Evidence that God exists

[Anto Kennedy]

Ahh so some non-descript meditation, I've done that but maybe not the exact way that you don't even remember.

You make the assumption I haven't done this already. I have. I spent 9 years as a Christian, and I eventually realized that I got no answers; the answers I was receiving were from my own brain. I got no new knowledge, and the experiences I put down to "this is God" were just normal creations of the human brain.

What were you're experiences when searching for answers?

I used to believe in a lot of kooky things; levitation, mind reading, invisibility, and even telekinesis. I've spent a lot of time in the metaphysical section of the book store and bought tomes on all of these subjects trying to improve my abilities. I also tried inventing my own voodoo and magical methods and some have had effect although none of those effects were documented. I feel that if one person has done something I should be able to recreate the effects without training. The effects were very subjective so I have had to reject the validity of them because I have learned to "lean not on my own understanding" (Prov 3:5) and have taken a more skeptical view of the world.

If you seek understanding with an ulterior motive, which I'm assuming, based only on what you have described here, is the pursuit of some sort of supernatural power or knowledge to impose your will on the world, then you're not going to get very far.

The first thing they teach you at religious nutjob school is you have to give up you're own will. Ya know, the whole snuffing out desire thing.)

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim (i.e. the theist).

What positive claim would that be? "God exists" or "I have faith in God".

Theism is a faith in God. If you have experienced God, then it is a perfectly scientific deduction to make. If science (perception) has found evidence for something, it does hold it as true. (at least to the one perceiving the phenomena.)

Your entire argument rests on your perception of theists' attitudes rather than theism itself, yet you make a conclusion about theism. This is a fallacy.

By the way, I don't know what a fallacy is, where do I get one?

That's based on your assumption that God is love. Show your evidence!

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

(1 John 4 7-8)

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

(1 John 4 16)

The 20th-century Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler is frequently quoted as defining love from the Jewish point of view as "giving without expecting to take"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Religious_views

God takes nothing and gives all. From God everything arises. God takes nothing back. God is Love.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres."

(1 Cor. 13:4–7)

Ishq, or divine love, is the emphasis of Sufism. Sufis believe that love is a projection of the essence of God to the universe. God desires to recognize beauty, and as if one looks at a mirror to see oneself, God "looks" at itself within the dynamics of nature. Since everything is a reflection of God, the school of Sufism practices to see the beauty inside the apparently ugly. Sufism is often referred to as the religion of love. God in Sufism is referred to in three main terms, which are the Lover, Loved, and Beloved, with the last of these terms being often seen in Sufi poetry. A common viewpoint of Sufism is that through love, humankind can get back to its inherent purity and grace. The saints of Sufism are infamous for being "drunk" due to their love of God; hence, the constant reference to wine in Sufi poetry and music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Religious_views

Karuṇā is compassion and mercy, which reduces the suffering of others. It is complementary to wisdom and is necessary for enlightenment. For Mahāyāna Buddhists, karuṇā is a co-requisite for becoming a bodhisattva.

Adveṣa and mettā are benevolent love. This love is unconditional and requires considerable self-acceptance. This is quite different from ordinary love, which is usually about attachment and sex and which rarely occurs without self-interest. Instead, in Buddhism it refers to detachment and unselfish interest in others' welfare.

The Bodhisattva ideal in Mahayana Buddhism involves the complete renunciation of oneself in order to take on the burden of a suffering world. The strongest motivation one has in order to take the path of the Bodhisattva is the idea of salvation within unselfish, altruistic love for all sentient beings.

Meh.

I could easily say "Everything Richard Dawkins says is love. If you don't believe everything Richard Dawkins says, you don't believe in love".

If you're an adult it should be easy to see pretty much anything. Doesn't make it true.

Your claim that "god is love" is unsubstantiated, and the burden of proof on such a claim is solely on you.

If you don't believe me, see for yourself. God in all religions is the primordial one who lives eternally, from which all life springs, and into which all life returns. The definition of Love is to give without recieving, so God is Love, the Great Infinite Love.

Based on the faulty assumption that love is the absolute moral authority, and that atheists don't believe in love. I'm an atheist and I believe in love, is this some kind of exception to your rule, or just the evidence that disproves it?

I was sorta being impish with that whole immoral thing. I don't believe atheists are immoral, was just having a bit of fun with this sort of reasoning which I was reading over the past few pages.

Well, you say you believe in Love, so that makes you a theist. Welcome to the club!

Why? I'd argue that love is an emotive response mixed with something on an instinctual level, just as most emotions are.

No one cares what you can argue though, only evidence matters. Anyway it appears you're confusing Love with lust or mammalian mating behaviours.

I'd further submit that science and neurology have shown us how our brains affect our emotions quite well, and that we would probably discover love to be something within the brain.

Maybe so, no evidence at the moment though.

I have love, I believe in love, I think love is a great emotion that humans have.

I hope so