Could the existence of LOVE be evidence for God? Please disprove my case!

[PleaseProveMeWrong]

Hello everyone,

I would love to put forward a theistic argument and I am looking for honest, intellectually sound rebuttals. Can you refute this argument logically? What are flaws in the argumentation? Which premises or conclusions do you find unconvincing and why? What alternative explanations, backed by evidence, can you propose?

Here goes the argument, bear with me by reading ALL OF IT before engaging, please:

Introduction: For most people, it is a given that love is not only real, but essential to human experience and existence. However, explaining why that is so is not very straightforward. How can love be explained and does that explanation point to theism or atheism?

ARGUMENT:
A) For most people, love (in all its forms) is the most important thing in the world
B) It’s tricky to explain the existence and importance of love on naturalism
C) The Christian story clicks well with people’s experiece of love as a powerful and important thing.
D) Therefore, the existence of love (by the likelyhood principle) supports Christian theism over atheistic naturalism.

Let me flesh this out a little bit: (You don’t need to agree with Christian doctrine to grant Point C, but have a look to see if you think this point internally coherent on the super-hypothetical assumption that God exists, for argument’s sake. Does this Christian description give a good context for the nature and importance of love as we perceive it in society and individually?

POINT C) Why it’s not illogical for a Christian to say that love is real and that it is the most important thing:
-According to Christianity, God is love (1 John 4:7). Thus, God’s character would explain the nature of love: it is other-centered, self-giving, and serving as evidenced by the doctrine of the Trinity (three divine persons united in love).
-According to Christianity, humans exist to be loved and to love (1 John 4:16), which would explain why love feel so meaningful.

- Christians believe love is eternal: the Trinity would show love to be prior to nature (there was love between Father, Son, Spirit before the universe began) and the doctrine of heaven would show that love does not end when people die. It goes on forever.
-Human sin would explain how love both points to God in its beaut when it’s at its best, as well as how we fail at it.
-Love is the highest moral duty in the Bible (Mark 12:30-31) which would ground our human sense that love is an ‘ought’ (something we should be doing/living) as it would provide a law-giver who gives authority to the perceived moral law (or etihical principle) of love.

Let me flesh out the naturalistic position as well and forgive me if I got something wrong. Obviously these views don’t apply to all atheists, but I’m trying to paint a view of naturalism/materliasm leaning on the work of Richard Dawkins, among others:

POINT B)
-Reductive materialism can explain love only as a chemical process. Why does it feel like it’s so much more? There’ no other chemical process we dream, write, make songs and movies, are willing to die for, etc. like love.
-If love is only an illusion to help us work together to ensure survival (Michael Ruse) then we can’t really say that love is real, yet it is such a basic experience.
-Evolutionary biology casts love as the passing on of genes for the survival of the species. According to Richard Dawkins, romantic love is only an evolutionary illusion.
-Naturalism cannot truly account for altruism (selfless love) as it is not beneficial for survival
-Love doesn’t have any objective meaning, since naturalism can only explain subjective meaning. (Without God there is no grand narrative that gives purpose or direction to the universe. Instead the universe just is, and one day it will cease to be in the heat-death of the universe
-Since there is no intentionality in how nature evolves, we cannot say we are (as humans) made for love.

-What we experience as love is only a random byproduct of an unguided process.
-Love can only amount to an emergent property on materialism. It comes after nature. The end of the natural also means the end of love. Death ends all love. Only memory lives on, until the heat death of the universe, then nothing will remain
-Naturalism can only determine how loving/unloving behavior impacts survival, but it cannot explain the pain and suffering of corrupted love, since it cannot judge it as morally wrong, but only less conducive to survival.
-Naturalism is only descriptive, not prescriptive and it cannot explain love as a moral duty beyond survival-conducive behavior. There is no love-law-giver and love has, thus, no authority.

TRYING TO REFUTE MYSELF:

-Could altrusim be explained the kinship or reciprocity principles, which show that even selfless love could be evolutuionary advantageous and, thus, don’t need a divine grounding? Can we still call this behavior love if it turns out the be selfish (even if the benefits are only reaped later or indirectly)?

-Romantic and monogamous relationships are evolutionary advantageous and don’t need a grounding in God, even though passing on genes would work better in polygamous or polyamorous contexts as Richard Dawkins attests.

Conclusion: For those who believe that love is most real, and most important, for those who have a notion that love provides uniquely appealing answers to existential questions (like why are we here? what is the meaning of life? why is love so special and so important?) the Argument from Love provides tentative reasons to believe in the Triune God, especially in contrast to its naturalistic alternatives.

Thanks for reading this through! Can you please include the word or emoji ‘HEART’ in your response, so that I know you have read through the entire thing (congrats on your endurance, haha) and I can, thus, take your response very seriously? Thanks!

[Sheldon]

You seem to be rested now, enough to troll using a new poster. If you don’t like it here then posting is not mandatory, but I think it would be nice if you didn’t chase others away with trolling.

[Sheldon]

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Introduction: For most people, it is a given that love is not only real, but essential to human experience and existence.

So my first problem is right there, love is a word we assign to a collection of complex human emotions, they are of course subjective experiences, but we can cite objective markers, and we can observe changing brains states that correlate to specific emotional stimuli. So I wouldn’t say “love is not real”.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

How can love be explained and does that explanation point to theism or atheism?

Well it can be explained in evolutionary terms, as it can lend a survival benefit, from finding attracting and retaining a mate, to caring for one’s offspring, and even in wider sense the origins could come from the desire to help and protect other members of a small societal group.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

A) For most people, love (in all its forms) is the most important thing in the world

Hmm, to qualify, it is at certain times, but not at others, the necessity for a mate before we can pass on our genes, is a reasonable explanation of why we feel romantic love more strongly as we go through puberty, and are young. If you’re lucky enough to become a grandparent, you will find your idea of love has changed drastically, and again for fairly obvious reasons.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

B) It’s tricky to explain the existence and importance of love on naturalism

No, firstly the existence of something beyond the natural physical or material (supernatural), must be demonstrated to be possible, and then dem sontrated to exist, what you’re doing is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and implying something is possible or exists because we lack an alternative explanation, this is a known common logical fallacy, and therefore irrational by definition.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

C) The Christian story clicks well with people’s experiece of love as a powerful and important thing.

That’s circular reasoning, and of course how anyone feels about a story tells us nothing about the truth of it.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Therefore, the existence of love (by the likelyhood principle) supports Christian theism over atheistic naturalism.

Wow, ok so the premises are flawed as explained, the conclusion doesn’t follow from them, and you are conflating atheism with naturalism, the former is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and the latter is a belief, you can be an atheist and not be a naturalist, you can disbelieve that the supernatural exists or is even possible, without holding a belief that everything must arise from natural physical processes.

The easiest way to explain this is that just because one disbelieves a claim does not mean that one believes the opposite or contrary claim. One can be both an atheist and an agnostic.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Let me flesh this out a little bit: (You don’t need to agree with Christian doctrine to grant Point C,

Well christians is a very broad term, love describes a range of human emotions, biblical christian doctrine is vast and contradictory, so your premise is too broad and sweeping for me to agree with it. There are things in the bible I find morally repugnant, and would still do even I knew as an objective fact it was divine diktat.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Does this Christian description give a good context for the nature and importance of love as we perceive it in society and individually?

I am dubious the bible does this, I also don’t care in this context, as the bible was created by humans, so that it accurately describes some of the complex emotions we associate with or define as love, does not in any way suggest a deity exists, needs to exist, or is even possible.

The biblical quotes have no relevance I can see, unless one accepts the concepts being described can’t have come from human writers, and this again would need to be objectively demonstrated.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

According to Christianity, humans exist to be loved and to love

We don’t need christianity to accept that love is an emotion humans have evolved to feel and need, but of course even if we had no explanation for love, this isn’t evidence for a deity or anything supernatural, why would it be?

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Without God there is no grand narrative that gives purpose or direction to the universe.

So what? You seem to be falling into the thestic trap of suggesting something is true, because you feel the lack of it disappoints your expectations.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Could altrusim be explained

Again you cannot rationally posit that something is true, because we lack an alternative explanation, this is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. However altruism could very easily be explained by and have its precursors in our evolved past.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

-Romantic and monogamous relationships are evolutionary advantageous

No they’re not, the chance of passing on your genes would increase with more partners, certainly for men this would be true.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

the Argument from Love provides tentative reasons to believe in the Triune God, especially in contrast to its naturalistic alternatives.

I don’t agree, as I said in order for me to believe a deity exists or is possible, this would need to be demonstrated, even if we couldn’t explain any number of aspects of our existence using natural or material explanations, it is irrational to imagine this lack of a contrary explanation or evidence is itself evidence for a deity.

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Thanks for reading this through! Can you please include the word or emoji ‘HEART’ in your response, so that I know you have read through the entire thing (congrats on your endurance, haha) and I can, thus, take your response very seriously? Thanks!

I’ve read it all, trust me.

[Bluedoc]

Geez, yeah, we’re such meanies in here… in a debate forum…

Anyway, consult the work of theologian N.T. Wright, who has gotten there first regarding your basic argument.

Criticisms of it have been the issues @Sheldon is raising, AFAIK.

Right, well, back to hatching my plans of premeditated sophistry….

[Cognostic]

I went through this when I was in my early 20s with J. Krishnamurti.
First, without reading your post, Love is poorly defined no matter how you define it. Second, Love is never unconditional. But let’s look at what you have to say.

Love is essential: You have your first problem - Neither essential nor necessary. And yes you can survive without Love To survive, you need oxygen, food, shelter, and a metabolism. THAT’S IT. The feeling of being loved is not necessary at all. People are surviving perfectly well without the ability to love.

A) For most people - Now you are moving the goalpost. I don’t even think it is for most people. We happen to be raised in Western Culture where “Love” was once very important and not as important today as it was in the past. Most marriages in other countries occur for Financial reasons or Social reasons. Marrying for Love, and the importance of love, is a Western idea. And it is dying. Our divorce rate is at 50%. 50% of men are no longer getting married. “Love” is highly overrated. Now there are other forms of love, love your dog, love your mom, etc. But even these are subject to fluctuation, and change, over time. I don’t think you can support P1: with any kind of substantial evidence.

P1: Love is important to some people.
P2: Naturalism explains love very easily. " Love happens less in the heart and more in the brain, where hormonal releases and brain chemicals are triggered Dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin are some of the key neurotransmitters that help you feel pleasure and satisfaction. So, your body often approaches love as a cycle."
C: You can not introduce something new in your conclusion. You need to rewrite your premise to include the “likelihood principle” whatever that it. You also can not add Christian to your conclusion.
The entire validity of your syllogism has fallen apart. Nothing follows from your premise and your premise is ill-formed.

Nothing flows logically from your initial assumptions.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Cognostic

“Love” is highly overrated.

In my opinion, everything of value requires some sacrifice to obtain, and our society is becoming less and less willing to sacrifice anything to achieve meaningful things.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

In my opinion, everything of value requires some sacrifice to obtain,

Just enjoyed the most fabulous sunset, just sitting there for free.

[Nyarlathotep]

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Can you refute this argument logically?

@PleaseProveMeWrong

ARGUMENT:
A) For most people, love (in all its forms) is the most important thing in the world
B) It’s tricky to explain the existence and importance of love on naturalism
C) The Christian story clicks well with people’s experiece of love as a powerful and important thing.
D) Therefore, the existence of love (by the likelyhood principle) supports Christian theism over atheistic naturalism.

Your conclusion D refers to terminology not discussed in Premise A, B, or C. For example the phrase atheistic naturalism appears in the conclusion with no mention in the premises.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Sheldon

Just enjoyed the most fabulous sunset, just sitting there for free.

Becoming a person who is able to enjoy it… is it effortless?

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Becoming a person who is able to enjoy it… is it effortless?

I made no such claim?

[Kevin_Levites]

@PleaseProveMeWrong

Reductive materialism can explain love only as a chemical process. Why does it feel like it’s so much more? There’ no other chemical process we dream, write, make songs and movies, are willing to die for, etc. like love.

Argument from incredulity.

Even an insect like a bee will sting an animal that threatens the hive, even though the act of stinging will kill the bee because the stinger has a barb.

Any number of social animals act for the collective good, even when it entails self-sacrifice, and this was happening millions and millions of years before humans even evolved.

And I believe that you are correct that there are things that we don’t know about love . . . but just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean that we should automatically invoke God.

Saying God does something accomplishes nothing.

[Cognostic]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

n my opinion, everything of value requires some sacrifice to obtain, and our society is becoming less and less willing to sacrifice anything to achieve meaningful things.

Agree. That has nothing to do with “LOVE” and everything to do with commitment. To get my university degrees, I slept in the back of a pickup truck and took showers in the school gym. I was homeless at two separate points for about 6 months each time. I never missed a class. I did homework at Denny’s and stayed awake until I was sure I could sleep in the back of the truck. Nothing to do with love at all. Everything in the world with not wanting to grow up to be like my parents. (Reverse role models you might say.) I value my education and the life I have made for myself. (But that’s just me. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea.) What a person values is also something to consider. After all, the perfect murder is a meaningful thing to a murderer.

[Cognostic]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Becoming a person who is able to enjoy it… is it effortless.

Sometimes, yes! There are in fact, people born that way. Just as there are people born genius, there are people born happy. Perhaps it is more like sexual preference, I can’t say. There may be a propensity for happiness that some people just possess greater than others. Then when the genes and social circumstances all line-up, you get this interesting person who just seems happy all the time and sees the good in everything, not from the dogmatic theistic, ‘Do it because I say so.’ attitude but because they genuinely see the world that way. It does happen.

For the rest of us, it is something we learn.

[oaroloye]

SHALOM!

I am not a big fan of Neil Gaiman: I found his SANDMAN stories entertaining, but I never got how he came up with the idea of his “THE ENDLESS” characters. Entities who had been around since Creation who were not gods, but were respected by gods.

These included Dream, Delirium, Desire, Destruction, Destiny, Despair, and Death.

Neil Gaiman always found interesting ways to write them up.

However, I gained a new respect for his concepts, when my researches into the Greek Mythology turned up that EROS: Romantic Love/Desire, was believed to be a Primal Supernatural Force responsible for Creation in the first place.

I gained a new respect for the Marvel Comics concept of the Titanian Eternals brothers, Thanos (who should require no introduction, even to Christians,) and EROS- who, unfortunately, had always been portrayed as a veritable oaf.

The importance of these Pop Culture icons is that these are the ideas planted subliminally in the publics’ minds, that filter and block the importance of these concepts. But even worse than that: EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT “LOVE” FROM THE BIBLE IS A LIE.

That is because the normal layman has no idea what The Bible means, when it talks about “love.”

This did not happen accidentally, but by deliberate design. As in, some mother(Bleep!)ers sat at a table somewhere and said: "Let’s plan this (Bleep!)! All in favour, say “Aye!” All not in favour, “Die!”

I mean, that the Ancient Greek language, from which our New Testament is translated in the Wild Civilized West here has at least eleven different words, which are dishonestly translated “love.”

Ten of them do not mean that at all. The only one that correspond to what all English-speaking laymen call “love,” EROS: Romantic Love/Desire, is the only one of the eleven terms that is not used in the New Testament.

I (ahem!) literally wrote a book on the topic, listing every usage in the New Testament, called THE LOVE SCAM.

Objective Christianity - THE LOVE SCAM: For over 500 years, Christianity has been lying to the World about the meaning of the term “love.” That ends now.

Chapter One – AGAPAO
(01). [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 0025] MATTHEW 5:44,46. Αγαπαω, agapao. “LOVE” in a social, moral sense,

Chapter Two – AGAPE
(02) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 0026] MATTHEW 6:5. . MATTHEW 23:6. Αγαπη,
agape. “LOVE” in the sense of affection, benevolence. Altruism.19,

Chapter Three – THELO,
(03) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 2309] MARK 12:38. Θελω, Thelo. To determine (as an act), to delight in, desire, to be disposed toward,

Chapter Four – PHILADELPHIA
(04) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5360] 1st THESSALONIANS 4:9; HEBREWS 13:1.
Φιλαδελφια, Philadelphia. Fond of brethren; fraternal love,

Chapter Five – PHILADELPHOS
(05) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5361] 1st PETER 3:8. Φιλαφελφος; Philadelphos.
“LOVE” in the sense of “fond of brethren;” fraternal love,

Chapter Six - PHILANDROS
(06)[STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5362] TITUS 2:4. (Love Husband.) Φιλανδρος;
Philandros. “LOVE” in the sense of “fond of man;” “affectionate love as a wife”,

Chapter Seven – PHILANTROPIA
(07) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5363] TITUS 3:4. Φιλανθρωπια; philantropia. “LOVE” in the sense of “fondness of Mankind;” benevolence,

Chapter Eight - PHILAGURIA
(08) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5365] 1st TIMOTHY 6:10. Φιλαργυρια; philaguria.
“LOVE” in the sense of "the love of money”,

Chapter Nine - PHILEO.
(09) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5368] REVELATION 3:19. Φιλεω; Phileo. “LOVE” in the sense of “to be a friend to;” “to have affection for;” “personal feeling;” sentiment, duty,propriety, “kiss love”,

Chapter Ten - PHILOTEKNOS.
(10) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5388] TITUS 2:4. (Love Children.) Φιλοτεκνος;
phileteknos. “LOVE” in the sense of “fond of children;” "maternal love”,

BANKRUPTCY: EROS: Romantic Love- the only one of the eleven Greek words translated “love” that is not used in the New Testament,

Objective Christianity - THE LOVE SCAM: For over 500 years, Christianity has been lying to the World about the meaning of the term “love.” That ends now.

Table of Contents

Introduction.
Preramble.

Chapter One – AGAPAO
(01). [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 0025] MATTHEW 5:44,46. Αγαπαω, agapao. “LOVE” in a social, moral sense,

Chapter Two – AGAPE
(02) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 0026] MATTHEW 6:5. . MATTHEW 23:6. Αγαπη,
agape. “LOVE” in the sense of affection, benevolence. Altruism.19,

Chapter Three – THELO,
(03) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 2309] MARK 12:38. Θελω, Thelo. To determine (as an act), to delight in, desire, to be disposed toward,

Chapter Four – PHILADELPHIA
(04) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5360] 1st THESSALONIANS 4:9; HEBREWS 13:1.
Φιλαδελφια, Philadelphia. Fond of brethren; fraternal love,

Chapter Five – PHILADELPHOS
(05) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5361] 1st PETER 3:8. Φιλαφελφος; Philadelphos.
“LOVE” in the sense of “fond of brethren;” fraternal love,

Chapter Six - PHILANDROS
(06)[STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5362] TITUS 2:4. (Love Husband.) Φιλανδρος;
Philandros. “LOVE” in the sense of “fond of man;” “affectionate love as a wife”,

Chapter Seven – PHILANTROPIA
(07) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5363] TITUS 3:4. Φιλανθρωπια; philantropia. “LOVE” in the sense of “fondness of Mankind;” benevolence,

Chapter Eight - PHILAGURIA
(08) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5365] 1st TIMOTHY 6:10. Φιλαργυρια; philaguria.
“LOVE” in the sense of "the love of money”,

Chapter Nine - PHILEO.
(09) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5368] REVELATION 3:19. Φιλεω; Phileo. “LOVE” in the sense of “to be a friend to;” “to have affection for;” “personal feeling;” sentiment, duty,propriety, “kiss love”,

Chapter Ten - PHILOTEKNOS.37
(10) [STRONG’S CONCORDANCE: 5388] TITUS 2:4. (Love Children.) Φιλοτεκνος;
phileteknos. “LOVE” in the sense of “fond of children;” "maternal love”,
Chapter Bankruptcy - EROS. 38
EROS: Romantic Love- the only one of the eleven Greek words translated “love” that is not used in the New Testament,

hXXps://XXX.amazon com/Objective-Christianity-SCAM-years-meaning-ebook/dp/B0D9D4T9ZF/

This is extremely serious, because if you get these definitions confused, you can give yourself a Brain Hernia. Alberto Rivera said that he was bullied by his Rector into accepting that Homosexuality was “THE LOVE OF CHRIST” (sic). We saw proof, this year, that he was not lying.

Anyone who knows this, but does not pass the information along, but lets is fellow man think that “God is ROMANTIC DESIRE!” deserves harsh, abrasive adjectives. A person who lets people think that Lord Yeshua told his Disciples to Romantically Love their Enemies and Oppressors- when they know better- needs manual adjustment of their Brain Chemistry.

Every qualified clergyman knows this.

They deliberately foster confusion and uncertainty in Christians who trust them, and the only motive I can believe is that confused and uncertain Christians are easier to control.

No one has any business saying that they have studied The Bible, without a STRONG’S CONCORDANCE- or equivalent.

[Sheldon]

I see a raft of dubious claims in there, no objective evidence though. Which deity do you believe exists and why, and what is it you wanted to debate?

[Cognostic]

It might help if you were to focus on one thing at a time. Supporting one erroneous claim with a plethora of follow-up claims is just piling garbage on top of garbage.

I contend that everything you say falls apart with your first attempt at making an assertion.

@oaroloye

I gained a new respect for his concepts, when my researches into the Greek Mythology turned up that EROS: Romantic Love/Desire, was believed to be a Primal Supernatural Force responsible for Creation in the first place.

I’ll take issue with “was believed.” By whom, and why? Is there any reason at all to believe this nonsense? What evidence is there? Ignorant people are prone to believe all sorts of stupid stuff. Take for example the idea that Muhammad flew to the moon on a winged horse, or that he split the moon in half. People can be very gullible. Entire religions have been started over such nonsense. Can you demonstrate Romantic Love/Desire, was a Primal Supernatural Force responsible for Creation? Yes? or No?

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon

Which deity do you believe exists and why, and what is it you wanted to debate?

It’s astonishing how quickly visiting apologists run away from that question, often never to be seen again, as if they’d never considered anyone might ask.

[Heathen69]

What you are claiming has nothing to do with religion at all.

You can experience all emotions without a fake book that tells you how to live.

With your logic because I experience certain emotions during reading a Harry Potter book,
I need it to experience it again. Makes no sense.

[MrDawn]

I find it funny when Theists want us Atheists to prove them wrong.

Shouldn’t that be their god’s job to defend his own existence? Why does a god need humans to defend his all mighty existence?

My real question is that perhaps all Theists know deep down, that he’s not real. Why get mad & defensive otherwise?

[Bluedoc]

@MrDawn

My real question is that perhaps all Theists know deep down, that he’s not real. Why get mad & defensive otherwise?

I recently saw a TV ad for Joel Osteen’s mega-swindle church wherein he ends by asking something along the line of, “Do I have any non doubting believers here today?”

In my observation, nearly all religions are intolerant of introspection and serious questioning when it comes to core beliefs. This includes both those within the religions and from those without, IME.