1. Comment #81368 by ClemIsMe on October 24, 2007 at 4:20 pm

I generally wing it.

"Love is an emotion. Is God an emotion? Because if that is your argument, that God is a biochemical reaction in the brain based on thousands of succesful generations of evolutionary necessity, babyman, I am right there with ya. God is a reaction to your own mortality and ignorance, coupled with your feral urge to do as little as possible to get answers to hard questions. I would not dispute that. But if you are suggesting that God is a thing somewhere apart from your brain that does things and accomplishes goals and such, then you are implying Love is that sort of thing as well, and we have the same problem we started with: you make insane claims you can't back up."

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

2. Comment #81370 by Tanglewood on October 24, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Rebuttal: I don't need to prove that I experience subjective states of mind. You are claiming that God exists independently of our beliefs concerning him. In other words, that He exists in objective reality and that you stand in relation to Him such that His existence is itself the reason for your belief. This is a claim that demands empirical corroboration. If I were asking you to prove that you believed in God, your analogy would hold water, because I would be asking you to present proof of your state of mind. However, I am not asking you to prove that. I am asking you to back up your claim that God exists in the same way you or I exist. In much the same way that you would surely demand proof if I claimed that Superman existed, I have a right to expect proof from you when you claim God exists.

Other Comments by Tanglewood

3. Comment #81385 by Linda on October 24, 2007 at 4:38 pm

There is physical proof of love and it is observable and experiential through the senses. Looking on, hearing the voice of, touching, scent and taste of the beloved and those we love fraternally, our family and friends induces feelings of emotional well-being and happiness in us and them. Our loving relationships with others are sustained and enhanced through interactive, reciprocal acts of kindness, protection, loyalty and nurture.

Other Comments by Linda

4. Comment #81389 by Mango on October 24, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Rebuttal: "Proving an emotion and proving the existence of an intellectual being are two very different tasks. No, I can't prove to you that I love my wife, but I can prove that she exists. Nevertheless, I expect a reasonable person to believe me when I say I love my wife. Likewise, I believe you when you assert that you love God, but I refuse to believe that God exists on only your word. I'm afraid you have a very real love for a very imaginary being."

Other Comments by Mango

5. Comment #81394 by Augustus Osari on October 24, 2007 at 4:48 pm

I'd warn strongly against any "the existence of my emotions and the existence of God are different" argument. It implies the belief in a soul, which is clearly irrational.

Other Comments by Augustus Osari

6. Comment #81400 by Damien White on October 24, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I can and will expect proof of god, because my belief in the existence of love does not require me to adhere to certain modes of behaviour which are counter-intuitive.
For example, love does not require me to sit in a certain building on Sundays. Love does not dictate what I can and can't eat. Love does not tell me with whom I can choose to co-habit. Love does not ask me to send money to a man on television.
'God' does all of these things, so when 'he/she/it' does, I ask for proof of god's existence before I obey. That's only reasonable. So yes, I do expect proof of gods existence before I follow 'his' rules, because otherwise I might suspect that some wierd control freak was simply making them up to please himself, then invoking the almighty for added authority.

Other Comments by Damien White

7. Comment #81404 by aquilacane on October 24, 2007 at 5:06 pm

If love is a feeling and only a feeling, then they are right, I cannot prove I love. If, in the future, we discover that those people who claim to be in love demonstrate a unique chemical trace or brain pattern that is unique to the claimants of love, then perhaps I will be able, if it turns out that I actually am in love.

Other Comments by aquilacane

8. Comment #81428 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 5:50 pm

You can't prove that you hate someone either.

Other Comments by maton100

9. Comment #81430 by phasmagigas on October 24, 2007 at 5:55 pm

a slightly silly rebuttal but looks like we are getting a good selection of rebuttals for different people and on different occasions! I have already started picking my favourite bits, seems we need soundbites too.

if i hit your thumb with a hammer you will shout out in pain, I have proved (by most peoples standards) that your brain has experienced a sensation and by your logic you should also be able to show me evidence for god.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

10. Comment #81489 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 8:27 pm

This question originates in William James' "The Will To Believe."

You can CERTAINLY PROVE that SOMEONE loves YOU. (which is the actual problem, not that YOU love someone, since everyone knows when they love someone... since if you don't know if you love someone, then you don't).

William James gave the speech "The Will To Believe" as a response to William Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief", wherein it was argued that: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone to believe ANYTHING without sufficient evidence."

James' response (the pragmatist that he was) was to find examples of things we WANT to believe, but for which we have no evidence, but which BECOME TRUE AFTER we start believing in them, rather than being true a priori.

Love is his strongest example. And if fails prima facie.

I know my girlfriend loves me because she gives me lots and lots of hints. (EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!!)

If I was a philosophical skeptic, I would ask myself "Yeah, but how do I REALLY know she loves me, since she could just be ACTING, and the phenomenological state of ACTING would appear to me the same as the TRUE state."

But I'm not a skeptic, and anyway, the skeptic about love is just being silly, for reasons elucidated by NUMEROUS philosophers with regard to the Brain In A Vat scenario (see: Hilary Putnam, G.E. Moore, etc).

So there.

I'm going to answer every single one of these debate points with my awesome Philosopher Powers. :)

... I have been annoyed and disappointed by public atheists' rebuttals to these questions in the past, because philosophers answered all of them LONG ago.

Other Comments by Spinoza

11. Comment #81495 by tommyboy on October 24, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Love is an empirical measurement of personal value and sacrifice.

It is our mortality not our faith or attachment to the supernatural that allow us access to the abstract concepts of value and meaning. In our finite existence we can measure the value of those meaningful to us. Love is the expression of a value assessment.

I can clearly articulate the meaning that my wife adds to my existence and measure this value against other life elements; career, children, family, friends and personal-time.

This measurement does not diminish the meaning of love as this value should not be mystical or be left to the realm of fate or faith. Love is real and tangible and essential.

Other Comments by tommyboy

12. Comment #81510 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Love is an empirical measurement of personal value and sacrifice.

Be careful not to define yourself into a hole.

All the theist has to do here is deny your definition of love and you're sunk.

Stick to logical arguments that avoid strict definitions of terms, especially empirically.

Other Comments by Spinoza

13. Comment #81514 by Rob3fm on October 24, 2007 at 9:18 pm

This is one of the better points that theists make, actually. It isn't convincing as an argument for God's existence, but at least it gives an atheist a better understanding of what it's like to believe something that's "in one's heart" that just can't be proved to someone else. Ultimately, there are certain things we just have to trust about each other--to a degree.

In order to say we believe or don't believe in God, we must first define what God is, and it's the same with love. In order to tell someone I love him or her, we must agree on what love means. Maybe someday we will agree on the brain activity that correlates to the feelings we call love, but the feeling itself is something we must assume is the same, much like our assumptions about color looking the same to two different people. Based on the similarities in human construction and behavior, it's a reasonable assumption to make that we can trust each other about what love is. If we agree on what the feeling of love is, and the recognizable patterns of behavior are there, then it's a reasonable assumption. If my wife believes that I love her, that's not blind faith based solely on a feeling. Contrary evidence could sway her belief in my love for her. Certainly a cunning person could convince someone else of his or her (false) love for another with appropriate behavior. Or someone could tell someone he or she loves another unconvincingly. My point is, people's feelings could be wrong in some situations, but in most cases the recognizable patterns of behavior are convincing enough to be safely "believed."

Other Comments by Rob3fm

14. Comment #81619 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:21 am

Though I can't PROVE that I love someone or not, I can give evidence to such an end which my lover will judge by what she believes loving actions to be.

To continue this Idea I'll quote DCTalk, "Love is a verb". If god gives me nothing to make a decision upon then it is just as likely that he hates me and wishes me harm. The natural world would seem to argue for such an answer.

Other Comments by Conrad

15. Comment #81653 by bitbutter on October 25, 2007 at 2:13 am

As has been mentioned, it doesn't make sense to ask me to prove to myself that I'm experiencing a state of mind that I call love!

I've seen this argument expressed more often in something like this form: "Not all that we say we know is rooted in evidence. For instance how can you know that someone else loves you?"

But as Richard Dawkins and others have pointed out, if you're mentally healthy and you're fairly certain that someone else loves you, that certainty is completely based on an accumulation of evidence (evidences of the trustworthiness of the person, what the person has said to you, their body language, etc).

Some people really do believe that someone else loves them despite their being no real evidence for that belief but we identify this as a form of mental illness.

Other Comments by bitbutter

16. Comment #81654 by GBG on October 25, 2007 at 2:15 am

I can't prove i love someone because "love" exists only in my brain. Is god unprovable for the same reason?

Other Comments by GBG

17. Comment #81731 by JerryD385 on October 25, 2007 at 5:31 am

Jesus loves you.

He just can't prove it.

Other Comments by JerryD385

18. Comment #81734 by Bertybob on October 25, 2007 at 5:41 am

"Love does not ask me to send money to a man on Television"

LOL! ;o)



Other Comments by Bertybob

19. Comment #81736 by Buddha on October 25, 2007 at 5:45 am

A quick google came up with this potted summary on the biochemical basis of "love":http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm

Even if not 100% correct it shows that there are many avenues of scientific endeavour on the subject

Other Comments by Buddha

20. Comment #81737 by irate_atheist on October 25, 2007 at 5:45 am

Which particular God?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

21. Comment #81753 by FKereki on October 25, 2007 at 6:08 am

At the very least, I do love me, and I have a lifetime of pampering myself to prove it!

Other Comments by FKereki

22. Comment #81835 by avi972 on October 25, 2007 at 9:07 am

I actually thought about this while listening to Richard Dawkings' debate with John Lennox.

If a person off the street tells you she loves you, you don't believe her. You think she's crazy. Or that she wan't money.

If someone you vaguely know tells you that, you may believe her, but you will have a lot of questions to ask. When/How did this happen etc.

If your Wife/Girlfriend/Family member tells you this you believe them.("you have faith that they are telling the truth")

Other Comments by avi972

23. Comment #81881 by funkyderek on October 25, 2007 at 10:40 am

Is there in principle a test that could prove the existence of love?
Is there in principle a test that could prove the existence of God?

If the answer to these questions is different then the comparison is not valid.
If the answer to the two questions is the same, then:
If the answer is no, we can never know anything useful about love or about God.
If the answer is yes, then we can set about devising a practical test.

Personally I think that the answer to both questions is yes, as long as both subjects are clearly defined.

Other Comments by funkyderek

24. Comment #81896 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:20 am

"You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God"

I don't expect a proof for God, but one can collect evidence of love through observation of behavior.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

25. Comment #81959 by Vadjong on October 25, 2007 at 12:55 pm

You can't prove that you love someone YET[?], so don't expect proof of God EVER.

Other Comments by Vadjong

26. Comment #82018 by Shocking Blue on October 25, 2007 at 2:40 pm

One of those irrational arguments that twisted-minded god-believers come out with. Of course we expect some sort of "proof" or "signal" that people we expect to love us, do love us. And we do the same thing back. And we also know exactly, when such signals are not or no longer there. Would I believe that someone loves me if there's not slightest hint that this is in fact the case?

Other Comments by Shocking Blue

27. Comment #82051 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:38 pm

"Use EEG experiements or design standardized models of human behaviour to determine significant evidence of love. Your statement is therefore false."

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

28. Comment #82091 by holyfather on October 25, 2007 at 4:54 pm

This statement is comparable to saying "I have trouble describing the way an apple tastes, so don't expect me to provide proof for why I am part of a group that has sentenced countless numbers of people to death over the last few thousand years.. and you're going to burn in hell forever because you are not a part of this group."




Other Comments by holyfather

29. Comment #82359 by Tinky Winky on October 26, 2007 at 6:26 am

Most people who love (excluding religious believers) love someone who physically exists, or has existed. If you have a genuine love for God, Jesus, Allah or some other fictional deity, don't twist the biochemically induced emotion of love into justification for your beliefs or even an argument for their existence, just visit a doctor.




Other Comments by Tinky Winky

30. Comment #82436 by Aaron on October 26, 2007 at 10:29 am

This is a bit of a strawman because no atheist needs proof of god(s)' existence...only evidence. The same goes for love. As an aside, someone demanding proof that their spouse loved them would be an act of insecurity and a demonstration of an inability to have a healthy relationship.

If the argument is reframed in the context of evidence, instead of proof, it can continue logically.

Evidence of someone's love for another is easily seen by the way the person in love interacts with the other (whether the other has reciprocating feelings or not).

As a secondary argument one could ask the opponent if there is evidence that a random stranger pointed out in an audience is in love with him or her. If the opponent says no and upon being asked why not says he or she doesn't even know the person in the audience he or she has proven there are prerequisites for love that can be used as evidence of its existence (familiarity with the person being one of them) and has proven the point for you.

Other Comments by Aaron

31. Comment #82687 by jaf on October 27, 2007 at 8:37 am

Has no-one here ever heard of CAT/MRI scanning?
Love can not only be detected, it can be measured.

Other Comments by jaf

32. Comment #82696 by Bonzai on October 27, 2007 at 8:58 am

Sorry jaf, I think you are missing the point.

You may be able to "measure" love but most people don't need to subject their romantic partners to a brain scan in order to be convinced that they are loved. It would be monstrous to demand your partner to undergo MRI scan in order to gather "empirical evidence" that he/she loves you. That would certainly kill any relationship. The theists want to argue that it therefore proves even atheists in love operate on "faith".

Now this argument is of course hopelessly stupid as many have explained.

However, I think the kind of reductionist answers routinely tossed out on this site by some people not only miss the point, they are in general horrible and tend to confirm the worst stereotype of atheists as Philistines. At a certain level you can "explain" music as just vibrations of air which trigger certain brain responses, but Music lovers are not likely to find that level of "explanation" very useful or interesting.

Other Comments by Bonzai

33. Comment #82929 by monkeytrumpet on October 28, 2007 at 9:40 am

What's love got to do with it?

Other Comments by monkeytrumpet

34. Comment #83056 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Love is proved all the time, else there wouldn't be any marriages or family reunions. Now, your other half may be fooled but you have proved to them that you loved them or else they wouldn't have married you.

Other Comments by Corky

35. Comment #83086 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 28, 2007 at 10:39 pm

"Can you prove what color I am thinking about? No?
See, GOD!

Stupid atheist."

I don't accept the simile; one has nothing to do with the other, it is just an emotional trick that one should not be drawn into, one that ties love into something invisible, and does it very badly.

To my thinking, the best tack would be keep asking them to explain how the two are connected as a proof, and don't get tricked into looking like you don't know what love or God is, because I bet that's where this is headed.

The evidence of love for each other is everywhere. Let's look at the evidence of God in the universe: unimaginably vast cold empty space, confusion, horrible disease, disaster, cruelty, poverty, noting that religious people fare no better with these fates than anyone else, and then of course there's the prostate.

There are huge clouds of methane hundreds of light years across just floating out there for no "reason" (and all we have is reason, so don't say God's reasons are inscrutable, because you pretend to know them) unless, of course, the cloud of methane is a celestial fart. There is more than enough evidence that a God isn't there.



Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

36. Comment #83090 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 28, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Got a pet? Why do you think it adores/loves/worships you? If they won't answer that, press them hard until they do, its obvious, and the list of signs is fairly short.

They run to you when you call, and often when you don't.
They purr and rub themselves against you.
Others report they howl or miao inconsolably when you are away.
They always want to be were you are.
They try to jump on you, and lick you, all the time.

It's easier than getting bogged down in the nebulous quagmire of human "love".

The indicators are basically the same with people, including the licking and jumping, just marginally more sophisticated:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

37. Comment #83097 by Bonzai on October 29, 2007 at 12:12 am

How does God know whether Christians love him?

He demands faith from his worshipers but never reciprocates. He is forever suspicious and jealous. He devises all kind of cruel and unreasonable "tests" to ascertain their faithfulness, think about poor Job and crazy Abe (What kind of loving relationship is that?)

Unlike Christians, their God appears to be a rationalist. He needs empirical evidence to be convinced of his acolytes' loyalty instead of just taking their professed faith on faith.

I am surprised that Christians don't use this to prove God's existence. They can argue that a bunch of faith heads couldn't have made up an empiricist God who takes nothing on faith without conducting experiments.

God wants proof just like us atheists! Maybe Christians should ask Him why he has no faith in their prayers.


P.S Since God is supposed to be able to read our thoughts why does God need to conduct "tests" in the first place?

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #83373 by lpetrich on October 29, 2007 at 8:55 pm

I'd say:

What are the standards of proof here?

If it is possible to reject solipsism of the moment, it is possible to conclude that someone loves you.

Solipsism of the moment is the theory that there is nothing but your consciousness (solipsism), and that you did not have a history.

Other Comments by lpetrich

39. Comment #84376 by anonquick on November 2, 2007 at 12:02 am

The Gist: Turn it around: You believe in God because you LOVE him, and THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: LOVE YODA.

The basic idea is attachment theory projected onto an imaginary friend. I have a brain that has evolved to attach to 'attachment figures' - as a baby on to mother, onto my father, later onto my lover. So just like you have have visual experiences without seeing real things (dreams, random noise in your neural system), you can attach onto something that is not there.

Do a thought experiment with the audience. Think about a fictional character like Yoda from Star Wars. Now get them to PROJECT LOVE at Yoda. Really get them going. Then ask them how they feel etc.

Then tell them Jesus is like Yoda.



This pushes the a core tenet: God is man-made, just like Yoda.

Other Comments by anonquick

40. Comment #84388 by Russell Blackford on November 2, 2007 at 12:50 am

I have strong evidence that various people love me in their different ways. The people I have in mind have acted in ways that are consistent with this, and difficult to explain otherwise, for a long time now. Similarly, they have strong evidence that I love them.

As it happens, in the absence of a telepathic sense, there is some limit to how strong our evidence of other people's emotions can be. Indeed, I can think of people whom I'm sure love me ... but I'd like to know more about precisely how they feel. Some people may well experience something like that with me, though I'm as open with them as I can be. All this is normal and familiar.

But nothing like that applies to God. It's not that I see all this behaviour from Him and am puzzled as to exactly how He feels about me. I don't see Him at all. Where the heck is he?

There is simply no sensible analogy here.

Perhaps no precise analogy is intended, and the argument is merely one from radical epistemological scepticism. If so, fine. I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat. I can't prove there is no malevolent demon constantly deceiving me. Of course there's a far-fetched sense in which I can't prove anything at all. In that sense, I can prove neither the existence nor the non-existence of God ... but nor can I prove that I live in Melbourne or that this coming Tuesday is Melbourne Cup Day. Everything is reduced to the same level of radical doubt.

But there's also a perfectly familiar and normal sense in which I have evidence that there is a computer in the room as I type ... but no evidence of a hippopotamus in the room.

Once we step away from crazy forms of scepticism, we do indeed have impressive evidence of some things (computer in room (check!); human beings evolved from earlier forms of life (check!); my favourite people love me (check!); etc.) and no evidence at all of others (hippopotamus in room (nope!); deity in room (nope!); Earth was created 6000 years ago (nope!); etc.). This is the relevant sense of "evidence" and "proof", not something that comes from the arguments of radical epistemological sceptics.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

41. Comment #85483 by Garnok on November 6, 2007 at 2:13 am

I could probably offer many examples or methods to show that I love one particular person or another in the manner appropriate to my relationship with them but, regardless of anything I say or do, all you will most likely respond with is that I could easily fake all of it if I wanted. Admittedly, that is true. However, because of this I must assume that if there is no difference between proving love and proving your god exists, otherwise why would you make this arguement, then you might just be faking god.

Other Comments by Garnok

42. Comment #85988 by matrix44474 on November 7, 2007 at 5:21 pm

You can be asking two things here, (1) To prove that the physical things (hormones etc.) that cause the feeling/emotion of love are actually present, or (2) To prove that a person is actually FEELING the emotion caused by those physical things.

Proving to MYSELF that I'm feeling what I've defined as love is simply done by FEELING love, because a feeling is not a physical entity, and other than the physical things (brain chemicals etc) that cause the feeling, the only property a feeling has is the feeling itself. If one assumes quite reasonably that feeling an emotion proves that the physical emotion-causers are present, then feeling something proves just that -that the physical state of mind and chemicals needed to cause the feeling/emotion are present. And we can prove that those physical things are present as of now (via MRI and/or other methods), and will probably know even more in the future.

Proving to SOMEONE ELSE that you feel love for them is done through behavioral evidence, which may be faked, but nothing can ever be 100% certain. Maybe in the future we will develop some amazing technique to make someone feel exactly what someone else is feeling. For now evidence can just be gathered. We may also believe that it would be very improbable for any given person to be faking love, and also able to remain convincing for a long period of time, so we may become even more convinced that this person is feeling love. And like mentioned before, physically we can measure the love-causing brain activity.

In any case, proving that love is felt is not the same as proving God exists. The equivalent analogy would be that proving someone FEELS love is similar to proving that someone FEELS god. Proving God is to prove that God actually physically exists, a whole separate issue, and the burden of proof is on the believers. If someone feels what they have defined as "god" then fine, but we are not obliged to believe anything beyond the obvious, which is that the person is feeling what they have defined as god, just as we can believe a person is feeling what they have defined as love. We are then just to believe that physically the brain is in a certain state to produce these feelings. It does not prove that love is a construct outside the human brain, just as it does not prove God exists physically.

Other Comments by matrix44474

43. Comment #85992 by robonstormymonday on November 7, 2007 at 6:12 pm

What is the amplified altruism and joy that one has when they gaze into the eyes of their newborn child for the first time? Surely anyone that has had the experience can attest to having had deep feelings of "love" for their newborn. You CAN prove that you love someone or something. Having said that what does proving I love someone have to do with evidence for god. I shouldn't expect evidence for god? Seems to me like a lazy argument.

Other Comments by robonstormymonday

44. Comment #87436 by Richard Morgan on November 12, 2007 at 5:52 am

Another asinine subject. Unless you're saying that God and my ex-wife are on the same level? You are? OK - I can go for that.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

45. Comment #90343 by redpiller on November 24, 2007 at 11:49 am

I think the question makes reference to "how can we disprove things that we cannot see, feel, or otherwise directly perceive?" For this reason, I think the answer of "chemicals in the brain can be measured" is not a satisfying one. A better answer, for me, involves the use of modus tollens: A implies B, not B, therefore not A.

There are things we cannot perceive directly that do, however, have consequences which we can perceive. If I'm wondering if it's windy outside, I can look out my window. I cannot see the movement of air, but if it were windy, there would be branches swaying, for example. The fact that they are still, lets me conclude that it is a calm day, without needing to step outside.

The same can be said about love. If a man claims to love his wife, there are certain things we would expect to see: caring, affection, support, interest in well-being, etc. If these things are clearly missing, if a man shows none of these things for his wife, it would be rational to say it's likely he does not love her. Notice that we didn't need direct perception of his love, only the absence of its natural consequences.

Other Comments by redpiller

46. Comment #90347 by Corylus on November 24, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Other people have answered this question far better than I can (Spinoza, Russell and others) It is all about evidence. So I won't expand on this.

However, I do feel the need to make a secondary point here.

I am always astonished at the sheer gall and impertinence of people asking and relying upon this question in debates.

I wouldn't quiz someone about the nature of their most personal relationships unless they have indicated a desire to talk about their private life and most certainly not in a public forum. This demonstrates a complete lack of delicacy and respect for others. I am sorry, but this question is bloody rude.

Apparently, atheists are rude and crass because they do not show proper respect for the religious beliefs of others. What about a bit of theistic respect for another person's privacy??

NB. The asking of this question is also deeply ironic, because it presumes "faith" and certainty in an area of life in which many people are frequently and cruelly deceived.

E.g. "So Rev. Haggard, can you prove you love your wife??"

Hmpff! Stomps off in a huff.

Other Comments by Corylus

47. Comment #90358 by Dr Benway on November 24, 2007 at 2:51 pm

What's love got to do with it?
What's God but a second hand emotion?
What's love got to do with it?
Who needs a hearsay of hearsay quotin'?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

48. Comment #90634 by jbblack on November 25, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Proving that I love someone and proving the existence of God are about as similar as apples and snozzberries:

Proving that I love someone is only proving something that is inside my mind, an emotional response that sums up how much I value another.

Are you trying to say that if God exists, then like my love of someone, it is all in someone's head? There is a ton of difference between a subjective experience, like an emotion, and an objective reality.

No, there is no way of proving my love for someone else. Just as there is no evidence for your god. But the difference is that I admit my love of another is a product of my mind and my brain, whereas you refuse to admit that your god is the product of yours.

Other Comments by jbblack

49. Comment #99483 by Scotty on December 16, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Well if you want to make that analogy -

Love:Cupid::Feeling a sense of awe in the universe: God

We all have this emotion that conveys the awe of the universe. This emotion does not prove god in any more of the sense that the emotion of love proves cupid.

To say 'you can't feel/see/hear love' is irrelevant - I don't claim that love is a material existence. Love is an emotion, an abstract idea that exists solely in our own brains and affects the world only in the way it affects our behavior. If you think god is just an emotion, or abstract idea, then I would agree that this thing exists in the sense that it affects human behavior as love does. If you think that god is some sky-daddy sitting on a throne ready to cast unbelieving victims into hell, then I'd equate you to someone who believed in Cupid, or someone who believed that there's a supernatural force of love that attracts certain people to eachother.

Other Comments by Scotty

50. Comment #104918 by parhelion on December 30, 2007 at 2:23 am

I usually find this question phrased as "So what if I can't prove that God exists? Can you prove that you love your wife?"

I suggest laughing in the face of anyone so logically malnourished that they would even pose this question. It's purely apples and oranges.

I would force them to rephrase it as an apples and apples question: "So what if I can't prove that God exists? Can you prove that your your wife exists?" Well, yes I can. I'll introduce you to her.

Or, if you prefer oranges to oranges: "So what if I can't prove that I love God? Can you prove that you love your wife?" Well, because each person is the final and sole arbiter of what they love, I would certainly take your word for it. You are, after all, the only reliable source on the subject of what you feel.

I would have to agree with the earlier posters that pointed out that you shouldn't engage in debate on such a poorly framed question. The pious have for far too long been allowed to deal in irrational argument. They shouldn't be indulged in this particular vice anymore.

Other Comments by parhelion