You can’t use science to answer a religious question. This is a religious debate, not a scientific debate.
The question asked by OP:
This view of unconditional love isn’t really supported by the Bible, though. The Bible has both God and Jesus saying they hate people, and has Jesus ordering his followers to hate people (or arguably even to slaughter them).
The whole notion of "dying for our sins really makes no sense either. If God loved us so much then why did he need a sacrifice? he was only saving us from himself, so that whole sacrifice thing was kind of silly. If he loved us unconditionally, he could have just decided to let them into Heaven or whatever.
I never understood why it was God’s place to forgive anybody anyway. That doesn’t make sense either. How can God decide it’s ok for me to hurt somebody else. It seems to me like the only entities who have the right to forgive are those who are wronged. God can’t be wronged, so has no authority to forgive.
The OP asked, “When you say that God loves humanity, what do you mean?”
My answer was that a father’s love for a child was a useful model of the relationship I contend exists between God and humanity.
I don’t contend that they are identical, that they arise from the same physical process, or that they are sustained by the same process. I merely offered one as a useful model for the other.
Is it possible to have a debate in this forum that assumes, for the purposes of the debate, the existence of God, and explores the different structures and models that “God’s love” might have? Or is any such subject going to be derailed by the insistance that we cannot begin with such assumptions?
The commonly understood meaning for God’s “love” in Christianity is the ordinary, human definition of the word. People don’t usually think of it as biological, but that’s only because they don’t really tend to examine their own terms.
The religious question can’t be answered unless the terms are defined.
The OP’s question can’t be answered without a non-biolgical definition of the word “love.”
And your definition of love is that it’s chemical and without a brain we can’t love. Yeah…
This may be your belief, but it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Moreso, while there are certainly definitions of love that fit with what you describe, there are other definitions that don’t at all. Particularly, considering that this is a thread that presupposes the existence of God, then any properties that one believes God has have to fit in here. So, if one believes in free will or is otherwise non-materialist, then giving a materialistic explanation as a counter argument is utterly silly.
That said, I don’t believe love is a feeling at all, at least not the love that is refered to there. There are multiple words in the Bible that get translated to the English word love. As such, I’ll give a simpler definition, that love is a choice to act in the best interest of the one that one loves without regard for how it may affect oneself. Of course, sometimes that means a personal sacrifice, but not always.
To that extent, to understand what God’s love means is entirely based upon what we believe his motives for us as his creation is. Personally, I believe he means for us to learn and grow, as creation is an ongoing process, but it is also simply to be and to experience our existence, as creation is an art and art needs no greater purpose than to simply exist.
And to that end, I think Bricker’s father analogy is quite apt, and I also think it’s exactly why it’s the analogy that God used to explain it to us. He has acted as a teacher and given us our lessons, we need to exercise our freewill to apply those lessons and learn from our own mistakes. I think he’ll give us quite a bit of leeway for mistakes, but he’s also been careful enough to set up our space so we won’t accidentally walk into territory that will ultimately lead away from our end goal.
And also like a parent, our relationship with him, and in a way his love for us as well, changes over time. Not because he changes, but because we do. We’re very much in the state right now that isn’t all that different from straight up rebelion, thinking we can handle these things and figure out all the answers on our own. And I think the end lesson will be precisely that, well, we don’t have all the answers.
Love isn’t a chemical. Love like other emotions in a pattern of brain activity, which in humans is partly performed by chemicals. Anything with the same pattern ought to feel love, whether it is using brain chemistry, electrons, photons, or anything else to think with. So God or an AI ought to be able to feel love just fine if they have the right pattern of activity in their processing systems.
All I’m asking for is for people to define their terms.
Genesis says that God “breathed into Adam’s nostril’s the breath of life.” If I was to ask what was meant by God’s “breath,” here, that question could not be answered literally. It’s a metaphor. Accordingly, God’s “love” cannot be literal either, so it either has to be a metaphor or just an anthropomorphic fantasy. You can probably guess what I think it is (given the historical, archaic context in which this theology was firmed) but assuming it’s only a metaphor, what is it a metaphor [i[for*?
That’s correct. God’s “love” can’t be identical to the human biological definition, so what is it?
It can’t be? I think it can. Why can’t God’s love be the same love as a parent loves their kid or as a husband loves their wife or as a person loves an idea? Why can’t it be on the same level as humans? I think it can. I think people can love people or ideas as much as God loves us. I think it can be the same amount of love and the same type of love.
So, when Christians say that God loves humanity, they are saying that God loves everyone the same way as a parent loves their kid, a husband loves his wife or wife loves husband or a person loves an idea. Love is a feeling and it cannot be defined in words or cannot be scientifically defined in an accurate way. There’s no ONE definition for love. I think it would be more accurate to find instances that we cannot relate the word love to.
Of course the problem with that is that God’s alleged behavior doesn’t begin to look like that. And yes; if you attribute a human characteristic like love to a god you can judge it by human standards.
I suppose my inartful language could leave one with the implication that I was only talking about feelings. I was not. I intended to include actions also.
And in this thread we are definitely not talking about the love between you and your wife and kids. You need to re-read the OP and the answers with the thought in mind that we are talking about a topic you decline to acknowledge exists in reality or as a topic. This thread isn’t about whether God exists, the OP, while happening to be an atheist, asked a serious question and got serious answers. The theists on this board understand that the atheists on this board don’t think that there is a God. We get that. That isn’t what this thread is about.
You posit that because the brain has feelings of love that what is there is nothing more than biochemical reactions. That is an abstraction of something very real that happens in most people. When brain science is along far enough, then all the chemicals and equations can be known and written somewhere. That will be a further abstraction. Someone can then point to the treatise and say “that treatise” is love. It isn’t. What goes on in our heads and what actions that leads us to do are who we are, what we aspire to be and can be something far beyond particles interacting.
You don’t buy any of that, and we get that you don’t buy it. But that is not today’s topic of conversation.
The dicussion can’t be engaged in intelligently unless the therms are clearly defined.
Cite? Name a definition of “love” that isn’t chemical.
But attributing “love” to God is assigning a biological characteristic to a non-biological entity. That doesn’t make sense. it doesn’t get you out of the box to say “it’s God,” or “it’s religious.” That doesn’t alter the fact that it’s contradictory to say a non-biological figure can have a biological function.
The revant one is agape, which basically means “compassion.”
This would be an inaccurate definition. Love is the feeling, not the action. The action can be motivated by the feeling, but the action without the feeling is not love.
When did he gteach us anything or give us lessons?
What does this mean, exactly? Nobody can walk away from God’s goal? All actions are what God wants. it’s not possible to sin?
The Bible says we all have the same knowledge of right and wrong as God. is the bible wrong?
I don’t really see how this kind of talks really gets at the meaning of God’s “love,” anyway. How is it different from God’s non-existence? If we need “answers,” then why hasn’t God ever bothered to give them to us?
You can certainly have such a debate with me. But I don’t operate from the assumption that I’m right about everything or that Xtians are nincompoops.
I would like to have the discussion in that sense.
Nope.
Because tjose are all biochemical cognitive/emotional responses, and God is not biological
So why doesn’t he ever show it, and why does the Bible say God hates people?
Just apply a variant of the Turing Test.
If you can’t tell the difference between “love” when expressed by a person, a computer, or a god, over a long period of interactions … then perhaps there is no real difference.
Love is only a feeling.
That’s great since I never said anything about the existence or non-existence of God.
All human cognitive processes are biochemical. That is a fact.
It’s not an abstraction at all, it’s a blunt statement of hard fact. It’s attributing these chemical processes to non-biological entities which is the abstraction.
Cite?
Not that this has anything to with the basic (and completely fair) question of what it means to attribute a biological characteristic to God. It’s a simple question.
[quote[You don’t buy any of that, and we get that you don’t buy it. But that is not today’s topic of conversation.[/QUOTE]
All I’m asking is for Christians to define one simple term.
I said earlier that a father’s love for his children was a useful model for the relationship I’m contending exists.
In what way is that insufficient?