God Is Love, How Is It Related To Life And Existence?

[DayLight]

Is a probable explanation of reality scientific or not? (if it was not proven?)  Anyways, it's logical reasoning so I will consider it as something non-religious and more of a scientific nature.

 

 

I hear people say that God is love. This idea exists in a few belief systems, not just in Christianity.  I assume that people think that "God is Love" means that God is loving.  But to me it's like saying that Winter and snow are the same thing.  No, they are not.  Winter is the one which creates the snow.   So LOVE must be responsible for creating things we consider as loving.  But how? 

We know how Winter creates snow.  In fact, Winter is just a label we give to the conditions under which the snow is being created.

So Love must be a label to the conditions under which loving things happen.

If people equate Love with God, that means that Love is equated with some BIG and fundamental and important force.  God is also called Life (even in Christianity).   So then Love and Life are the same force.   How are they the same?

Taking look at the Love side of this system first:

This system creates conditions where people feel empty and feel the need to connect with someone or something. When they connect, they feel happy.  So that motivates them to connect.  

When they connect, they are forced by their internal programming to then protect and promote the well- being of this object or person with whom they have connected.  This internal command to protect the other (after connecting) is like the glue that keeps them together. 

So the system has created these conditions by forcing the person to connect by sending the person a feeling of emptiness unless they connect.  The system also has sent a person pleasurable physical sensations in regards to this connection (kind of like the system's way of saying: you did great, now feel the reward).

When people experience these conditions (above), they call it love.

Now taking look at the Life side of this same system:

When molecules form structures, they create physical elements and out of them more physical things are created.  This is how life is created physically speaking. 

When people connect, they also form structures.  Imagine people are like molecules swimming around.... see them connecting and forming structures...
 

For example,  if you feel empty and you have a desire to become a musician, you seek to connect with someone who can provide that for you.  You will find a person who likes to teach music.  From his end, this person gets fulfillment from teaching music.  So you two connect.  Then there is a person who likes to organize things and manage things. So all these people get together and create a music school.  And this is how everything in life is created, all our systems, schools, businesses, organizations.  All these happen because people don’t like to feel empty and they seek fulfillment.

Also, people seek fulfillment from human connections.  If you have a family, you still long for a partner.  If you have a partner, you still long for children.  If you have a family, partner and children, you long for friends.  And this circle grows and grows.  And the happiest and most fulfilled people are those who are connected to as many things and people as possible.  (Of course I mean successful connections, not people who are forced to be together, but don’t want to be.)

Why do molecules stay together and don’t fall apart?  Because some force is holding them together.  Why do people-molecules stay together? Love binds them together (aka: the internal command to protect the one or the thing you're connected to).

So connecting is about loving people and things and interests.  And connecting is also about forming structures, which creates life. (Social structures, food for the body and food for the soul, entertainment, government, and so on...).  So this is how the conditions which force people to connect and to stay connected are the same force as love and life.

So laws of physics make molecules come together and form things, which creates life.  And Love/Life system is like laws of physics for human interactions with the environment?  (Which makes human molecules to come together and to form structures, which creates a different kind of life.)

[mymistake]

You are talking about many fictional concepts here.  It's like asking how fast is Warp 9.  Then you introduce scientific terms and I'm not sure where the line is between fiction and science.

 

 

The human concept of love comes from the way we survive.  I wouldn't use chemistry or physics to describe sociology or psychology.  Important details would get lost in the mistranslation.

[bornagainathiest]

How about using the scientific method to establish what you are proposing, DayLight?

 

Which would mean excluding anything supernatural and concentrating only on what can be investigated by science.

 

Please give it a try.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Orbit]

Love is a human emotion, so what you are saying is that God is a human emotion. Since the experience of God for believers is emotional, this is correct. At least human emotions exist. Because human emotions exist, believers take that as proof that God exists, mistakenly.

[FarflungWanderer]

Warp Nine is 834c (source: Memory Alpha), which is pretty damn fast.

 

I have nothing to say on the statement OP gave, but I feel like it is lacking. I defer to people who can explain better, but it isn't some mystical system; there is a logic, a method to the madness.

[DayLight]

Ok, so maybe this belongs in the philosophical category.  (But it's not religious or mystical.)  It's just observation and contemplation of life, trying to see why things work the way they do.  It seems to be an orderly system, following logical steps, triggering people to do what needs to be done in order to reach a certain goal.  I went with the assumption that if people are drawn to do something, there is a reason for this.  I was trying to figure out what the reasons were and where it was all going, what the ultimate goal was.

 

And then I tried to draw a parallel between my newly found ideas and pre-existing ideas...they just happened to coincide.

[bornagainathiest]

DayLight,

 

Your private and personal observations/contemplations of life don't qualify as science.

Assuming that you are JQ or that you agree with JQ's thoughts, there seems to be a 'spiritual' dimension to your thinking. 

Therefore, I'd recommend moving over to the Ex-Christian Spirituality sub-forum and asking one of the Mods for permission to post there.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

[mymistake]

Ok, so maybe this belongs in the philosophical category.  (But it's not religious or mystical.)  It's just observation and contemplation of life, trying to see why things work the way they do.  It seems to be an orderly system, following logical steps, triggering people to do what needs to be done in order to reach a certain goal.  I went with the assumption that if people are drawn to do something, there is a reason for this.  I was trying to figure out what the reasons were and where it was all going, what the ultimate goal was.

 

And then I tried to draw a parallel between my newly found ideas and pre-existing ideas...they just happened to coincide.

 

 

I would call it poetry.

[RogueScholar]

Attempting to find purpose and reason to ones existence is a fine thing to do as it requires one to reflect inward and contemplate our "connection" with the universe. Unfortunately, this can go off the rails in the presence of human hubris and absence of intellectual honesty. Is there a "grand purpose" to the universe? I don't know. However, all of our observations of the universe do not indicate any purpose in any human centred sense.

 

It is quite possible that asking "why" is an invalid question because there very well may be no "why." I would posit that asking "how" has been the question that has ultimately led to robust answers.

 

For example, if we really look at how the universe evolves, it looks at though "our" universe will continue to expand and cool until it's mass/energy density essentially approaches zero. In other words, our universe is going to die. This appears to be the consequence of the physical "laws" of this universe. When we look to the stars we see destruction on galactic scales. A while back I posted a picture of an entire galaxy "haemorrhaging" to death. Imagine an entire galaxy of 100 billion stars or so dying. Imagine our known universe of 100 billion galaxies dying.

 

Then, when looking at the "how" in detail, we find that our best theories make predictions. These predictions imply that a so called multiverse of universes popping into existence and dying exists and the laws that govern the physical processes of these universes may very well just be a random thing.

 

I would caution you by saying these predictions are not validated with evidence but our current theories have been so successful at explaining how things work so far, it is at least plausible to consider their predictions without committing.

[Guest Furball]

Love is a human emotion, so what you are saying is that God is a human emotion. Since the experience of God for believers is emotional, this is correct. At least human emotions exist. Because human emotions exist, believers take that as proof that God exists, mistakenly.

Well said orbit. And very true. 

[seven77]

GOD is to LOVE as WINTER is to SNOW?

No.

Snow is not a constant feature of winter in all climates, whereas love (according to the Biblical model) is a constant feature of God.

GOD is to LOVE as ______ is to WINTER?

Cooler climatic conditions would be a possible option here. More accurate, anyway.

From this angle, your analogy is already shot. However, I will substitute my suggestion and your analogy kind of works.

Cooler climatic conditions create the increased possibility of weather events involving crystallized or semi-crystallized water droplets often referred to as snow.

If we change the winter half of the analogy, then the God half really doesn't work either. I would change God to "favorable environment for attraction and attachment".

The revised analogy thus becomes:

FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR ATTRACTION AND ATTACHMENT is to LOVE as COOLER CLIMATIC CONDITIONS are to SNOW.

That is a rational and sensible analogy.

--------------

Now, let the substitution continue.

Winter DOES NOT create snow. Sorry. Cooler climatic conditions and the presence of excess moisture in the atmosphere do. That is the scientific explanation, for what it is worth.

Both cooler climatic conditions AND the presence of excess moisture in the atmosphere are required for snow to be made. In some parts of the world, snow is never made, due to a lack of one or both conditions in the atmosphere.

Since this is the case, the analogy CANNOT be carried over to apply to the next assumption made: Winter refers to the conditions under which snow is created, therefore Love refers to the condition under which loving things happen.

The assumption is also flawed (from a logical standpoint) because the OP has failed to define the variables of second condition. Snow is indeed a variable of the conditions of winter, but loving things are not definitive variables of Love. "Things" is too general a term, "Loving" is simply a repetition of the proposed solution to the second equation.

----------

Already the second set of assumptions and equations has failed on logical grounds. I will persevere because that is what I do when confronted with matters of maths and logical endeavors...

Love ≡God ; Life ≡God ∴ Love = Life

Is this true? Perhaps, but it is a faulty proof because it does not adequately define the left side of the equation. The conditions for the left side of equation are not defined. Under which conditions can Love be defined as God and under which conditions can Life be defined as God?

We are left to assume the conditions under which this variables are true and/or equivalent and that is too much of a leap for logical tastes. The right side of the equation leaves much to be desired, but at least we are given some since of defintion there.

---------

So we are invited to take a look at the love side of the system first. But which is it? Love is present on BOTH sides of the system of equations, rendering your system flawed and unsolvable.

It is like having a variable on both sides and telling the user to solve for x. It won't work. Like this:

y = x + 22

That equation cannot be solved because the terms are ill-defined. You can find solutions, but you must define both sides of the system, like this:

In 10 years, I will be twice as old as my fictional son.
y + 10 = 2x(x+10)
y = 2x(x+10) -10
y = 2x + 20 -10
y = 2x + 10

The system looks like this in the end:
y = 2x + 10
y = x + 28

y - y = (2x-x) + 10 - 22
0 = x - 12
12 = x
x = 12
12 + 22 = 34
12 + 10 = 22, 22 x 2 = 44

x = 12, y = 34

That's a simplified example, but the concept remains: you must provide adequate definition for all systems or else they are unsolvable. Your proposed system would likely be more akin to a complex multi-variable equation requiring calculus...and I'm not going there.

--------

As for what holds molecules together, it is usually a charge. It is not some miraculous force, but rather, magnetism (attraction!) of some sort. Electrons, neutrons, and all of those other chemistry concepts learned long ago in Mrs. Kemp's second period class....

Love is defined as "the internal command to protect the thing that you are connected to here" here. But that is not the proper semantic definition of love; it is an arbitrary definition designed by a single person based upon a subjective condition that may not hold true under all circumstances. Therefore, it cannot be a command as in programming syntax. The values assigned may be arbitrary within programming syntax, but the commands themselves cannot. Each command has a specific function or set of functions. The parameters of the command(s) usage may change, but the underlying functions do not change.

The command to love is not a command, but rather a specific subset of outcomes that result from variable commands under the condition defined above as "favorable environment for attraction and attachment". If the variable commands (undefined, in this case) are not given under the conditions defined, they do not function. If they are ill-defined, they do not function. This is an illogical system on both mathematical and programming grounds. Errors, errors, everywheres....
-----------

The laws of physics do not make molecules do anything. The laws of physics tell us what molecules (particles, cells, etc) do under certain defined conditions. These laws are observable and constant and are not called laws if they aren't both observable and constant. If they are observable but not constant, they are called theories.

It seems as if the OP is taking a more metaphorical look at creation theory and failing badly. Overall, it reminds me of digital physics theories, computer generated universes, the number of wisdom, Kolmogorov complexity, Schmidhuber's works, so on and on down the deep, deep futuristic rabbit hole of who-cares mathematics and "ooh look it's Morgan Freeman narrating a science show!"-ism.

No offense to the OP, though. The thought process is there but the language used to express it is lacking. Of course, I could be wrong and this could be an attempt by the OP to hold onto some sort of God-based creationist belief system. Or a stab at justifying such a system.

Thing is, it is entirely possible to create programs that allow the computation of histories and futures, to make lots of connections. But this is mostly theory, all based on numbers and the human experience is not such a simple thing...yet. Maybe never.

[RogueScholar]

I would add that what holds atoms together is exceptionally complex and the nature of the chemical bond is something that is quite difficult to define and explain. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics (Schrodinger equation) cannot provide "exact" answers for anything beyond a Hydrogen atom or one electron ions. I know this is a bit off topic but I felt it was an important point to bring up.

[DayLight]

DayLight,

 

Your private and personal observations/contemplations of life don't qualify as science.

Assuming that you are JQ or that you agree with JQ's thoughts, there seems to be a 'spiritual' dimension to your thinking. 

Therefore, I'd recommend moving over to the Ex-Christian Spirituality sub-forum and asking one of the Mods for permission to post there.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

Too bad they don't have a philosophical section.  Spiritual people don't go for contemplations of life and observations and stuff like that.  They just want to believe a set of certain principles.  Like religious people, only a different set.  It seems my thinking doesn't fit anywhere.  No surprise.  You either go with mainstream thinking and then "everybody seems to think the same way" or you try to get deeper and hardly anyone understands you.  Pure science is too limited because it relies only on what it can test and that is so little at this point.  So people who don't allow themselves to consider more than just pure science end up not knowing as much.  Just my opinion. 

 

Going away from pure science could lead you astray, true.  So then it's fear of being wrong that keeps people so limited to very little?

[seven77]

I would add that what holds atoms together is exceptionally complex and the nature of the chemical bond is something that is quite difficult to define and explain. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics (Schrodinger equation) cannot provide "exact" answers for anything beyond a Hydrogen atom or one electron ions. I know this is a bit off topic but I felt it was an important point to bring up.

 

It seems as if there is usually a point of diminishing return when it comes to maths, sciences, deep thought, etc where one finds themselves in the quantum corner, so to say. Quantum theory is this sort of mystical topic that is beautiful precisely due to its mystery. Definitions are lacking, gray areas are massive and the math is staggering.

 

Point taken, upvote given. Rock on, deep science thoughts, rock on.

[DayLight]

I see that I didn't do a very good job at expressing what I wanted to say.  So no sense in arguing about it, since it wasn't expressed right.  Thanks for taking time though, up to this point.

[RogueScholar]

 

I would add that what holds atoms together is exceptionally complex and the nature of the chemical bond is something that is quite difficult to define and explain. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics (Schrodinger equation) cannot provide "exact" answers for anything beyond a Hydrogen atom or one electron ions. I know this is a bit off topic but I felt it was an important point to bring up.

 

 

It seems as if there is usually a point of diminishing return when it comes to maths, sciences, deep thought, etc where one finds themselves in the quantum corner, so to say. Quantum theory is this sort of mystical topic that is beautiful precisely due to its mystery. Definitions are lacking, gray areas are massive and the math is staggering.

 

Point taken, upvote given. Rock on, deep science thoughts, rock on.

No worries at all. It's amazing how easy it initially seems when you learn some chemistry only to have it all fall apart when you study things in detail. I will say our approximation methods are remarkably good under certain conditions.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

DayLight,

 

Your private and personal observations/contemplations of life don't qualify as science.

Assuming that you are JQ or that you agree with JQ's thoughts, there seems to be a 'spiritual' dimension to your thinking. 

Therefore, I'd recommend moving over to the Ex-Christian Spirituality sub-forum and asking one of the Mods for permission to post there.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

Too bad they don't have a philosophical section.  Spiritual people don't go for contemplations of life and observations and stuff like that.  They just want to believe a set of certain principles.  Like religious people, only a different set.  It seems my thinking doesn't fit anywhere.  No surprise.  You either go with mainstream thinking and then "everybody seems to think the same way" or you try to get deeper and hardly anyone understands you.  Pure science is too limited because it relies only on what it can test and that is so little at this point.  So people who don't allow themselves to consider more than just pure science end up not knowing as much.  Just my opinion. 

 

Going away from pure science could lead you astray, true.  So then it's fear of being wrong that keeps people so limited to very little?

 

 

Science has certainly gotten us a lot further towards knowing a lot of stuff that makes life on earth better, and often makes it even possible (eg medicine) so I would really hesitate to refer to using science as being "too limited" or people being "so limited to very little".

 

How does "consider[ing] more than just pure science" enable anyone to "know" more than what science can tell us?  You are sounding rather gnostic about this supposed body of knowledge that you reckon exists beyond science.  Knowing and believing are different things.  How do you know there is anything there, and if so, what that might be?

[FarflungWanderer]

I'm afraid she has a point.