Your Views on Religion?

[moimeme]

If it isn’t defined, you cannot call it love.

 

Well, no. You can call whatever you want 'love'. However, I agree that any debate needs to start with a definition. You cannot debate until you know what you're debating. So the first challenge is to nail down the idea that we are trying to debate. So, define 'love'. You like Paul, and that's fine, but Paul defines a set of behaviours. So, to you, love is behaviours?

 

It would be a set of feelings or emotions that a person cannot explain or understand, and because of that, a person cannot act on them.

 

Hm. So is it feelings, emotions, behaviours, an idea, or some of each?

 

Imagine that my parents never showed me affection, I had no friends, and the whole world was against me. I only experienced pain, misery, loneliness, and humiliation.

 

Could you explain to me what love is? Does love exist in my world?

 

This is about personal experience of love - another thing again. You can believe it exists and that you're not getting it without having personal experience of it. Like winning a lottery or an Olympic medal. In fact, your suffering would be real to you by comparison with what you believe life should be, i.e. a life in which you are loved. You absolutely need to have a concept of love to understand what you're missing.

 

Turn it around. You're on a planet where nobody is shown affection, nobody is anybody's friend, and each individual lived in isolation. Would there be pain? If so, then the need for love has to derive from something primal and beyond even thought because there there would be no concept of what was being missed. If there was no pain, then it would be because love only exists, as Ryan might propose, as a concept.

[BlockHead]

If it isn’t defined, you cannot call it love.

A better way to put this is “if it isn’t defined, then it has no meaning.” Could I say that your argument about the existence of love is meaningless?

 

moimeme

Turn it around. You're on a planet where nobody is shown affection, nobody is anybody's friend, and each individual lived in isolation. Would there be pain?

Physical pain is a stimulus. I may not know that it is called pain, but I would find it unpleasant. Try pricking a mouse with a needle, and see how it reacts.

Emotion pain, like love, is based on abstract ideas. If you don’t have those ideas, then how could you know what pain is? Could I hurt a mouse's feelings? Do you think a mouse has the capacity to love?

[moimeme]

if it isn’t defined, then it has no meaning.

 

Well, semantically yes but no. It's just that you have to agree about the nature of the thing you're discussing.

 

Could I say that your argument about the existence of love is meaningless?

 

If it suits you. It isn't an argument; it's a question.

 

quote:moimeme

Turn it around. You're on a planet where nobody is shown affection, nobody is anybody's friend, and each individual lived in isolation. Would there be pain?

 

Physical pain is a stimulus. I may not know that it is called pain, but I would find it unpleasant. Try pricking a mouse with a needle, and see how it reacts.

 

So? You have an uncomfortable mouse. It doesn't make it an unhappy mouse.

 

Emotion pain, like love, is based on abstract ideas. If you don’t have those ideas, then how could you know what love is?

 

So you are saying you have to be able to comprehend a concept of an emotion to experience the emotion? I would argue that all that enables you to do is process it cognitively. Does your baby 'understand what love is'? If you poke your baby with a needle, does it need to cognitively accept 'pain' to feel it?

 

Do you think a mouse has the capacity to love?

 

Ever see a mouse with mouse babies? If you define love as a behaviour, of course.

[Ryan]

This is what I'm talking about....I'm trying to get through this and it goes waaaaaaaaaaaay off course. This is vastly simpler than the amount of words being used to get to it.

 

IF you have decided to define love as 'an idea', now I can answer.

 

I decided no such thing, nor do I have to. There is no other option.

 

However, if it is your question whether can love exist if the idea or concept of love never existed, that's a whole other question

 

It's the same question made murky by semantics.

 

Yes, but Ryan, your point got off my point which is 'prove that love exists'. My point was not 'see if Merry can prove love exists'.

 

Alright, I'm just going to lay it out...since I don't think I'm going to get you all to play along.

 

1. Love exists if and only if at least one person believes/participates in it.

This is self-evident, since love is purely a mental construct. It is an idea or set of ideas, thus it can only exist in the scope of a mind.

 

2. I believe in love (and others have asserted their belief/participation).

This premise is true regardless of the specific set of ideas one uses to define love. As a mind, I can assert truth about my thoughts whether or not the thoughts themselves are true (assuming there is some standard by which to judge that truth). The same reasoning makes this valid for any mind asserting this statement.

 

Therefore, love exists.

 

Given (1) as necessarily true and (2) guaranteed by my own sentience, the conclusion is a simple matter of deduction.

[moimeme]

Alright, I'm just going to lay it out...since I don't think I'm going to get you all to play along.

 

I've seen you in action I know your style Other folks have tried to lure me into playing this way; I don't bite.

 

1. Love exists if and only if at least one person believes/participates in it.

This is self-evident,

since love is purely a mental construct. It is an idea or set of ideas, thus it can only exist in the scope of a mind.

 

Ah, well you see, you have made a definitive statement. I would argue that love is not 'purely a mental construct', however if that is the description you choose to use, that's fine. Like most models, it fails to deal with any other concepts which don't fit. In itself, that makes this only an exercise in debate rather than a genuine examination of the matter at hand.

 

There is no other option.

That's not true, actually. Unless we are setting up the parameters of the model, in which case you can state that if you wish. It doesn't make it true, however.

 

2. I believe in love (and others have asserted their belief/participation).

This premise is true regardless of the specific set of ideas one uses to define love. As a mind, I can assert truth about my thoughts whether or not the thoughts themselves are true (assuming there is some standard by which to judge that truth). The same reasoning makes this valid for any mind asserting this statement.

 

Therefore, love exists.

 

The concept of love exists, anyway.

 

Given (1) as necessarily true and (2) guaranteed by my own sentience, the conclusion is a simple matter of deduction.

 

I don't think (1) is a given, you see.

 

However, if you wish to use the same model for God, we can. Acting on this level of reductionism certainly makes things much easier;

 

1. God exists if and only if at least one person believes in Him.

This is self-evident,

since God is purely a mental construct. He is an idea or set of ideas, thus He can only exist in the scope of a mind.

 

We can use this model to prove the existence of everything, in fact;

 

1. Purple people-eaters exist if and only if at least one person believes in them.

This is self-evident,

since Purple people-eaters are purely a mental construct. They are an idea or set of ideas, thus they can only exist in the scope of a mind.

 

However, in my world, where love is not purely a mental construct, we have only proven that there is a concept of love and that at least one person has conceptualized something called 'love'. In fact, we haven't even a definition of love; only a description which is not agreed upon. We are standing behind Square One.

 

On the other hand, if you're happy to claim that the fact a concept exists is necessary and sufficient proof that the subject of the concept exists, then I'll gladly accept that you now believe that God exists since certainly the concept of God exists.

[Ryan]

I would argue that love is not 'purely a mental construct', however if that is the description you choose to use, that's fine.

 

I would be happy to hear how love is an independent/tangible/physical thing rather than a collection of thoughts and feelings (both of which are ideas).

 

However, if you wish to use the same model for God, we can. Acting on this level of reductionism certainly makes things much easier

 

That would make the existence of your god entirely dependent on the minds that believe in it, which is the same as saying your god does not exist on its own. I have no problem agreeing with that.

 

We can use this model to prove the existence of everything, in fact;

 

Not really. Anything independent or tangible fails at (1). It only works with thoughts/ideas.

The world was not flat just because people believed it. I am not 10 feet tall just because I believe it. However, my political stances exist because I believe them.

 

However, in my world, where love is not purely a mental construct

 

I'll have to wait for the adequate defense of this.

 

we have only proven that there is a concept of love and that at least one person has conceptualized something called 'love'. In fact, we haven't even a definition of love; only a description which is not agreed upon.

 

This is where the flaw arises. You describe concept of love as if it were the same as the concept of some tangible object. The argument for ideas of objects versus the objects themselves is a lengthy one...and also irrelevant. Since love is necessarily a set of ideas (you'll be reduced to this conclusion eventually), there is no separate concept of it. It is irrelevant that there is no common definition - as soon as it IS defined by any given individual, it exists.

[jenny]

cogito ergo amo!

[HokeyReligions]

Whether or not the tree is a Christian symbol, is not an issue. What bothers me is the intent. I don’t think someone should spite a religion because that person has contempt for it. For example, I think it is wrong for me to masturbate with a Buddha statue, even when away from prying eyes.

 

But you don't know what my intent is. Putting a Buddha on top of the tree is not intended as spite. I said "Buddha" because it was the first thing that came to my mind because I've seen some beautiful, coloful Buddha's and in the back of my mind a Buddha is still a human form. I could have said a Star or Spire, but both of those link to Christian faith in my mind too. I just like having a human form on the tree. There is no contempt for or against any religion.

[HokeyReligions]

God is Love. Have you all heard that before? I don't think that is a geographic statement -- I've heard it in many parts of the USA and Canada.

 

IF (big IF) we were to accept that statement as fact, then God resides in all of us as a chemical impulse, emotion, feeling, idea, whatever word you want to use to describe a set process in our minds.

 

Scientists are still mapping the human brain. We don't know what the brain is fully capable of. In a thousand years there may be a comprehensive map of the brain, what each tiny part does, what chemical process are, what emotions are. Somday a scientist may say that the group of feelings commonly called "love" is a specific pattern of chemical impulses directed outward toward action. Faith or belief is an action. We know some of the chemicals and what they do. The brain releases one chemical when the nose itches and we scratch it. When we want to stop scratching our noses another cheimal is released from our brain and we put our hand down. If that other chemical wasn't released we'd go on scratching our noses until they fall off.

 

Perhaps what we refer to as 'love' is simply a pattern of chemical or electrical impulses that our brains emit. Someday this may be proven to be true. Or not.

 

What I'm getting at is that 'love' is something inside ourselves and we act upon it. I can't see it, or define it, or know what 'love' is - but I believe in it because I interpret these feelilngs as love and act on them. That is, I suppose, a faith of sorts. But it's something that comes from inside me. And because I can't define it or prove it is another reason I consider myself agnostic. If there are things about myself that I can't define or prove, then I accept that there may be outside forces - call the forces God - that also exists. Just because I can't prove in the existence of God doesn't mean He, or they (maybe there are more than one God), does not exist. The old "just because I'm not paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get me" way of thinking.

 

But to discuss God - well isn't God supposed to be a being that is outside of us? That is what I was taught, but discontunied the faith because I began questioning if God was really a word used to describe something within us that we don't understand. And then I questioned the whole life-after-death belief. Perhaps the electrical impulses our bodies generate carry on after our bodies are dead. Is it a conscious form of immortality? Perhaps. Perhaps it is different for every individual -- just as fingerprints are different. Perhaps we all experience something different after death. Maybe the strength of our faith in all things defines our existence after our bodies are dead, just as the strength of our faith defines our existence while our bodies are alive.

 

You all bring up some very good arguments and this has been a very interesting topic in which to participate. None of my underlying questions have been answered - I don't expect them to be - but you have all given me some new things to think about and some new ways to think about 'old' questions. I wonder - have any of you reached any new conclusions about your own questions? Or found information here that may help you come to a decision about your beliefs?

 

 

Just for the record - for those who don't know, remember, or are new. My handle "HokeyReligions" is not a slam against religions. It is from a line in one of my favorite movies: "Hokey Religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side kid" Han Solo to Luke Skywalker aboard the Mellinium Falcon enroute to Alderon, in the movie Star Wars. I just wanted to restate that because I got a PM telling me that I should butt-out of this debate since I thought all religions were 'hokey'. That's not the case at all.

[Ryan]

I just wanted to restate that because I got a PM telling me that I should butt-out of this debate since I thought all religions were 'hokey'. That's not the case at all.

 

Whoever told you that can kiss my ass. Feel free to pass on such PMs to us and we will deal with it.

 

Other members do not dictate content around here. The administrative staff does.

[moimeme]

I would be happy to hear how love is an independent/tangible/physical thing rather than a collection of thoughts and feelings (both of which are ideas).

 

1. So it is your contention that there are tangible things, thoughts, and feelings and that's it?

 

2. Feelings are ideas?

 

quote:However, if you wish to use the same model for God, we can. Acting on this level of reductionism certainly makes things much easier

 

That would make the existence of your god entirely dependent on the minds that believe in it, which is the same as saying your god does not exist on its own. I have no problem agreeing with that.

 

For the purposes of this model (if you buy into the assumption that love is an idea.)

 

Not really. Anything independent or tangible fails at (1) It only works with thoughts/ideas.

 

Fair enough.

 

quote:However, in my world, where love is not purely a mental construct

 

I'll have to wait for the adequate defense of this.

 

No, you'll have to defend your position that love is a thought or idea. I asked a question, this is part of your thesis by way of answer. IMHO, my question still remains unanswered. You've built a model as an answer which is fine but the model falls if the assumptions underlying it fail. And they do. See (2) above.

 

quote:we have only proven that there is a concept of love and that at least one person has conceptualized something called 'love'. In fact, we haven't even a definition of love; only a description which is not agreed upon.

 

This is where the flaw arises. You describe concept of love as if it were the same as the concept of some tangible object.

 

I haven't described the concept of love that way. I used it as an analogy to both God and purple people eaters, neither of which is tangible.

 

The argument for ideas of objects versus the objects themselves is a lengthy one...and also irrelevant. Since love is necessarily a set of ideas (you'll be reduced to this conclusion eventually)

 

I will, will I? Keep trying; I'm waiting with bated breath

 

There is no separate concept of it. It is irrelevant that there is no common definition - as soon as it IS defined by any given individual, it exists.

 

What exists? Love? Only if I buy your proposition that love is an idea. I don't, you see. So we are back to definitions. Say I choose to say that pain is an idea. Of course, if I stick to that as my description of 'pain', then yes, in the logical equation, if pain is an idea and someone has the idea of pain, then pain exists. However, that fails if pain is not an idea. Your contention that pain is an idea may be restated any number of ways, but that will not make pain an idea, except in my own mind.

[BlockHead]

Main Entry: 1love

Pronunciation: 'l&v

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lEof dear, Latin lubEre, libEre to please

Date: before 12th century

1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b : an assurance of love <give her my love>

2 : warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>

3 a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was his first love> b (1) : a beloved person : DARLING -- often used as a term of endearment (2) British -- used as an informal term of address

4 a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others b : a person's adoration of God

5 : a god or personification of love

6 : an amorous episode : LOVE AFFAIR

7 : the sexual embrace : COPULATION

8 : a score of zero (as in tennis)

9 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD

- at love : holding one's opponent scoreless in tennis

- in love : inspired by affection

 

HokeyReligions

God is Love. Have you all heard that before? I don't think that is a geographic statement -- I've heard it in many parts of the USA and Canada.

 

IF (big IF) we were to accept that statement as fact, then God resides in all of us as a chemical impulse, emotion, feeling, idea, whatever word you want to use to describe a set process in our minds.

You are describing love as a feeling, an emotion, or an idea (tell me which). I, along with those other people, describe God using definition #5.

 

But it's something that comes from inside me.

So does urine.

 

HokeyReligions

But you don't know what my intent is. Putting a Buddha on top of the tree is not intended as spite. I said "Buddha" because it was the first thing that came to my mind because I've seen some beautiful, coloful Buddha's and in the back of my mind a Buddha is still a human form. I could have said a Star or Spire, but both of those link to Christian faith in my mind too. I just like having a human form on the tree. There is no contempt for or against any religion.

Sounds like an excuse.

 

Why am I the only person who defines anything???

I think the biggest problem here is the failure to communicate. How can we communicate effectively if we don’t understand each other? This is ridiculous.

[moimeme]

If there are things about myself that I can't define or prove, then I accept that there may be outside forces - call the forces God - that also exists. Just because I can't prove in the existence of God doesn't mean He, or they (maybe there are more than one God), does not exist. The old "just because I'm not paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get me" way of thinking

 

Precisely.

 

It is a pitiful conceit that too many humans indulge in, IMHO, to think that just because a proposition is not provable at this point with our current knowledge that it can never be provable. Ask the Wrights. If this generation is the full flower of humanity; the ultimate perfection of intellect and the generation that has actually reached the limit of the knowable, then we might just as well nuke the planet now because any further evolution is futile.

[jenny]

this debate is disorganized. let's recap:

 

god exists if/because people believe in It. religion is invented, not discovered.

 

 

to which i would like to add:

 

that it is constructed, to my mind, does not make it less useful, beautiful, or important.

 

 

 

why are comparisons of proofs of love and god considered helpful? what characteristics do these terms share that is suggesting that a comparison will add to the body of knowledge? i think this is a derailing 'complex question' fallacy, but i'm not sure.

 

p.s to be clear: i am in no way debating uncertainty. i agree that our knowledge is finite. that knowledge has gaps does not indicate that god fills them.

[moimeme]

why are comparisons of proofs of love and god considered helpful

 

I will reiterate once again another time (sigh)

 

I challenge those who say that God cannot exist because there is no proof to prove to me that love exists.

 

If it is your contention that something cannot exist if there is no proof that it exists, then we need proof love exists or else it does not exist.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by Ryan

Whoever told you that can kiss my ass. Feel free to pass on such PMs to us and we will deal with it.

 

Other members do not dictate content around here. The administrative staff does.

 

I wasn't angry or offended. I can understand that a name or handle can initiate certain feelings or preconceived ideas. That's why I posted where my handle came from. Especially on a thread about religion! But I sure do appreciate your reply! Thank You

[jenny]

I challenge those who say that God cannot exist because there is no proof to prove to me that love exists.

 

If it is your contention that something cannot exist if there is no proof that it exists, then we need proof love exists or else it does not exist.

 

i'm sorry. this makes no sense to me.

 

 

the position of logic on god is that god cannot be ruled out because of the 'from ignorance' fallacy. this leaves room for the rational development that he can exist if he is believed in.

 

'uncertainty until proven existence' is the tag line.

 

 

i have no idea why proving that love does or does not exist adds anything.

 

cheers, j

 

p.s. just so we're clear - this is not personal; there is no need for sighing; it's just educational fun. i genuinely think there is a logical error in your reasoning but if you can explain further, or someone else can, using different words, i am happy to be wrong.

[BlockHead]

jenny

i have no idea why proving that love does or does not exist adds anything.

Thank you!

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by BlockHead

You are describing love as a feeling, an emotion, or an idea (tell me which). I, along with those other people, describe God using definition #5.

Pick a word! It doesn't matter which word you choose to describe God or Love. Personification - let's use that word since you like definitions:

 

Personify: 1: to think of or represent as a person. 2: to be the embodiment of : Incarnate

 

How is that so different from what I said? That God may be a personification of love.

 

 

So does urine.

Yes. Lots of provable things come from inside me. Bodily waste comes from inside all of us. Tears, drool, name your dimensional object. Laughter comes from inside me too. So do hiccups.

 

Sounds like an excuse.

?? Do you think I need an excuse? An excuse for what? For not thinking like you? For expressing my own thoughts on this topic? For not believing in God? Why do I need an excuse? Do you need an excuse for something?

 

Why am I the only person who defines anything???

Define define. Just because something is in a dictionery or text book doesn't immediately make it fact. A generally accepted definition is just that 'generally accepted' and does not mean that everyone must accept the definition. Is a tomato a fruit or vegetable? Everying is open for interpretation -- including God and love. Maybe I should say Especially God and Love.

 

I think the biggest problem here is the failure to communicate. How can we communicate effectively if we don’t understand each other?

That's right. You think I didn't understand you. But can you accept that maybe you are not understanding me?

 

This is ridiculous.

Maybe you should have said "I find this ridiculous" instead of making a blanket statement.

[moimeme]

the position of logic on god is that god cannot be ruled out because of the 'from ignorance' fallacy. this leaves room for the rational development that he can exist if he is believed in.

 

That may be a position of logic on god. It is not mine. I don't buy into the false dilemma in the first place; people who insist God does not exist because there is no proof do. It is they whom I challenge. If everything MUST be proven true or not true, then somebody who agrees with this must have proven to him or herself that love exists through some sort of proof since s/he demands God be proven to exist.

 

this is not personal; there is no need for sighing

 

The sigh had to do with the same question having been asked about the relevance of my question several times now.

 

If it is someone's contention that God cannot exist because there is no proof of his existence, then to be logically consistent, s/he must also agree that love cannot exist because there is no proof of its existence. Essentially, why is it so easy to believe in love, whose existence is unprovable, but impossible to believe in God for the same reason?

 

I don't get how the relevance isn't clear as a bell.

[amerikajin]

You are all working very hard to prove something that cannot be proved, either way.

 

The only thing this debate has proved to me is that religion should be a matter of personal choice, not state imposition.

[Ryan]

So it is your contention that there are tangible things, thoughts, and feelings and that's it?

 

There are things that exist within the mind...and things that exist independent of the mind. I don't believe this is groundbreaking or overly necessary to state.

 

Feelings are ideas?

 

By definition. Thoughts and feelings are products of a mind, which makes them ideas. A mind only produces ideas.

 

Only if I buy your proposition that love is an idea. I don't, you see.

 

I figured this would be self-evident. Nonetheless, I'll restate it more carefully in a sub-argument.

 

Thoughts and feelings are products of a mind.

All products of a mind are ideas.

Therefore, thoughts and feelings are ideas.

Love is a set of thoughts and feelings.

Therefore, love is a set of ideas.

 

The argument itself is deductively valid (as is the original) and can only be false if any premise is false. Since these premises are about as close as I get to self-evident without wallowing in tautology, you're going to need to state why you dispute any of them. I am growing weary of the retort "No."

[amerikajin]

I think we all have obsessive compulsive disorder.

[moimeme]

G:

Feelings are ideas?

 

R:

By definition.

 

Whose, exactly? You do realize this is turning into a discussion of semantics, right? So if we must discuss semantics, let's turn to an authority:

 

u]Feeling:[/u]

feel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fl)

v. felt, (flt) feel·ing, feels

v. tr.

 

To perceive through the sense of touch: feel the velvety smoothness of a peach.

To perceive as a physical sensation: feel a sharp pain; feel the cold.

 

To touch.

To examine by touching. See Synonyms at touch.

To test or explore with caution: feel one's way in a new job.

 

To undergo the experience of: felt my interest rising; felt great joy.

To be aware of; sense: felt the anger of the crowd.

To be emotionally affected by: She still feels the loss of her dog.

 

To be persuaded of (something) on the basis of intuition, emotion, or other indefinite grounds: I feel that what the informant says may well be true.

To believe; think: She felt his answer to be evasive.

http://dictionary.reference.com

 

Noplace here is 'idea' used in the context of 'feeling'. Let's just double-check what an 'idea' is, shall we?

 

i·de·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-d)

n.

Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.

An opinion, conviction, or principle: has some strange political ideas.

A plan, scheme, or method.

The gist of a specific situation; significance: The idea is to finish the project under budget.

A notion; a fancy.

Music. A theme or motif.

Philosophy.

In the philosophy of Plato, an archetype of which a corresponding being in phenomenal reality is an imperfect replica.

 

And here we do not have any context which could be read as 'feeling' so I'm not exactly sure which 'definition' it is you use to state that 'feelings' are the same thing as 'ideas'.

 

Let's check the Thesaurus:

 

feeling

Function: noun

Definition: idea

Synonyms: apprehension, belief, consciousness, conviction, eye, hunch, impression, inclination, inkling, instinct, mind, notion, opinion, outlook, persuasion, presentiment, reaction, sense, sentiment, suspicion, thought, view

Concept: belief/theory

Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)

Copyright © 2003 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Ah! We do find 'feeling' in conjunction with 'idea', however in the context that the 'feeling' involves cognition.

 

Conversely, 'idea' is associated with 'feeling' only in the contexts of faith and of concept:

idea

Function: noun

Definition: concept

Synonyms: abstraction, aim, approximation, belief, brainstorm, clue, concept, conception, conclusion, conviction, design, doctrine, end, essence, estimate, fancy, feeling, flash, form, guess, hint, hypothesis, import, impression, inkling, intention, interpretation, intimation, judgment, meaning, notion, object, objective, opinion, pattern, perception, plan, purpose, reason, scheme, sense, significance, solution, suggestion, suspicion, teaching, theory, thought, understanding, view, viewpoint

Concept: concept/idea

 

belief

Function: noun

Definition: faith

Synonyms: acceptance, admission, assent, assumption, assurance, avowal, axiom, certainty, conclusion, confidence, conjecture, conviction, credence, credit, deduction, divination, expectation, faith, fancy, feeling, guess, hope, hypothesis, idea, impression, intuition, judgment, knowledge, mind, mindset, notion, opinion, persuasion, position, postulation, presumption, presupposition, profession, reliance, supposition, surmise, suspicion, theorem, theory, thesis, thinking, trust, understanding, vie

Antonyms: disbelief, unbelief

Concept: belief/theory

Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)

Copyright © 2003 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Thoughts and feelings are products of a mind, which makes them ideas. A mind only produces ideas.

 

quote:Only if I buy your proposition that love is an idea. I don't, you see.

 

I figured this would be self-evident. Nonetheless, I'll restate it more carefully in a sub-argument.

 

Thoughts and feelings are products of a mind.

All products of a mind are ideas.

Therefore, thoughts and feelings are ideas.

Love is a set of thoughts and feelings.

Therefore, love is a set of ideas.

 

The argument itself is deductively valid (as is the original) and can only be false if any premise is false.

 

I am not sure why you have avoided 'emotion' in this discussion, since if you are going to discuss love, then the only word which is appropriate is 'emotion'. An emotion by definition is neither a thought nor an idea.

 

However, if you wish to contend that emotions are thoughts, be my guest. Then, of course, you have to prove thoughts exist - that you have them may mean that you are delusional; some poor soul living in an institution wrapped up in imagining an existence which cannot be demonstrated empirically. Leaving that possibility aside, the simple fact remains that intangibles such as love and God cannot be empirically proven by the very fact of being intangible.

 

Now let us return to the sub-argument above which 'can only be false if any premise is false'.

 

1. Thoughts and feelings are products of a mind.

 

Thoughts are products of a mind. I'll assume that you are using 'feelings' to mean 'emotions'. 'Emotions' are a state of mind, not a construct of the mind.

 

2. All products of a mind are ideas.

 

Well, not really. Ideas are one type of thought. Thoughts, yes, are products of the mind but we have only one proposition still: Thoughts (including notions, and ideas) are products of the mind.

 

3. Therefore, thoughts and feelings are ideas.

 

Not really. Feelings are emotions, which are states of mind. Ideas are thoughts.

 

4. Love is a set of thoughts and feelings.

 

Love is an emotion, i.e. a state of mind which generates thoughts and feelings.

 

5. Therefore, love is a set of ideas.

 

Since the previous premises have failed, so must this one.

 

I get that you believe that emotion is a product of cognition. I accept the premise that, while cognition can influence emotion, emotion is not generated through cognition.

 

Since we cannot agree on the validity of either base set of premises, we have no hope of agreeing on the theories which rest upon them.

[VASH THE STAMPEDE]

Don't you people ever give up??????

I FULLY agree with amerikajin.

We ,none,can explain whether GOD exist or not ,its a matter of belief and faith it has nothing to do with religion.Its up to each individual to decide what they believe.

Religion is just a label.Belief is a person's own intuition of what they perceive to be true.

 

To me their is a GOD,to some of you their is not a god,to some of you ,you are your own god.

What a Christian believes is that there is a GOD.That JESUS CHRIST came(GOD) and died for our sins.

To some people it might seem false but to others is true.

Everyone has their own way of thinking ,nothing will change that .

 

 

So why continue to argue this endless debate?

What is there to prove??NOTHING ,after is all said and done everyone is still going to believe what they want.