Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Options
1…2223252728…34

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    Could you truly know what love is unless you experienced it.
    Describing different types of love, doesn't present evidence of the existence of love.
    Given that it can go as quickly as it comes, or even turn to hate, how do you even pin it down, if its a state of mind, could it be in our heads only, is it then our imagination.
    Which comes first, the state of mind or emotion.
    I cant see a persons behavior been evidence, it could be nothing more than following a set step of procedures, handed down by society.


  • Options
    #723
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    iceman700 wrote: »
    Could you truly know what love is unless you experienced it.
    Describing different types of love, doesn't present evidence of the existence of love.
    Given that it can go as quickly as it comes, or even turn to hate, how do you even pin it down, if its a state of mind, could it be in our heads only, is it then our imagination.
    Which comes first, the state of mind or emotion.
    I cant see a persons behavior been evidence, it could be nothing more than following a set step of procedures, handed down by society.

    Perhaps before looking for evidence for the existence of love, you could start by providing us with a single well accepted and unambiguous definition of what you mean by love. I doubt you'll find one as all the standard dictionaries, e.g. Merriam-Webster here, contain multiple definitions as both noun and verb. If for example, you say 'I love my wife', love is a verb, it doesn't exist in and of itself. If you talk about 'the love' between and husband and wife, you've conflated the love the husband has for his wife and the love the wife has for her husband which are clearly two different things.

    If you take the first entry from MW, that love is "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties" than yes, you can measure it through observing someones comparative behavior to the person they love versus others they do not. The reason you can do this is that love is defined above in terms of behavior. Going through other definitions, e.g. "attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers", you can also measure this but you would do so differently as it is a different meaning for the same word.


  • Options
    #724
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭pearcider


    All these arguments about love miss the point because atheists only believe in the void of biological determinism ie that the existence of love, beauty and truth are merely an accidental by product of a clock work universe and that these so called altruistic genetics can replace God.

    The problem that the atheists have is that the quantum theorists discovered many years ago that you must completely abandon determinism and opt for the many worlds or multiverse theory to explain physical reality. That, to most people, is even more of a stretch than just simply believing in God. Simply put either only our reality exists or every single possible reality exists. When presented with such a choice most opt for the existence of the single, stupendously well designed reality that we appear to inhabi.

    Fundamentally all attempts by the human brain to understand the mystery of human existence are doomed to fail. See Godels theorem. Since the brain is part of the system it seeks to understand, any exercise to do so is futile and leads to numerous paradoxes such as the hard problem of conciousness. Of course most people don’t need a scientist to tell them that. The Bible warns of listening to “wise people” “ever learning but never able to come to the truth.” Be wise as serpents against such people who seek to control human behaviors and rule by committee. This is the new priesthood that mankind must fear. The rule of the white coats and the bean counters foreshadowed in communist Russia and Nazi Germany...

    Thankfully, for the moment the ordinary person already knows that life is a profound miracle which is why the number of atheists in the world is tiny compared to the number of believers. And why belief in God is fundamental to all culture.


  • Options
    #725
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,405 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    death metal exists, but can i prove that scientifically?


  • Options
    #726
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    death metal exists, but can i prove that scientifically?

    So does Frankie Knuckles, he's pushing up the daisy's now but his mixing still takes me to a heavenly place,and his legend still lives on...

    I love death metal too, Territory is one of my favourite tracks by Sepeltura... darkness and light...it exists alright...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nthclare wrote: »
    I tried to be friendly here or put my hand up and apologise for my attitude or upsetting the decorum of the subject matter, and when I do it's only the moderators who'll thank your post,as they have mine sometimes. Maybe we should have a better place to discuss these matters, such as a loosecloak type of sub forum. Where people can let off steam,slag each other off etc.. and have a warning that if you're highly sensitive or lack emotional intelligence maybe it's best you steer clear.
    No, A+A aims to discuss things with some semblance of reason, where people are expected to provide evidence to support their points of view. If you don't like rational discussion and want instead - as you say above - to insult people directly or indirectly, then, as smacl correctly points out, After Hours will suit you better than here. And sites other than boards.ie will suit you better still.
    nthclare wrote: »
    [...] it's the only forum on board's where one has to walk on eggshells.
    I'm sure there are plenty of forums on boards and elsewhere like A+A, but A+A is the only forum that I'm aware of where you will be pulled up for the kind of direct and indirect incivility which flavours most of your vague, meandering, soft-focus postings. If you find being civil to your fellow posters, or saying something worth reading, or ideally, both at the same time, to be burdensome to the point of feeling that you're walking on eggshells, then, ya again, you're better off elsewhere.


  • Options
    #728
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    iceman700 wrote: »
    Just to clarify, maybe I didnt make myself clear, the results of spiritual intervention can be experienced in this physical reality.

    If you cannot measure a thing, then you cannot say how much of an event is down to the intervention of that thing. If you cannot measure that thing, you cannot even determine that it exists.
    iceman700 wrote: »
    If something cannot be measured scientifically, then , how do you know it exists, how do you measure love, scientifically.

    MRIs, brain chemistry analyses. Love is an emotion after all.
    Your turn now, how do you know if something exists if you can't measure it?


  • Options
    #729
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    pearcider wrote: »
    All these arguments about love miss the point because atheists only believe in the void of biological determinism ie that the existence of love, beauty and truth are merely an accidental by product of a clock work universe and that these so called altruistic genetics can replace God.

    The problem that the atheists have is that the quantum theorists discovered many years ago that you must completely abandon determinism and opt for the many worlds or multiverse theory to explain physical reality. That, to most people, is even more of a stretch than just simply believing in God. Simply put either only our reality exists or every single possible reality exists. When presented with such a choice most opt for the existence of the single, stupendously well designed reality that we appear to inhabi.

    Fundamentally all attempts by the human brain to understand the mystery of human existence are doomed to fail. See Godels theorem. Since the brain is part of the system it seeks to understand, any exercise to do so is futile and leads to numerous paradoxes such as the hard problem of conciousness. Of course most people don’t need a scientist to tell them that. The Bible warns of listening to “wise people” “ever learning but never able to come to the truth.” Be wise as serpents against such people who seek to control human behaviors and rule by committee. This is the new priesthood that mankind must fear. The rule of the white coats and the bean counters foreshadowed in communist Russia and Nazi Germany...

    Thankfully, for the moment the ordinary person already knows that life is a profound miracle which is why the number of atheists in the world is tiny compared to the number of believers. And why belief in God is fundamental to all culture.

    It is possible that we may never understand the complexity of the universe, due to inherent limitations of the human brain. (When I say we I mean really smart people..)
    But I don't understand why that should mean proof or existence of a super natural entity that created and controls everything.
    It is a constant of human development, when faced with the inexplicable, super natural reasons were given.
    We didn't understand thunder and lightning, so they were caused by the gods.
    The universe is vast and complicated, with mysteries that may be beyond human understanding. That however is not proof or indeed evidence of a powerful creater, just a function of our limitations.


  • Options
    #730
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    iceman700 wrote: »
    Could you truly know what love is unless you experienced it.

    Could you really know what nachos are, unless you experienced them?
    Nachos are still measurable, the bag they come in even has the weight printed on it.


  • Options
    #731
    Kaybaykwah
    Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Could you really know what nachos are, unless you experienced them?
    Nachos are still measurable, the bag they come in even has the weight printed on it.

    I love nachos, but, as the saying goes, that doesn't prove the existence of nachos, nor of God, even less of love, and come to think of it; existence. Poof!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    pearcider wrote: »
    All these arguments about love miss the point because atheists only believe in the void of biological determinism ie that the existence of love, beauty and truth are merely an accidental by product of a clock work universe and that these so called altruistic genetics can replace God.

    They are incidental, not accidental, as accidental implies some entity wanted something else to happen. On the universal level, nothing wanted anything to happen, it just did, and does, because the correct conditions arose for it to happen.
    pearcider wrote: »
    The problem that the atheists have is that the quantum theorists discovered many years ago that you must completely abandon determinism and opt for the many worlds or multiverse theory to explain physical reality. That, to most people, is even more of a stretch than just simply believing in God. Simply put either only our reality exists or every single possible reality exists. When presented with such a choice most opt for the existence of the single, stupendously well designed reality that we appear to inhabi.

    Which quantum theorists did this?
    Also, given that there are a trillion trillion stars and we only know of life on the microscopically small (relatively speaking) outer film of a single planet that happens to be within an appropriate distance from a single star, that seems to imply that this reality is horrifically badly designed for us. Even just looking at earth, insect life outweighs human life 2:1, so it doesn't even look like the biosphere on earth is particularly aimed at humans.
    pearcider wrote: »
    Fundamentally all attempts by the human brain to understand the mystery of human existence are doomed to fail. See Godels theorem. Since the brain is part of the system it seeks to understand, any exercise to do so is futile and leads to numerous paradoxes such as the hard problem of conciousness. Of course most people don’t need a scientist to tell them that. The Bible warns of listening to “wise people” “ever learning but never able to come to the truth.” Be wise as serpents against such people who seek to control human behaviors and rule by committee. This is the new priesthood that mankind must fear. The rule of the white coats and the bean counters foreshadowed in communist Russia and Nazi Germany...

    Ultimately, no matter the claim of where the bible comes from, your brain is what you use to determine whether you accept those claims, so if you are genuine here you must admit that we cannot accept the bible either. In fact going by your logic here, we cannot ever accept any statement of reality, as ultimately we are relying on our brain to determine if that statement is true. At best, you have tried to create a stalement and then pretended it doesn't apply to you.
    pearcider wrote: »
    Thankfully, for the moment the ordinary person already knows that life is a profound miracle which is why the number of atheists in the world is tiny compared to the number of believers. And why belief in God is fundamental to all culture.

    Those cultural beliefs in god can be quite fundamentally different. Most are inherently contradictory. They can't all be right.
    And as you said above, culture ultimately comes from our brain, so we can't trust it.


  • Options
    #733
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If you cannot measure a thing, then you cannot say how much of an event is down to the intervention of that thing. If you cannot measure that thing, you cannot even determine that it exists.


    MRIs, brain chemistry analyses. Love is an emotion after all.
    Your turn now, how do you know if something exists if you can't measure it?

    How do you know it’s love you are measuring and not the thought of it, if you think of lemons does the mouth not salivate.
    You can experience something, without measurment, but alas that’s not scientifically acceptable.
    MRIs have been carried out on Buddhist monks before and after meditation, and changes found, is that a measure of connection?


  • Options
    #734
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    nthclare wrote: »
    Love is all around, you experience it iceman and I wouldn't ask anyone here about the existence of love. Like yourself I dip into the lion's den now and again and it's the only forum on board's where one has to walk on eggshells.

    A moderator here in a roundabout way suggested to me that if I want to share and respond in my usual way, that after hours might suit me better.
    And I appreciate their heads up about that.

    Not everyone in here will try to set a trap for you, there's more reasonable people than unreasonable...

    I love debating with banter and a bit of heated debate doesn't cause me any bother, doesn't do me any harm.

    You'll get people plagiarising from Richard Dawkins book's and other popular author's, thinking they're intelligent or scoring point's.
    And the lion's will start coming out of the grasslands and my observation is they're not there for a balanced debate.. only to push people out. It's their territory.
    I like holding ground until the lionesses or lion tells me that it's time to leave our den now, so like a cheetah I'm sprinting to greener pastures and then when I feel safe I'll have a look through the tall grass and pop my head up only to be chased off again.

    I've heard it all in here,and I'll admit yes I do derail the thread now and again.
    You'll never get someone agreeing to disagree, or respond to your genuinely nice post above, and say..

    No worries man, were all different but we can get along all the same and sure it's like being being in the lion's den but our roar is worse than our bite. Oh no there's not an ounce of that here.

    I tried to be friendly here or put my hand up and apologise for my attitude or upsetting the decorum of the subject matter, and when I do it's only the moderators who'll thank your post,as they have mine sometimes.

    Maybe we should have a better place to discuss these matters, such as a loosecloak type of sub forum.

    Where people can let off steam,slag each other off etc.. and have a warning that if you're highly sensitive or lack emotional intelligence maybe it's best you steer clear.

    There's a sub forum here where you share about the Hazard's of belief etc and it undermines religion and spirituality quite a lot, so what's good for the goose should be good for the gander...

    Hi NTH CLARE,
    I like your style, I love a bit of banter, don’t even mind if the gloves come off.


  • Options
    #735
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    death metal exists, but can i prove that scientifically?

    Course you can, buy the cd and take an X-ray of it.


  • Options
    #736
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    iceman700 wrote: »
    How do you know it’s love you are measuring and not the thought of it, if you think of lemons does the mouth not salivate.
    You can experience something, without measurment, but alas that’s not scientifically acceptable.
    MRIs have been carried out on Buddhist monks before and after meditation, and changes found, is that a measure of connection?

    I note you still haven't given us your definition of what love is. Can't exactly put forward evidence indicating that something exists when you haven't even said what that thing is.


  • Options
    #737
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    nthclare wrote: »

    I'd love a permanent ban from Atheism and Agnoticism to be honest...love it

    You know where the door is.


  • Options
    #738
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nthclare wrote: »
    I'd love a permanent ban from Atheism and Agnoticism to be honest...love it

    Mod: If you don't like the style of discussion here, don't post here. It is not like anyone's making you. Only reason you'd get banned or infracted is if you can't manage to keep to the rules of the charter like every other poster here. With respect, you're acting like a gaa player at a soccer match getting all píssy because he can't pick up the ball. Thems the rules around here, simple as. You don't like them, play elsewhere


  • Options
    #739
    Username here
    Registered Users Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭Username here


    nthclare wrote: »
    I'd love a permanent ban from Atheism and Agnoticism to be honest...love it

    Why do you want a ban? So you can play the victim card? Or is your impulse control so poor that you need someone else to take that decision out of your hands?

    Oh and by the way - the mere fact that people don't share your worldview doesn't make them narcissists.


  • Options
    #740
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    uptherebels wrote: »
    You know where the door is.

    How bad like....


  • Options
    #741
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,405 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    getting back to the thread title; why does my opinion matter? things either exist or they don't, and my opinion cannot change that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,114 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    nthclare wrote: »
    The only time I ever ever get infractions is in the A+A forum.

    And I'm being told by a moderator to abide by the forum rules, because I'm upsetting other forum members.

    You're being asked to follow the rules of the forum. Every forum on boards has its own rules. If you breach the rules you get warnings or bans.

    You seem to think that the trite style of AH posting you're used to will be tolerated everywhere.


  • Options
    #743
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MOD

    A number of posts discussing moderation in this forum have been merged and moved to the A&A Feedback thread where they belong https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113458551&postcount=1762

    Any posters who wish to discuss moderation/make suggestions etc should do so there - and there only.
    Any further attempts to discuss moderation in this thread (or attempt to drag another non-feedback thread off topic by discussing moderation) will be meet with sanction.
    FEEDBACK THREAD IS HERE: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056770280&page=45


  • Options
    #744
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    iceman700 wrote: »
    How do you know it’s love you are measuring and not the thought of it, if you think of lemons does the mouth not salivate.
    You can experience something, without measurment, but alas that’s not scientifically acceptable.
    MRIs have been carried out on Buddhist monks before and after meditation, and changes found, is that a measure of connection?

    Love is a thought (or a collection of them), so I don't see what distinction you are making.
    An MRI taken after eating is different to one taken before, it doesn't mean anything more than biology.

    Would you like to actually answer my question this time, how do you know if something exists if you can't measure it?


  • Options
    #745
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Could you really know what nachos are, unless you experienced them?
    Nachos are still measurable, the bag they come in even has the weight printed on it.

    I think you’re missing the point completely here. The question you need to ask is how can you know how nachos taste? Is that measurable? If we are merely measuring machines or “philosophical zombies”, then our feelings are just a way our brain represents our responses to the environment.

    But we have no idea how the brain turns these responses into a subjective experience - if the brain is indeed involved at all - and science is actually pointing us to a non reductionist view. That is that consciousness does not live in the brain. The brain lives in conciousness.

    All that said a computer might well be able to recognise the taste of nachos if it's programmed to do so. However, it will still have no subjective experience of tasting nachos or of anything else for that matter.

    If you want to argue the reductionist or materialist approach to consciousness, which most atheists do, then you must accept there is no way to differentiate between a "philosophical zombie" who would respond to the taste of nachos by means of neuronal stimulation but without causing any subjective experience whatsoever and a human having a subjective experience of the same nachos.

    For all intents and purposes, the zombie and the human would look and behave exactly the same.

    However, you and I both know that we are not philosophical zombies since we both have subjective experiences although we are both unable to prove it. This is the essence of the hard problem of consciousness and there is no convincing materialist or reductionist way to solve it.

    Of course it is no surprise that materialism breaks down when discussing fundamental questions of human existence since it also broke down for Schrödinger et al over a hundred years ago when they were looking at systems that were, at least on the face of it far, far simpler. It is more than curious to note that that problem (the collapse of the wave function) they ran into intimately involved consciousness too.


  • Options
    #746
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    smacl wrote: »
    I note you still haven't given us your definition of what love is. Can't exactly put forward evidence indicating that something exists when you haven't even said what that thing is.

    My definition of what love is, is irrelevant, are you pretending not to know what love is.
    You have been given the task, through your very own strict parameters of logic and science and the five senses, to give evidence for the existence of love.
    So far no-one has come even close, do you need more time?


  • Options
    #747
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Love is a thought (or a collection of them), so I don't see what distinction you are making.
    An MRI taken after eating is different to one taken before, it doesn't mean anything more than biology.

    Would you like to actually answer my question this time, how do you know if something exists if you can't measure it?

    If you honestly think love is a thought, or a collection of them, I can only assume you have never experienced love.

    For a second time, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You cannot have personal experience of something, if it doesn't exist.


  • Options
    #748
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    pearcider wrote: »
    The question you need to ask is how can you know how nachos taste? Is that measurable?

    Yes. Nachos are chemicals and chemicals can be measured.
    pearcider wrote: »
    But we have no idea how the brain turns these responses into a subjective experience - if the brain is indeed involved at all - and science is actually pointing us to a non reductionist view. That is that consciousness does not live in the brain. The brain lives in conciousness.

    Gustatory Cortex.
    We have a very good idea of what chemically makes up taste and how our brain receives it. We have a fair idea of what makes those tastes good to some people and bad to others (genetics and upbringing effect what you enjoy the taste of).
    You are going to have provide some evidence that science is pointing to the consciousness not living inside the brain, because I'm calling BS on that.
    pearcider wrote: »
    All that said a computer might well be able to recognise the taste of nachos if it's programmed to do so. However, it will still have no subjective experience of tasting nachos or of anything else for that matter.

    If it is programmed to use nachos as fuel then it will, subjective to it's programming, prefer nachos to other items it is given to it.
    pearcider wrote: »
    If you want to argue the reductionist or materialist approach to consciousness, which most atheists do, then you must accept there is no way to differentiate between a "philosophical zombie" who would respond to the taste of nachos by means of neuronal stimulation but without causing any subjective experience whatsoever and a human having a subjective experience of the same nachos.

    For all intents and purposes, the zombie and the human would look and behave exactly the same.

    However, you and I both know that we are not philosophical zombies since we both have subjective experiences although we are both unable to prove it. This is the essence of the hard problem of consciousness and there is no convincing materialist or reductionist way to solve it.

    How is it impossible to prove we have subjective experiences? It is eminently obvious to the point of not needing measurement that our experiences are subjective (we are different people). But we can prove that we experience things differently with things like MRIs to show different brain responses to the same stimuli.
    pearcider wrote: »
    Of course it is no surprise that materialism breaks down when discussing fundamental questions of human existence since it also broke down for Schrödinger et al over a hundred years ago when they were looking at systems that were, at least on the face of it far, far simpler. It is more than curious to note that that problem (the collapse of the wave function) they ran into intimately involved consciousness too.

    It involved observation, which pop-sci and pseudo-science sometimes likes to interpret as the same as human consciousness, but that hasn't been proved to be the case at all.


  • Options
    #749
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    iceman700 wrote: »
    If you honestly think love is a thought, or a collection of them, I can only assume you have never experienced love.

    You can't even define love, so how can you claim to have experienced it?
    And I have experienced love. I am engaged, and I have a daughter, I love both my fiance and my daughter in different ways. These ways are both just collections of thoughts and emotions, just biology, but that doesn't reduce one iota how I feel about them.
    Hunger is a simple biological response, but go hungry for a week and see if it doesn't take over your mind.
    iceman700 wrote: »
    For a second time, PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You cannot have personal experience of something, if it doesn't exist.

    Exactly.
    If something doesn't exist, then you can't have had a personal experience of it. You had a personal experiences of something and have mis-attributed it to something that don't exist.
    Given that people claim personal experience of things that directly contradict your personal experiences, the only way to determine if something exists is to remove the personal aspect of the experience, to measure it objectively.
    Personal experience doesn't tell you something exists.


  • Options
    #750
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,405 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i have personally experienced my dreams. doesn't mean that rambling old hotel in louisiana, that i got lost in last night trying to find my room exists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    iceman700
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭iceman700


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You can't even define love, so how can you claim to have experienced it?

    Either can you, but you claim to have experienced it.

    And I have experienced love. I am engaged, and I have a daughter, I love both my fiance and my daughter in different ways. These ways are both just collections of thoughts and emotions, just biology, but that doesn't reduce one iota how I feel about them.
    Hunger is a simple biological response, but go hungry for a week and see if it doesn't take over your mind.

    Many people get engaged, married have children, but are not in love, going by your definition maybe you just think your in love.


    Exactly.
    If something doesn't exist, then you can't have had a personal experience of it. You had a personal experiences of something and have mis-attributed it to something that don't exist.

    How could you possible know, I have mis-attributed anything.

    Given that people claim personal experience of things that directly contradict your personal experiences, the only way to determine if something exists is to remove the personal aspect of the experience, to measure it objectively.
    Personal experience doesn't tell you something exists.

    Not by your narrow, strict, bible of logic and science


Advertisement