Other A serious question to atheists...

[mcscott]

I haven't completely read through this, but their were a few things I would like to point out here. As recently stated we have a choice whether we believe or not. That's why we have our own will, you wouldn't want to have to worship and such, if your forced as also stated you cant really get into it, I am Christian as well, but I like to look at everything in all sides. Science and Christianity both go great together and there are a lot of things in the bible that science teaches; some of this stuff is something that they wouldn't know about back then. For example how the big bang happened; no one was there to witness it, which means that they had to either be extremely informed of how anti matter and matter existed or had something and/or someone to inform them of these facts. That being said, something most people don't seem to think about is that God does not let you go through anything he doesn't believe you aren't strong enough to go through, and that God is not the cause of most of the things you may be going through; yes he lets the devil do as he pleased but the reason we go through these lets say trials, because he wants us to choose what we do, I don't mean to step on toes its just things that get left out and never get acknowledged or stated. Another thing is that the bible also matches up with history in a lot of ways. Like Jesus though hes only excepted as a prophet in history their is still proof that he exists outside of the bible, and seeing as you can read the bible as many times as you want and not get the same understanding from it. In others words each verse has multiple understandings or meanings. I know I said this in my view but its things you can find in the bible, science, as well as history, and would like to state that i'm not pushing anything on anyone.

 

[Ironrot]

Hall Kervean Idea
I think that you have misinterpreted what I'm saying. I've put some discussion of some of your statements below, but before that I have provided a rundown of a 'model' to help explain my point of view.

I feel the issue here is you don't understand what I mean by need (you did touch on it a moment there) and you don't see what I'm looking for in a 'model'

I'd like to provide and example of a model for things falling down. You might already know this stuff, but I think explaining it like this will help you understand what I'm taking away from it.

Developing A Model for Falling Down

We start by recognising that if I hold a pencil and I release it, it falls to the ground. I want to predict this in the future so I can use it, so I build a model.

I say "When someone is in the air and nothing holds it, it falls down".

This works most of the time and for most objects. But then on a windy day I notice that some things fall at an angle. This does not fit my model, so I need to change it. We introduce force.

"When I release something above the ground, it experiences a downward force. This can combine with other forces, such as the force applied by wind"

Now we have something good. We can explain why things can be thrown upward and then fall back down. Its a combination of forces. We can measure forces and make predictions and the model explains most of them.

That is the point of a model. Not only does it explain what has happened but also what will. And it can be tested and fixed if it doesn't work. Note also that they don't need to deal with 'why something happens' just when it does and that it does.

I've never seen anything that is better explained with the addition of God (This is the NEED I'm talking about) so I don't introduce him. Why would I need to.

This isn't to say that you can't believe in God. You may derive some personal benefit from the idea of him, but I don't.

Footnotes (You don't have to respond, and if you want to I'd recommend we have a chat later on discord or skype or something because its going to involve explaining and discussing philosophy):

We have a model for why water boils. It might not be correct, but that doesn't matter. It works in almost all cases and when we find cases where it does not we improve the model or make a new one that better predicts the behaviour.

1+1=2 is a poor example. Actually, this is 'absolutely true'. This is maths, not science. Maths is a set of initial assumptions on which all mathematics relies and from which mathematics is proven. If you do not include those assumptions, you're not using maths and the statement is meaningless.

I disagree that you can prove something using faith. Faith is the assumption that something is true. It can't prove itself (Maybe by proof by contradiction but I'd need to see one). I'm also fairly certain that you can't prove something to an approximate idea. That may depend on interpretation of what you mean by 'approximate'.

If you would like to refer me to the specific work of those philosophers (I assume) then I'll read them and respond.

 

[mcscott]

As i said before i didn't go through the whole thing, so i missed your recent statements. i merely went through it and had some points to throw out. I noticed that their was a lack of some of the subjects i did touch up on so i through them out there, though it sounds a little half assed, it merely seemed to be the things that needed to be thrown out. since the Christian side of the discussion seem to only be a few people discussing for the side.

As for faith, their is no reason to prove something through faith.
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Faith is something you share with another, it means you do not question or go against someone you trust. the only way i could prove something through faith is to show how faithful i am, to do this i would stay faithful through what is thrown at me as well as the pain and suffering. because no matter what we do their will be trials, and other such things that test our faith as Christians, as i stated God will not let us go through something we aren't strong enough to handle, and we have faith in that. because we know that he will bare our burdens for us, no matter what we are going to go through something. and we have to choose what we do, this is where the bible comes in. the bible is meant to help guide us as well as give us advice. yes their are a few contridictive things and such but we have faith that this will get us through what ever it may be that we are going through. because in the long run, which is better, to not believe and find out that it wasn't some fluke. or to die a happier person and find out that it wasn't real, because id rather be a happier person. wouldn't it be way worse to screw yourself out of an eternity of happiness and for ever rot in a skin scorching sell where you get tortured for eternity. i know i went more into my point of view with this but its easier to explain it that way rather than beat around the bush bringing up facts and other such things. truing to probe my point. its more straight forward this way.weather you understand what i mean by this is up to you. as such i do not mean to offend anyone. and oppolagize if i did so

 

[Vudukudu]

Atheist because I don't see any compelling reason to believe in a God, and also because most of the arguments made in favor of a Christian god letting shitty things happen are worn out and clearly not grounded in reality given things like suicide and whatnot. "Oh, yeah, you can handle it." says the omnipotent maker as he prompts thousands to commit suicide annually.

If there is a God, he's a dick, and I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of my attention. I personally think all the things that feed into this are pretty self-evident.

 

[Idea]

This isn't to say that you can't believe in God. You may derive some personal benefit from the idea of him, but I don't.

I´ll be quoting this part only because I believe it really matches your idea of this model.
Now, here is what I find a bit absurd about that: Why would somehting have to reap a benefit to be believed in?
Billions of people existed before you. Yesterday I went to McDonalds before watching Ghost in the Shell. There are starving people in Africa.
None of these things, I hope, is something that you refuse to believe in over the fact that they don´t reap you benefits. A fact is a fact because it is independent from you and everyone else. If something were to in fact depend on you in any way for it´s reality, if things had to give you benefits to be something one could believe in, then there would be no such thing as truth, facts or reality.

Maths is a set of initial assumptions

I disagree that you can prove something using faith. Faith is the assumption that something is true

Maths is a set of initial assumptions on which all mathematics relies and from which mathematics is proven.

I´ll just leave that there....

Also, you misundertood me. When I said you can prove God by faith, I listed it with a group of other means of proving. This is to say, the only standards by which God cannot be proven are the standards which start with an assumption that directly says that either God or one of His defining traits cannot exist.


Beyond this point, I would explain better the concepts of what I talked about earlier to refute those ideas you presented in the footnotes, but since you don´t wish to discuss them, I won´t make you at this time. I will leave my own discord in a spoiler, and should anyone need or want such a discussion, they can contact me.

Spoiler

Idea#5893

 

[Ironrot]

I´ll be quoting this part only because I believe it really matches your idea of this model.
Now, here is what I find a bit absurd about that: Why would somehting have to reap a benefit to be believed in?
Billions of people existed before you. Yesterday I went to McDonalds before watching Ghost in the Shell. There are starving people in Africa.
None of these things, I hope, is something that you refuse to believe in over the fact that they don´t reap you benefits. A fact is a fact because it is independent from you and everyone else. If something were to in fact depend on you in any way for it´s reality, if things had to give you benefits to be something one could believe in, then there would be no such thing as truth, facts or reality.




I´ll just leave that there....

Also, you misundertood me. When I said you can prove God by faith, I listed it with a group of other means of proving. This is to say, the only standards by which God cannot be proven are the standards which start with an assumption that directly says that either God or one of His defining traits cannot exist.


Beyond this point, I would explain better the concepts of what I talked about earlier to refute those ideas you presented in the footnotes, but since you don´t wish to discuss them, I won´t make you at this time. I will leave my own discord in a spoiler, and should anyone need or want such a discussion, they can contact me.

Spoiler

Idea#5893

To be honest, you've sort of just grabbed the end though I threw out to not be antagonistic. Thats a personal statement from me saying you can believe if you want to. I won't do that again, as its confused the point.

God doesn't exist because God's existence explains nothing. Thus there is no need for God's existence. A countr example: There's is no benefit to me of the tree outside my window. But I do need something to explain why I see a tree outside my window, so I explain that as there being a tree out there, reflecting light at me.

and here is where how God is proven really comes in. Because you can prove him using faith, you can prove him using basic scientific and logical principles and you can prove him out of sheer wander

Faith isn't evidence. It can be based on evidence, and that evidence might lead to proof, but the faith isn't. I don't think I have misunderstood you. That statement seems cut and dry. But we should discuss it if that is the case, I'd like to hear your viewpoint. We'll have to organize a time somehow.

As for scientific principles, we should definitely discuss that because I would welcome proof of God. That would change my life. I think it would change anyones, and thats a statement. I don't like to call myself Atheist, because I think it carries the connotation that if God stood before I might still reject God's existence. I'll believe evidence if its presented.

I'm going to assume that 'prove him out of sheer wonder' is more for effect than meant as a talking point.

mcscott Are those direct at me? I'd have to come back to it.

 

[Idea]

God doesn't exist because God's existence explains nothing. Thus there is no need for God's existence. A countr example: There's is no benefit to me of the tree outside my window. But I do need something to explain why I see a tree outside my window, so I explain that as there being a tree out there, reflecting light at me.

why then, I ask, do you need something to explain it? You say you need it, which goes against the common sense of things existing even if you have no awareness of them. So, under what principles do you claim that?

As for scientific principles, we should definitely discuss that because I would welcome proof of God. That would change my life. I think it would change anyones, and thats a statement. I don't like to call myself Atheist, because I think it carries the connotation that if God stood before I might still reject God's existence. I'll believe evidence if its presented.

well, my discord is on the spoiler in my other post. I´d be more than happy to explain how I reached it to you.

 

[Ironrot]

Idea Yeah, I saw the discord. We'll need to arrange a time later in the week. I've got training for the next couple days so I think I'm gunna have homework. Maaad fun. Maybe wednesday.

Its not common sense to assume something you can't perceive (lets not limit ourselves to sight) exists. Its common sense to assume that it is not there until you see something to indicate that it is.

But here is a good (and I think quite a cool example) of theorising something that you can't see exists based on small factors.

We only have 'awareness' of several exo-planets because we noticed one or more of the following:
- The wobble of a star indicating that a mass is shifting it in a little circle.
- The miniscule dip in the light of a star because an opaque object crossed it, casting a tiny shadow at us
We can't see these planets. They don't reflect enough light for our strongest telescopes, but we assume they are there because something has to be there to cause these phenomena. It might be something else, but the simplest explanation was 'planet'.

-

Here is the problem I see with adding extras to reality:

You'll be wrong. And someone is going to make a mistake. Someone's going to stone a homosexual (Cultural issue, not related to your religion everyone). Some old lady is going to die of cancer while she eats macrobiotic beans because someone convinced her that they were better than medicine.

So, how do you avoid wrong assumptions. You can't. you're only human. At some point you have to trust in something because you have finite time (Don't run away with that). But here is a good start:

1) Take a step back and start from blank. Nothing exists.
2) Explain your surroundings, make a model. What do you see. Why do you see that.
3) Learn. Access. Expand. Include only what is necessary, keep it simple.

Extra details are not simple. They are unnecessary and they will lead you astray.

 

[Ironrot]

I'd like to ask a question of anyone who is following along.

Why do you want to prove God?

 

[Idea]

I'd like to ask a question of anyone who is following along.

Why do you want to prove God?

Because the opposite of what you said is also true. Yes, adding extras can lead to wrongdoing and harm, but removing what is there can just as well, especially something as meaningful as God.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I disagree that you can prove something using faith. Faith is the assumption that something is true. It can't prove itself (Maybe by proof by contradiction but I'd need to see one). I'm also fairly certain that you can't prove something to an approximate idea. That may depend on interpretation of what you mean by 'approximate'.

Indeed. Proving something by faith alone isn't possible.
You need proof to prove something.
Thing is, though, the basis for science itself lies without proof.
There is no PROOF that dinosaurs don't exist in Antarctica. It's highly unlikely, but since we can't watch literally every cave, crevice, part of the landmass, under the landmass, or anything like that with precision all at the exact same time, we an't prove they don't exist there.
But we have...
Wait for it...
Faith that they don't, because we have faith in the discoveries made so far that makes it improbable.
But we don't have PROOF that dinosaurs, back in their day, didn't live in the snow. Unlikely, yes. Provable, no.

Science takes faith as much as Christianity does.

Now we have something good. We can explain why things can be thrown upward and then fall back down. Its a combination of forces. We can measure forces and make predictions and the model explains most of them.

That is the point of a model. Not only does it explain what has happened but also what will. And it can be tested and fixed if it doesn't work. Note also that they don't need to deal with 'why something happens' just when it does and that it does.

I've never seen anything that is better explained with the addition of God (This is the NEED I'm talking about) so I don't introduce him. Why would I need to.

This isn't to say that you can't believe in God. You may derive some personal benefit from the idea of him, but I don't.

Well, I'm certainly glad you added "You totes can, but I don't." That toned down the passive-agressiveness of it all.
And that's where a relative viewpoint comes into play.
Since you've never seen anything that can be better explained via God, you just abandon Him.
And if there WERE none, I would agree with you.
But there is.
ICR has better resources than what I can come up with off the top of my head.

 

[Ironrot]

Idea Yeah, but if you follow the steps provided and something was best explained by including God, God would be included.

Hall Kervean The point of the section on models is that they don't prove things. They just give you a good basis to make predictions. You use the past to extrapolate to the future.
Infact, if I were to build a model, given that there are animals in Antarctica, I'd assume that there were Dinosaurs there too.

Is it a common assumption that there are no dinosaurs in Antarctica? I've never looked at that. I suppose I had assumed there were but I haven't done much reading about dinosaurs.

I'm glad you don't feel like I'm talking down or being aggressive. 'Truth is I just like to discuss religion and to talk about science.
I'd rather you didn't say I've abandoned God. It implies a somewhat unfair wrong-doing on my part.

There are a lot of ICRs in a google search. Could you expand that. On that note though, I've spent a fair bit of time asking religious people for their experiences and I'm yet to find one that is best explained by the introduction of God. If you'd like to share I would like to know yours (If you would like you can request that I don't comment on it).

 

[Hall Kervean]

Institute of Creation Research.

And I mean, not to offend you, but from the perspective of God, you have done him wrong.
He did the equivalent of shooting himself in the face for you (If you want more details, it was a lot worse than that on him) and you rejected him, even when he was willing to give you a free pass into heaven.

 

[Idea]

Yeah, but if you follow the steps provided and something was best explained by including God, God would be included

indeed, but as I said, that does not need to happen for God to be real, regardless of whether you believe in Him or not. And thus, it does not matter for whether or not one should act according to His will.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Well, ain't this just a colourful thread.

 

[mcscott]

I'd like to ask a question of anyone who is following along.

Why do you want to prove God?

As a christian you are asked to do alot of things, its not the proving part that i would be concerened of, i cant fully prove that he exists i can merely show you facts and other things that cant be Denied, this said, Jesus died on the cross, this is a historical fact, yet he did it merely so we could be clensed of our sins, now he was put through some very extreme abuse well say, alot of this stuff is basically inhumanly possible, yet he still went through it, he could have stopped it at any point or time but he went through it, he could have denied that he was the son of God yet he still did it. and all we are asked to do is a few small things compared to this, yes theirs a list but it all boils down to: being faithful, praising and worshipping him, striving to be more like jesus was. that said we are also told that defending God is also an important thing, because if you wont defend him then how can you call yourself a Christian, for example, if your friend was with a few people and those people were talking smack about you, what would you expect that friend to do. i would expect them to defend me. its the same for God, hes always around, he is omnipotent, and if your friend didnt defend you or speak in your place and defend you that would mean that they arent really your friend.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Well, ain't this just a colourful thread.

Rainbow!

 

[Count Gensokyo]

"Make a model", you said. Alright, then.

New Idea But here is a good start:

1) Take a step back and start from blank. Nothing exists.
2) Explain your surroundings, make a model. What do you see. Why do you see that.
3) Learn. Access. Expand. Include only what is necessary, keep it simple.

Allow me to derive my explanation by Rene Descarte's way of thought.

1. Everything is blank. I rid myself of absolutely everything I think to be true or common knowledge.
2. By doing this, all I am left with is my own mind, which continues to process these thoughts.
3. Therefore, my mind and its identity exist.
4. Therefore, I exist.
5. Where have I come from? Whom am I? If I can rely on nothing else but myself, than can I trust anything?
6. Certainly, I needed to have come into existence and grown into logical thought if my own life experiences are any indication.
7. And yet, there is still another thing that I cannot truly reject—that thing is the idea of God.
8. Allow me to appeal to Aristotle's notion of "the Prime Mover which is itself unmoved". How could I, whom am I believe to be completely finite, have come to ever exist? There must be something unmovable that allowed and continues to allow my existence.
9. Whether this is God, aliens, or a group of programmers who created me as artificial intelligence in a simulation, the idea of a creator still can't leave my mind.
10. With a creator as a basis, I need to know if I can trust them or not. How can I know whether I can trust them if I can't fully interact with them? If this creator made me, then he created my sensory perceptions, my way of thinking, and all that is me. If I can't trust them, then I can't even trust myself.
11. Can I answer this? Absolutely not. This is where my line of reasoning halts—the place where I can't rely fully on myself any longer. How can I prove anything besides myself and something else that made me, then?
12. I can't. I need to have faith that I can trust the being that made me, and only then can I begin to resume my line of reasoning in confirming the world around me—everything I think, see, hear, touch, taste, or smell.
13. If this line of reasoning is followed to its conclusion, then the idea of God becomes necessaey to explain anything besides myself.

Ironrot

 

[Ironrot]

Count Gensokyo honestly I can't follow your line of reasoning. It breaks at 7. That's a personal statement unless you've included proof of God in a below step.

I think what you are asking is, how can I know anything is real. That's some deep philosophy there. But thing is, you don't need to know. You just need to know enough to interact. That's where a model comes in.

On the creation of the universe, we can establish that something created it. Personification of this thing and any additional information is an unnecessary leap that you can't test, prove or disprove.

To the thread.

So, we are never going to agree. I think we all know this. He's the reason why:

You are all coming from a different place to me. You start with the assumption that God exists. That's called Faith, and that's fine.

I'm asking for proof. There are a couple ways to get this. One is to build from 'smaller' proofs. The other is to assume God does not exist and show me that this would break the universe.

The point is. I don't think you can prove God. But you don't have to. You have faith.

 

[Kerim]

Alright alright alright, I'm gonna join in with one single message here. Now, I haven't read all the paragraphs because I'm simply not that interested in reading back-and-forth argues.

The whole problem of this discussion lies in us humans wanting to prove things. For example, we need reasons for everything. How can I tell I'm holding an apple? Because it tastes like one. It is what started in the renaissance and is going on still to this very day in form of science. We are simply great at challenging set precedents, coming up with anti-theories and experiments. But then, there are simple things such as religion. Why do we believe in an omnipotent being that has created everything and has possibly programmed our free will? (Depending on what church of Christianity you follow.)

It is a thing we probably never will be able to explain because we cannot simply go back in time to see how our Earth was created. To see how universe was created. How time came to be and how reality was founded. Those questions will remain the greatest mysteries of mankind and will remain that until we die.

Both science and religion come up with good points as to why their version is the real one. But how do we know which one is the right one? We don't know. But we believe. Our beliefs cannot be challenged by other beliefs and be changed easily. Once our minds think something, they will think that unless they see a solid, hard proof, that their beliefs are wrong. Does science have a proof to present to religion? No, it doesn't. Does religion have it to prove science wrong? It doesn't have it either.

You can argue against a person from the other side with little points and arguments all you want, but most of the time it will not shape the "opponent's" thinking to your liking. I am going to say something my evangelical grandma once told me when I was little: "you may believe in something, but I believe in something else; God." Of course there are going to be people that will challenge your stance. And there will be people not understanding your thoughts. But the most important thing to do in this case scenario (in my opinion) is not to try change others or persuade them to join your side. We are all humans and we should love one another no matter what we think.

It's quite upsetting that we can get so defensive when the very basis of our conscious thinking of belief is 'attacked', but it's in our nature. My view on this? Do I believe in a higher natural being? No. Can I disprove it? No, I cannot. I rest my case.

 

[Ironrot]

Alright alright alright, I'm gonna join in with one single message here. Now, I haven't read all the paragraphs because I'm simply not that interested in reading back-and-forth argues.

The whole problem of this discussion lies in us humans wanting to prove things. For example, we need reasons for everything. How can I tell I'm holding an apple? Because it tastes like one. It is what started in the renaissance and is going on still to this very day in form of science. We are simply great at challenging set precedents, coming up with anti-theories and experiments. But then, there are simple things such as religion. Why do we believe in an omnipotent being that has created everything and has possibly programmed our free will? (Depending on what church of Christianity you follow.)

It is a thing we probably never will be able to explain because we cannot simply go back in time to see how our Earth was created. To see how universe was created. How time came to be and how reality was founded. Those questions will remain the greatest mysteries of mankind and will remain that until we die.

Both science and religion come up with good points as to why their version is the real one. But how do we know which one is the right one? We don't know. But we believe. Our beliefs cannot be challenged by other beliefs and be changed easily. Once our minds think something, they will think that unless they see a solid, hard proof, that their beliefs are wrong. Does science have a proof to present to religion? No, it doesn't. Does religion have it to prove science wrong? It doesn't have it either.

You can argue against a person from the other side with little points and arguments all you want, but most of the time it will not shape the "opponent's" thinking to your liking. I am going to say something my evangelical grandma once told me when I was little: "you may believe in something, but I believe in something else; God." Of course there are going to be people that will challenge your stance. And there will be people not understanding your thoughts. But the most important thing to do in this case scenario (in my opinion) is not to try change others or persuade them to join your side. We are all humans and we should love one another no matter what we think.

It's quite upsetting that we can get so defensive when the very basis of our conscious thinking of belief is 'attacked', but it's in our nature. My view on this? Do I believe in a higher natural being? No. Can I disprove it? No, I cannot. I rest my case.

You're not wrong about the nature of people. And also that we don't need to agree to be kind. I think everyone's been quite civil in this thread and good on us.

I would like to point out one thing however. Just because you can't prove something with certainty, it does not mean that all things are equally plausible or equally credible. Not to say that this was your statement but I think it's important to understand that.

 

[Hall Kervean]

You're not wrong about the nature of people. And also that we don't need to agree to be kind. I think everyone's been quite civil in this thread and good on us.

I would like to point out one thing however. Just because you can't prove something with certainty, it does not mean that all things are equally plausible or equally credible. Not to say that this was your statement but I think it's important to understand that.

YES
YES
also
YES
THAT is a point that's really difficult to understand.
Neither side can prove their side.
But all the same, I'd like to know what you believe, Iron.

 

[DropDeadDreamer]

I'm not atheist, but agnostic with atheistic bias. I'm an agnostic simply because I don't know what happens when I die. I'll never know until I die. Until then, I just try to be the best person that I can be and treat everyone with respect regardless of their religion.

As for why I'm agnostic, I just can't believe or disbelieve. I've tried to be religious and I've tried to be completely atheist, but there's just a part of me that can't have blind faith.

 

[Zombocalypse]

This has been quite the thread. There are a few people here that I wanna talk to, but I can't because I'm using my phone to type this message, making navigation really tough. But anyway, I just wanna add something here.

I believe in the Bible literally. I consider it not as a legend, but as a history book. I stick to the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that there are literal angels and demons.

I used to tackle this whole religion thing from an intellectual standpoint, but realized how pointless that was. Belief in God is more than just reasoning and argumentation. It is also a matter of the heart. And as much as the human intellect can be considered the most powerful force in the universe, so too can the heart be considered that. Belief in God is neither a sign of stupidity or ignorance. It is strength. And like true strength, it comes from the heart. I believe in God simply because I can feel him in a way that I can't fully describe. But just because I can't describe it doesn't make me stupid. It just means that language is insufficient to discuss matters that are beyond words.

How can you explain falling in love? It makes no sense. It just doesn't. Despite the fact that there are billions of people of the opposite sex, when we fall inlove, somehow that person we fall inlove to becomes the only one that matters. Science will never be able to explain this phenomenon.

Intellectual discussions are better suited for science and math, not God.

There is more to life than the brain.

 

[Vudukudu]

Not sure love is the best example. Might be difficult to explain, though I'd argue its a case of linguistic insufficiency.

Scientific studies of love both on the biological and anthropological levels have set up a number of ways to understand it both chemically and culturally. Its not exactly the romanticized enigma we've made it out to be.