[tazarooni89]

Of course you can prove that love exists.
You experience a particular emotion, you call it "love", and you know it exists due to the fact that you experienced it.

You can't use the same method to prove that God exists though, you need to think of something else. Yes, lots of people say that they have "experienced God", but we still have yet to establish that the thing they're experiencing is the same thing that created the universe, and the same thing which is omniscient and omnipotent and whatever else makes up the actual definition of "God".

Love is nothing more than an emotional experience, so you prove it exists by experiencing it. Whereas God is much more than just an experience, so it takes a lot more to show that it exists.

[mmmpie]

Nothing can be "proven" about the subjective experience of love - it's inherently subjective. There does seem to be a consensus that it exists and some of it's broad characteristics however.

The associated neurology and neurochemistry is rather fascinating, and that can be (and has been) investigated scientifically. As much as anything can be proven in science, that can be proven.

[lou_100]

(Original post by darkeneddreams)

1. But I'm asking, how can you believe in love, if you don't believe in "faith"?

I believe in love because when I look at my mother, my father, my sister, my grandparents, my cousins, my dog, my ex boyfriend, my best friend, my close friends... I feel an emotion.

This emotion means I will cry when we fall out. I will feel pain when they die. I will do anything for every single one of them. I will always be there when they need me, and when one of their loved ones has hurt them I will be hurting myself just watching them in pain.

I don't need to prove to anyone love exists. I don't need to prove it exists to myself. It can't be proved in any physical way. It's an emotion, not a physical substance. To me, that is love. I can feel it, and that's more than good enough for me.

[Negaduck]

Yawn. Another Thiest thinking he has some clever way to try and make Athiests feel stupid and inevitably makes himself look incredibly stupid.

I'm not an Athiest, before you say anything.

[McMurdo]

(Original post by darkeneddreams)
Ok, I've thought about this one for some time now, as Love is a emotion I doubt it can simply be proved.

Therefore as a theist, I believe both Love, God, can exist and as I believe in "faith." ie. something existing without material evidence (though the existence of the Universe isn't enough evidence to support the possibility of the existence of God, I wouldn't have a clue what is!)

This is not a debate to whether you believe God is love, that's another thread altogether.

1. But I'm asking, how can you believe in love, if you don't believe in "faith"?

Firstly, emotions - to an extent - can be explained and 'proven'. Secondly, even if they couldn't, how does that relate to a deity in any way whatsoever? Also, you can't "believe in faith". You just have faith. Furthermore, faith is the purposeful suppression of rational thought; it encourages an individual to not ask for evidence or reason, and it is simply (in my opinion) a cowardly way to try and approach the unknown.

[garfeeled]

easily scans of the brain reveal which part of the brain causes love and what chemicals that are released to stimulate it. We can therefore conclude that these chemicals when released cause a state that is called LOVE by the majority of people. This can be further concluded as usage of certain drugs cause the release of these same chemicals and once again produce the same feeling.
secondly i dont understand how someone can use the universe as evidence for god.

[corpuscallosum]

You should look into the neuroscience of the concept of 'love'. I simply think that love in a concept characterised by various forms of attraction and commitment with associated neurotransmitters and hormonal releases forming dopaminergic reward systems as neural pathways with emotional triggers.
One can believe they are in love without knowing what love is. It is often confused with obsession and sexual attraction, for example.

[janet9]

Ugh, a silly douchebag theist trying to (and failing) to outsmart atheists. What's next, are you going to ask if morality comes from the carbon molecule?

Love is biochemical. It's related to neurochemical changes in the brain involving hormones such as dopamine and serotinin. You can look at these hormones down to their atomic structure and see why they work. You can *see* these changes in neuro-physiology under an MRI. Now that you have a chance, look at the science and biochemistry instead of doing what they did thousands of years ago - satisfying one's infantile needs to fall to the feet of, and start worshipping, a creator.

How can you prove that love is made by a God? All you can fall back on is faith, because you want to believe that he's in the hearts and minds of everyone, including non-believers. If such a God was ubiquitious, then he should be easy to prove; he'd have to exist in not only the spiritual realm, but the material world.

And what you claim to 'feel', that whole 'presence of God'-thing which includes love, has got to be an explanation of wishful thinking and intense brain chemistry. If you put your mind to it - and I mean, really put your mind to it, you can achieve the exact same feeling with a can of Fanta if you convice yourself that the can of Fanta has spiritual power that lets you feel love. And so, you pray to the can of Fanta and find that it fails to deliver, but keep in mind that it works in mysterious ways.

[Sheep]

yep dat sounds like something a theist would ask

it might be a good argument if you were trying to argue that you could somehow 'feel' god as a reason for his existance

but otherwise it's pretty irrelevant and my answer would be something like this:

we know love exists because we are all capable of feeling it, can't really say the same for god

I'm pretty sure their are many physical reactions like: this, we also can recognize changes in emotions with brain activity scan thing but that's about it

[Ridingmyego]

Love is a feeling or an emotion, not a belief. The man who doesn't believe in the concept of love is still able to fall in love, whether he believes in it or not. The existence of love is of absolute certainty, whereas the existence of a Creator is yet to be certified, therefore it is unfair to compatibilize love and God.

[Exulted]

(Original post by py0alb)
well, a) you can't technically prove anything exists.
b) unlike god, there is plenty of evidence for the state of emotional arousal colloquially referred to as "love".

The other thing you appear to be confused about is faith.

As humans we are constantly forming opinions on the validity of certain statements. If we hold an opinion with a presupposed level of certainty, we call that opinion a belief. If we can rigorously justify this belief as being based on the evidence, then we can say that belief is valid and rational - this is almost (but not quite) knowledge. If we cannot validly justify this belief, then we say this belief is instead irrational and is based upon faith.

The majority of people in the world harbour a number of stupid and irrational beliefs. Examples are racism, homophobia, the superiority of communism, the belief the the supernatural, the superiority of their favourite football team, religion. Religious faith is an example of such a stupid and irrational superstition. It stems only from a profound ignorance of self.



"Faith" is believing something in contradiction to what good sense would ordinarily tell us. It is the opposite of sanity.

So, to sum up does love exist? And have you felt it?

[TheRustaman]

(Original post by Alexx53)
Any atheist that calls a theist stupid because the existence of a God cannot be proved is an idiot, seeing as God not existing cannot be proved.

But why must someone have faith to believe in love?

Anything that does not exist, cannot be proven to not exist.

You can't provide evidence for a non-existence.

Therefore, that argument is an idiotic one.

[aljolson]

(Original post by darkeneddreams)
Ok, I've thought about this one for some time now, as Love is a emotion I doubt it can simply be proved.

Therefore as a theist, I believe both Love, God, can exist and as I believe in "faith." ie. something existing without material evidence (though the existence of the Universe isn't enough evidence to support the possibility of the existence of God, I wouldn't have a clue what is!)

This is not a debate to whether you believe God is love, that's another thread altogether.

1. But I'm asking, how can you believe in love, if you don't believe in "faith"?

Where do you get this from? You stated love is an emotion, IT IS, and we all feel emotions, so they exist. Faith is not an emotion, we dont all have faith. It may surprise you, but us athiests don't have faith in a creator, but we feel love, but we feel love because of our altruism, not for fear of revenge by God.

[aljolson]

(Original post by janet9)
Ugh, a silly douchebag theist trying to (and failing) to outsmart theists. What's next, are you going to ask if morality comes from the carbon molecule?

Love is biochemical. It's related to neurochemical changes in the brain involving hormones such as dopamine and serotinin. You can look at these hormones down to their atomic structure and see why they work. You can *see* these changes in neuro-physiology under an MRI. Now that you have a chance, look at the science and biochemistry instead of doing what they did thousands of years ago - satisfying one's infantile needs to fall to the feet of, and start worshipping, a creator.

How can you prove that love is made by a God? All you can fall back on is faith, because you want to believe that he's in the hearts and minds of everyone, including non-believers. If such a God was ubiquitious, then he should be easy to prove; he'd have to exist in not only the spiritual realm, but the material world.

And what you claim to 'feel', that whole 'presence of God'-thing which includes love, has got to be an explanation of wishful thinking and intense brain chemistry. If you put your mind to it - and I mean, really put your mind to it, you can achieve the exact same feeling with a can of Fanta if you convice yourself that the can of Fanta has spiritual power that lets you feel love. And so, you pray to the can of Fanta and find that it fails to deliver, but keep in mind that it works in mysterious ways.

I don't believe in Fanta.

[Photox]

Interpreting Love as the emotional attachment to someone with deep significance to one or both of you then it's very easy to find love biologically, and prove that there are physiological reactions to say, seeing that person, having a fictitious injuring of that person explained to them, that can be picked up by differences in blood flow around the brain, and differences in how our brain are operating is the explanation for any emotional state, it can be measured and interpreted. If you want an evolutionary explanation, then at some point in the past creatures developed these reactions when in each other company, they stayed together more because of them, their offspring were more likely to survive thanks to extra protection and food thanks to multiple parents, and so these reactions were beneficial and proliferated through the gene pool. This can be further proven as we appear not to be the only creature that can love, Elephants cry when members of there family die, Mother won't leave dead babies sides, even if they are still born, Albatrosses mate for life, as well as many other species in nature, this can be interpreted as love. All this proves is that 'love' between parents was a useful biological trick which helped ensure the production of safe and healthy offspring. It's not nearly as complicated to explain biologically as it is to experience psychologically.

[Photox]

(Original post by TheRustaman)
Anything that does not exist, cannot be proven to not exist.

You can't provide evidence for a non-existence.

Therefore, that argument is an idiotic one.

Ahh, but you can prove non-existence.

The prove for non-existence is zero evidence for existence, by going to prove one argument of a given hypothesis on a theorem with only two possible outcomes (existence or non-existence), and finding no evidence for that argument, must always conclude with the opposite of the argument you set out to prove being correct.

In context : theists set out to prove that god exists, and found no evidence, but refuse to draw the conclusion of non-existence. This is the only difference between theists and atheists (agnosticism is not a valid claim, if you do not believe in God, your an atheist, and if your agnostic, you don't belief in God, welcome to controversy wimpy fence-sitters everywhere). Theists continue to cling to a hypothesis that's been proven wrong, atheists are a step on in that they have drawn this conclusion and are forming other hypothesis to try.

But also on your point, philosophically, something that can be asserted without prove, can be dismissed without prove also, the scientific argument above is the foundation for this claim.

[TheRustaman]

(Original post by Photox)
Ahh, but you can prove non-existence.

The prove for non-existence is zero evidence for existence, by going to prove one argument of a given hypothesis on a theorem with only two possible outcomes (existence or non-existence), and finding no evidence for that argument, must always conclude with the opposite of the argument you set out to prove being correct.

What I'm saying is that anything that doesn't exist, cannot be proven to not exist.
Therefore, we can bring anything we want into existence, without it being able to be refuted.

E.g. a flying pink unicorn that is invisible to us.

This is absurd, yet the principles on what the unicorn exists is exactly the same as that of God.

We cannot disprove the unicorn, and we cannot disprove God.

So we conclude from this that, as non-existence is impossible to prove, the theists cannot say "Prove Gods non-existence".

The burden of proof is on the theists, who claim to have this knowledge, rather than on the atheists, who do not hold this knowledge.
They must convince us of this knowledge.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by MrHayden)
Blimey, this is unusual... I agree with you completely! That's never happened before!

Lol

Maybe you need more sleep! Or, maybe you are just dreaming...

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
Hi

The love you experience when eating food you enjoy is not the same as the love you experience towards another person, the labeling of both as love is simply down to humans limited language and communication skills.

Hello Darth Stewie,

True

For instance chocolate which is something we all like (a bit too much in my case )

Tell me about it! Me too

contains serotonin, tryptophan, phenylethylamine and tyramine all of which are "feel good" chemicals in small doses and enhance our mood, there is also a second reason to do with human nature and enjoying things which are fundamentally bad for us.

The love you feel when you are with your husband is more complicated than simply having a few chemicals pumped into your system, at least if you wanted to completely explain it however it is different to the love you feel when eating something enjoyable and unfortunately humans don't have the every day language skills to communicate very well when addressing an issue in this depth.

But back to the main point, if i said for instance "i love playing rugby" it would mean that the act of playing rugby causes me to have experience an neruo chemical response that can be described as the love emotion. Although in language i completely agree with you and we frequently use love in reference to an action however it is still fundamentally an emotion and rather than love being an action itself it is a result of a action that pleases us whether that be watching a sports match, eating chocolate or siting on a comfy sofa (in the ideal case all three).

Fair enough, love can often be the emotional result of an action, though there are loving actions and unloving actions, and one can love somebody even if they are the reciprocate of an unloving action, right? So, love is not just a result of an action that pleases us. Love is an action in itself too, if the action is loving.

However, it is true that loving actions often beget emotions of love, whereas unloving actions often bring about feelings of hatred in people who are the reciprocates of the unloving actions. It is a curious thought if unloving actions also help bring about more feelings of hate in the mind of the person doing the unloving actions?

For example, do bullies hate their victims because they are acting without love to them? Does unloving actions that bullies do strengthen their hatred?

Peace and God bless you

[Christianlady]

(Original post by janet9)
Ugh, a silly douchebag theist trying to (and failing) to outsmart atheists. What's next, are you going to ask if morality comes from the carbon molecule?

Love is biochemical. It's related to neurochemical changes in the brain involving hormones such as dopamine and serotinin. You can look at these hormones down to their atomic structure and see why they work. You can *see* these changes in neuro-physiology under an MRI. Now that you have a chance, look at the science and biochemistry instead of doing what they did thousands of years ago - satisfying one's infantile needs to fall to the feet of, and start worshipping, a creator.

How can you prove that love is made by a God? All you can fall back on is faith, because you want to believe that he's in the hearts and minds of everyone, including non-believers. If such a God was ubiquitious, then he should be easy to prove; he'd have to exist in not only the spiritual realm, but the material world.

And what you claim to 'feel', that whole 'presence of God'-thing which includes love, has got to be an explanation of wishful thinking and intense brain chemistry. If you put your mind to it - and I mean, really put your mind to it, you can achieve the exact same feeling with a can of Fanta if you convice yourself that the can of Fanta has spiritual power that lets you feel love. And so, you pray to the can of Fanta and find that it fails to deliver, but keep in mind that it works in mysterious ways.

There is no reason to be rude.

Love is also an action, which is why we use it as a verb... "I love my hubby" for example, shows action.

One can do loving actions even if one does not feel them. Actually, it is possible to start loving someone (as in feeling love) if you act in love towards them.

If you act in hatred towards them, it is common sense that you will feel more hatred against them than love. Loving actions help love grow. Hateful actions help hatred grow.

As for proving God made the action, as well as feeling, of love, I don't think that is the point of the thread. It seems the point of the thread was to prove that love does, in fact, exist.

Since I have personally experienced it, I do indeed believe love exists, and is more than just a feeling or a biochemical reaction in the brain to stimuli.

Love is also an action, and one can see it everyday when one sees people loving each other, not just in words, but in action.