Each individual person will have their own reasons for believing the way they do.
I am not an Xian, so I can only try to theorise why some reasons may be presented the way they are. Like the flower example, they see wonderment at life as evidence.
Other folks are free to evaluate that evidence based on whatever values and tools they bring to the table.
Civilised folks agree to disagree without predjudice, I think.
Just to be clear, I meant their position was not defensible, not yours.
Your response have ignored the problem of natural evil. I assumed that this was to indicate that those who believe in God’s love ignore it also. I enjoy a sunset as much as the next person, and I enjoy the stars probably more than the average person does, but I have no trouble enjoying them as an atheist. There is no good logical chain from them to God’s love.
Plus, evidence and spiritual matters do mix. Human love is spiritual, but in attempting to determine if someone else loves us, we have nothing but evidence to go on - otherwise we are as deluded as a stalker. “Jane must love me because she was wearing my favorite color the last time I looked at her through binoculars, and she smiled. We’ll just ignore the restraining order.”
Well, IMO, the evil in the Universe is just a part of the greater whole. I presume that whatever purpose that evil is to serve is not to show God’s Love for us, but something else.
I think that someone who feels that if the beauty of the world was (partly) designed for our benefit, they do see that beauty as evidence of a caring God. I realise you don’t agree.
Well, never the less, it’s clear that a lot of folks attribute some of the good things about life to some kind of benevolent creator’s over all plan for the Universe. As long as that belief does not lead to anti-social behavior like stalking, I have no problems leaving them to their (possibly deluded) happiness.
Oh. I didn’t say everything is “evidence” of God’s Love, nor have I said that everything is part of God’s plan. (I believe (hope? heh) in free will, so the evils that men do to each other in the name of religion is not God’s fault, but the flaws of humanity.
But anyway, it occured to me that there is a fundamental “given” that the religious types start from, and from which all other things flow. (God’s Love, for example.)
God created the Universe, and had some purpose (and maybe plan) for doing so.
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, for sure, all share this basic belief.
Humans are a bit of an industrious and optimistic species, evidenced by all the work we put into building things, celebrating life, and so on. They look on the future with hope and optimism.
If we are to believe that God created the Universe (and us), then I think our optimism would lead us to believe that maybe it’s possible he’s a “good guy”. Surely, an all powerfull being could do a lot better at torturing us (than just the current earthly natural disasters and plagues) if he created us just so he could have something to be mean to. If he cares one wit, that “one wit” would (coming from an all powerfull being), on our scale, amount to quite a lot. (Most artists don’t create a masterwork painting just to shit all over it when they are done.)
If you don’t share this core creation belief, than asking about the details further down the chain of (philosophical) reasoning that evolve out of it are bound to hit snags.
Actually, you have it backwards. Good things that happen are random events or caused by humans; bad things that happen are caused by God expressly to demonstrate his hate and contempt for us.
You disagree? Be that as it may, surely you agree that my theory is as supported by the evidence as yours. Since in both cases we’re just taking the evidence and arbitrarily dividing it up in a way that supports our preconcieved notion, and that has no basis whatsoever in the actual causes of things.
In my experience, that belief is antisocial behavior; when you attribute all good things to God’s grace, then you’re depriving all things and people that are not God their credit for their good deeds. Of course, most people who do this fail to keep their belief systems consistent, so they don’t usually go around acting like everyone is a criminal dirtbag, but nonetheless, telling somebody that they deserve no credit for their accomplishments is antisocial.
…and the good that people do in the name of religion, is that the strengths of humanity? Or do you give God credit for the good effects of religion and believers?
Right, and if he really wanted things to be good for us, the world would also be entirely different from the one we live in. Just as there are excuses that answer the problem of evil, one can easily constuct answers to the “problem of good”: if he just killed everyone, he wouldn’t have anyone more to play with, if we experienced no joy, we wouldn’t be able to truly appreciate the depths of suffering…
You’re correct that religious types start from ‘givens’, and selectively draw only the examples from reality that can be made to support their postion in some way. In any other discipline this is the height and depths of dishonesty. In religion it’s the general order of business.
Yes, and the snags are fairly good indications that the “core creation beliefs” are flawed. Noticing such snags and the associated flaws in the core beliefs are a believer’s first step to battling their own self-constructed and closely-held ignorance.
To be honest, I think your just being snarky, and playing a game of reverse logic.
Whether or not you or I accept something offered as evidence of God’s Love as convincing or conclusive evidence is a seperate issue from whether or not kanicbird thinks it is.
The OP asked (Xian’s, specifically) for evidence of God’s Love. Some folks reply “x”. Others go “Thats Not Evidence”… “yes it is”…“no its not”, and off we went.
This particular argument has been going on for a few thousand years, depending on which faith is in question. We go “no it’s not”, they go “yes it is” ad nueseam.
Slightly OT: You can tell me that you believe that you have an invisible spaghetti monster in your basement, and (assuming I believed you were serious), while I would think that if you were a little batty, as long as your other behaviours were within tolerable norms, I wouldn’t feel it’s my duty to “set you straight”. Unfortunately, I seem to be in a minority around here…
The good things that I refered to up there was not “good deeds”, as I personally congratulate the deed doer in that regard, but other more abstract things that are not the result of human activity. That’s why I offered the sunset example.
I never said, nor do I recall anyone in any of the SDMB threads lately, that people don’t deserve any kudos they should get for doing good deeds. Where are you seeing that?
Now, from my experience, when talking about charitable groups, like the Red Cross, when they go to help feed the homeless or something, I see the people actually doing the work getting the credit, not God.
I credit the humans. Human actions good and bad get blamed on the humans.
Good point. Things could be more perfect. Like the Garden of Eden, I suppose (if it existed). What we actually have is something in between very bad, and very good.
What does that mean? Personally, I think that it means that, if God exists, he wants us to find our own way to him (or perfection, or whatever), with as little Godly interference as possible.
A all powerful god could wave his appendage and we would be perfect little beings, experiencing no evils or hardship, no hate, no greed, etc. Then again, we wouldnt be quite human anymore, either, and our evolution to better (as in more wise and philosophically advanced) critters would be “tainted”, as God cheated and stacked the deck in his favor.
That is what philosophy seems to be all about, I thought. Exploring the answers to questions we can’t figure out with an abacus…
We seems to have a better handle on science than we do philosophy.
That’s why I don’t blame anyone for questioning their faith when they do.
If it were easy, all these questions would have been answered by the geniuses of long ago.
OT: On the behalf of all humanity, I would like to apologise for the delay in reaching world wide socio-utopia and unification. It’s taking longer than we thought. (That was a joke. Trying to lighten things up. 
)
Ah. As if, after thousands of years debating these philosophical questions (which fall within the self appointed perview of some religions), you, with the clarity of your logic, you will cause all spiritual people reading it to do a big forehead smack. :smack: and declare themselves atheists this instant.
Please don’t be mad, but I think that can be seen as just a touch arrogant and self deluded. There have been many threads around here where the OP seems to be coming from a viewpoint the same as the one seem to have just expressed, as well as the one where only stupid people believe in God(s).
However, of course, you are free to express your views, just like anyone else, and I try to be fair. But I will not be swayed by arguments that seem as disrespectful of other peoples views as the “religious nutjobs” are described as having when they “try to force their beliefs down my throat”.
Two wrongs dont make a right, or, in other words, just because the religious intolerent among us act foolishly, that doesn’t give you the right to be the same in return. If an attitude or behaviour is wrong, it’s wrong period.
I am not a Christian, but I have been attempting to play devil’s advocate and offer some “evidence” of God’s Love as I have come to understand it, as explained by some people. I may have muffed the analogies a little, in my usual clumsy way, but I hope that those other posters who can get what I am trying to say to come in and clarify matters. My apologies if I highjacked another thread, and messed up everything again. I like the SDMB, as it seems to sharpen my wits.
See y’all tomorrow!
I am asked for evidence. I am then told that I should not speak of proof. Then I ask what the evidence is for, and I am told that my evidence falls short of proof. I never had any information that I felt was evidence. I am notified that my position is not logical, after mentioning that I don’t think logic applies to what I perceive as God’s love, or anyone’s love.
If you wish to have a logical discussion of the failings of religion, feel free, but it is not a refutation of my argument, since I have no argument. I have never tried to convince anyone that God exists. I believe God exists, but not because of evidence. I am not trying to provide evidence, but was rather attempting to address the question of the OP. That seems to be an unwelcome subject. I wonder why it was asked.
If you don’t want proof, what the hell do you want with evidence? If you want evidence, but are not seeking proof, what exactly do you seek? Perhaps what you want a justification for despising faith itself. Why do you need it? Simply despise faith because you wish to. You don’t need a reason.
But you really want a reason.
Okay. I am an illogical fool, deluding myself that such an unlikely thing as Christ could be, and using my own inability to perceive my illogic to justify a desire to live according to an unreasonable set of values that will gain me nothing. See? I understand. I don’t mind being wrong. I don’t mind be foolish. I don’t mind being dedicated to Christ, even if he does not exist. If you can’t understand that, you are probably hampered in your understanding by an unreasoned dedication to logic.
Tris.
Please accept my apologies sir (or ma’am). I do not mean to slam shut debates with name calling.
Triskadecamus, you are asked for evidence, and you talk of a proof that was never asked for. Instead of providing evidence, you ask what it is for, even though that is clearly explained in the OP. Again, instead of offering any objective evidence, you say that the “proof” is not wanted.
You know what the purpose of the OP is, yet you continue to claim that evidence is not needed, and that you believe despite the lack of evidence, and that’s fine and dandy, but it doesn’t further the conversation to say “No, I have no evidence” over and over again. Nobody here has said they don’t want proof- solid evidence is wanted so that it might be determined if it is even possible for a proof to exist. Evidence first, then proof-you cannot have the proof first. The OP never mentioned despising faith. I never mentioned despising faith. The only person that has brought that up is you.
One question, though, if you could take a break from feeling so persecuted-If all we big, bad atheists wanted to do was sneer at all the true believers, why would we spend so much time and effort looking for the answers??
God’s disdain for us, perhaps? I’d think that God’s love would permeate all of creation, not be turned on and off like a faucet.
I rather think instead that we evolved to enjoy the beauty of the world. Sunsets long predated man, after all.
Well, fine then. I’ve agreed with you that you have a good hypothesis about why theists believe what they do. The rest of this discussion seems to be centered around if you think they are reasonable to do so.
Actually, for the purposes of this discussion we are assuming that God does exist, and are just examining if the state of the world indicates that He loves us.
As for proof and evidence, if there is enough evidence, and a logical chain connecting the evidence in support of a hypothesis, then it is reasonable to believe in the hypothesis - though tentatively. If there is not enough evidence to support a “proof”, but a reasonable amount, then there are arguments on both sides and often conflicting hypotheses. If there is little evidence, then it seems foolish to believe the hypothesis, at least until more shows up. I think the evidence for god is on the skimpy side, and for God’s love approaching the microscopic.
So if god’s love is not permeated throughout everything, there is no such thing as god’s love? That sounds pretty rigid and absolute.
In humans, a parent is assumed to love their offspring. But they dont continually smother them with hugs and kisses from the moment of birth until they day they die (unless the baby dies within minutes of birth). Istead, we smack them on the bottom as a welcome to the world.
If a parents love does not permeate every moment of the childs life, and every action, are we to conclude that it does not exist?
(I know. We can, with parents, point to specific actions and state that that action is an expression of love. I know, god does not seem to be so overt.)
What is the evolutionary advantage of enjoying the beauty of a sunset (with beauty being a very subjective thing)?
I can explain away the advantage of seeing the beauty in a fertile looking mountain valley, as our instincts would tell us that such a place would be more likely to have more game animals and root/nut/berry food sources.
But I cannot imagine the what the advantage of us enjoying the sunset…
A lot of animals seem to be indifferent to those color patterns. Why?
Well, it seems to me that we were sidetracked into discussing the reasonability (a.k.a. validity) of the “evidence” offered. Evidence was asked for. The believers tried to give some, and it was rejected by others.
“That’s not evidence.” “Yes it is.” “No it’s not. Your deluded.” (This pattern seems to repeat itself time and again on these boards.)
The OP him/herself never came back to discuss the views offered, nor clarify what constitutes as acceptable evidence.
The philosophical nature of religion and the spiritual realm (like the afterlife, if any) means that the evidence offered is typically going to be from the emotional side of our psyche, which is a very subjective place.
Coming purely from intellect & logic, emotional answers are going to be less than satisfying.
Surely, as a moderator, you may have noticed that not every religious themed thread on the SDMB was an honest attempt at debate or exploration of faith. Some folks just like to troll.
There is not one simple answer for this trolling, IMO.
Some folks are already made up their minds. They wish to have a believer set up a theory or explanation, just so they can poke holes in it. There seems to be no honest attempt at debate, just recreational argument.
Some folks feel intellectually superior to others based on these differences in beliefs, and they use similar methods as above. In these cases, some of these folks (perhaps unconsiously) seek to reconfirm their beliefs in their superiority, or they merely enjoy watching others squirm because they can’t answer the tough questions.
(For example, I remember a discussion where the OP asked about the Eucarist(?) where he states that he knows that some Catholics believe that the little wafers become little bit of J’s flesh in their mouths. Then he asks “How can they be so stupid?”)
Some folks think that the spiritual members of our population can be swayed with logic. They feel the need to unconvert the believer. These folks I can understand and relate to the most, but often, what seems to be forgotten is that with some of these fundamental questions, humans have been struggling with them for millennia. I am sure there are those who are actually intellectually curious about various aspects of religion, and there is not always an innate hostility here, unless or until one side or the other feels that there view points or life choices are being unfairly ignored, disparaged, or forced upon by the other. (This leads to anger and stubborness, and that leads also to stereotyping the opposition and unwillingness to engage.)
Some folks have been wronged in life (or perceive some injustice), and need to vent.
I am sure there are other reasons that I am forgetting…
Are people who see logic and reason work day after day supposed to just abandon it and switch to blind faith on just your say so? What the hell are we supposed to do, then, when someone of a different religion says the same thing-abandon your religion and pick up theirs? Considering how many religions are out there, blind faith can’t be the only bone you can throw to people who are seeking answers. You claim that, since some attempts at questioning the religious are only trolling, you must consider all questions as being attempts at doing the same-where the hell is the logic in that? Nobody is being persecuted here, no-one has called you “stupid”, no-one has claimed to be intellectually superior, and yet it seems as if the mere act of daring to ask “Where is the evidence that God loves us?” is some sort of vicious broadside on the very foundation of the Church.
Why does this question bother you so much? If there is evidence that you can point out to others, what is it? If there isn’t, just say so.
One thing that thread 9th floor linked to taught me is the futility of trying to guess at and then verbalize what the perspective of an omnipotent benevolent diety might be when it comes to suffering in the physical world.
As **Voyager ** says, to have these discussions we have to start from a point where we assume God exists and then agree on certain qualities of God. From there we try to argue whether it makes sense , why or why not.
The problem is when we give qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and timelessness, divine love, to the deity under discussion and then try to argue the problem of suffering from a human perspective.
That friends is not logical. I realize that fact is a pretty unsatisfying but it is true none the less.
So, friends of logic, even though people’s belief may not make sense “to you” and the issue of human suffereing that has been discussed so often here is part of what convinces you there is no God, let’s not confuse this argument by tossing the word logic into it.
You can’t assume certain qualities about God and then argue from the human perspective and call it a logical conclusion. It ain’t.
For many it is the failure of their human logic and reason - seeing where their logic and reason has left them, that leads many to God as their source of knowledge and wisdom. It is after a step like this that many become aware of the Love of God. To get to this however a leap of faith is usually required.
The Father will allow you to run your own life for as long as you want, but that by default will involve you not really knowing God, as that knowing will interfere with you being your own ‘god’ of your own life.
I beleive once a person reaches this point they can chose another God (other then themselves), as to what God or god they get would be related to the traits and tendencies they seek.
Would it then be allowable to abandon all logic and just have blind faith that God is an evil s.o.b. that uses us as playthings, or does this blind faith only apply in certain areas? I keep getting an answer of “You can’t use logic, and evidence doesn’t apply in this case”. but that is just what you are doing when you use what you call evidence of God’s love to logically assume that God loves you. In what way is this different from people that believe in all sorts of otherwise illogical things like ghosts, telepathy, ufos and the like? They, too, only take in evidence that supports their views and reject evidence that doesn’t, and when they can’t find any hard evidence they redefine the word “evidence” to mean anything and everything. I could look at a beautiful flower and see evidence of God’s love. I could also look at a flower and see evidence of Demeter’s love, or Eris, or Gaia, or any other diety. Even if we asume for the sake of argument(as was clearly done in the OP) that God exists, to point at an item found in nature as proof of an emotion is not only denying logic, it is spitting in the face of it. To claim that an emotion you feel is some sort of evidence of your God’s love is not only illogical, it is an insult to every other person that has the same type of emotion and attributes it to some other god. Unless the claim is that emotion itself is some kind of evidence, in which case honesty forces you to admit that anger, hate and fear are equally evidence.
Logic and reason doesn’t “leave” you-this is a nonsensical statement. People don’t hate and kill when logic and reason are properly applied, but they do when hate compells them to seek out excuses and call them logic and reason. You cannot have knowledge and wisdom without logic and reason, for the latter will invariably lead to the former.
Without exception.
Of course it’s not logical. But human perspective has nothing to do with it. It’s not logical because you can’t assume certain qualities about god, period. It can’t even be shown that god exists, why bother arguing about what he lilkes on his hot dogs? Anything attributed to god has no more logic or reason or basis in reality than the belief in god itself.
I too think this, that people often take up religion in ignorance, substituting god for actual thought and reason. It’s quite sad.
Czarcasm
I appreciate your post and will get to it after work.
The occasional reacharound?
Dam, that’s some funny blasphemy 
I’ll agree that gift giving does not equal love, but is a expression of love. Claiming you created a flower when you did not is deceptive and part of the satanic kingdom.
Human logic and reason will fail and will leave you or bring you to destruction eventually, it is part of our fallen state.
Talk about nonsensical statements, human reason and logic is limited. Many times trying to please the many will piss off the few. Some of the best human efforts in this have lead to the greatest deaths and oppressions in human history.
In human terms, yes, in terms of God, no, all things are possible with God, and knowledge and wisdom of God are gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-14).