Originally posted by xmarksthespot
When presented with an evidenced physical basis for the collection of emotions we refer to as "love". You denied it. Then attacked both it and me with an array of leading questions in subsequent posts. Then continued to assert your belief belligerently as if it were fact, as you have with every other person posting in this thread. You've also made several unsubstantiated statements about natural animal behaviour.
1) I did not deny your evidense. I understand that the emotion and mental states of mind are definately linked with the physical. I am simply not convinced that everything mental/emotional or spiritual is purely physical in essense. I am convinced that the physical aspect is there, but not that Love is entirely physical and nothing more.
2) I never asserted by beleif as fact, I only backed up it with everything I could.
3) My statements about animal behavior are correct. I did not make any of it up. If I am wrong, it is because all my sources of information are misleading. Otherwise they are sincere and entirely valid.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BYou stated you do have evidence. Now you state one cannot find evidence and should not have to.[/B]
Nope...I stated I have no PROOF....I already gave evidense for my assertions.
Proof and Evidense are two different things.....
I stated since there is no proof to validate the mental and/or spiritual existances, that scientific perspective is no more valid than philosophical perspective. Do you beg to differ ?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BYou're more than welcome to your philosophical beliefs, but you cannot deny evidenced scientific relationship between neurobiology and emotion based on an argument of personal incredulity. If one is to deny the credibility of an evidenced relationship, they must do so with evidence.[/B]
I never denied your evidense. I see it as valid. I never denied the relationship. I only denied that Love is purely physical, which was your initial argument. I think you are mistaken as to what my stance actually is. It may be my own fauly, so I apologize if so.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yes. But absence of evidence is most certainly not evidence of existence. Your position is based on belief in an intangible existence, and nothing more, therefore it cannot be proven nor disproven. However you are arguing that one cannot prove you wrong therefore you can assert yourself as right. You're arguing your position is unquestionable because it's based on philosophy, while at the same time avidly questioning the philosophical and scientific stances put forward by others. As stated before hypocritical.[/B]
My position is based on factual events (in regard to the observations and studies of animal behavior) and the rest on philosophy.
You do remember what I am actually arguing correct ? That If Jesus Christ is Love embodied then we all are part of Jesus.
What scientific facts can you present to disprove that assertion ?
I do not see how I am being a hypocrit. You are trying to argue the source of what we call Love, while I never really addressed that issue to begin with..only when you brought it up.
This thread is based on a philosophical statement alone...yes, I welcome your scientific input very much, but to say that my statement is entirely wrong because no physical evidense can back it up is a false argument.
How do you aim to use scientific evidense in a philosophical hypothesis that is incapable of being proven or disproven through physical means ????
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BConversely existence of evidence does show evidence of existence.
There is evidence for a physical basis for emotion. The evidence is sufficient for a physical basis for emotion to be considered fact. That is the extent to what I have implied.[/B]
I agree and commend. There is nothing wrong there.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BYou are right in that you cannot disprove this, but you're wrong in saying it's the same way. This can be disproven, however evidence that exists favours the current theory.[/B]
What theory are you talking about is what I am asking. I am arguing that if Jesus is love, then we all possess Christ in us.
I am also arguing that Love is NOT just a Christian ideal....again, how do you not see the foolishness in arguing against a purely philosophical idea with scientific data ?
That's sort of like me arguing with someone that Buddha is more loving than Jesus, and you jump in trying to use scientific data to make your stance.
Or like me arguing that Wolverine would beat Spiderman, and then you jumping in with a barrel load of scientific data where it doesn't really belong.
In terms of the argument as to "what is love" then yes, your arguments are indeed valid and welcome. But as to the hypothesis that if "Jesus is love, then we are all Christian" you could never come up with enough scientific information to make a valid argument.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"There are invisible intangible flying monkeys." Prove me wrong.
I cannot. Invisible Intangible Flying Monkeys are as valid as the beleif if God. You cannot prove or disprove either one.
Same with the idea of Kharma and Reincarnation....try proving or disproving those theories.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[B I'm basically going to ignore this strawman segment. And reiterate the context was clearly with regard to when one forms an argument or explanation of phenomena based purely on personal belief. Especially when one does so in attempt to counter evidenced bases for the phenomena.[/B]
I did not attempt to counter your evidense, only your argument. I already know that Love has a physical aspect to it as well..... But initially you aimed to argue that Love is purely physical in nature, lacking any other aspect, and the rest is spawned from there....
I disagree.
I beleive that Love is physical, mental, emotional, AND spiritual. Unfortunately, as human beings we can only recognize the physical, and wondor about the rest.
Atleast we seem to agree that there IS a relationship between the physical and emotional.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[B"The water cycle is wrong, invisible intangible flying monkeys piss water and that's how it rains."
The only argument I have used in defence of the position, is that there is evidence for a physical basis for love, and there is no evidence for your belief. To which the only response has been "You cannot prove me wrong." "I don't need to prove myself."[/B]
And what exactly Is my belief? Do you even know ?
Again, you seem to think that I think Love has nothing to do with the physical, and I am telling you "YES I DO"...but I do not agree that it is physical in ROOT....
I also do not beleive Love can be defined. Your earliest argument I have actually read in articles, but those chemicals promote INFATUATION.....it's a form of Love, but not its entirety.
It still doesn't even FULLY explain the entirely of infatuation, so how could it explain the entirety of Love when none of us truly nor completely know what Love essentially is ?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[BA martyr complex. How quaint. You attack everything and anything that disagrees with your philosophy (I use the term broadly, not with regard to this thread). You've been unwilling to accept the physical basis for emotion and cognition as evidenced. Your debate consists of strawmanning, hysterical outbursts, invective and asking leading and baseless questions. Oh and smilies, let's not forget smilies.[/B]
Read the above, this statement is entirely false.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
As stated I base my opinions of phenomena on the tangible correlates with sufficient evidence for causation. I see nothing foolish or ignorant in this stance, nor do I feel the need to label those who don't hold this stance fools. As you seem to feel the need to do with regard to your beliefs.
Don't try and play the "professional" here. I do think it is foolish to beleive that everything can be explained through physical means. We are not even fully equipped to understand the MIND in its complexity. For you to argue that Love is ONLY physical, and not spiritual or immaterial in ANYWAY is ignorant and foolish....
And accuse me of being "rude" all you want, but you have been just as rude as I have. So please....stop complaining and just debate. Thanks.