Could this prove that God exists? Could this senario prove the existence of God? In a court of law, during a murder trial, and using past pressident from similar cases won in the past from the defense side, I state the following. When a guy finds his wife in bed with another man, and kills them both, it is said to be a "crime of passion". He loved her so much that her betrayal made him go temporarily insane and commit the two murders in some crazed delution of seeking justice for the betrayal. If the ambulance chasing lawyer who argues successfully that this man would not have killed, if it were not for the emotion of love. the emotion of love is responsible for these murders. "If" the defense wins the case and the man goes free based on the definition that God is the human emotion of love expressed between two people, then this now sets a pressident for future cases. (a tougher case would be for the prosicution to argue that he never loved his wife, so love is not the motivating force behind these other emotions that caused the murders.) With the definition of God set by the courts as the human emotion of love, wouldn't this definition end the athiest argument? (after watching Miracle of 34th street I was amused by the ending that the government stated that since the post office recognized the man on trial as Santa Claus, then he exists and is recognized as Santa Claus. Governments and courts set definitions that in turn imply emphatically that they exist.)..
why is god the human emotion of love? why would a court ruling in favour of the defense show that god existed? why would it end the atheist arguement? wouldn't it just show naivety of the courts to make such a precedent as it would "open the flood gates" so to speak? i don't think this would ever happen because it would indeed open the food gates for people to say "oh, i did this because of god". this scenario would never happen, or more precisely such a defence would never win in the court. temporary insanity maybe, but because love is not considered to be something to do with god in court- such a defense or ratio could not be gleaned from the case and therefore god would not factor into the arguement.
quote*****why is god the human emotion of love?******* when people define the subjective term love, and when people define the subjective term God, the massive majority have a very similar definition. (I've been combing these message boards to come to this conclusion) quote******not considered to be something to do with god in court***** Don't they make you put your right hand on the bible and swear to God that you will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? (just kidding on that last comment) this thought was just something that popped into my head. thank you for responding. quote********"oh, i did this because of god". ******* sadly, I hear this used as a defense more than temorary insanity these days.flood gate or not people use this more and more these days.
NO please tell me your not serious.your basing your arguement for god on this?now im not saying that there is or is not a god. first i would need a clearer definition of what this god might be. his nature, his duties and his involvment in existince and his/hers /its motives for the before mentioned. but basing such a fundamental arguement such as this on a tv show is plain silly. LOVE.killing someone in the heat of passion. once you absolve a man of the responsibility of his own actions , this is the begining of the downfall for man kind.why is god becoming such (it always has) a scape goat for evil activities...because it is the only concept of man that can not be pinned down, it is fuzzy, contradictory, and opens a big hole in any functional society.sorry to tired to finish, but no this does not prove anything jmo(just my opinion)
If you define God as love (and only as love), then it is very difficult to prove that God doesn't exist, since we are very sure that love does. The thing is that when people talk about God, they are usually referring to the God of Xianity, Judaism, Islam, or deism. In these cases, God is not described exclusively as love. The definition of God as love is analogous to the definition of God as everything (pantheism). Since everything exists, then you can't prove that God doesn't exist if you define him in this way. The question is, what reason would you have to ascribe the term "God" to everything or to love?
crime of passion n. a defendant's excuse for committing a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of "premeditation." This usually arises in murder or attempted murder cases, when a spouse or sweetheart finds his/her "beloved" having sexual intercourse with another and shoots or stabs one or both of the coupled pair. To make this claim the defendant must have acted immediately upon the rise of passion, without the time for contemplation or allowing for "a cooling of the blood." It is sometimes called the "Law of Texas" since juries in that state are supposedly lenient to cuckolded lovers who wreak their own vengeance. The benefit of eliminating premeditation is to lessen the provable homicide to manslaughter with no death penalty and limited prison terms. An emotionally charged jury may even acquit the impassioned defendant. Source: Law.com Dictionary
Most people (Christians, anyway) would define 'God' as an omniscient being with total control of space and time and define 'love' as the special feeling between two people that blahblahblah. I fail to see the connection.
nasor Most people (Christians, anyway) would define 'God' as an omniscient being with total control of space and time and define 'love' as the special feeling between two people that blahblahblah. I fail to see the connection. nasor what a "lovely" definition. couldn't the concept of love be omniscient and have total control of space and time. couldnt the concept of god be the actual special feeling between two people. the glue that holds the relationship together. they both have a belief and faith that one loves the other one. if god is all omniscient, or omnipotent, or whatever. you cant deny it. so i state the following. if god is love and love cant be denied to exist then i ask you to prove I dont love my children. (define love, and find me in non compliace with that definition, and you will have won the argument.)
The point Nasor is making is that most people don't think only of "love" when they think of the concept of "God", as you suggested. How would you figure? Love is an emotion that people feel for each other. How is that omniscient and omnipotent? If you choose to define God simply and exclusively as love, then yes, that sounds about right. But then why wouldn't you just use the term "love"? Why complicate matters by using a word that traditionally means something else? The rest of your post doesn't make sense. Could you clarify?
Of course if you choose to define 'god' as 'love' then it's relatively easy to prove that god exists, since most people would agree that love exists. On the other hand, I could just as easily define 'god' as 'chair' or 'rock' and make the same sort of argument, since most people would agree that chairs and rocks exist. Many people believe that god is loving, but this does not mean that god IS love. It merely means that love is one of the properties of god.
Hi room, Would it not be fair to define love as just a human function? I believe the brain is responsible for our personality - all our instincts and emotions are nothing more than complex interactions of neurones (IMO and perhaps yours). I think it is utterlly fallacious to say that God (some kind of deity) is love. Even if this deity exhibits this emotion.
BlueUK- If you mean interaction of neurons(spelling on neurones?), then yes, I concur. The feeling that we associate with love, when broken down, is due to the chemical phenethylamine. Phenylethylamine (commonly dubbed the `love molecule') is a natural chemical similar to an amphetamine, it is responsible for our feelings of love. Once again, we are in agreement.
Yup, I agree. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I thought this quote was pertinent ... "The human brain is made of many parts. Each has a specific function: to turn sounds into speech; to process colour; to register fear; to recognize a face or distinguish a fish from a fruit. But this is no static collection of components: each brain is unique, ever-changing and exquisitely sensitive to its environment. Its modules are interdependent and interactive and their functions are not rigidly fixed: sometimes one bit will take over the job of another, or fail, owing to some genetic or environmental hiccup, to work at all. Brain activity is controlled by currents and chemicals and mysterious oscillations; it may even be subject to quantum effects that distort time. The whole is bound together in a dynamic system of systems that does millions of different things in parallel. It is probably so complex that it will never succeed in comprehending itself. Yet it never ceases to try." -Rita Carter, Mapping The Mind
Michael, I agree, I think more true that way than the other. Jealousy is another emotion that comes to mind as well as this definition: Jealousy - suspicion of a wife's purity, one of the strongest passions (Num. 5:14; Prov. 6:34; Cant. 8:6); also an intense interest for another's honour or prosperity (Ps. 79:5; 1 Cor. 10:22; Zech. 1:14). See also: Jealousy Offering DefSceptic, Your mention of phenylethylamine brought this link to mind: Exploring Chocolate.
