does love exist. (2 Viewers)

[theism]

hi guys.

i havent "loved" anyone is such a long time and sometimes i wonder whether love is really just an illusion. maybe my heart is just numb. i dont know if i am just selfish or what. so at this moment i am an unbeliever in "love". i want to know whether love exists or not.

* i am not refering to lust. i am able to lust for someone.
** btw i am referring to romantic love.

edit: what is the proof that love exists.

go read your bible somewhere in Corinthians 1 or 2.

chapter 13 i believe.

 

[HalcyonSky]

lol @ meranie

 

[want2bdifferent]

NTB believes in love

and i have proof

 

[theism]

i think a good definition of love is to value someone.

not motivated by a sex drive or materialistic gain.

 

[HalcyonSky]

Wrong analogy imo, keys are insignificant. Jesus Christ is significant. There would have been a high probability that his body would have been found and xxxposed if it was moved because of his significance/controversy as oppose to the keys where the only person who would give a shit is the person who lost them.

as opposed to the OVER 9 THOUS... over 9 people who gave a shit about jesus at that time

You realise more people liked "Barabbas, the Rebel" than "Jesus, the Son of God" yeah?

 

[hopethisworks]

over 3000

 

[Enteebee]

Sigh if you think significance matters then let's propose fairies moved some of the treasures out of Egyptian tombs... To me I'd say that no matter how significant something is, to explain its disappearance by reference to the supernatural instead of by saying 'hey maybe some guy moved it' is silly.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

My grandparents celebrated their 50ths wedding aniversary this year

Three years ago, my grandfather had a stroke thats left him paralysed down the left side of his body. He cant speak in the sense that we can - the forumlation of ideas in your head presented by words from your mouth - and needs 24 hours assistance and care.
My grandmother is was 64 when it happened. Shes not getting any younger. She could have had him put in a home care facility and not carried the burden of her husband for the rest of her life.

She didn't. She loves him and loves him just as much today as she did when they met 52 years ago.

So, yeah. Love exists. I challenge you to look at my grandparents together and tell me otherwise.

 

[want2bdifferent]

but just cos a wife put's her husband in a home it does not mean she does not love him as much as they day they met

 

[Enteebee]

By significance, I dont mean the significance of the object I means significance in terms of people giving a damn. And when I say "giving a damn" I dont necessarily mean it has to be in a positive way. So long as they have some sort of relatively strong view about it. Okay lets just use the example of the faries taking away the treasures from the Egytian Tombs. For the equivalent significance of Jesus Christ, a bunch of people would have to truly believe that it was supernatural and a bunch of people would have to truly believe that there was nothing supernatural about it. If that much people cared and there has been no evidence to suggest that it was moved. And throughout time as more and more people are devoted to the fairies/ disproving the faries and they still havent found any evidence to suggest otherwise then yes I most likely believe that something supernatual took the treasures. But of course it would have to be applied in practice and not just be one person proposing that faries took the treasures.

It's hilarious how much evidence you require from a simpler hypothesis while believing that a lack of evidence of dispute of the event at the time (I actually imagine if the claim was made people would have said 'er maybe someone moved him from the cave' but it's not like they had sophisticated detectives back then) is more than enough to start believing in the supernatural.

Do you know when such claims about jesus rising from the dead were first made, as far as we know? The current evidence points to the early christian church not even knowing about jesus rising from the grave.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

but just cos a wife put's her husband in a home it does not mean she does not love him as much as they day they met

No, but its a testimony to their love.
My grandmothers half blind, diabetic and the home help they receive is expensive; the disability pension is small.

Had she put him in a home, it wouldn't have meant that she loved him any less, but it probably would have killed both of them to be apart.

 

[SkyLo]

love is overrated so lets all fuck until we dont care.

 

[Enteebee]

I dont need "much" evidence, I just want some sort of evidence. For the supernatural part - it wouldn't be classified as supernatural if we were able to prove it because that just defeats the whole purpose. However the gospels where witnesses to Christ's miracles so yeah that is enough evidence for me.

For a really big claim don't you think you should need some really strong evidence? I mean, do you believe in UFO's and other religions? A) I think it's disputed whether the gospels really were first-hand witnesses B) Even if they were, we have witnesses to miracles all the time who are just plain WRONG... You have for instance hundreds of people who believe they looked up into the sky and saw two angels dancing, when really it was likely this effect which can happen where the sun gets refracted etc making it look like there's two suns.

Can I prove they didn't see two angels dancing? No. Which is MORE LIKELY?

 

[Enteebee]

I dont want to have to repeat myself again but the claims were backed up by Jews and its not as if they were followers of Christ.

Source this please, which jewish authority claims that jesus rose from the dead? It wouldn't matter much to me even if it were true, but I'm fairly sure it isn't so you shouldn't go touting it.

I'm pretty sure that presents the logical fallacy of Composition. Just because some have claimed miracles which have been false doesnt necessarily mean that all are false.

I wasn't saying that because others have been wrong that this time you'll definitely be wrong but we have to work with some form of probability here. The greater point would be to say which is more likely... the supernatural explanation backed up by eye witness accounts or the natural explanation which explains both their eye witness accounts and the 'supernatural' event?

I don't need to know that they're wrong to say that anyone who accepted their testimony as evidence for the supernatural given the naturalistic explanation are in ere.

 

[Enteebee]

they didnt claim that jesus rose from the dead. they didnt deny that the tomb was empty. they interpreted jesus' miracles as evil powers. i think ive posted a source on one of the threads for you. i forgot which one though.

I'd really like to see this source as afaik no rabbi today would agree to this interpretation. As for didn't deny... They deny that he rose from the dead and they don't deny that the tomb was empty, so how do they say he got out of there?

you mean the explaination that Jesus had been moved although there is no evidence that suggests this.

There is evidence, the evidence is that a) Such a thing can happen b) There is no evidence which can positively disprove this, the eye witness accounts are crap if they even are eye witness accounts c) The alternative proposed requires a LOT more evidence to be true than the naturalistic explanation.

and this is even giving you a lot of rope... I mean the idea even that someone crucified would be buried in a tomb is quite contentious. The idea that the writers of the gospels were eye witnesses is quite contentious.

 

[Enteebee]

I'm going to ignore that irrelevant article you provided because really that discussion leads nowhere.

that really isnt evidence, a lot of things can happen that dont happen.

You have to view it all together... The most basic evidentiary burden surely has to be that something can happen? If something can happen then it has met the first test.

negative proof. burdon of proof. whatever its called....

The point is that the burden of proof is on you as I am supplying a much simpler explanation.

who says that there needs to be a lot more evidence? the point of it being supernatural is that you cannot prove that it happened. ...

If you're willing to accept the supernatural willy nilly like that then you'd have to believe a lot of other things, for instance the myths of older cultures.

can you prove otherwise?

I can't prove otherwise but I can make a strong case as can many others.

 

[Enteebee]

ummm okay but you were the one who asked for the source. what i wanted you to see from that is that they did acknowledge Jesus' miracles although in a different way

I have no problem with the idea that some jews viewed jesus as a miracle worker of some type, particularly those around his time because back then magic was happening ALL the time if we are to believe literature. It doesn't really interest me much, the only claim which would be of particular interest is that jesus rose from the dead or that the tomb was empty and he must have used magic powers to get out, this is not because it helps support your argument but more just because that is not my understanding of how jews see jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
and since your explanation is easier i.e. someone moved the body it would be more easier to prove or at least have evidence for.

I don't think you get the point of logical fallacies.
- I am NOT saying that because there is no proof that the body wasn't moved that it was.
- I am saying that it is far more likely that the body was moved than that a supernatural event occurred and that the weak evidence against this theory suggests it remains the most likely answer if indeed jesus was burried in a tomb etc.

As for my version of events being easier to prove therefore if I have a lack of evidence that means more than your lack of evidence for something harder to prove... that is just one of the silliest ideas I've ever read on this forum. When you have a simpler explanation and a more complex one you don't say "well there's no evidence for either and it should be easier to prove the simpler explanation therefore the more complex explanation is right", you say "there's no evidence for either therefore the simplest explanation is most likely true".

If not then when your socks go missing and we have no evidence that you'd simply misplaced them and forgotten about it and no evidence that fairies took them then we'd have to say until any evidence comes up that the fairies took them.

myths are myths. the gospel is historical evidence backed up by archeological studies and what not.

You misinterpret what historians mean when they talk about something being historical evidence.... It does not mean that everything contained within the book is true. In fact, homer's illiad is considered historical evidence for various events even though it is also believed that many others which are written about are myths - exactly like the bible.

but no evidence... i dont know much about law and im sure you can make a really strong case... but im also sure that you need some sort of evidence to back up your case...

What? Evidence that the gospel writers weren't eye witnesses? Here's one example of a case for this being so:
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm

 

[Enteebee]

most likely based on what evidence?

Based on the evidence from other examples of situations where miracles have been claimed. Based on Ockham's razor. Based on the lack of evidence for your claim. All of this leads us to it being far more likely that someone dragged the body out of the tomb than that he rose from the dead.

Honestly, do not post some dictionary definition of evidence to me.

gospels backed up by archeological study + witness other than the follows of christ.

Which is trash evidence. The gospels are not ENTIRELY backed up by archeology a part which could not would be the claim that jesus rose from the dead. Even if there were witness accounts, eye witness testimony is garbage... I can give you hundreds of eye witnesses who claim X did Y.

I can also provide for you witnesses who claimed they've seen people float who are not their followers but for instance believe they use demonic powers... this does not make these witnesses any better. The fact is that people are easily fooled regardless of how skeptical they might claim to be... but for someone who already believes in magical powers anyway it's not hard to imagine them also accepting that jesus left the tomb via means of magical powers.

what made Jesus contraversal/significant/unique/stand out was his miracles and his reserection and imo these are the aspects you should be arguing against.

Yeah sure... I'll say that there are many other historical figures who people claimed had magical powers / even those who weren't their followers claimed had magical powers. I'll say that this is no where near enough evidence to establish this. In fact I'd go so far as to say that even if 500 years ago you had every single person on earth believing that Y had magic powers and half of them believed he was the devil for it but still acknowledged his powers... this would NOT be good enough to establish that that person actually had any sort of magical power.

If you want to establish that there is a God and that there are magical powers in the world then I suggest you present to me something which isn't just what some other people, long ago may have said.

 

[Enteebee]

composition

Honestly, I've already explained to you... maybe you still don't understand the point of logical fallacies. My point is not to show that it is NECESSARILY TRUE but just to give weight to a certain proposition's probability... I am NOT saying that because some miracles are false that all miracles are false, what I am saying is that as there are so many similar miracles which are false that the simplest explanation is to say that this miracle is also false, though it may still be true.

Now if you think it's still a fallacy that's fine but I'm afraid you're just making shit up.

ockhams razor is just a theory claiming that the simplest is usually the best. but what i dont think this theory takes into account is evidence suggesting other wise and yes i do consider the gospels as evidence.

... Ockhams razor still applies if you have evidence suggesting otherwise, it works off of the available evidence. If you have heaps of evidence for what would (without such evidence) be a really complex solution then it can be the simplest explanation given the available evidence.

The gospels are extremely weak as I have explained. If we even do accept that they are eyewitness accounts of what happened then we still don't have strong evidence for something supernatural occurring... there are eye witnesses to supernatural events ALL the time, many of them who dislike the person who has the supernatural powers or whatever... This does not make them very strong as people can easily be tricked/eye witness testimony always have difficulties.

dude its just a friendly discussion. i dont see the harm in sourcing.

To assume I don't know what 'evidence' means is to assume I'm an idiot. If you didn't mean to then I'm sorry, but I see no other reason for you to give me that definition granted that nothing I've said about the nature of evidence runs contrary to it.

composition. How do you know it is trash evidence particularly if non follows of Christ dont deny.

Because I don't care for eye witness testimony from a few people, much of it from shaky sources (but I can even pretend they're rock solid), who are claiming something so amazing happened. I'm sorry but they're going to need to do a lot better than that.

If a sceptical friend of mine went to a psychic reading and said he thought 'WOW THE PSYCHIC HAD IT ALL WORKED OUT' then upon questioning him about whether he was cold read etc he said 'no way!' then I still wouldn't accept his testimony as strong evidence for the psychic having magic powers. Because I understand how people can be tricked, trick themselves and distort past events... even if they are sceptical.

composition. Also it wasnt just one eye witness.

There are hundreds of eye witnesses to other miracles, myths and legends.

----------------


So again I put it to you, if you want to prove that God exists and that magic powers exist... hows bout you explain why the only evidence of this is from eye witnesses etc who can most definitely be wrong?

 

[Enteebee]

the evidence to suggest that Jesus did actually do the miracles is greater than the evidence suggesting otherwise.

Oh okay because you have more witnesses claiming it happened? Isn't there a certain level of.... greater burden upon the the claim that jesus did miracles which trumps such evidence?

it didnt say anything about being true. its saying that the argument is not logical.

No it's saying that the form of such arguments are invalid which roughly translates to say that a false conclusion could be reached by true premises.