certainly evident, though unproven.

Also, I would like to point out that to be metaphysically extant does not require being unnatural, or divorced from nature.

 

[Rizdek]

I believe love exists and I believe it is when someone is willing to go out of their way to help another to the point of sacrificing something for that other person. I can be simply being kind...ie giving of one's time or resources, being faithful...continual living up to one's promise to, say, a spouse, and all the way up to giving of one's life for another.

I believe there is a natural explanation for self-sacrificial love even to the point of giving one's life for someone else or for the 'tribe.' I believe in natural evolution and I believe that natural evolution is the explanation for all of humanities instincts, feelings, emotions and drives.

As I understand evolution, it as much on gene POOLS as on individuals. Therefore, a gene pool survives because it produces individuals,some of whom survive on their own to pass on their genes, but also some individuals who are willing to sacrifice themselves so that others will pass on the genes of the tribe/population/species. IOW think of gene pools assurviving and producing individuals as opposed to thinking of JUST individuals surviving.

This article explains it in more detail.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

 

[Rizdek]

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.

We can talk about what a 'free act of will' mean? Is everything person does that isn't an automatic reflex or things like the heart beating or breathing a free act of will? For example, if someone acts instinctively to jump into a dangerous situation (a raging river, a fire, etc.) to save someone's life was it a free act of will or an automatic response?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I watched a great movie recently called The Ninth Configuration, made by William Peter Blatty (of Exorcist fame). I won't give away any spoilers, but one of the topics it explores is whether the existence of love proves the existence of God. The story posits that love cannot be explained naturally, that true love is self-sacrifice, and self-sacrifice goes against our natural instincts.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe this is a convincing line of reasoning? Do you believe love can be explained naturalistically? Or do you believe that love doesn't actually exist?

A lot of emotions and experiences like love do not have a dichotomy of naturalist v. god-spiritual. I don't see love as the highest emotion, but even so why can't it be special emotion onto itself without it needing to be either naturalistic or christian-divine?

Can't it be divine onto itself without relationship or explanation by any religious interpretation thereof?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Love proves the existence of God. Love is (like God) something that cannot be directly seen by the senses, cannot be smelled, tasted, or touched. Yet love clearly exists. How do we know? Well, they did studies.

In 1944, they tried raising about 40 kids or so with no affection. They were given food and water, but never hugged or touched or anything. The experiment had to be stopped after just four months. No physical cause of death as the babies were all healthy. The scientists noticed that shortly before death, the babies gave up. They stopped verbalizing or trying to engage the caregivers. Then they’d stop moving, crying and changing expressions. And finally, they died. They The control group on the other hand thrived. Of the ones that gave up, even taking them to a loving home wasn't enough for two of them. They still died.

US Experiment on infants withholding affection

Unfortunately, I cannot find the name of this study and so I cannot verify it. However, except for the death part (I haven't been able to prove that kids literally die from lack of affection), the shutting down part where babies give on crying is a real thing. It was also seen in some orphanages.

The Loudest Silence I’ve Ever Heard

And they did do this again, this time on monkeys.

Speaking of monkeys, we should probably mention Harry Harlow (and ummm his role in causing the founding of PETA). Harry Harlow was concerned about the effects of isolation on humans, especially since at one time parents were told not to touch or interact with children. As such, he successfully proved that monkeys prefer loving parents to just food. He arranged surrogate "monkeys" (they weren't really monkeys but they were constructs made from soft materials with no food, and constructs from firm materials with had food in their hands), and they invariably preferred the soft one at all times to one that only had food, except when they were hungry. Unfortunately, his wife died and to treat his depression, they gave him electroshock therapy. This ****ed him up, and he made torture experiment for monkeys.

Pit of despair - Wikipedia

Bottom line is that when children don't have any love, there is a noticeable effect on their psyche.

 

[rational experiences]

Science and its inhumanity is real....yet the scientist is the same human life as everyone elses....yet when he verbalises information he displaces his own human existence and self everywhere else.

Why he does such evil science experiments on such innocent lives. Why males as adults are so abusive to their family when they are meant to express Father male instinctive loving qualities, innate in our life, for we began as our highest selves.

Only radiation x mass as used in science can remove that condition from the want of not to exist, why science does such evil experiments, for the non want of its presence, to ultimately own and have achieved its results, the Destroyer self.

Who proves in his modern day mentality that he lives amongst us. Which also proves why males in ancient times for a holy secret order who dealt with his kind. The very reason of all the stories and histories.

A human baby is the most innocent self, who depends on adult care and adult supervision to enable its success in life. If a baby is so consciously aware to die in not being loved by the parent who chose to procreate it, only proves that spirit consciousness is real. If you decided to make some form of DATA out of a truly evil experiment on life....yet science in the occult society has always done those sorts of evil experiments in secrecy...and then get found out later.

When they get to the moment of secret, too late scenario for being so evil, is when they too as those adults will wish that they had never been born either.

The reason experiment, I want to prove that love owned the existence of creation. What a total b.s. theory in reality. I wanted to apply that experiment for I totally enjoy seeing and witnessing the human innocence suffer in all of my controlled experiments that now own machines done in secret atmospheric computer/satellite pulsed studies...enjoying every moment of it.

 

[Rizdek]

You seem to be doing what Polymath did and talking about an emotion one feels, but that's not what's meant by "love". As I said in the OP:

"The story posits that love cannot be explained naturally, that true love is self-sacrifice, and self-sacrifice goes against our natural instincts."

Love is an act of the will, where you consciously will the good of another instead of your own - even to the point of giving up your own life.

Why wouldn't self sacrifice be a natural tendency?

 

[Rizdek]

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.

I understand the concept of freewill acts of sacrifice. And, to the extent that humans have freewill, I don't see a problem with this arising naturally. Certainly other species produce individuals who sacrifice themselves so it is very likely that this tendency was part of the human gene pool before humans...became humans.

I don't think anything has been "proven" or even supported with very good data/reasoning. No one, AFAIK, has shown that freewill sacrifice can only be due to God OR that such instinctive behavior absolutely could arise naturally. There is a lot of 'it seems likes' and 'it's obvious' but not so much what I'd call firm evidence one way or the other.

It makes sense to me that a gene pool that produced a social species would produce individuals who would occasionally perform acts of self sacrifice because gene pools survive to continue a species BY producing enough individuals and maintaining them long enough for them to reproduce. It seems like it might does so by producing individuals who are occasionally willing to sacrifice themselves such that more of the gene carrying individuals will survive and reproduce.

 

[Rizdek]

Love proves the existence of God. Love is (like God) something that cannot be directly seen by the senses, cannot be smelled, tasted, or touched. Yet love clearly exists. How do we know? Well, they did studies.

In 1944, they tried raising about 40 kids or so with no affection. They were given food and water, but never hugged or touched or anything. The experiment had to be stopped after just four months. No physical cause of death as the babies were all healthy. The scientists noticed that shortly before death, the babies gave up. They stopped verbalizing or trying to engage the caregivers. Then they’d stop moving, crying and changing expressions. And finally, they died. They The control group on the other hand thrived. Of the ones that gave up, even taking them to a loving home wasn't enough for two of them. They still died.

US Experiment on infants withholding affection

Unfortunately, I cannot find the name of this study and so I cannot verify it. However, except for the death part (I haven't been able to prove that kids literally die from lack of affection), the shutting down part where babies give on crying is a real thing. It was also seen in some orphanages.

The Loudest Silence I’ve Ever Heard

And they did do this again, this time on monkeys.

Speaking of monkeys, we should probably mention Harry Harlow (and ummm his role in causing the founding of PETA). Harry Harlow was concerned about the effects of isolation on humans, especially since at one time parents were told not to touch or interact with children. As such, he successfully proved that monkeys prefer loving parents to just food. He arranged surrogate "monkeys" (they weren't really monkeys but they were constructs made from soft materials with no food, and constructs from firm materials with had food in their hands), and they invariably preferred the soft one at all times to one that only had food, except when they were hungry. Unfortunately, his wife died and to treat his depression, they gave him electroshock therapy. This ****ed him up, and he made torture experiment for monkeys.

Pit of despair - Wikipedia

Bottom line is that when children don't have any love, there is a noticeable effect on their psyche.

I'm not sure that study shows with a high degree of certainty that parental affection can only be due to God. It seems just as likely that human babies need parental care...and their emotional and mental development is linked to their physical well-being such that without emotional interaction, their physical body deteriorates. In fact that study might even show that there isn't the kind of god who involves himself and forms relationships with humans otherwise, why would lack of human contact cause these babies to develop unnaturally? Why wouldn't God's presence suffice?