"I, for one, would love to see your demonstration. When will that occur? "

Sure, let's examine number 4. Sense of purpose/Love.

Please Tell me what Love is?

Examples could be: subjective truth, objective truth, phenomena of some sort, or... ?

Assuming you're an atheist, you consider there is no mystery in the world, therefore you must use logic to explain human existence. Therefore, please explain that human phenomenon using logic.

Why are you people in the minority?

I'm confused. So are you saying the ability of mathematical computation is by chance? Explain that in greater detail if you could.

Thank you kindly for the reply. I'm going to go ahead and start another thread. I have too many questions to derail the discussion here.

If you care to join that would be great!

I love your personal quote:

"I like the Buddhist point of view, which (simplified) says that 'harm' or 'suffering' is a product of unfulfilled desire."

" In such a philosophy, suffering is not inescapable, and 'good' and 'bad' are simply labels we slap onto things corresponding to our desires."

Ironically enough, your first point I just learned that in my spiritual group last night!

With respect to your second point of good and bad, is that compatible with yin yang?

There's no purpose to anything in evolution.

We agree! But again can you please answer the questions?

Or at least answer this simple question if you cannot answer the questions about Love, musical ability, and math: how do we make the leap to purpose?

Or let me try to help you and ask it in a different way: why do humans want to have a purpose?

As an atheist, how do you square that circle?

Great I think we're making progress.

So if we agree that's the correct definition of evolution. How do we make a leap to purpose?

For example, and these are the topics we're trying to parse; how did love, mathematics, and musical ability evolve?

Or are you saying there is no purpose to these?

There is no purpose to evolution


"In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time"

Does that sound right?

. But I'm not saying something about those particular traits yet. I'm saying something about evolution in general first, without talking about particular traits. Does that make sense to you?

Sure that makes sense but it doesn't explain why and for what purpose we have those traits correct?

If we were animals or lower life-forms for example, we would presumably just need instinct to survive.

Similarly, to survive in the jungle by avoiding falling objects, you wouldn't run calculations prior to avoiding the object, would you?

Now what about musical genius, is that an extra ordinary feature or trait? Is it a metaphysical language of sorts or what?

Again, you being an atheist, I would think you would know.

I'm saying something general about evolution. Not something about any particular trait.


I'm asking you about these particular traits :

Love and math.

And now that we're talking about specific traits, let's talk about musical ability and the ability to engage in musical composition and theory.

Fair enough?

first, about this idea re evolution, do you understand that I'm not talking about any specific trait?


Well I'm not sure I'm guessing that you mean any trait.

For example, why do we have musical ability?

Is that what you mean?

I explained this already--how something can exist even though it's neutral or even disadvantageous for survival (not that I'm claiming this about anything in particular, just to stave off you reading it that way). So I'd just be repeating the explanation of that I gave earlier.


Are you absolutely sure? In other words you have explained hat it's just an additional feature but could not explain why?

Let me try to paraphrase, if you are explaining that mathematical abstract's are not required for survival in the jungle, then I'm missing your explanation as to why we have those attributes?

Surely you're not suggesting that someone should run calculations before they attempt to avoid a falling object, right?

Now what about the question of love? Can you explain that human phenomenon to me, or simply state what is, in layman terms?

If it's too complex of a subject here, I'll be happy to debate it directly with you in another thread. But for some reason I have not understood your logic associated with the concept of love...

For clarity, I summarize the two questions for you:

1. What is love?
2. Why do we have mathematical ability?

Is there a requirement that something is necessary for survival in order for it to persist?"


Based on your explanation apparently not. Which in turn begs the question as to why it exists?

I have no idea what you are referring to, can you restate your questions? I'll be happy to try to answer them!

I thought you were the Atheist who knows the answers... LOL.

Yeah, that won't fly. You need to answer the question I asked.


I want to know what Love is, and you can't seem to simply answer the question. Maybe I'm mistaken, but am not sure.

Would you care to start another thread and give careful analysis to this huge topic of Love?

Otherwise, not to sound disparaging, but you seem to be unable to provide a succinct answer. Or at least it seems as though you're politically pivoting or distracting attention away from something.

Maybe just say you don't know. That's Ok.

See, the deficiencies (with both Fundamentalism and) Atheism is that both, at times, cannot simply say 'I don't know'.

So to check if you're paying attention, is there a requirement that something is necessary for survival in order for it to persist?


I'm not playing games, I'm trying to follow your reasoning.

Ok, so in very simple pragmatic terms, are you saying that Love is not required for survival in the jungle?

Yes or no; this isn't that complicated is it?

It's a term for a wide range of mental (brain) states, states that involve affection, caring, devotion, etc.


Ok, so loosely speaking, it's part phenomenology, logic & emotion...and a lot of psychology?

Why do we need all that to survive in the jungle?

Sigh. No. I said that "Love" isn't a proposition, and "Love is true" is nonsense, because that analyzes to saying that "Love" is a proposition that we're assigning the truth value "true" to. But "Love" isn't a proposition.


Ok we agree. So please share what love is then?

No, that's not what I said.

Ok, you said you needed more 'criteria'

So in turn, I suggested that love is either a subjective or objective truth.

You said it was an unexplained phenomena of sorts right?

I already addressed this. What did I say?


I think you said you needed more information. I gave it too you, no?

"Everyone blow really hard and maybe we'll change the Earth's orbit just enough"?


Would that be considered a miracle lol?

You are an atheist philosopher, here's the criteria:

1. Love is an objective truth
2. Love is a subjective truth

Which statement is true?

It's real simple, no? Am I missing something?

If we're talking about something like a large asteroid headed towards the Earth, we'd need the assistance of mathematics.


Not true. We would look at the falling object from a distance and attempt to move away from it.

Logic has nothing at all to do with explaining natural phenomena.


Great we agree. The next question is, what does explain natural phenomena?

Similaly:

1. We don't need abstract computations to avoid falling objects
2. We only need spacial perception to do so.

Are those true?

It would need to be a set of statements re requirements and some justification for those requirements"



Ok, help me out with my logic:

1. Love is an objective truth
2. Love is a subjective truth
3. Love is an unexplained human phenomena that defies logic

Tell me how to arrange those thoughts in propositional logic?

Ignoring the "explain" issue (which is similar to what I just asked you re "why" above), the reason that all of a sudden we're asking about love being explained "using formal propositional logic" is?

I'm sorry, but I'm not following that. Could you restate that in simplier terms?

So what sort of thing are you looking for? You'd need to be clear about that.


Why we have that dual capacity to avoid falling objects?

It refers to the fact that it's a brain-functioning-as-mind phenomenon.


Ok, so how then is the love phenomena explained using formal propositional logic?

Mathematics is based on observing relations in the world, and then extrapolating more complex relations, based on the way we think about relations, into a construction we create.



Sure, that's intellectual abstract knowledge. That's what I'm talking about. You haven't answered why we have it?

"Again, the only way our species (and immediate precursor species) can survive is via the fact that we can take in information from the world, via consciousness, and reason about it."

False. We survived in the jungle through spacial abilities, not abstract mathematical computations.

The phenomena are subjective"


If love is subjective, why then do all human's aspire to it (with minor exceptions)? And if all humans aspire to it, would that not make it objective ( love being an objective truth)?

You're conflating a general comment about evolution and advantage, where I was clearing up a misconception with a specific comment about consciousness and reasoning. "

Okay, let's try one at a time: How does mathematical knowledge evolve out/into a species? It has to spring from one to another in any case, to fit into the theory of Darwinism.

"Actually, wait, "Love is a subjective truth" isn't true in my view."

What is love then, an objective phenomena ( of sorts ) that most all humans aspire to do?

Mutations do not need to be advantageous to survival to persist"


Ok, so if I could restate your theory, are you saying it's an accidental feature of existence? In other words, since we don't need it to survive ("advantageous to survival" as you say), it's just an extra intellectual feature of human conscious existence?

Propositions are what are true or false. "Love" isn't a proposition. (A proposition is a statement about something.)


Gotcha, let me then try it in propositional terms:

1. Love is a subjective truth.

Is that statement sound?

First, something doesn't have to be an evolutionary advantage to persist. It only has to not be enough of an evolutionary disadvantage that it gets "bred out" of a species.


Are you saying it devolved out of consciousness and/or is somehow just an unexplained extra feature of existence?

I'm not following you there...

Let's talk about Love.

Is love a subjective or objective truth?

What's perplexing me is that you're saying that that has ever perplexed anyone. What sorts of big falling object threats are you even thinking of, first off?"



Well first off, thank you for taking the time to respond in a reasonable fashion.

Secondly, I'm not here to prove the existence of God. I'm a Christian Existentialist. ( I am obviously participating in this thread to offer my observations on the deficiencies of atheism.)

Nonetheless, I enjoy exploring the mysteries associated with our human existence. Accordingly, to give that example you asked, of a mysterious or perplexing question:

1. Abstract mathematical laws of gravity allow us to calculate falling objects.

2. Our consciousness (perception, sensorial/spacial knowledge) allows us to avoid falling objects.

The mystery is, why do we have this dual capacity to know the world? What evolutionary advantages are there to such intellectual, abstract knowledge like mathematics/the laws of gravity? (How does one spring from the other.)

Well sorry you feel that way. Your choice.

In fairness, if you could answer at least one of those existential questions, we might could learn something.

I've tried to help you, but I see you are frustrated.

Be well.

"...primarily from an ontological perspective"



Yep, totally get that. And I feel that pain. Once again, a priori logic rears its ugly head there (not that that's always bad of course ie, mathematical truth's, and so on...). So yes, Fundamentalism in many ways gives God a bad name.

But here's where the deficiency lies. You said empirical truth's, more or less, are not persuading you or most atheist's into a belief in a Deity (I take it Taoism too, but am not sure what you think there).

Empircism, phenomenology, psychology and even physical science would suggest more evidence of a creator than no-thing at all. Right? Do we want examples?

Here's an obvious one that has perplexed philosophers: why do we have two ways to avoid falling objects?