Originally posted by Bardock42simple all love is based on chemicals and hormones. without them it isnt possible. so unless christians are saying god has gormones, then he cannot love. if he DOES have hormones, he is flawed and therefore imperfect.
How would you prove that God can not love without chemicals?
EDIT😮k inimalist if its a nuerological reaction, it doesnt change my point. it still has inherant flaws to it which is my overall point. i was under the impression it was all chemical, thanks for rectifying that.
digi i was just rantin a lil bit lol. not to over zealous ive been debating this with my friends. i would like someone to state how love for something can be possible without chemicals or neurons or any other handicap.
Originally posted by Deja~vuyou completely missed the point didntcha? we feel love, god cant. its a chemical/neurological reaction, and god dont have a brain
Well if we don't feel love, then what is it? 😕Okay, it's just a spiritual revelation. An awakening to the power of of.........umm.
Okay, something bigger. There!
Originally posted by chickenlover98
you completely missed the point didntcha? we feel love, god cant. its a chemical/neurological reaction, and god dont have a brain
There are dozens of wonderful, logical atheist arguments you could use, but you decided to be a genius and use this one. Wow. Just remember we still love you after your argument gets sandblasted forty light years beyond the borders of Chuck Norris's Kingdom...
Before I get to that though, let me just point out that according to the most correct religion on the face of the earth (no this isn't bias just pure truth 😂 ), God has a physical body. Most of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews don't have any idea but that's their mistake!
Even if he were in spirit form though (as the misled majority of believers believe), the most obvious flaw in your argument is that the creator of brains couldn't possibly have the equivalent of a brain.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I agree with you there.[b]Xmarksthespot
however, another fellow KMC scientist, argued that Love is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. I'm glad another scientifically well informed poster argued against that idiotic claim 👆 [/B]
So it's gone from chemicals to neural impulses? Still ain't a whole lot there for you, SODomy.
(Haha, that's your new name.)
Originally posted by Quark_666but bein illogical is way more fun! plus i have something to prove to my douche of a friend, who was on the forum for a while and will be coming back i tink(transfinitum) its actually a good point if you think about, because once you prove god is imperfect, you basically destroy a christians credibility
There are dozens of wonderful, logical atheist arguments you could use, but you decided to be a genius and use this one. Wow. Just remember we still love you after your argument gets sandblasted forty light years beyond the borders of Chuck Norris's Kingdom...Before I get to that though, let me just point out that according to the most correct religion on the face of the earth (no this isn't bias just pure truth 😂 ), God has a physical body. Most of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews don't have any idea but that's their mistake!
Even if he were in spirit form though (as the misled majority of believers believe), the most obvious flaw in your argument is that the creator of brains couldn't possibly have the equivalent of a brain.
Love isn't dead. In fact, the entire basis of this thread is bullshit.
Love isn't a matter of hormones or the argument between choice and genetics. What is important is that of the understanding that love is both hormones and the willingness to ignore, consider every thing above. Some times love is based on appearence; some times it based on understanding.
Love is what you make of it and what you are willing to understand about it. There is no "perfect" person out there, waiting for you. But there are those with whom you are willing to make "it" work.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
simple all love is based on chemicals and hormones. without them it isnt possible. so unless christians are saying god has gormones, then he cannot love. if he DOES have hormones, he is flawed and therefore imperfect.EDIT😮k inimalist if its a nuerological reaction, it doesnt change my point. it still has inherant flaws to it which is my overall point. i was under the impression it was all chemical, thanks for rectifying that.
digi i was just rantin a lil bit lol. not to over zealous ive been debating this with my friends. i would like someone to state how love for something can be possible without chemicals or neurons or any other handicap.
NURH GOD DONT HAVE A BODY SO HE CANT LURVE
Originally posted by chickenlover98
but bein illogical is way more fun! plus i have something to prove to my douche of a friend, who was on the forum for a while and will be coming back i tink(transfinitum) its actually a good point if you think about, because once you prove god is imperfect, you basically destroy a christians credibility
I must agree sometimes you've just gotta be illogical...we all feel the need sometimes. So you'll forgive me I'm sure that I feel the need to call RETARD on the genius who is attempting to chemically overturn Christianity.
The core of your argument is that perfection requires chemicals that God doesn't have. But it isn't like chemicals in the human brain are exactly perfect. I sure hope God would behave differently than a person. The last thing we need is a normal brain with normal chemicals controlling the universe.
Originally posted by chickenlover98Ok, I think you're getting a tad confused here.
prove that love can exist without chemicals and hormones. otherwise you admit god has some influence and is therefore not perfect
Love is not a chemical reaction with hormones and shit. That would be attraction and infatuation. And while those two things CAN play a part in love, they don't necessarily. If you were to go up to some random guy on the street, and ask him if he loved his mother, he'd probably say yes. But does that mean he wants to **** his mother? Probably not, unless he's into incest. But that's another topic entirely.
Love is a thought, an abstract concept created by humans. Love is when you'd sacrifice yourself for someone else. Love is when you stay at the hospital for two straight days after your best friend got a heart attack. Love is breaking into tears when your mother dies. Love is putting someone else before yourself, regardless of whether or not the target does the same.
Infatuation and attraction is wanting to **** somebody. Does that mean you'll put them before yourself? Not necessarily. Hell, I probably wouldn't take a bullet for some random chick with a nice rack and a tramp stamp. So your whole thesis is just straight-up wrong from the get-go.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
you completely missed the point didntcha? we feel love, god cant. its a chemical/neurological reaction, and god dont have a brain
How could you POSSIBLY know that? Assuming that the Bible is true, it states that man was made "In god's image." That would insinuate that God has a brain, yet one without error.
And if the bible's wrong about that part, then God might not have a "brain" but it could be safely assumed that he has something similar/greater.
And if you assume the Bible is completely wrong, teh WHY bother argueing this point?
Originally posted by ~KoK!~
Ok, I think you're getting a tad confused here.Love is not a chemical reaction with hormones and shit. That would be attraction and infatuation. And while those two things CAN play a part in love, they don't necessarily. If you were to go up to some random guy on the street, and ask him if he loved his mother, he'd probably say yes. But does that mean he wants to **** his mother?
Freud might give quite an interesting answer...