Best of AW

Friday, November 16, 2012

Totalitarian atheism strikes agani.

 NoctampulantJoycean says:

Originally Posted by NoctambulantJoycean View Post
You're again committing basic errors in philosophy of mind and psychology. I clearly corrected those in my responses on this thread: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...01#post3624901. Please stop making them.
 here's what the link goes to.


 Originally Posted by NoctambulantJoycean View Post


"And if you're really suggesting that love cannot be instantiated with God existing, then your position is far gone non-sense. So you're really suggesting that when a person loves their spouse, that necessarily implies the existence of God? That no mind can possibly love another without God existing? Ha! And you spout another standard line about "God is love." Really?! God is not love; God can have the attribute of being loving, but God is not love. I don't know why some theists like you make a mistake this basic. It's like saying your dog is hunger, as opposed to saying your dog has the attribute of being hungry or more simply, your dog is hungry. You're confusing adjectives with nouns! And even if we go with the noun, it still makes no sense. If God was love, then since love is not a mind (it's an attribute a mind can express, but that's not the same thing as it being a mind), God is not a mind. And then we go back to what I've told you over and over and over and...: once you forfeit the claim that God is a mind, there go any claims of God being aware anything (including people's prayers), having knowledge, beliefs, thoughts, hearing prayers, etc. Also, you'd be in the position of saying that everytime I loved someone, I brought God into existence or exemplified God since I instantiated the property "love." That's absurd. And last I checked, mental attributes like love don't go around creating universes, communicating to people, or doing the other stuff people attribute to God. So saying "God is love" is just an absurd abuse of language meant to let you have your cake and eat it, too...

Under the standard terminology used for natural properties in meta-ethics/moral philosophy, love is a natural property, just as is pain, suffering, pleasure, preferences, and other such mental properties, unless those mental properties are had by a supernatural being. That's why, for example, utilitarians who ground moral properties in mental states such as happiness and suffering (or more precisely, in dispositions for certain states) still count as moral naturalists. For more elaboration on this, see section 6 of http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/arch...ralism/#ExpSup and section 2 of http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/arch...uralism-moral/."

he says; "So stop acting as if love can only exist if your God exists."

that's supposed to prove that it's an error because he says stop doing it. Notice how he says "you have been corrected." Like it's not my opinion it's the truth. you are not allowed to say things that aren't tru (ie that violate my opinion).


Here's my answer. Notice


The assertions you make in this drivel are quite foolish anyone who actually put in five minutes thinking about the issues can see how foolish.

Until you show me a scientific reason why we have to love I will assert that it is entirely possible that the very existence of love is a gift of God in special creation. That being the case then examples of love exhibited by individuals are the product of the ability of exhibit a concept that ordinates with God's character.

until you show me a scientific reason why that's the case that we are forced to love then I will assert you have none. you are merely begging the question.