How can it be the same?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
As I understand Anselm's proof it reads something along the following,

"God exists because an existential god is better than a non-existential god"

Perfect sense.

If that were the essence of the proof, it would be trivial to refute.

For example: A million dollar bill exists in my wallet, because a real million dollar bill in my wallet is better than an imaginary one.

This can be refuted by observation, so the underlying logic must be incorrect.

But Anselm's proof is actually more clever than this, attempting a sort of diagonalization argument, a sophisticated idea for its time, but still unsound in its logic.

Originally posted by dottewell
What makes you think atheists see love as an "illusionary feeling"? I know my brother would die for his children, for example. Is that kind of love valueless?

You need to be clear on whether you are saying the meaning of words like "love" are different for the Christian and the atheist.

In evolutionary sense it has plenty of value. The instinct to die for his children could be said (if you are a Richard Dawkins type of Atheist ref- 'Selfish Gene'😉 to have value for the genes held within his children. It might be said that he is biologically pre-determined to die for his children because his genes desire to preserve the species , but then I'm sure this is not the kind of 'love' you are alluding to. If you think his love to be more than this then you might be well on the way to believing in something beyond mere 'nature' or evolution?

However , in the Christian vision no love is valueless. The term 'illusionary feeling' is one I have borrowed from an Atheist. The point I am making is that an act of kindness from an Atheist is equally as valuable as an act of kindness from a Christian. It doesn't matter where you find the gold coin, it's still made of gold. The difference is that a Christian might recognise it as part of the 'goldness' of the universe whereas an Atheist like Richard Dawkins might see it as chocolate money.

Overall , it is self evident that Atheists and Christians disagree about what love actually is. Christians think love actually exists in the same way electro magnetism exists. Atheists do not.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The term 'illusionary feeling' is one I have borrowed from an Atheist.

Borrowed from an idiot, more like.

What makes Christians think that if there is no God, there can be no morality, values or love? That these things are somehow reducible to physical urges and an evolutionary imperative? They are different kinds of concepts. In the same way that if you could map the interaction of every particle that had ever existed, including those that made up human beings, it would tell you nothing of value about love.

Incidentally, with your electro-magnetism analogy, are you saying that love has physical properties?

Originally posted by Churlant
You are basically claiming your understanding of "love" to be superior. This is something you could not possibly know.

While I am certainly glad for you in that you experience such euphoria, your "vision" as it has been presented is absolutely arrogant.

-JC

I don't remember saying it was superior , only different. I have pointed out that what a man believes about the nature of love and meaning is likely to influence his behaviour. For example , if you believe a bridge is made of custard you are less likely to drive over it than someone who believes it is made of concrete. The Christian vision (or world view) is that love is a greater power than death. This is likely to make for more bridge crossing (lol) If you think the vision is superior then great , come and join us! But I have only said it is not the same..if it was then there would be no point to Christianity.

As regards my understanding....the more I think I understand it the more I realise my own spiritual and moral poverty. I know Atheists who are sometimes more loving than me and I am glad that God gives them the strength (unbeknown to them) to love.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't remember saying it was superior , only different. I have pointed out that what a man believes about the nature of love and meaning is likely to influence his behaviour. For example , if you believe a bridge is made of custard you are less likely to drive over it than someone who believes it is made of concrete. The Christian vision (or world vi ...[text shortened]... more loving than me and I am glad that God gives them the strength (unbeknown to them) to love.

Xians make love more?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Actually if you really paid attention to what Christ said , you wouldnt love anyone at all, except maybe in a general sense and nobody in particular.

I can't even begin to figure out how you got that impression!?

Originally posted by dottewell
Borrowed from an idiot, more like.

What makes Christians think that if there is no God, there can be no morality, values or love? That these things are somehow reducible to physical urges and an evolutionary imperative? They are different kinds of concepts. In the same way that if you could map the interaction of every particle that had ever existed, in ...[text shortened]... dentally, with your electro-magnetism analogy, are you saying that love has physical properties?

If they are more than physical urges or evolutionary imperatives then what do you think they are then. If nature is all you have then what else can they be. You might get as far as feelings and arbitary human constructs but you won't get any further without rooting it in something else. It's not up to me to explain this really , because its your vision not mine.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
When God was an Englishman, one expected nothing less.

By the sound of the responses I'm getting my vision was a hot vindaloo!

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Makes for great science/fantasy fiction, but honestly, how would you, a mere mortal, a little pissant human being in the great sea of life, know what to expect from an omnipotent being? You can't even confirm such a being exists.

You are correct , I cannot confirm this to you. I don't know what to expect , just an educated guess.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Stop it KM. We both know that you think that the atheist "love" and "meaning" are inferior. You said as much in your initial post.

Why do you think it's inferior? Do you like religion because it allows you to justify yourself, against the feelings of inadequacy and insecurity you harbour? Love and meaning are both human characteristics, to try an ...[text shortened]... st the Japanese Samurai showed some decorum, realising the honour of their enemies.

I would assume that you would say that your understanding of love and meaning are superior (more accurate) to a Christian's since in your eyes we attribute to love a value way beyond it's reality. I imagine you must think we are in cloud cuckoo land , and therefore highly inaccurate about love.
However , if you are committed to loving your neighbour then I value that immensely because you are on our side without knowing it and in no way would your committment be seen as inferior by me. If you felt a strong compulsion to love your neighbour (even the ones you don't like) then no Christian should ever say that is inferior since it could mean that Christ was doing something in your life (even if you didn't attribute it to him). A gold coin is a gold coin wherever it is found. The sense in which I might see my vision as 'superior' is in the sense of accuracy..., that it would be great for you to realise that its not just chocolate money you've got in your hand there.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

Why do you think it's inferior? Do you like religion because it allows you to justify yourself, against the feelings of inadequacy and insecurity you harbour?

I think in my original post I should have been clearer about what 'it's not the same ' means. My intention was to tease out the radical and fundamental differences between the Christian world view and the Atheist world view (if there is such a thing). Of course I harbour feelings of inadequacy and insecurity from time to time, don't you? But I find the use of religion to justify oneself or to put others down as repugnant as the next man. As far as claiming your love and meaning or morals to be inferior ? It's not about inferiority but accuracy. Either you guys have vastly underated the significance of love in this world or we have vastly overated it , I don't see any other possibility. We are convinced we are right and your world view is inaccurate (inferior) , you are convinced you are right and our world view is inaccurate (inferior) , so tell me..who is being arrogant?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If they are more than physical urges or evolutionary imperatives then what do you think they are then. If nature is all you have then what else can they be. You might get as far as feelings and arbitary human constructs but you won't get any further without rooting it in something else. It's not up to me to explain this really , because its your vision not mine.

Love is an emotion whose properties are not exhausted by even a complete description of my physical state. For example, love is a good and beautiful thing. These are, to my mind, facts. You could say, if it helps you understand, that they are facts that are built into the universe. And none of that requires a god to "guarantee" it. It requires no guarantee at all. It just is.

Stripping god out of the universe does not strip value out of the universe.

Actually I'm the one who doesn't have to make any claim about why we feel those emotions, whether that is because of some physical reactions, etc., or whether those emotions have evolved for the better survival of the species. I'll leave that to the scientists.

Originally posted by dottewell
Love is an emotion whose properties are not exhausted by even a complete description of my physical state. For example, love is a good and beautiful thing. These are, to my mind, facts. You could say, if it helps you understand, that they are facts that are built into the universe. And none of that requires a god to "guarantee" it. It require ...[text shortened]... have evolved for the better survival of the species. I'll leave that to the scientists.stud

I'm absolutely fascinated by this (I'm not being sarcastic) . Love is a beautiful and good thing built into the universe! Value is built into the universe. ! I must ask you to clarify further. This sounds as if you are saying that beauty and goodness along with love are 'facts' in the sense they actually exist like, for example, protons exist. I would assume you might believe in a moral rather than ammoral universe?

If I answer an earlier question of yours by saying that ..yes, I do believe that love is a real thing in the same way as electromagnetism is a real thing. Love is the "stuff" that God is made of. God is love.Love is God. You get the idea.

You sound close to saying something similar? Tell me about these 'facts' of the universe. You seem to be saying that 'love' being a 'good and beautiful thing' is a self evident 'fact' and not a matter of 'opinion'. I'm wondering what you mean by this because if the facts are not grounded in anything then they are just human constructs. To say the mona lisa is widely regarded as a beautiful painting is not the same as saying it IS a beautiful painting. You can only say this if 'beauty' is a real physical property of the universe.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm absolutely fascinated by this (I'm not being sarcastic) . Love is a beautiful and good thing built into the universe! Value is built into the universe. ! I must ask you to clarify further. This sounds as if you are saying that beauty and goodness along with love are 'facts' in the sense they actually exist like, for example, protons exist. I would ...[text shortened]... ou can only say this if 'beauty' is a real physical property of the universe.

See I'd disagree with Dotty, in that I believe that things like "love" and "good and "beauty" and all other subjective things are labelled that we put on an interaction between a person and something else. For example, some people find fat girls beautiful, some find skinny girls beautiful, some guys find other guys beautiful. Some people even find farm animals beautiful. It is, to my mind, all about perception.

The beautiful thing about being an athiest is that there's no right opinion. This is not to say that we don't have morals though, just that we may have a diversification of opinion.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm absolutely fascinated by this (I'm not being sarcastic) . Love is a beautiful and good thing built into the universe! Value is built into the universe. ! I must ask you to clarify further. This sounds as if you are saying that beauty and goodness along with love are 'facts' in the sense they actually exist like, for example, protons exist. I would ou can only say this if 'beauty' is a real physical property of the universe.

Don't get carried away with the "built in" thing; it was just a suggested way of thinking about it. Certainly wasn't meant to imply there was anything doing the building.

Let me explain another way. It may be true that our language and concepts have developed for some evolutionary reason; I don't know. But, given the language we have, when someone utters a statement like:

"This tree is green"

That is a statement about the colour of a tree, which can be true or false depending on the properties of the tree. Similarly when someone utters the statement:

"This picture is beautiful"

That, too, can be true or false, depending on the properties of the picture.

Neither statement is a coded reference to the particles in my brain. They are outward-directed, not inward-directed.