Why do we suffer? Why do we love?

[Oreoracle]

actually we will tell you that G-d is the maximal state of being, informally G-d is existence.

Old news, Pete. I need to know why a perfect being must exist and why your definition of “perfect” or “maximal” isn’t totally arbitrary. In short, I need the argument you’ve never provided.

or we would tell you that contingent beings might not have been and therefore need a cause.

The whole causal chain “might not have been” for all we know. There’s no known necessity for the chain. Tell me, why can’t I say that God “might not have been?” What if he just popped into existence–and I know Christians hate this phrase–by chance? You know, like how the matter he supposedly created must have just popped into existence when he spoke his imperative, “Let there be…”

“God did it” has never been an explanation, because you have no clue how God did it. When you say that a being can cause things to pop into existence simply be willing it, we’re descending into the realm of magic.

because the universe might not have been and therefore is contingent requiring a cause.

How do you know this? Do you intimately understand the nature of the universe? My, someone has a high opinion of themselves!

as you can see it wasnt as simple as you have been led to believe.

LOL right. I’ve been brainwashed by the secular media into believing that one can’t simply will things to exist. Unless you can tell me how God does his stuff, what you are providing is still a non-explanation. You’re simply unable to shrug your shoulders and admit that you don’t know, like every other humble person. There is often humility in doubt and arrogance in certainty, not the other way around, “as you have been led to believe.”

but i did notice that you didnt answer the OP, why does love exist?

Before the question can be considered anything but arbitrary, you must first demonstrate that love needs a reason to exist. If you don’t, I have no obligation to answer, because the question assumes there’s a reason. By “reason” I am referring to intention. Can you prove that love must have been intended to exist?

 

[Oreoracle]

it simply leaves too many questions unanswered. its like a scientist accepting contradictory information in a theory and just throwing up his hands saying thats good enough!

And so the scientist will continue to search for the answers instead of making up a religion so they can claim to have a revelation and parade it around as evidence. They don’t use science because they think everything is observable. They use it because you can just make stuff up using other methods. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Before the question can be considered anything but arbitrary, you must first demonstrate that love needs a reason to exist. If you don’t, I have no obligation to answer, because the question assumes there’s a reason.

Well, you’re under no obligation to answer either way. But Pete does not have to prove that love needs a reason to exist. Since you’re obviously committed to the claim that love *does *exist, we want to know why love matters. Is our intuition that love is of ultimate importance accurate? How does an agnostic explain the possibility of love, without reducing it become *merely *a Darwinistic characteristic?

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, you’re under no obligation to answer either way. But Pete does not have to prove that love needs a reason to exist. Since you’re obviously committed to the claim that love *does *exist, we want to know why love matters. Is our intuition that love is of ultimate importance accurate? How does an agnostic explain the possibility of love, without reducing it become *merely *a Darwinistic characteristic?

Well, love is an emotion, of course. I don’t think we place love on a pedestal because of intuition, it just seems to be our nature to be emotional about emotion. Put simply, we care about caring. Emotion wants to maintain itself similarly to how life “wants” to continue living.

Why do things tend to strive for self-preservation? I don’t know. I suppose if it was the contrary, we wouldn’t be here to have this discussion.

As for the “Darwinian” thing, I understand very little of evolutionary theory. I do know that there are three types of mutations: those that are beneficial, detrimental, or benign. I think we can tell that the development of an emotional capacity isn’t detrimental by virtue of the fact that we still possess it (if it were detrimental, our ancestors might not have made it). As Petey said earlier, it doesn’t seem to be very beneficial in its current form, though it might have been as a lesser capacity at one time. I think it is quite possible, then, that the development of an emotional capacity was either benign or beneficial (probably beneficial to an extent).

 

[DavidHume]

Of course, I would assume that metaphysical naturalists would say that love is just a feeling with an evolutionary role. In this worldview, love has no more significance than buttered popcorn.

Actually, love and buttered popcorn have as much significance as people ascribe to them.

 

[wanstronian]

because the universe might not have been and therefore is contingent requiring a cause.

But that cause might not have been, therefore it is contingent, requiring a cause. But that cause might not have been, therefore it is contingent… whoops, we’ve all disappeared up our own backsides, and it is apparent that the universe is just as valid as God for a ‘first’ cause.

as you can see it wasnt as simple as you have been led to believe.

It’s very simple. The answer is… that we don’t really know the answer. Imagine that! Imagine not knowing everything!! What’s that you say? You’re not comfortable with gaps in knowledge? Better invent God then, that’ll sort it out.

On the original subject, I think it’s naive to just assume (a) that there’s no evolutionary advantage and (b) that without such an advantage, love wouldn’t exist. What if the ability to love is a by-product of some other facet of human consciousness, one that can more readily be attributed to evolutionary cause? In this case, the “how come” (in terms of process) is answered in evolutionary terms. The “why” (in terms of intention) doesn’t need an answer.

And a quick quote to add some spice:
“Sydney L. W. Mellen (1981) wrote an entire book on the evolution of love. Mellen speculated that species survival depended on primitive emotional bonding between breeding pairs of proto-humans. Such bonding enhanced survival rates, and in a few hundred generations passionate love emerged as a defining human attribute. Thus attachment processes and love may be closely linked.” - from here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Old news, Pete. I need to know why a perfect being must exist and why your definition of “perfect” or “maximal” isn’t totally arbitrary. In short, I need the argument you’ve never provided.

a necessary being must exist for the existence of contingent beings. perfect and maximal arent arbitrary they refer to the nature of necessary beings. you have already admitted on another thread that you wont read the necessary material, and ive heard all the set piece refutations off atheist websites, generally written by people i can only assume havent read the necessary material either.

The whole causal chain “might not have been” for all we know. There’s no known necessity for the chain.

bingo!

Tell me, why can’t I say that God “might not have been?” What if he just popped into existence–and I know Christians hate this phrase–by chance? You know, like how the matter he supposedly created must have just popped into existence when he spoke his imperative, “Let there be…”

the maximal state of being is existence, how does one “pop” into oneself? if there were no existence there would be no “Popping” there wouldnt even be the possibility of nothing as nothing can only be understood in the light of something.

“God did it” has never been an explanation, because you have no clue how God did it. When you say that a being can cause things to pop into existence simply be willing it, we’re descending into the realm of magic.

so i suppose that all the research into possible pre-planck existence is magic? if we dont understand a process it must be magic? QM is magic?

How do you know this? Do you intimately understand the nature of the universe? My, someone has a high opinion of themselves!

as you admit above there is no necessity to the causal chain, actually its a contingent chain, you too must have a high opinion of yourself. (do your research, i already know the set piece refutations on atheist websites)

of all possible worlds this one was only a possibility, as there are no constraints on possible worlds, this one might not have been.

LOL right. I’ve been brainwashed by the secular media into believing that one can’t simply will things to exist.

ummm… who said that?

Unless you can tell me how God does his stuff, what you are providing is still a non-explanation.

unless you can tell me how QM works then matter doesnt exist. oh wait, are you sure you still want to hold the idea that someone must understand a mechanism for a phenomenon to exist?

You’re simply unable to shrug your shoulders and admit that you don’t know, like every other humble person. There is often humility in doubt and arrogance in certainty, not the other way around, “as you have been led to believe.”

im telling you why, so how is this “we dont know”? do i doubt? of course. but then i doubt a great number of things like animal emotions, something im sure that you dont doubt. so spare me the psych 101.

Before the question can be considered anything but arbitrary, you must first demonstrate that love needs a reason to exist.

no problem, love cant be caused by random things, we need a reason to love something, the qualities of that thing.

If you don’t, I have no obligation to answer,

ah…you dont have answer. why didnt you just say so?

because the question assumes there’s a reason. By “reason” I am referring to intention. Can you prove that love must have been intended to exist?

did you read the OP? under the assumption of no G-d, where do you suppose there must be intention? who is it that would be doing the intending? see, in the determinant universe everything is causal. why do we love? from what cause does love spring?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As Petey said earlier, it doesn’t seem to be very beneficial in its current form, though it might have been as a lesser capacity at one time. I think it is quite possible, then, that the development of an emotional capacity was either benign or beneficial (probably beneficial to an extent).

i said, or at least mean to say, that it isnt necessary, any functions related to evolution can be handled chemically as animals all do. yet we love things having no bearing on evolution, rainy days and sunny days, football teams, and my old leather boots. often love is actually not beneficial, it causes much suffering, waste of resources and even works against natural selection to a degree, in that people love others that dont yield them the best benefit in reproducing or rearing young. if homosexual love were a real thing (no, we dont think it is real love) then that would work directly against natural selection. so love exists for no reason? yet it is causal as all things in the determinant universe, and therefore must have a reason to exist.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Actually, love and buttered popcorn have as much significance as people ascribe to them.

ok, love and buttered popcorn has the signifigance people assign to them, essentially one rock really admiring another rock?

id say that as in a determinant universe one configuration of matter is no more sifnifigant than another, it wouldnt seem that any peice of matter can assign signifigance to any other piece of matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, love is an emotion, of course. I don’t think we place love on a pedestal because of intuition, it just seems to be our nature to be emotional about emotion. Put simply, we care about caring. Emotion wants to maintain itself similarly to how life “wants” to continue living.

I will agree that the argument: “We feel that love is important; therefore, love is important” is completely invalid. But I do not think it is unreasonable for a person to demand something deeper, to rail against the heavens seeking some validity to his feelings. In my experience, railing against the heavens is a truly powerful and life-changing experience. The heavens, you see, respond.

I mean, whoa. (And no, I was not on acid.)

As for the “Darwinian” thing, I understand very little of evolutionary theory. I do know that there are three types of mutations: those that are beneficial, detrimental, or benign. I think we can tell that the development of an emotional capacity isn’t detrimental by virtue of the fact that we still possess it (if it were detrimental, our ancestors might not have made it). As Petey said earlier, it doesn’t seem to be very beneficial in its current form, though it might have been as a lesser capacity at one time. I think it is quite possible, then, that the development of an emotional capacity was either benign or beneficial (probably beneficial to an extent).

I’m quite open to the idea that the biochemical experience of love evolved through evolution, even through natural selection. This does not mean that God did not create love, however, and intend it for humans. The idea that evolution and God are mutually exclusive is one of the most inane ideas ever thought. Does the fact that a computer program can acquire real information through its operation indicate that the computer program was not created by an intelligent designer?

(Mind you, this is no sort of attempt at “proof” of God’s existence. I am sick of people on these boards thinking that my every word is an attempt to prove that you should believe in God. Some of us are interested in thinking well, no matter what conclusions those thoughts might bring us to.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Actually, love and buttered popcorn have as much significance as people ascribe to them.

I have days when buttered popcorn is infinitely more significant to me, to be honest. Maybe I better lay off, though, cause it causes cancer.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But that cause might not have been, therefore it is contingent, requiring a cause. But that cause might not have been, therefore it is contingent…

really, this is all you know of the argument? once you get to the maximal state of being, there is no might not have been, because then no contingent being could exist. an infinite chain of contingent beings doesnt result in its own cause any more than an infinite pile of apples equals an orchard.

whoops, we’ve all disappeared up our own backsides

or you just didnt do the research and are qouting atheist websites written by other people who didnt do the research either.

and it is apparent that the universe is just as valid as God for a ‘first’ cause

except for that whole contingency thing you are ignoring here.

It’s very simple. The answer is… that we don’t really know the answer. Imagine that! Imagine not knowing everything!! What’s that you say? You’re not comfortable with gaps in knowledge? Better invent God then, that’ll sort it out.

what gaps in knowledge are you refering to? because it looks like you just didnt know the argument. thats not a gap in knowledge, its a gap in your knowledge, big difference.

On the original subject, I think it’s naive to just assume (a) that there’s no evolutionary advantage and (b) that without such an advantage, love wouldn’t exist. What if the ability to love is a by-product of some other facet of human consciousness, one that can more readily be attributed to evolutionary cause? In this case, the “how come” (in terms of process) is answered in evolutionary terms.

(a) its not an assumption, love manifests in any number of ways that are unnessecary to or contrary to natural selection. and animals carry out the necessary functions simply driven by chemical programming. there is no necessity from which it could derive in evolutionary terms.

(b) in a deterministic universe everything requires a cause, love seems to have none, a bit odd that.

The “why” (in terms of intention) doesn’t need an answer.

how does one talk about intention in a determinant universe? who would be doing the intending?

And a quick quote to add some spice:
“Sydney L. W. Mellen (1981) wrote an entire book on the evolution of love. Mellen speculated that species survival depended on primitive emotional bonding between breeding pairs of proto-humans. Such bonding enhanced survival rates, and in a few hundred generations passionate love emerged as a defining human attribute. Thus attachment processes and love may be closely linked.” - from here.

so do prairie dogs, wolf packs and any social animal, but that can be attributed to chemistry, but why do we love a football team? both rainy days and sunny days? people or things that provide no evolutionary advantage. what about that guy that loved bears in alaska until one ate him? why do we love things that can be in direct opposition to natural selection? homosexual “love” is in direct opposition, and though it doesnt qualify as any kind of love in our book, the homosexuals wouldnt deny its existence. love exists independent of evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. so why do we love?

in a deterministic universe there must be a cause for love as there must be a cause for anything else.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have days when buttered popcorn is infinitely more significant to me, to be honest. Maybe I better lay off, though, cause it causes cancer.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I will agree that the argument: “We feel that love is important; therefore, love is important” is completely invalid. But I do not think it is unreasonable for a person to demand something deeper, to rail against the heavens seeking some validity to his feelings. In my experience, railing against the heavens is a truly powerful and life-changing experience. The heavens, you see, respond.

I mean, whoa. (And no, I was not on acid.)

I’m quite open to the idea that the biochemical experience of love evolved through evolution, even through natural selection. This does not mean that God did not create love, however, and intend it for humans. The idea that evolution and God are mutually exclusive is one of the most inane ideas ever thought. Does the fact that a computer program can acquire real information through its operation indicate that the computer program was not created by an intelligent designer?

(Mind you, this is no sort of attempt at “proof” of God’s existence. I am sick of people on these boards thinking that my every word is an attempt to prove that you should believe in God. Some of us are interested in thinking well, no matter what conclusions those thoughts might bring us to.)

i should be clear, i dont have a problem with natural selection, i dont find it contradictory to the existence of G-d whatsoever. it just doesnt explain everything, in this case, it doesnt explain love.

 

[DavidHume]

ok, love and buttered popcorn has the signifigance people assign to them, essentially one rock really admiring another rock?

To the best of our knowledge rocks can’t admire anything.

id say that as in a determinant universe one configuration of matter is no more sifnifigant than another, it wouldnt seem that any peice of matter can assign signifigance to any other piece of matter.

I’d say you were wrong.

 

[DavidHume]

i should be clear, i dont have a problem with natural selection, i dont find it contradictory to the existence of G-d whatsoever. it just doesnt explain everything, in this case, it doesnt explain love.

I don’t think you understand what natural selection is.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To the best of our knowledge rocks can’t admire anything.

and then neither can we. if we are simply matter than our assignation of signifigance to anything is simply one rock telling another, “you have value because i say so” only a rock doesnt have value whether its configured as a human, a tree, or stone.

I’d say you were wrong.

then prove it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think you understand what natural selection is.

well, they teach it in junior high, high school, and university, so yeah, i might. but how bout you dont dodge and answer the conversation?

 

[ready]

so why would love exist?

We love because that is how we a designed. We are made in the image and likeness of God and God is love and shares his love freely. Love exists because it is an extention of who God is and we cooperate in this love by being like him and loving, ourselves. The more we resemble our Lord, the more we love. So long as there are individuals who resemble Christ, love will exist.

 

[liquidpele]

well, they teach it in junior high, high school, and university, so yeah, i might. but how bout you dont dodge and answer the conversation?

Actually, you are correct. Natural selection doesn’t explain everything, which is why you also have other factors such as genetic drift and environmental factors that come into play as well (including competition). What specifically explains love? What kind of love? Love of a mate is very different than a love of music, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. We use that word as a blanket term for things we like a lot, so you’ll honestly have to be more specific if you want my opinion.