sophie
Break My Heart
Well yeah, which is why he should just say "I am an alumnus of [That thing I'm too lazy to search back to find]".
The fine-tuning argument for God's existence
- Thread starter Unicorny
- Start date
Well yeah, which is why he should just say "I am an alumnus of [That thing I'm too lazy to search back to find]".
What a cringeworthy sight it is indeed seeing the word "love" being thrown around with the notion of God; and it seems to be exclusive to the false Christian doctrine. Do not misunderstand, I agree that an amount faith is required to believe in the existence of a creator, afterall, God cannot be proven in absolute certain terms . Otherwise, the purpose of free will and thereby life itself is defeated. But to dismiss our intellectual capacity as a tool to rationalize God would defeat the purpose of having an intellect in the first place.
Each person is born in a circumstance which is not of his own choosing. The religion of his family or the ideology of the state is thrust upon him from the very beginning of his existence in this world. By the time he reaches his teens, he is usually fully brain-washed into believing that the beliefs of his particular society are the correct beliefs that everyone should have. However, when some people mature and are exposed to other belief-systems, they begin to question the validity of their own beliefs. The seekers of truth often reach a point of confusion upon realizing that each and every religion, sect, ideology and philosophy claims to be the one and only correct way for man. Indeed, they all encourage people to do good. So, which one is right? They cannot all be right, since each claims all others are wrong. Then how does the seeker of truth choose the right way?
God gave us all minds and intellects to enable us to make this crucial decision. It is the most important decision in the life of a human being. Upon it depends his future. Consequently, each and every one of us must examine dispassionately the evidence presented, and choose what appears to be right until further evidence arises.
However, it must always be kept in mind that one can only determine the true path by putting aside emotions and prejudices, which often blind us to reality. Then, and only then, will we be able to use our God-given intelligence and make a rational and correct decision.
There are several arguments which may be advanced to support God's existence (the fine-tuning of the universe being one) and numerous atheist scientists have become deists are a result.
Crackerbox
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 721
Cringeworthy? How interesting... as what I have written is summed up in I John 4. I guess you find that cringeworthy too???
Spoiler :
Not only is I AM (Yahweh) the basis for BEING, but another aspect that eminated from Yahweh is LOVE. The entire embodiment of LOVE. This passage clearly states practically everything I've said before in posts in this forum about the nature of being and being manifested in us and eminating from God and so to demonstrate that we should love one another. It's the Summary of the Law again, and you find this bedrock of theology to be cringeworthy? Seriously. Dude, open your Bible.
Faith is belief without evidence. The mind requires evidence for proof. Have a good time trying to communicate the Gospels by preaching to their minds. Love is what is filled in the heart.
The integration of our whole selves to be totally committed (heart, mind, and soul) this comes far later in the life of a Christian. Putting the mind before the heart, I wonder if any could be saved? It's rather a cold way of being a believer, but better that then lukewarm.
It's even made clearer in Romans 10.
Spoiler :
The heart of the unbeliever is where we preach to that Jesus might save them...not the mind. This profession comes from conversion in the heart. That's the very beginning of the intimate relationship with Yeshua.
Very cringeworthy I must admit. Just being honest.
Blind faith and an amount of faith are different things. Humans are rational thinking beings of intellectual capacity - most of us that is - as such, "love" and "blind faith" alone does not cut it.
Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority or holy text. Because of this, "The man in the jungle" dilemma is solved as someone of a secluded culture who has never heard of religion can still rationalize the existence of God via intellect alone to a sufficient degree to make them a believer.
Dismissing our intellectual capacity to rationalize God defeats the purpose of having a thinking mind. Religion is not always the answer - but a bonus.
Crackerbox
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 721
Hmmm, I wonder. Some humans being are somewhat rational.
So you're proposing that by intellectual argument in philosophy that God exists strictly because of the fine tuning argument. OK.In Deism, that Prime Mover doesn't care about you, so why would you care about God? It's more like a creative impetus to Creation. There's scores of proofs for God, and yet not a single one is universally accepted. Doesn't it seem like spinning your wheels in the sand? How's that working out for you?
It's like discussing Pantheism. If God is the actual Universe, and you can't prove it, then other than just hanging out and agreeing and disagreeing about Pantheism, then what difference does it make? I'm sincerely curious.
Hmmm, I wonder. Some humans being are somewhat rational.
In Deism, that Prime Mover doesn't care about you, so why would you care about God? It's more like a creative impetus to Creation. There's scores of proofs for God, and yet not a single one is universally accepted. Doesn't it seem like spinning your wheels in the sand? How's that working out for you?
It's like discussing Pantheism. If God is the actual Universe, and you can't prove it, then other than just hanging out and agreeing and disagreeing about Pantheism, then what difference does it make? I'm sincerely curious.
Those born impaired or with mental defects are an obvious exception - but no burden shall befall them as they lack the means to rationalize.
The intellect is man’s most precious asset, for it restores his dignity after his humiliation, uplifts him if he falls, guides him if he is lost and gives firmness and rectitude to his speech when he speaks. The human mind is there for a reason.
If the abundant proves and evidences that support the notion of God are not enough for someone then they have either:
1) Not encountered the most compelling ones yet. Must continue searching.
2) Does not care (too distracted by the worldly life & temporary joys until death meets them)
3) Are of a closed mind - you can do nothing about this type. They're eternally doomed.
Crackerbox
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 721
What about intellectually lazy people? They possess the capacity to rationalize as you put it. Basic statistical average demonstrates a range of capacity despite many of these who work at it to excel. Since most of these have the capacity to rationalize, then what, they are punished for not using their mind?
You're the first living Deist I've met. I'm not being snide. Other than historical figures, I've never encountered a Deist in person, only from books.
I would guess a cardinal sin to a Deist would be to not believe in Deism. Isn't that being of a closed mind, either to condemn the non-Deists, or to be a Deist and only think your way is correct?
While intelect is considered pinnacle of human development heart/psychic being is actually both superior in capacity and in satisfaction it can offer to the human life. You can rationalise to a point but its the psychic expansion which makes you grow into true image of God and make sense out of everything.
True. One can only rationalize to a certain point after which faith is required to believe in the supernatural and what your senses in their worldy form cannot perceive. However, intellect and rational reason is key that supplememts faith. After all, blind faith is never good enough.
Edited my post. Laziness would be #2. And yes, sloth/laziness is a disease of the mind and is a sin for which one will be punished. Afterall, God did not bestow a thinking mind upon you for jist.
Not believing in God upon death is one of the unforgivable sins. There are others.
Crackerbox
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 721
Are we to assume that you know the Word of God without you producing a sacred text that is the actual Word of God? Otherwise, the Word of God can be whatever you say it is?
Are you the only prophet of Deism or do other people automatically know the Word of God? What if there is disagreement among prophets?
It's Fallacy Man! But the problem with just shouting "fallacy" at people is that it doesn't show why what they're saying is a fallacy, if at all. It's not a very constructive approach.
I'm not making any appeal to ignorance here. The appeal to ignorance is when you argue "We don't know whether X is true or not, so it is (or it isn't)." I've not said that here. Indeed we've already seen examples of this fallacy, if you wish to call it that, in this very thread. The video Unicorny posted, back when this thread was young and so were we, argues that because we don't know whether or not the physical constants necessarily have the values they have, we might as well assume that they don't. And Unicorny himself did the same thing when he argued that since we don't know whether or not all the possible values they might have taken are equally probable, we might as well assume that they are. Now I've not argued like this at all here.
In fact it looks like you haven't understood what I'm actually arguing for here. I'm not arguing for the non-existence of God. I'm certainly not arguing "We don't know whether God exists, so he doesn't." What I'm arguing against is your original statement:
I dispute that it's possible to "choose to believe" in God in the first place. This has nothing to do with whether God actually exists or not.
Now evidently I failed to express myself clearly enough before. Let me try again, this time avoiding both the terms "belief" and "faith" and their cognates, to avoid misunderstanding:
(1) It's not possible to choose to put your trust in something if it seems to you that that thing doesn't exist.
(2) Whether or not you think that a given thing exists is not within your control.
(3) If a potential action is not within your control, you can't choose to do it.
(4) It seems to me that God doesn't exist.
(5) I can't choose to think that God exists (from (2), (3), and (4)).
(6) It's not possible for me to choose to put my trust in God (from (1) and (5)).
Now this is, I think, a valid argument. If the premises (1) - (4) are true then the conclusion (6) must be true too. Are the premises true?
(1) seems to me to be true. The aforementioned brother is an example. I don't think that I have a brother; it's therefore impossible for me to choose to trust my brother. This is so even if in fact I do have a brother, unknown to me.
Now I can think of cases where one might rationally act as if trusting someone whom one isn't sure exists. Suppose I fall into a canal during the night. The bank is dark and I can't see whether anyone is there to throw me a lifebelt. In fact I think there probably isn't anyone there, since I didn't see or hear anyone while walking, and it's the middle of the night when few people are likely to be out.
In that situation I would still shout for help, even though I think there probably isn't anyone there to answer. It would be rational to do so because there might be someone there and it costs me nothing to try. But even so, I don't think one could plausibly say I'm trusting in the person who might or might not be there. On the contrary, I'm not trusting in them, because I think they probably won't answer, because I think they probably don't exist. I'm just taking the chance that I might be wrong.
That's the closest thing I can think of to a counter-example to (1). So (1) seems to me to be true and to be borne out by experience.
(2) is also true, I think. Bernard Williams made a classic series of arguments in favour of (2), and I think he's right. (That's not an Appeal to Authority, by the way, because I've linked there to the arguments he used, and I think he's right because they are good arguments, not because he's a Big Brain.) In brief, if I were to choose to think that something exists (which I currently think doesn't exist), I would be choosing to think something to be true that I currently think to be false. That seems a psychological impossibility. I want to think things to be true that are true - I don't want to be mistaken in what I think to be true. If I currently think that X is true, how could I wish to think that X is false? I might wish X to be false, but that's not the same thing.
Experience backs this up. I've never been able to change my mind about something simply by choosing to do so. Rather, I have changed my mind about things because they have come to seem different - perhaps new evidence turned up, or I came to think that the evidence I'd already seen wasn't very good after all, or something like that. I am of course able to choose to try to find new evidence or to review the arguments, perhaps with the goal of changing of my mind, but I can't simply choose to change my mind. So I say that (2) is true, too, and if you think differently, I ask for counter-examples.
(3) seems to me to be true pretty much by definition.
(4) is certainly true, and you'll just have to take my word for it.
Once again, this argument has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. It's about the psychological possibility of choosing to put one's trust in God. I'm saying that this isn't something a person can do if they don't think that God exists. This is the case even if in fact God does exist.
Now if you disagree with this argument, you must show either that it's invalid (i.e. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises) or that one or more of the premises are false or at least doubtful. Shouting "fallacy" isn't a way to do that!
No, an Appeal to Probability is when you infer that something is true from the fact that it's probably true. I'm not doing that here. I'm simply reporting the plain fact that it seems to me that God doesn't exist. Even if I'm mistaken and God does exist, it still seems to me that he doesn't. I'm not asserting on this basis that he certainly doesn't.
This is a fallacy. It's an ad hominem attack that presumes I am naive because of all things I use a dictionary definition that is ABSOLUTELY consistent with philosophy as well as my assertions. Interesting!
No, Ad Hominem is when you infer that a claim is false because the person who makes it is unreliable. I'm not making any claims about your knowledge and I'm certainly not basing my assessment of your claims upon what I think of you. I'm basing it on what you say! It is naive because it makes the classic debating society error of assuming that there's only one possible way of understanding words and only one possible meaning to give them.
A dictionary, like the one you quote, reports possible uses of a word. These uses may be inconsistent with each other, because not everyone uses words in the same way. The definitions (2) and (4) that you cite, for example, are clearly inconsistent: one of them defines "faith" to mean belief that is not based on proof while the other defines it to mean belief in anything. These are different ways in which the word is used. And of course words like "faith" and "belief" are used in all kinds of ways by different people.
The problem with your position, and the reason why it's naive, is that you're asserting that there's only one possible viewpoint: the view that belief in God, or faith in God, or trust in God, or thinking that God exists, or whatever you want to call these things, are matters of volition, not evidence, and that it's mistaken to try to use reason to support them. Leaving aside the fact that this is an odd thing for someone to say while also citing Anselm's ontological argument as a "demonstration", it is not the only way that people have seen it. As we've already seen, Thomas Aquinas thought that God's existence is demonstrable (though not self-evident, and you might want to study his refutation of the ontological argument in that text).
The First Vatican Council also laid down - as definitive Catholic doctrine - that God's existence can be certainly known through unaided reason:
Vatican 1 said:
Indeed that view is perfectly biblical:
Romans 1:19-21 said:
In that passage, Paul seems to agree with you that putting one's trust in God is within people's control, and he blames those who don't do so. But he insists that belief in God in the first place, i.e. recognition that God exists, is universal. Do you think that? The problem is that you need to think that if you really think that everyone has the choice whether or not to have faith in God; but it's clearly false. Clearly there are people who don't think that God exists at all.
It's hard to be sure precisely what you're asserting, given the fact that we're not using language in the same way. Here are some possible positions one might hold:
(1) It's possible to choose to think that God exists, and consequently to choose to put trust in him.
(2) It's not possible to choose to think that God exists, but everyone does think that God exists. It's possible to choose to have trust in God.
(3) It's not possible to choose to think that God exists, and some people don't think that God exists. It's nevertheless possible for those people to choose to put trust in God.
(4) It's not possible to choose to think that God exists, and some people don't think that God exists. Consequently, it's not possible for those people to choose to put trust in God.
I was interpreting you as holding (1). Is this accurate? Perhaps it isn't, in which case our disagreement may be elsewhere, or perhaps we don't disagree at all, at least on this. The view of the Catholic Church and, I think, St Paul is (2). My view is (4). It seems to me the only view that makes psychological and experiential sense.
It's not a fallacy and not an Appeal to Ridicule (who names these things?), because I wasn't talking about God at all. I was just answering Sommerswerd's question about the nature of belief and the willing suspension thereof, and trying to think of examples of cases where people care very much about something that they know to be fictitious. It wasn't about God at all.
If your criticisms of people's comments are going to hold water you need to pay closer attention to what they're saying, and in particular why they're saying it. To see a reference to Thor and automatically to assume that the person is making a comparison to God is a knee-jerk response. There's probably a Fallacy name for that.
There certainly is evidence for atheism. For that matter, there's evidence for theism, too. The evidence for atheism is, in my opinion, much stronger than the evidence for theism. It's perfectly rational for me to say, on that basis, that I think atheism is probably true; and that's rational even if in fact I'm wrong and atheism is false. There's no fallacy in that. It would only be fallacious if I asserted that atheism is certainly true on the grounds that it's probably true. But I'm not doing that.
As I think others have said, just shouting "Fallacy!" every time you think someone's made a mistake is an unconstructive way of proceeding. For one thing, if you don't take the time to explain why it's a fallacy and precisely how the person commits it, no-one's enlightened. That's not rational debate, it's just point-scoring. For another, merely asserting that someone's committed a fallacy doesn't mean that they actually have. There's a long tradition of people labelling viewpoints that they disagree with "fallacies" so that they can shout "fallacy" whenever anyone asserts them. But maybe it's not a fallacy in the first place. Moore's coining of the "naturalistic fallacy" is arguably an example of this (although I'm inclined to agree with Moore).
And finally, of course, debate teams are hardly the model of rational discourse. The purpose of a debating contest is to win, not to determine the truth. In my experience, the styles and techniques of formal debates are, if anything, designed to obscure the truth, not to reveal it.
Some phenomenon E is evidence for hypothesis H iff the probability of E given the truth of H is higher than the probability of E given the falsity of H.
Now, if God existed, the probability of people reporting experiences of God would be higher than it would if God didn't exist. You can see this if you consider that, in a universe where God doesn't exist, there would be a certain probability of people reporting such experiences because they might occur as a result of naturalistic causes. In a universe where God does exist, that probability would be the same, but there would also be a probability (however small) of such experiences occurring as a result of God's action. So the probability of people reporting such experiences would be higher if God exists than it would be if God doesn't exist.
But people do report such experiences. They are, therefore, evidence for God's existence.
Of course that doesn't mean that they're good evidence. That would only be the case if the probability of their occurring given God's non-existence were exceptionally low, and the probability of their occurring given God's existence were appreciably higher. I don't think this is the case, so I don't think that they constitute good evidence for theism. But they are still evidence.
I don't find this position comprehensible. If you're appealing to the Magdalen fragment and talking about eyewitness testimony, then of course that's evidence! If I believe (say) that Socrates never wore shoes, because Plato says so, then I'm taking Plato's statement to be evidence. Indeed, Plato's statement is evidence. Now I may consider whether it's good evidence or not (is this the kind of thing Plato would invent? Is it corroborated by other evidence, e.g. the writings of Xenophon? etc.). If I decide to put my trust in it and believe Plato, it's because his evidence seems to me to be good. In which case it's not really a decision on my part at all.
If you're claiming that the Gospels are, or may be, eyewitness testimony or something like that, and that this is a reason for believing that what they say is true, then this is precisely an appeal to evidence. I don't understand how you can disparage those who ask for evidence while at the same appeal to it. What do you think "evidence" is?
I am kind of sympathetic to this sort of argument, because I think it's true that religious faith isn't just about cognitive belief. To that extent people like (say, just at random) Richard Dawkins are mistaken when they treat it as if it were. Lewis is right that it's about an existential attitude. It's also correct that attitude can precede cognitive belief. In fact it's an established fact that minority religions typically spread not by evangelisation but by people becoming involved in communities of that religion, and coming to believe in the truth of their claims as a consequence. E.g. you might have friends who belong to a religious group, and you might go along as well for social reasons, and get involved in their various activities, and eventually you might find that you just believe what they do, because you've effectively been living as if you do.
However, I'm not convinced that this is something one can consciously choose to do. Can I, as someone who thinks that God doesn't exist, really live my life trusting in him? Perhaps I could act as if I put my trust in him, but that's not the same thing. Also, even if this is possible (and I'm not even sure what it would really involve), the question then is what kind of "lived experience" one might go through as a result of the experiment that would convince you that God does in fact exist. Here again I'm not sure I can really imagine it.
I might add on a personal note that living in a way that involved putting trust in God didn't work for me. In my misspent youth I believed very fervently in God, in every sense of "belief" here: I thought he existed and I put my trust in him. Eventually I changed my mind about his existence, and it seemed to me that he didn't exist. (This wasn't a choice on my part; it was simply how things then seemed to me to be; although of course acknowledging that things now seemed this way to me might have been a choice.) So living in the light of faith in God didn't convince me of his existence - quite the reverse. And of course once I stopped thinking that he existed at all, I stopped putting any trust in him. And I became, on the whole, quite a bit happier as a result. So if we're going to compare "lived experiences", my own experience would favour lack of belief in God, not belief in him. Does that prove that God doesn't exist? Of course not, before anyone tries to accuse of Appeal to Ignorance. But I can only see the world through my own eyes, as it were. It seems to me that he doesn't exist. There's not much I can do about that, even if I wanted to.
reddishrecue
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,496
God was the being that most people used to hold responsible for their fails and their own lack of progress. People that often found out that they were powerless, helpless or whatever less believed in a god because It is known by them that god was greater and god was better. The primitives that lived in ancient and early eras believed that there was someone better than them.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I don't know. It seems likely at first sight that one doesn't choose to believe ... the things that one believes.
There are some situations when this isn't quite so clear, though. Supposing I believe in God (just supposing,- I'm not saying I do or not), and I begin to have doubts. Isn't it possible that I could choose to continually push these doubts to the back of my mind? And doesn't that count as a choice about what I believe?
Now, one could say that I didn't have a choice whether to push those doubts to the back of my mind at all. But then aren't we into a an infinite recursion thingy? Do we really have to choose to choose? And choose to choose to choose? Or do we just make straight choices right up front?
There are some situations when this isn't quite so clear, though. Supposing I believe in God (just supposing,- I'm not saying I do or not), and I begin to have doubts. Isn't it possible that I could choose to continually push these doubts to the back of my mind? And doesn't that count as a choice about what I believe?
Now, one could say that I didn't have a choice whether to push those doubts to the back of my mind at all. But then aren't we into a an infinite recursion thingy? Do we really have to choose to choose? And choose to choose to choose? Or do we just make straight choices right up front?
Judaism:
Genesis 24:12 said:
Genesis 39:21 said:
Psalm 6:4 said:
Psalm 13:5 said:
Psalm 17:7 said:
Psalm 18:50 said:
Hosea 2:19 said:
etc., etc.
Islam:
Paganism:
Plotinus said:Now we have to consider Love, the God. The existence of such a being is no demand of the ordinary man, merely; it is supported by Theologians (Orphic professors) and, over and over again, by Plato to whom Eros is child of Aphrodite, minister of beautiful children, inciter of human souls towards the supernal beauty or quickener of an already existing impulse thither. All this requires philosophical examination... Soul... could never fall from its sphere; it is closer held to the divine Mind than the very sun could hold the light it gives forth to radiate about it, an outpouring from itself held firmly to it, still. But following upon Kronos—or, if you will, upon Heaven, the father of Kronos—the Soul directs its Act towards him and holds closely to him and in that love brings forth the Eros through whom it continues to look towards him. This Act of the Soul has produced an Hypostasis, a Real-Being; and the mother and this Hypostasis—her offspring, noble Love—gaze together upon Divine Mind... That Love is a Hypostasis (a ‘Person’a Real-Being sprung from a Real-Being—lower than the parent but authentically existent—is beyond doubt... The mental state will be designated as Love, like the Hypostasis, though it is no more than a particular act directed towards a particular object; but it must not be confused with the Absolute Love, the Divine Being.
Hinduism:
Mundaka Upanishad said:
Crackerbox
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 721
Of course we choose to believe in things. We're not leaves set adrift in a river. It's so crazy to think that we cannot choose and so take responsibility for our heart's longings. All love relationships are emotional by default but we apply reason to them. It's a relationship with God, not a rational arrival of the Truth.
Some people deny that God exists, and since they claim that it's improbable that God exists, then why bother believing? They can't see the relational aspect for to them God isn't BEING by default, but just another flawed human construct.
But then they'll use faith for atheism because their heart tells them that God doesn't exist. They insist that they're led solely by evidence based rational ideas, but you can't come to a rational conclusion one way or another this way.
At least the agnostics are honest and admit that they can't KNOW or come to a conclusion of God's existence, so the possibility exists, but like lover who can't accept the Other's love, they cannot engage with them. It's a dispassionate situation.
The only way to get past the conundrum in human experience is to act in faith that love is real. That's what we do in our flawed human relationships of friendship and romance. We believe by faith that the Other loves us, and that we love them. We can't definitely KNOW it. We might think, "Well this is evidence of their Love...." but a sliver of time later we have evidence they don't. We act as if they love us, and risking that and being vulnerable, then the relationship is established.
In Christianity, it's an eternal faith due to the afterlife. Our heart tells us that this life is not all there is. As 1 John says, we don't believe in fear, but through love, for love is at the very heart of God's BEING. Existence and Love are co-joined and emminate from God. Perhaps God's BEING and Love are like transformers and like the secondary winding of that transformer are induced as a consequence of God's BEING. I don't know; I can't know. I can only risk believing by faith because that's the way relationships exist to human beings.
Spoiler :
[That's why it's flawed thinking for a Christian to only believe because of fearing God just as it's flawed thinking by atheists that Christians are compelled to believe because we fear the afterlife. We believe by faith that grace is freely given to us, for we cannot earn our way into Heaven. It's flawed to try to be good enough to gain the afterlife. We admit we're flawed and solely by God's grace can we live eternally. We live in the here and now and hopefully altruistically because that kind of love is what Jesus said was the outward and visible sign of that spiritual grace.]
Taking the strategy of making bullet points for the existence of God based upon rational argument is as disconnected from the human experience in love by making a list of She loves me/ She loves me not. If that's how you decide to enter a relationship, then I feel sorry for your spouse.
Thanks for those links. The first one where Fallacy Man loses the debate perfectly parodies my encounter with the "Fallacy Fallacy"
According to the Rules of Evidence, a piece of evidence is relevant if it makes a fact more or less likely to be true. So I think you are spot on with this analysis.
On the discussion of Love: I tend to look at love as a verb rather than a noun. At least it makes the concept of love clearer to me, when I conceptualize it as the verb -"To Love." In that vein, we do not choose to "feel" the love, but instead to show the love with our "loving" actions. Indeed, we love by action. I love my children by providing them with food, clothing, shelter, baths, bedtime stories, hugs, kisses, piggyback rides, pickups, help with homework, playing games with them, listening to them talk, etc etc etc, on and on... Those abstract, intense "feelings" for them are there of course, but it is almost meaningless without the acts of love.
Similar threads
- Locked
