I would like to examine the following exchange from the Atheist vs Believer thread.
In a response to the general thread, I wrote:
Czarcasm replies to me, with this:
Of course his reply is ingenuous, and logically flawed. I never expressed any doubt as to the existence of his wife. I didn’t even express doubt as to the existence of his love for her. The argument ignores the logical fallacy that a picture proves nothing either. In fact the reply fails to rise to the level of argument entirely. I would like to address it anyway, and in some depth.
So, Czarcasm, do you love your wife? Can you prove it? Can you send me a picture of your love? Can you provide concrete evidence that love exists at all? Describe, please the manner in which that love can be tested, for its reality. How can you be sure that you are not simply deluded into believing that you love her? Any action you purport to have taken for the reason that you love her, of course is simply your action, and your attribution to the sate of love, and could have any number of self interest, or biological motives unrelated to love. So, I ask simply, do you really love your wife?
Based on your answer, we can continue to examine this thing you claim is love, whether you do love her, or not. The examination is the same in both cases.
P. S. I don’t intend this to be a pit thread, but since it does place into question your personal life, and your emotional and intellectual veracity, perhaps it needs to be there. I mean no insult, but . . . well, some people are easier to insult than others. Move it if you feel it appropriate.
I see a problem with this line of reasoning. It presupposes that a god exists that is capable of loving you, and that this god in fact does love you. If need be, I can produce my Beloved in public, I will stand next to my Beloved, and she will proclaim her love for me(I hope!), and I will profess my love for her. Now, that may not be proof of her love for me or mine for her, but once you look at her and look at me, it will certainly be solid evidence of her love for me at least. Now, for love to exist between a person and their god or gods, the minimum I must insist on is that both that person and the deity or deities in question to exist in the first place. For A to love B, is it too much to ask that both A and B to be real?
Your belief in God is immaterial to the question of His existence, just as Czarcasm’s love for his wife is immaterial to the question of hers.
We can observe people who act as though they are in love. We can observe people who act as though they have faith. So we can be fairly confident that both faith and love are real.
We can also observe Czarcasm’s wife. So we can be fairly confident that she is real as well.
Unfortunately, we can’t observe God. That puts Him on much shakier ground.
Frogs exist. Princesses exist. But, alas, that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a princess loves a frog. I have not asked you to believe in God, by the way. I don’t think I ever have, in fact, but I certainly have not in this thread. Let’s stay with the purported existence of love for a bit.
So, your love for your wife is entirely based on hope, and verbal professions that it is so. Her credulity in this matter, and the coincidence that she shares the desire to profess a state she calls love qualify as “solid evidence.” When she dies, or you die, of course that love shall instantly cease to exist, right? Because then you, or she won’t be real anymore. That love is entirely dependent, by your criteria, on both parties being real.
I now have your assurance that two people professing the same view is “solid evidence” that that view is reality, so long as both people are real. I will remember that, in further areas of discussion.
Of course, there are many other possible explanations for your profession of love and for hers as well. Do you hold the opinion that anyone who professes love is experiencing an essentially similar state that you and your wife experience? Is your love unique?
This thing called love. It is a thing much written of, and often proclaimed. Am I to take it that mutual proclamation by any two individuals is sufficient evidence for you that they love? Does love require any other characteristic than public acknowledgment? If one of the persons does not make the acknowledgment, is the other person wrong about their own love? What if one lies? Does that mean that the other has no love? Your first argument in favor of the existence of your love for your wife was your hope that she also loves you. While I can understand it, it hardly has logical bearing on the existence of your love.
This thread is not about the existence of God. This thread is about the existence of love. While it is not limited to Czarcasm’s love for his wife, that is the issue from which the argument proceeds. He has claimed that such a thing exists. We are now examining the rational and logical nature of that claim.
Refutation: That might qualify as evidence of her love, although it isn’t new, you used that in the first post on the subject. However, it provides no evidence for your love.
I am not trying to prove that God loves me. This is not a thread about God. It is a thread on proof of love. Proof that love exists, at all. Specifically, whether you believe in love, and if so, what logical and rational basis you have for that belief.
I know that love exists. But I have no logical or rational basis for that. As anyone knows who has read our exchanges in the past, it has always been you that wanted logic, evidence, and rational explanations for my faith. Now, I try to explore the same philosophic ground on your statement that you love your wife. I don’t even claim that you don’t love her, merely that you have yet to offer any sort of proof, or any sort of evidence beyond a coincidental similarity in your declaration that you do, and your report that she declares she does as well. Surely you have some logical basis for this, and some evidence in real terms, beyond anecdotes of assertions by her.
To quote a often stated premise of debate on the board, you are the one with the claim, so, where is your evidence?
You claim that you have faith in God, in much the same way that I have love for my Beloved. My point is that I can provide solid evidence that that which I profess love for actually exists. That is the difference I am trying to point out between my love and your faith.
I’m not sure exactly what loving one’s wife is being compared to. I know that the emotion is a near universal experience and that, to some extent, it actually can be “proven” to exist as a chemical function of the brain. I just don’t see how that’s analogous to the existence of a supernatural, all-powerful creator God. I’ve seen this argument before and it’s never impressed me. For one thing, it’s not a proof of God, it’s just an attempted tu quoque. “You can’t prove God exists.”
“Oh, yeah, well you can’t prove you love your wife, therefore God exists.”
I don’t think the existence of "love"as a chemical/emotional bonding mechanism is humans and other animals is in any doubt. Can a specific person “prove” he loves another specific person? I don’t know. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible given the right technology. It’s all just brain chemistry. Even if, for the sake of argument, I concede that I can’t prove I love my wife. So what? How does that improve the odds for the existence of sky gods?
I accept that the Religious Experience is real – that people feel an emotional certitude about their faith or have experiences in which they feel they are genuinely communicating with some transcendent consciousness. I take their word for it. That doesn’t mean that sky gods exist, though, just that the certainty in their existence exists.
We can observe a constellation of behaviors that provide a great deal of evidence that one person is in love with another – tone of voice, glances, present-giving, caresses.
Can we be absolutely certain that Czarcasm isn’t faking it? No. But when we’re talking about empirical evidence we can’t be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of anything.
Really, this is just a roundabout way of getting to the old solipsistic argument:
We can’t be absolutely sure of the evidence of our senses.
Therefore empiricism is based on faith.
Therefore FAITH in God can’t be refuted by empirical arguments.
I have not claimed the existence of God in this thread.
You have claimed that your wife exists, several times, and I have never refuted that she does. That horse is dead.
What I have asked is, what proof do you have that love exists? Will that love cease to exist if one of you dies? Is it only love if it is mutual? You don’t answer the questions I ask, you just sit and try to refute claims I have not made.
I have no rational evidence for my professions of faith in God, and no wish to convince you of the existence of God. (which, by the way I keep trying to leave out of this discussion, because it wasn’t supposed to be a thread about the existence of God, but thread about the existence of love, and the existence of rational and logical proof of the existence of love.) I am trying to find out what your philosophical justification is for believing that you do in fact love your wife.
Bryan EkersI am not sure what it means. I am not sure I will ever get an explanation. If I ever do, I will try to explore what it means.
