A “ Psychological Perspective “ offers no scientific proof whatsoever about anything ,it’s just an opinion.
If as Dawkins said “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”, then there is no accounting for Love
I ask for a third time, how as you claimed does the existence of love remotely evidence any deity? It seems you have nothing to support your claim? Quelle surprise…
3 Likes
How ironic, you just described Christianity.
1 Like
You will also note that a) it is a lie, no one mentioned proof, the evidence was offered and forms part of the scientific theory of evolution, and b) the double standard from @Sid, where claims now must suddenly have scientific evidence to be valid, but he has whined relentlessly that his unevidenced superstition is exempt from that standard, and c) that not having an explanation for love would not logically support his unevidenced claim it is evidence for a deity. He can’t offer anything by way of evidence or any explanation in support of the claim.
I have now asked three times, and @Sid can’t offer offering anything in support of his claim?
I ask a fourth time, how does the existence of human emotions like love remotely represent evidence for any deity?
If @Sid had either rational explanation, or any evidence he would of course have offered such, the fact he has failed to do so says it all. Remember he claimed this was sufficient on its own to convince him, yet cannot explain why?
1 Like
Jesus
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together. He is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything. For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile everything to Himself by making peace through the blood of His cross — whether things on earth or things in heaven.”
Colossians 1:15-20
That’s preaching and a violation of forum guidelines, this is a debate forum.
1 Like
In this case, it is merely a quote from a resource.
Fair enough, I didn’t see it as in any way contextual, nor was anything anything offered beyond the quote, but that’s not my call.
I shall only answer in that case that the quote is utterly meaningless, as it debates nothing, and merely offered vapid assertions.
Edit: In retrospect I now see the context of @Calilasseia question, again my apologies for my error. I had read it as a random biblical quote, as no quote was offered from his post.
Though of course the content of the quote is contradictory, as is much in the bible. Also we’d need an image of a deity before we could compare our own in any meaningful way. Like people claiming to have seen an image of Jesus, one wonders what they are comparing the image to?
3 Likes
Why was Jesus arrested with a naked boy?
So if Jesus had an asshole, does his rapist dad (“God”) also have an asshole?
(What would an allmighty god need an asshole for, anyway?)
2 Likes
So all you have to offer is “my mythology says so”?
2 Likes
If “he” is invisible and I’m created in his image, why am I not invisible? I think I got ripped off.
2 Likes
Meanwhile, now that I’ve fired up the laptop (tablets are fine for browsing, not so much for substantive posting), it’s time to deal with the failed excuse for a response on the part of @WhoAreYou in more detail.
Quite simply, the tiresome extract from your goat herder mythology isn’t an “explanation” for the phenomenon that was the subject of my question, it was merely yet another collection of blind assetions, of the sort that mythologies always present. Indeed, that’s the whole purpose of many mythologies, your favourite one included - the presentation of blind assertions as if they constituted established fact, with the intent on the part of the authors that said blind assertions be treated uncritically as fact. Except that this doesn’t work with people who paid attention in class, and who learned about the proper rules of discourse.
That passage you quoted, as a corollary, is regarded by those of us who paid attention in class, as nothing more than a textual insomnia cure. It doesn’t present any real information on the topic at hand, at the very best it’s a mere pretence at doing so, and at worst, is a total irrelevance. The only subject this passage is “informative” about, is the propensity of the authors to engage in florid fabrication, as is the case with virtually the whole of the mythology in question, which is florid fabrication from beginning to end.
So, I’ll let you try again, and attempt to provide a substantive answer to the question of how it is possible for an invisible entity of any sort, to possess an “image” or “likeness”. Expecting of course that you will completely fail to do so.
And, in anticipation of the predictable duplicitous apologetics, which will probably centre upon the lame question “since atoms are invisible, how do you know what they look like?” I’ll begin by noting that macroscopic assemblages of atoms are clearly visible - every object around you that you can see, is a macroscopic assembalge of atoms. As for individual atoms, there’s a reason they’re not visible to the naked eye, or even under a normal microscope - namely, their size is orders of magnitude smaller than the wavelengths of visible light. The physics of optics places limits upon what is visible using our eyes, even when aided by modern microscope technology.
However, we can know what shape an atom is, by other means. We can use such techniques as X-ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopy, to inform us how atoms are arranged in crystals, for example, and provide us with detailed information about the spacing between those atoms. Furthermore, in more recent times, atomic force microscopy has allowed us to “image” atoms, by tracing the effect of the electric fields of electron orbitals as a suitable probe passes over them. We can even use Compton scattering of particles in a particle accelerator, to add to our knowledge in this regard. Even better, IBM was not only able to image atoms using atomic force microscopy, but manipulate individual atoms. A non-technical exposition of that achievement is provided here. The scientific paper can be found here.
It’s interesting to note that IBM managed to achieve that little exercise by manipulating xenon atoms on a surface. Xenon is normally considered to be a gas at room temperature, which is why the team in question performed that experiment on a surface cooled to 4 Kelvins.
Indeed, scientists have devised all manner of ingenious ways of converting raw instrument data into visualisations, so that we can, courtesy of that data, “see” what objects otherwise inaccessible to our eyes look like.
Unfortunately for you, you have nothing of this sort to offer, to support the assertion that we are made in the “image” of an invisible cartoon magic man. Instead, all the evidence points to your cartoon magic man being a human invention, one that was manifestly constructed to resemble us, except of course for the invisibility assertion.
So, let’s see what you have to offer, other than copy-pasting of mythological assertions, shall we?
2 Likes
So far that seems to be the case. Quoting the bible to atheists, is as pointless as any other unevidenced claim.
1 Like
There are no “hands free religions”. Nor is there any objective evidence that any deity exists outside of the human imagination, ignorance and superstition.
The efficacy of science however is demonstrable, and the words I have typed, simultaneously appearing on your and others screens, are ample and objective evidence for that.
Check mate…and quod erat demonstrandum…
3 Likes
You sure do got a pretty mouth.
If Love is not a product of a blind pitiless indifferent universe that has no design and no purpose, no good ,no evil then it must have another source .
Of course you believe that the aforementioned universe somehow managed to produce Love , Evil , Purpose , Meaning. It’s the old “ give me one miracle and I’ll explain everything else “
Do you ever wonder why you spend so many seconds, minutes, hours , days , weeks , months , years of your life berating something that doesn’t mean anything , yet apparently it does doesn’t it ?
It’s basically chemistry. Heard of oxytocin have you?
No, we’re simply taking apart duplicitous apologetic fabrications such as yours.
2 Likes
You have yet to demonstrate objectively that anything else exists, yet both human emotions and the universe exist as objective facts. Now I ask for the fifth time of asking, how as you claimed does the existence of love remotely evidence any deity?
Each time this goes unanswered reinforces an obvious fact.
[quote=“Calilasseia, post:681, topic:3719”]
It’s basically chemistry. Heard of oxytocin have you?
[quote=“Calilasseia, post:681, topic:3719”]
No, we’re simply taking apart duplicitous apologetic fabrications such as yours.
So you have a job as a part time comedian then ?
Laughable