Evidence for God from Science

Can science prove that love exists? What is love?

They cannot quantify it, or tell you its physical properties, but it does produce observable behavior.

What behaviors lead one to infer love? In science, we have to find ways to objectively measure things. Love is, I think, a difficult thing to objectively measure.

How should we do that?

there are ways of measuring without quantifying. i liken this to how i drive a manual car. if you think about it too much and you are constantly checking the tachometer, you are more likely to make a mistake and let the cluch out too fast or something. but if you feel how the clutch and accellerator work together, and you keep your eyes on the road instead of on the dash, then you can more easily get a smooth, fluid change without any bumps or stutters. i feel this is similar to how we can measure spiritually. you can feel the energy associated with such emotions, and if you finely tune this awareness, you are better able to measure it, and understand it, though in far different ways than anything like modern science.

"Modern Science" is the same use of logic and reason with the hypothetical investigative process used throughout all of human history to discover things about the world around people. A materialistic philosophy handcuffs investigation, and is absurd because material is not all there is. You can discover through the same process anything including God.

The Barbarian wrote:What behaviors lead one to infer love? In science, we have to find ways to objectively measure things. Love is, I think, a difficult thing to objectively measure.

How should we do that?

The behaviors that a person does out of love witnesses to themselves that love exists and has an impact on the real world.

An objective measurement is not neccesarry to gather knowledge about love. Evidence doesn't need to be an objective measurement. Theories are simply statements about how things could be or may be, that predict and explain.

If the theory of love predicts or explains behavior it can be a valid scientific theory. Science that condones a monistic philosphy and rejects God simply avoids trying to explain anything that isn't material.

Science can't explain all things, can it? I find that a comforting thought.

Does science quantify/define or acknowledge love?

Mystical wrote:Does science quantify/define or acknowledge love?

Well done. It defines emotions, (biochemical processes of the human mind), and associates most closely related known terminology to those processes. They have repeatedly done imaging, magnetic and otherwise, to ascertain the location, (node), in the brain that emotional responses are created from/within. They can tell you with certainy that when one experiences the emotion best known as love, certain areas of the brain respond with activity, degrees varying on the experience and personal intensity towards the stimuli.

I don't know if it is possible to "quantify" an emotion, as you are talking about applying an absolute to an abstract, but I could definitely be wrong.

Do you know what emotions they attribute to love? I've begun to learn that love is more action than a feeling, and definately not lust.

Mystical wrote:Do you know what emotions they attribute to love? I've begun to learn that love is more action than a feeling, and definately not lust.

Mystical, I honestly don't have enough hours of reading in this matter, I am fairly barebones with psychological "sciences". I have seen contentions for both aspects, but not enough information to make a definitive conclusion.

(edited for spelling)

Mastriani wrote:

Mystical wrote:Does science quantify/define or acknowledge love?

Well done. It defines emotions, (biochemical processes of the human mind), and associates most closely related known terminology to those processes. They have repeatedly done imaging, magnetic and otherwise, to ascertain the location, (node), in the brain that emotional responses are created from/within.

Sorry I don't mean to simply be contrary, but I think this is bunk. I agree it is true that they have identified area in the brain that respond to emotion, but it is so academically wrong to claim causation, that it is a bit silly.

Again this simply comes from an absurd philosophy of materialistic monism. I can tell you that from a dualistic philosophy that it isn't suprising that man's spirit would have an impact on his organism.

You see you have an answer, but no ability to demonstrate that the emotion is actually caused by those biochecmical processes that are associated with it.

Mystical wrote:Do you know what emotions they attribute to love? I've begun to learn that love is more action than a feeling, and definately not lust.

Emotions are subjective and actions are objective. It would do little good to describe what love feels like, because that feeling is uniquely mine. So I would agree that descriptions of actions would be more beneficial.

Jbuza wrote:

Mastriani wrote:

Mystical wrote:Does science quantify/define or acknowledge love?

Well done. It defines emotions, (biochemical processes of the human mind), and associates most closely related known terminology to those processes. They have repeatedly done imaging, magnetic and otherwise, to ascertain the location, (node), in the brain that emotional responses are created from/within.

Sorry I don't mean to simply be contrary, but I think this is bunk. I agree it is true that they have identified area in the brain that respond to emotion, but it is so academically wrong to claim causation, that it is a bit silly.

Again this simply comes from an absurd philosophy of materialistic monism. I can tell you that from a dualistic philosophy that it isn't suprising that man's spirit would have an impact on his organism.

You see you have an answer, but no ability to demonstrate that the emotion is actually caused by those biochecmical processes that are associated with it.

Incorrect. What I was asserting, because I admit limited knowledge in the area, is that science has defined activity in the cortex of the human brain when people describe/feel love. The biochemical processes via synaptic response are catalogued in volume after volume of scientific study. I also admitted that I put no stock in psychology, and that their determinations of aspects of such a complicated emotion fail to provide non-subjective information, doing so with much less verbosity in the previous post.

Strange that you bring up "duality" after your previous assertion that I spent too much effort in studying other religions, and that is intrinsically an eastern understanding, and not at all part of Christian doctrines.

My personal view on "love" is not at all scientific, because although I believe science can give us the mechanics of cerebral action, emotions cannot be so limited by prescribed empiricism or data. "Love" is an altogether different subject, and does not fit within the confines of simple observation. Like religion or spirituality, it is designed to be individual specific.

Mastriani
Incorrect. What I was asserting, because I admit limited knowledge in the area, is that science has defined activity in the cortex of the human brain when people describe/feel love. The biochemical processes via synaptic response are catalogued in volume after volume of scientific study. I also admitted that I put no stock in psychology, and that their determinations of aspects of such a complicated emotion fail to provide non-subjective information, doing so with much less verbosity in the previous post.


Yes I was not disagreeing that there are biochemical responses within the brain when people describe/feel love. Measurements of brain activity in a specific region are objective measurements of a non-material concept/feeling having an impact on the material organism of the human. IT was by definition objective since it was measuring by an outside person not a description by the person with the feeling.
-------------
Mastriani
Strange that you bring up "duality" after your previous assertion that I spent too much effort in studying other religions, and that is intrinsically an eastern understanding, and not at all part of Christian doctrines.

Incorrect. The monism I attribute to science is not the only monism that exists. Some believe in a monism in which all the physical is dream/illusion. I do want to say that I did not say that you were putting too much effort into studying other religions, but was pointing out that it can be done and not lead you to finding The Truth, The Way, and The Life. Dualism is so clearly demonstrated in the creation of Adam, I'm not sure how a thinking Christian can come to any conclusion but that existence is made up from the material substance God formed Adam from, and the other non material element that God breathed into him. This would so clearly point to a dual existence, that I'm not sure why you would be surprised to find a Christian proposing a dualistic existence.
------------
Mastriani
"Love" is an altogether different subject, and does not fit within the confines of simple observation.

I Disagree. Because some decree came from the materialistic monism of science, does not mean that scientific investigation can no longer interpret and explain properties and mechanisms that impact man from the non-material aspect of his being.
------------