And here we have the miracle that proves God.How do you know that this was caused by the supernatural though? Because our current understanding of the laws of nature don't apply to it? How do you know it isn't following the laws of nature, but we just don't understand how it was able be well preserved?

How long will your denial last?

That is ironic... XD

How is god eternal, but not the universe ?

How does that show a god exists? That just shows something we don't understand, if what that article is claiming is true.

Are you making the argument that something can't come from nothing? How does god solve that? We still have the question of "where did something come from?" but instead of universe, it is god.

o k

How do you know the bible is the word of god ?

ok... and how does that dispute me? Are you saying the bible is evidence?

It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children....

All of them, or a majority of them? Because heterosexuals get abused to...

Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.

You have a study to back that up? Even if that were true, that doesn't mean the cause of their illegal activity is from them being gay, it could be from a third variable. For example, society oppresses gay people, and thus influences them towards illegal activity. As for the homosexuals are in prison, yes, a lot of men in prison fuck other men, it's not because they are particularly attracted to men, it is because they are desperate... I mean talk about being locked up in a cage for years, with no hope of female attention, and being mentally unbalanced and having... needs... to contribute to that mental unbalance.

I contest that theory here. I think it's the opposite. That if Santa exists then presents are to be expected it I am good. If God is real and true then I will see enlightment and obtain eternal life. Same process I'd say. I would agree with you if this were the basis of belief we were discussing. I do think both are views of the way belief is handled is logically valid depending on interpretation and instance. For example A = B, with A being a ligjtning strike. This inference would be If lightning strikes then it is caused be B which can be whatever; clouds, Zeus, technology, or God. Thus A logically equals B. In the instance you gave this would explain necessary causes of existence. If A (Santa) truly exists then B (presents) are to be expected. Same applied if you swap A for God and B for eternal life. So we both are on a similar basis here.

What if Santa, does exist though, but he's not the one responsible for putting presents under your tree? What if Santa Clause is a real person but not going around the world to give presents, or is going around the world but is just eating the cookies you give him, and your parents are putting the presents there and saying it is Santa, or someone else other than Santa does it, while Santa just eats the cookies? You see, any claim that you make, the more details you have in that claim, the more you have to tie those details together, otherwise, even if we were to prove one detail correct, that doesn't mean every detail in the claim is correct. You and me both know, or at least 99.999999% certain that Santa doesn't go around spreading Christmas cheer, our parents eventually tell us it was a story they told us. Just because presents appear everywhere, wouldn't mean that a man living in the north pole named Santa is responsible for it, the cause and effect there is also an assertion that has yet to be proven. The effects aren't necessary, the asserted effects are simply asserted to be from the asserted cause. If a god does exist, this doesn't necessarily mean that an afterlife exists either, if we proved a god's existence, that wouldn't necessarily prove any other claims about said god. Same if, santa's existence was proven, that wouldn't mean Santa is necessarily the one putting presents under the tree, it would seem intuitive and natural to think, because the only claim of Santa's existence also claims that this person puts presents under our Christmas trees.

I agree. Thus, this calls for valid inference and studying and even then a leap of faith in that specific deity or deities. In that case one must decide for themselves if they see signs of Christianity in their life and rule that the other proponents of Christianity are to come and be expected.

Why should we use faith in this instance though, when I say faith, I mean belief in no evidence or with evidence against you, or logical reasoning, because logical reasoning is self evident, or as philosophers call "a-priori". One does need to decide for themselves if said god is the Christian god, however, they still need to justify their decisions to believe logically, if they want to be substantiated. If we see more details about a claim coming true, that doesn't mean we assume the rest of them are true, unless those details, or various claims within one are tied together. For example with evolution, (first thing that comes to mind, I'm not making an evolution v.s. christianity argument) evolution is a theory with a large body of facts, it is a claim with a bunch of miniature claims within it. One premise of evolution is that the layers of our earth align in a way where the top layers are newer than the layers underneath, because of how earth science works, and thus we can date fossils depending of how deep underground, (we have other means of dating to, but I will just use this one for now) and in what layer of rock they are preserved inside, which is the second premise. Third premise is that all the fossils line up in a timeline that shows change over time or evolutions. We conclude that fossil X is so-and-so old because it is in rock layer 1, because according to earth science layer 1 is so-and-so old. The age of the rock layer is one claim, and the age of the fossil from said layer is another claim, if we discover that the rock layer preserves everything in it from a certain range of time, then that connects it to the fossil, making true the claim that the fossil is from a certain range of time. However what is the connection that if a supreme being exists, then an afterlife exists? and further more, the afterlife itself is two claims, or two premises. If we discover that we live again after death, why would that mean we live forever after death? If a man named Santa Clause was found to exist and lived in the north pole, how does it follow that, this man distributes presents all over the world? We assume B follows from A, because B and A are asserted not only by themselves but asserted within that same assertion that B follows A, without a reason why, without the connection. In other words, if somethings within a claim is true, it doesn't mean everything in a claim is true.

I was raised with Christians and I use that very loosely. My mom and dad went to church just to show off their money and learn about God. It was really a battle to see who paid the most on tithes. That determined who was the wealthiest and who had more purchasing power. Many other people in the church did the same thing. So I sort of understand where you're coming from. Asking these questions are only to be expected.

These are things that can be used for arguing for or against Santa's existence.

I agree amd not necessarily a negative but a positove that cannot be tested or other wise insensible. I'd say where evidence lacks humans are wired to come up with some sort of explaination. Hence the many greek gods that explained nearly everything in the known universe.

Indeed. I agree.

I agree. That's why I'm agnostic. I don't believe in a specific deity, but I do believe something is there and I believe that the religions that we have barely can explain the nature of "it". So again here I agree with you.

Ahhh, you are THAT kind of agnostic, interesting.

Correct. However testing existence is far too hard, but ruling out the deity completely is illogical since we cannot understand the entire situation with ease. Only the creator would be able to fully explain and answer all questions about his creation and himself/herself/itself.

Well, what do you consider ruling out? Concluding something isn't worth believing, or concluding something is impossible. I do the former, but not the latter. A god COULD exist, I just haven't been supplied any reason to think so. So I'm not ruling it out, just can't really consider it much with what it supplies, if any evidence or logical argument came up, after some contemplating, I probably would change my stance on the issue.

This is true if logical argument for God didn't exist. Yet they do, and some go unanswer or have poor answers. This is where the concept is tested and if the concept can be tested with success then the chances of you finding the true resultant may increase as well. Omnipotence is one of the things that are beyond our true image of conception since we cannot fathom infinity, but we know of it's existence in logic and thought, but we cannot imagine it. It's kind of the same way.

I don't think there is a logical argument though.

I disagree. Faith is most certainly heartwarming. I have faith my son will recover from the hospital or I have faith that I shall achieve my goals. These are natural human workings. Wired to exist and they drive us. If you have ever gambled before they say faith is pretty much your best friend.

Faith and confidence, and trust are different, at least with the type of faith I'm talking about. I can logically justify having confidence, because I control my own outcomes, my own achievements, so whatever I can achieve, at least to an extent is based on me, and I can control that, and I have past success, I have evidence to support confidence. Things external to me, like god, I have no control over. Trust is different because I can base my trust on how much my fellow companions have earned it, I can base it on evidence, personal evidence, but evidence none the less. For example, if I know someone whom always does (what I feel) is the right thing to do, or is fair, just, and kind towards others, and has shown this behavior time and time again, I have evidence that I can trust this person. God, however, I don't even know if a god even exists.

I gotcha, but evidence exists for both sides and there conclusion is that you can't tell if a deity exists or not so determination after such a conclusion requires subjective thought processes. The final verdict will be subjective and relative to the person.

I don't agree, logic can be more or less substantiated, and the reasoning I am aware of for a god's existence is lacking, however to with hold belief, or to not be convinced of a god's existence is by default logically justified. I don't need a reason to not believe something, I need a reason TO believe something.

Because God wants love and faith is a byproduct of love. If you have a spouse you hope they remain faithful. If they are faithless then love is absent and this cheating may occur. Love is God. Gid is Love. Faith is requires in love.

This again is a different type of faith then that is applied to a god, and what I mean by faith as an apistevist. I can trust that my spouse won't cheat on me, because she has shown me that she isn't the type of person to do that, and if she wasn't worthy of that trust I wouldn't date her anyway. If I am dating somebody, I have no reason to think they will cheat on me. If I am dating somebody and they do cheat on me, then I have less reason to trust them, and thus don't trust them. Trust can be, and I prefer it to be personally, to be evidence based. Trust is something you earn, that you show that you are worthy of.

Well we argue against the idea of a god existing with "passion" because the belief effects people. We are not arguing against something that doesn't exist, we are arguing with the claim that this character in this story, being a hero. If someone said Loki was a good guy, or Joker was a hero whom deserved to be looked up to in society, I'd be like "what the fuck have you been smoking" but I would be ten times more involved, when they believe the story is actually true, and they support the bad guy.

One is unreviewed, the other is compressed.

You would be able to explain, the reasoning within the article that shows a god existing, no? Or the reasoning on why to believe a god exists, no?

Theres a difference between lying and not speaking. They are ready to answer any questions but it is not their loss if you wont ask.

So they weren't directly lying, they were being misleading, by leaving out key information. either way, it's dishonest isn't it?

Technically speaking, it was the crowds who caused the misinformation not the Church. You cannot just lie about a persons report as it can get you arrested for Defamation.

All the reports are readily available online. All are approved by scientific agencies and all you can do now is to deny the findings. Not that it concerns me, though.

First of all, there is a different between a scientific agency supporting the facts, and a spin off of those facts. I did read the article, and a logical reason to believe in god was not presented to me. If everything in it was true, that just means a painting was really well preserved beyond our understanding, that just means we need a better understanding, not that a god had anything to do with it.

It's really because the bible points to a life after physical death. They believe that something happens after you die.

Kids believe in santa, because santa brings them presents every year, as long as they were good. At least they get guaranteed to see the reward system work. The presents were real though, but because people around them told them that those presents were from santa, they thought "if the presents are real, then santa has to be!". Well, their is no logical reason to think an afterlife exists, even if there was though, that doesn't mean that a god exists, or anything else about christianity is true.

Religions are not as "premature" as Santa Claus. What logic is behind Santa claus?

How do my presents get under the tree every christmas? Or where did christmas come from? Christians would have an explanation but I was raised in a secular home, there didn't seem to be much reason to celebrate christmas, it was for the hell of it. Where did all my friends presents come from? Other than that, I am not sure, about the same for a god though.

There is no way to exactly explain what they bible has said and there is no way to actually test God for yourself.

We can't run a test for the existence of a god, because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, especially when we are talking about an insensible being. However where no evidence can be expected, no belief should be either. Especially when the only claims can't be made head or tails of by anyone seemingly.

For example what use does the Omnipotence Paradox have if you cannot actually test it on God himself? You can only test it on your concept of God.

If no concept of god that we can think, where omnipotence makes sense, that if anything gives us less reason to believe in a god. There are a lot of paradoxes about santa, I'm sure kids just thought "but it's santa, those paradoxes don't apply to him".

We have no idea what God would have to input on it. If he is truly omniscient then he can always crush any question that is pressed upon him with human logic. In fact what would any logic prove it it cannot be tested on God himself? Even the logic that Christians use cannot be as accurate as they wish since they can only fathom the concept of their God.

I would agree, if, said god existed. Santa, is magic though, whatever problems you see with him giving presents across the world to lets say only a quarter of children, lets assume 75% of children are bad. It would still be ridiculous, but not for santa, because santa is magic. Santa would be able to explain it to us, how magic was able to help him in his spreading of christmas cheer.

Any, and all, arguments from both sides will be inaccurate since they can only brush simple human concepts.

Any and all arguments for and against santa, will be inaccurate because they only brush on concepts of santa, not the real santa. It is the concepts of god, that are being claimed, I see no good reason to believe a god exists, any concept I can think of, or any concept that has been articulated to me. You may as well be saying "well maybe X is true, but we just don't know how it is true, because if X is true, we only know of it conceptually". For instance, I could say "well maybe I am about to inherent a billion dollars, I just don't know how I will inherent a billion dollars, because if I am going to inherrent a billion dollars, I just wouldn't understand how or why, my ability to assess that would only be based off any concepts I can think of as to how or why I would, rather than how it will actually happen". With all due respect and little of offense I can mean, to me, this is kind of a cop out, with giving your reasoning as to why you believe, and still doesn't make the case on why one should believe a god and therefore heaven exists.

The bible says that God is beyond us and then the bible says that we should argue with people "weak in faith" (Atheists/Agnostics/Any other religions). I woupd imagine that God wouldn't even bother to intervene in arguments that can barely address him.

My question is, why would god need faith, or want faith for that matter. Faith is a vice, it isn't a good thing. I would call myself an apistevist, meaning I am "faithless" I don't believe things on faith. I see believing things on faith, problematic, nonsensical, unreasonable, and without a reason itself. Of course I mean faith associated with religion, believing on no evidence, or when evidence is against you. Faith is the equivalence to gullibility, asking someone to buy (not financially, but like "I buy that, it sounds convincing) something for no reason is gullible no? Why would a god want that for his people?

Omnipotence would have to go, because omnipotence would include the capacity of omniscience and omnibenevolence. To get rid of those other two, would be to get rid of omnipotence, because you are taking away a power. the power to know, and the power to love, making him/her/it not omnipotent. Omnipotence on it's own is impossible, of course if we are speaking literally here.

The only reason I don't believe god is guiding evolution is because I don't believe in god in the first place. There something being wrong with god being responsible for evolution might depend on what specific god you are talking about.

further more let's say it is the literal, old testament, interpretation of the biblical god. Whom flooded the world, inflicts infinite pain for infinite time as a repercussion for finite wrongs, whom could prevent evil but chose not to. I'd have a lot of questions for this god, and yes, it would be alluding to the immorality of god's actions, however if such a god is truly just, then said god should be able to justify himself easily to me. To explain to me why there is evil in the world.

Atheists won't be saying anything .. God is not on trial .. they are . . .

Having something to say to the Christian god is not the same as putting the god on trial. Why wouldn't god allow the person to ask "which god are you?", what would the god have against a question like that?

at this point, their decision has been made ... and now so will Gods

What decision

I don't see the issue, I don't see how the sexuality, or the gender pairing of the parents has any effect on the child's upbringing nor on the parenting skills of the couple.

I assume you mean, generally speaking. While I don't have a problem in understanding the differences of men and women, we should never make this a question of "who is superior". Thing is, how do you define "smarter in a way of living their lives", if anything I think girls are kind of smarter, we do some pretty stupid things relatively, and generally speaking. Women also live longer than men in most countries. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html

It's funny, because honestly, it is not like religion (or christianity) has ever done much good for humanity, regardless of whether or not a god exists, and yet we have so many issues from religion's existence.

I just don't like it when people claim that God is cruel, when there's a reason behind all He does.

Well then give him those reasons, debate about it.

Now, about my use of the term subjective. I just see people always count off subjective evidence in God v. No-God debates, asking for objective evidence. I always accept subjective evidence, but I take it subjectively, while pairing it with what I know and what God shows me.

How do you differentiate subjective evidence from objective evidence? This is what REALLY confuses me...

Thank you, zephyr20x6, for your input! It was insightful.

Your welcome, thanks for clarifying yourself. Sorry if I came off a little, tense.

Hitler the king of propaganda, whom influenced an entire country onto a path of racism once said "If you tell a big enough lie, and tell it often enough, people will begin to believe it." Christians don't believe in heaven for any rational or logical reasons, for the most part it is because it was taught to them at a young age, and the fact that society seems to have allowed religion to ingrain itself into it. When we are told about santa clause, we believe santa is real, because we are little, because we are ignorant. Santa is to a child, as gods are to most countries. We're still "growing up" or advancing, we don't want to let go of our superstitions. God was taught to humanity when humanity was ignorant, and now it is learning a lot of things about those religions weren't true.

Which interpretation of the christian god are you? Also, why the fuck would you ever give us religion? What was the point of it all?

What you just said made no sense...

Yeah... You have no clue either, just like AveSatanas.

Actually Lilmisfit is one of the most well educated people when it comes to the bible I have come across on here, he has debated Christians on their interpretation of the bible, and has been more substantiated. He used to be a Christian I think, and/or mormon.

If you're gonna have a subjective reason not to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God exists, obviously you are a hypocrite.

Well first of all, I don't know what the hell you mean by subjective in this instance... it seems like a rather strange term to use here. subjective means mind-dependent when determining the reality of things, beauty is subjective, because what is beautiful depends on how you feel about various things. What is good music is subjective, because what sounds good, depends on your conscious experience of it. His reasoning, isn't so much "subjective" as what exists or doesn't exist doesn't depend on our mind. If a god exists, then said god will exist regardless of whether or not we believe in it, as truth is not a democracy. So his reasoning isn't... "subjective". Reasoning is our abilities to reason, to create reasons for this and that, for believing this and that, for thinking this and that, for doing this and that. I suppose that may seem subjective, but the coherency, and logical justification for reasoning is very much objective. His reasoning is probably that he has no reason to believe in god. The fact of the matter is, reasoning isn't really all that subjective because reasoning can be more or less substantiated. Not only is the term "subjective" here being used in a misleading way, but your sentence here makes no sense, and can be used against you... If reasoning for belief in god is subjective, like what tastes good is subjective, then by that logic, he can TOTALLY reject "subjective reasons" for why god is believable, while accepting "subjective reasons" for why god isn't believable. Also I can use this incoherent, word play against you...

observe:

Client444, If you're gonna have a subjective reason to believe in something, but then reject any subjective reasons that God isn't believable, obviously you are a hypocrite.

I am sorry if this seems a tad... mean, but I could not resist... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

By playing a m rated game,children are learning violence.

This was probably your most substantiated part of your argument. However, I must ask, at what age should kids be allowed to play M games?

Some children at the age of 7 are playing it.Theyre playing wrestling on their playstation and if they have a brother or sister they could play that game in real life with them!

Okay... and?

People would be getting injured.

How? elaborate.

But what if they play a game like grand theft auto.Thats a very violent game.Thats why I say no.

What about a game rated M that isn't as violent as grand theft auto? Also I still haven't seen any substantiation, I'm not completely opposed to you, but your argument could be a lot better. You haven't provided any logic or evidence as to how violent video games increases violent behavior in kids. Simply in a round about way, pointed out kids that play violent video games, are playing violent video games, made a vague assertion to them getting injured. Your most substantiated part of your argument was your second sentence.

Define what you mean by "the way, the truth, and the life". It seems to me to be awfully vague, is Jesus the way to heaven? I don't see any reason to think heaven exists. Is Jesus the way to spiritual growth? I think spirituality at it's worse is fantasy, and at it's best a loaded term. Is Jesus the way to good morality? I honestly don't think so, morality is innate. What truth is Jesus? The truth of his existence? apparently some theological historians say so, though I haven't come across the evidence personally, however in any case, I doubt he was a man whom could walk on water and perform miracles. Truth of his religion? I don't see why it would be true. Was jesus the life, as in, is "the life" or I suppose the way one ought to live life, supposed to be in the name of Jesus? I don't see any compelling reason.

I just wonder is there an alternative to monogamy that suits humans better, and why our attitudes towards it are so fixed.

Well in the begginning of psychology developing, we first went at (and we still do) it from an evolutionary point of view. It was believed and it still may be, that our reasoning to keep a monogamous relationship is to make sure (at least from a man's point of view) that our children are OUR children, in essence so it is our genes that get passed down.

So I suppose basically what I'm curious about, are your and others opinions on whether monogamy goes against our nature?

In some respect it might, and in another respect it goes with it, as explained above how. Human nature is a very complex thing, I'm sure everything we do can in one sense go with human nature, and in another sense go against human nature.

Very insightful indeed, rather surprised from the responses I've gotten on here so far. Morality is incredibly conflicting for me, I have ideas of how I personally think people should and shouldn't act, but there is no clear basis that morality has been defined for us. Morality would be a lot more truth apt if morality was redefined with a basis, rather than the vague definition of "right and wrong" or what we ought to do or not ought to do. Problem with that is if morality is about what we should or shouldn't do, bad and good behavior, what basis is that behavior for? Morality by it's definition allows that to be rather open-ended, it never tells us what good and bad behavior is based on, but simply says it's the distinction of good and bad behavior, where good and bad, are judgements.

But if it passes the rationality test, than it should provide us with benefit, should keep us pointed in a direction that benefits us or our group, make our tough decisions a little easier...and at the end of the day, is that not what morality is for?

I am indeed obliged to agree, and I think that may be descriptive of me as well. What is rational though strongly depends on what your morality is trying to achieve, for example, if you want to discourage dishonesty, then it is rational for lying to be seen as immoral. I kind of think morality is our means of changing our social environment for the better of our species, that allows us to co-exist more efficiently, and happily, to survive better, and to help us thrive in our environment. It is our social environment's way of adapting for us, through us.

Likewise, people like me don't trust "morality" that has no cognitive explanation, whereas many people have no problem accepting moral codes on the authority of leaders, ancestors or proposed deities.

I agree, you and me might be hybrid theorists, or at least I might be, where I feel morality isn't cognitive but has cognitive features, and I am exactly like you, in where I need cognitive explanations for morals in order to accept them. Then again, I have a very little understanding of non-cognitive morality, so I feel as though I should study them more. In the end, though, my morals are simply what I approve of and disapprove of with personal reasons as to why I would. (where cognitive I believe would be the well known moral philosophies, like moral absolutism, moral relativism, moral realism, etc.)

Very well put Versace, that is indeed some food for thought.

Indeed I am obliged to agree, I feel as though the embedding problem is already covered and solved but not only that, but it has an issue of it's own, which you kind of highlight in your argument.

P1: if torturing the cat is bad, then torturing the cat even if somehow saved all of humanity is also bad

P2: torturing the cat is bad.

Thing is, there is an exception to all moral statements if you find the right scenario, or unless you make your moral statement really specific. for example "torturing the cat is bad unless it prevents a greater evil somehow", making it almost impossible for sets of morals to stay consistent. You can have a generalization of your moral framework that tries to encompass your every moral decision however that is an incredible hard task to do. For example "Maximizing happiness, well-being, and health of sentient life collectively is moral, and the opposite of that is immoral" what about someone who wants to kill themselves? Then it's a bit more complicated than that, by preventing that person from killing them self, I am essentially prolonging their suffering, while simulataneously preserving their health, and well-being.

Non-monogamy is only immoral if either party isn't aware or doesn't approve. I don't think human nature makes monogamy unobtainable, for certain people perhaps, but what do you mean? That nobody can be monogamous, or that not everybody can be monogamous?

My argument is going to be very similar to Mucka, as he hit the nail on the head... (damn you Mucka, why must your way of thinking be so similar to mine!) Anways. Omni means "all" and potent means "powerful", thus literally translated to what those word pieces mean, omnipotent would mean "all powerful". All-powerful, would mean to possess ALL power, to not be lacking in any power, if god doesn't have the power to do something, then said god is not all powerful. This would also mean that logic couldn't have power over god, but rather god has power over logic, so in that sense this said god should apparently be able to make "2 + 2 = fish" and thus bypass logic, if god can bypass logic, then said god should have no excuse for an imperfect world, or a world with any flaws, if this said god's goal was to make the best world for maximizing happiness, well-being, and health, then this world would be a lot different. However, people probably weren't very consistent, or literal back in the days where religion grew, and "all-powerful" was probably an exaggeration. Whether or not omnipotent meant back then what it means today, in either case they REALLY probably meant MOST powerful (as Mucka said, damn you Mucka :P). If we take omnipotence literally, technically paradoxes are solved because god can force them to make sense, but this said god could also make the world a better place whether or not it is logically possible.

I do agree, I feel morality is a rather conceptual thing, I can't deny that it is in the end rather subjective, neither can I deny that is matters, it does matter, and it is subjective. The philosophy of morality is a rather conflicting thing for me, however rather than say "what I think is bad" or "what I think is good" would be a pain in the ass in contrast to simply say "moral" and "immoral". However what one finds to be moral and immoral can be more substantiated and logical, then what others find moral and immoral, or what we ought or not ought to do. However I assume good and evil in this debate means what most people mean by good and evil, to maximize happiness, health, and well-being psychologically and physically of sentient life collectively, and minimize sadness, illness, and the determent of well-being psychologically and physically of sentient life collectively. I used to be a moral expressivist, but however that moral philosophy has it's complications, but I still feel it was on the right track.

Yes... god isn't omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, or at least not all three, or doesn't exist in the first place... The problem of evil in my opinion disproves and omnipotent being, or at least makes it incredibly unlikely.

I have no reason to think there is one, no sufficient evidence and/or reasoning has been provided to me to believe in a supreme being of some sort, or a being or ultimate origin.

I just have one thing to say to this SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ivYd2NDRvc

Words mean whatever humanity makes them mean, they are simply strings of symbols and sounds that correlate, that we assign meaning to, that we have made a norm in order for us to be able to communicate. First of all, I don't think love was originally meant to mean god, have any historical evidence? Second of all, even if it did, it would be highly problematic to try to make love mean god, because of how it is used today, doing so would be counter-productive to the purpose of language.

I do not follow... care to elaborate?

So if God IS love, then love has to be god right? If the definition for love is god, then the definition of god fits the definition of love? no?

I'm not understanding, yes the reaction, would be the emotion we feel, the chemicals would be the cause, what causes those chemicals to react is the experience outside of our brain. No, the reaction doesn't come before the chemical? Does it seem as though I alluded to it?

If god IS love, then wouldn't that make love, god? What do you mean that god IS love, do you mean he possesses ultimate love, that his is omnibenevolent?

Well okie dokie then, what evidence do you have that love is god?

If you change the chemicals within the brain, to another specific reaction, you might get hatred.

I just think it is funny, that in most debate that I have seen you in, you always somehow tie the subject with your god, though your opinion is perfectly valid and not a problem.

Do you think that by looking at the deep rooted meaning of terms, expresses the more problematic usage of them when labelling women?

Not necessarily, it depends on what is meant with the expressions. Chicks are cute, it could be meant as a compliment. When women refer to men as animals, we don't take it as an insult, we take it as a compliment because it is meant that we have the naturally attractive qualities often found in nature, like "strength and grittiness" or of the like, when expressions are used on women it can be meant to highlight their "adorableness and cuteness". etc. If the expression is used in a degrading manner, then I would have to say it is a problem. It happens both ways, not just to women, men get referred to as animals as well, and I am sure if someone really wanted to they could put an angle on that, to make it sexist.

It was a genuine question, it seems as though you are rather obsessed with your god, to the point where you feel as though you need to project it everywhere you go. Why? I did not dispute you originally, I just asked why.

It's true, all our thoughts are, as well as our emotions. Our consciousness is a product of chemical reactions and so is love. I'm simply adding a bit of scientific literacy to my perception of it, rather than trying to see it from the point of view of believing in mythical fables.

Why does everything have to involve your god ?

It does not matter what god says, until said god is proven to exist, then said god must be proven to be omnibenevolent, or morally agreeable to me, then said god's morality must be shown. Until all that, it does not matter what any "god" says. Although, why do you feel that taking the life of an unconscious thing is immoral? Can you explain that to me? Wouldn't it be no different that chopping down a tree?