Question for Christians: How do we know God loves us?

Great Debates
181

**"“Quote: if you can’t answer all questions regarding the logic OF YOUR OWN BELIEF, then it’s self-evidently not logical.”
I find this to be a false statement.

There are scenarios such as the RPG tongue in cheek one in that thread that offer alternative possibilities concerning human suffering. Nothing has to be proved or explained completely."**

It isn’t a false statement and it’s self-evidently correct.

Since it was my quote, I’ll clarify: you say “Nothing has to be proved or explained completely.” Okay.

What I said isn’t that something has to be proved or explained completely.

So let’s toss that out.
What I said is that the logic of the belief (the internal logic of the belief, even while working with several hypotheticals like “we don’t have the divine perspective”, “we can’t know what the purpose is”, etc.) either makes sense or it doesn’t.

Logic is a fixed thing. “That’s logical to you, but not to me” makes no sense.

Allow me to provide an example:

If someone says “I believe that human suffering has a purpose that I can’t understand but that I trust fits god’s plan, which I can’t know, so it’s cool by me,” I would not call that illogical. It simply means the person is stating that there are things they do not know. They are claiming a lack of knowledge. That’s fine. And honest to boot.

Now if someone says “I believe that god is forever but he’s also temporary. I believe god is part of me but he’s also a separate being that isn’t part of me. I believe god likes rock 'n roll and hates country. I also believe that god likes country and hates rock 'n roll,” then that is not logical.

It could still be true. God could, logically, be an entity beyond the reach of logic.

Which is fine; but then the second arguments can’t all be called logical. You’d have to then concede yes they are not logical, but I believe them because I think that god is beyond logic (which is pretty close to what’s being done when someone invokes “divine perspective”).

So, what I was saying in the quote is that either the internal logic of a belief can be explained or it has to be conceded that it’s not within the realm of logic. In fact, the second example statement above is completely illogical. Invoking divine perspective does not make it logical.

That post also specifically differentiates between having to be able to explain everything about the cosmos is not the same as explaining the logic of a belief.

If one wants to leave all logic behind, that’s fine too but don’t call it logical; and all other suppositions are not therefore equally illogical.

The RPG scenario posited, for example, left me with a lot of questions which I asked.

The idea, if I understood correctly, can be explained logically so that’s not a good comparison.

For example, the RPG notion is that humans are avatars. It doesn’t say humans are avatars and they are also the players and they are also the admin and they are also none of the above. That would make no sense.

The truth of the RPG scenario is obviously another matter, but explaining how it’s hypothesized to work isn’t a subject completely beyond the parameters of logic.

A lot of religion is.

And that’s fine; but it doesn’t follow that all of non-religious belief is equally beyond all parameters of logic and therefore it’s all a wash.

I’m surprised nobody seems to have answered #1 of the OP.

182

"Originally Posted by cosmosdan
I find many religious beliefs fly in the face of available evidence or are contradictory within their own doctrine or dogma. The question of God’s love is not one of them. I understand any person looking at human suffereing and concluding “there is no God, or if there is he doesn’t care”. However, when it comes down to the logic of it, if we are honest, we must admit that we cannot see our linear time, limited knowledge, mortal physical world, from the perspective of a supposed eternal, omnipotent,omniscient benevolant being."

I agree.

183

"The first person says, “Water?” The second person says, “I think it’s the essence of vaporized molybdenum that has been compressed into a clear fluid by extraordinary atmospheric conditions and unusual physical properties which happen to occur exclusively inside that glass for a reason I don’t understand.” Now while it is true that, from a distance, neither person can say with 100% certainty that their guess is the right one… I’d like to think one of them sounds more reasonable."

<ROFL dying> Oh my god, that is the funniest shit I’ve read on this entire board.

Laughter does me good, thanks! :smiley:

(See how contorted we ‘logical’ people have to get to make a simple point? LOL)

184

Well, in fairness to the believers, I think they take the ‘feeling’ as evidence.

Therefore, they are believing based on evidence.

But you’re right, you’re not trying to call dibs on logic. He’s trying to collapse its meaning and make it relative. In an earlier thread, it was stated “not logical IMO” which is nonsensical. Something is logical or it isn’t. No opinions needed.

And that’s not just my opinion. LOL

185

"Yes there are set definitions for logic but that doesn’t prevent folk from insisting their arguments are logical when they are not does it?"

Sure doesn’t.

186

**“I’m not refusing to acknowledge definitions of logic or evidence. I’m flat out saying that the argument offered by atheists is not logical according to the text book definition. Clear enough?”
**

Which argument, specifically, offered by atheists are you saying is not logical?

187

No, they are believing first, and calling anything and everything “evidence.” I believe logic dictates that you collect the evidence first, then make a conclusion based on the evidence collected. Now, it is entirely possible to misinterpret evidence and make a wrong conclusion, but I don’t think that’s what we are talking about here.

I know what you mean. When I point out that the side that takes evidence to make a conclusion is more logical than the side that makes a conclusion based on…what…a feeling?, I get told that because my evidence isn’t absolutely airtight, it is somehow the same as having no evidence whatsoever.

188

You know what the xian answer is to this?

Where you said “couldn’t figure it out” they’d substitute “wouldn’t” hear “Him.”

That is, that rather than trying to ‘figure it out’ with your brain you’re supposed to look inside yourself, open your heart to god, seek him, etc., etc.

You’re just being stubborn, in other words. You must be like a child (quote).

God is available to all of us if we just seek and so on and so on…

189

**"Second, saying that explanation A explains something better than explanation B does not imply that B is illogical - it just says A is better.

That’s true. Or saying You prefer A and I prefer B is okay as well. I was addressing something specifically called logical, that IMO is not."**

No, it’s not okay if you’re talking about which is logical. If you prefer one over the other, that’s great but you can’t prefer one as being logical and one as being illogical. There is no “…logical, that IMO is not.” Logic isn’t a matter of opinion.

When two people disagree as to what is or isn’t logical, one of them is wrong.

It’s not just I like vanilla and you like chocolate.

190

Having feelings is evidence-that you are capable of having feelings. Otherwise, you have to acknowledge that when people have feelings about other deities it is either good evidence that those other deities exist, or evidence that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are faking those feelings.

191

**" A god who hides that knowledge in an obscure puzzle is one who deserves a punch in the snoot, not love."
**

Unless, of course, finding him amidst the obscurity is what’s needed to attain salvation and it being obscure is a necessary condition for reasons beyond us so that making it an obscure puzzle is training bestowed by a loving parent to help us out.

Which, of course, is pretty convenient but it’s often said (though it’s not cosmosdan’s view as he’s stated).

192

*"Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdavinci
Yes definitely, if one defines God’s love as inscrutable, then it’s existence is not provable and not an assertion in the logical sense. **Another poster said that you couldn’t prove anybody’s love but this isn’t true in the way that they are implying it **- that love is somehow inherently beyond scientific and rational understanding. The real truth is just that the word “love” refers to many different phenomena, and so in any particular context the meaning is too vague when used without further clarification. This doesn’t say anything about the nature of love, all it says is that the speaker isn’t using precise language.

The same can be said of God’s love - it’s not just that it’s not an assertion because it has no negation (although this is a natural and important consequence to have an insight about) - but more importantly it’s meaningless because it has never been properly defined.

That said, no one who is Christian and uses it’s conclusions to support it’s premises rather than the other way around is really interested in the objective/implicit order nature of God. They are interested in the subjective/explicit order (experiential) nature of God, that is to say - what they directly experience. And in a similar fashion to the way certain placebos are as effective as medications, whether the underlying mechanism for experiencing God’s love is active loving by God or training the brain to create the illusion of such - the subjective experience is the same. And since the subjective experience is what has value for them, the objective mechanism becomes irrelevant.
Good post."
*
Good post? I agree, so are you retracting your earlier exchange that was being referred to there that one can’t prove anybody’s love?

Or are you just complimenting a well-constructed post even though it states that your assertions were true in the way that you were implying them?

193

Again, the classic example being the end of The Last Battle, where the eevil atheists stare right at Aslan and the door to heaven and don’t see it.

Now, the Christians who do swear they see it all see something different, which makes me think they’re not looking at god, but looking at their own reflections in a funhouse mirror.

I get paid a lot of money for acting like a child, and I think God is a poopyhead. :smiley:

194

Oh, well I wouldn’t know which order they’re doing it in; I was giving them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of the example. But yes, I agree that evidence is collected first. **If **they were first feeling it and then concluding, it would be evidence then. As a practical matter, you’re probably right since people are raised with these beliefs before they have feelings that make them wonder of a god, IMO.

Feelings aside (because frankly I don’t even think that has been much posited in this thread as evidence), the very basic point that some evidence is more indicative than others of a given conclusion just makes plain sense.

Plain sense, of course, being antithetical to anything that contradicts a believer’s beliefs which they need to also have crowned with logic to top it all off even when it doesn’t merit that.

See? Now we’re not being fair. It’s supposed to all be a wash. :rolleyes:

195

True. To which they’d say, “we’re all having feelings about the same god known through different names”.

I’m probably gonna quit this thread soon, aside from righting any wrongs thrown my way, cuz it’s really pointless trying to have a discussion with intelligent folks like you and Voyager while there’s “everything is logical, it’s just different opinions” crap being thrown around. I was already exhausted in the other thread when we got to parsing stupid things like the meaning of obvious words (like unknown/unknowable in this one) that just gets silly right before it gets ugly and my views end up getting called “garbage” when it’s clear to anyone with a brain where the dump is located.

The slip and slide way of arguing a POV where the meanings and analogies just keep changing to try to cover up the shredded logic is just a waste of time.

196

ROFL Poopyhead, indeed. All Hail Poopyhead! <looking out the window for lightning>

Oh yeah now I know what you’re referring to; I read those Narnia books.

I must say that the analogues applied secularly do have some resonance; like the idea that you can be looking right at something and not seeing it because you don’t want to see it; “there’s none so blind as those that will not see,” etc.

I think those have lots of use in life in many places.

Not so much as a way to metaphysically understand ‘god.’ It’s meaningless. I would also comment on its logic, but I don’t want to be told the real meaning of the word ‘logic’ is ‘a striped banana with purple spots.’

197

This is where we get to the part where I admit I don’t know how it all works. It’s also why the concept of a divine matrix in which we are equal creative participants rather than being acted upon by an outside source. {or not rescued by some outside source} makes much more sense to me as a possibility.

Let me say clearly that I don’t appreciate the whole “Don’t sweat it” presentation. I get that fairly often even though that is not my meaning and I do not present it in that way. I am in no way trying to minimize suffering to force my beliefs to work.

That being said, mankind endures certain hardships in order to fulfill a purpose. We have root canals and surgeries. We risk injury and our very lives sometimes just for entertainment, or sometimes for discovery.

Love isn’t just the warm fuzzy comforting bits. Sometimes love requires that we have the courage and commitment to do something that is very painful and/or risky.

I can say from personal experience that dealing with physical death up close and personal can teach us and helps us, if we are open to it, to examine what we value, whether that should change, and other issues.

198

I can see how you might think that but no.

199

The basics for me; If what we value are love and truth and the pursuit of those values is what directs us, our choices and our actions, then all the other details about God, Jesus, whether there is something after this physical life will be revealed in the appropriate moment.

I don’t need to know those things to continue to act on what I value.

200

You’re right, there is a big difference between knowledge and belief. People say they are “sure” but act in ways that suggest they’re not.

I don’t know how knowing god existed would affect humanity. Would it be better? Would we be more fearful or comforted?