Evidence for God from Science

Many times on this forum I've seen people saying how chemistry and physics cannot account for reason and love, that in materialistic world is no free will, no objective morality. This issues still bother me a lot. I am not an expert in psychology, game theory, social evolution, biochemistry and so on so I find it very hard to write down some definition of what love is and so on. So I went to one atheistic forum to discuss this with them too.

One reaction was: "In a scientific worldview lots of evidence points towards there being no free will. If this turns out to be actual fact, one could be more comfortable believing it's not, but it wouldn't change reality."

Then they gave me 4 wikipedia links on rationality, love, morality and free will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_(scientific_views)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Anthropology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#In_science,

I will start with love.

Evolutionary psychology suggested that the human capacity to experience love has been evolved as a signal to potential mates that the partner will be a good parent and be likely to help pass genes to future generations. Evolutionary theory also suggests that love keeps two people together, and this would help raise a child. People with the ability to form love would produce more offspring than those without that ability. And these offspring would have the genes for love. Thus, the genes for love would become common, and that is why most people today have the ability to love.

It is interesting to read about chemicals in brain which are involved when people experience love. Some chemicals are found during the attraction phase of a relationship, other seem to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments. It is also interesting to read that antidepressants disrupt balance of organism. Then there is the nerve growth factor which has high levels when people firts fall in love and returns back to normal after one year. And so on and so on.

Reading all this how one can say that chemistry and physics cannot account for love? If God is real then he invented chemistry and physics and with it the love. The only thing then a theist will disagree with is the evolutionary theory of love since first people would not be capable of it. If God is not real then there is this evolutionary explanation of origin of love.

1over137 wrote:One reaction was: "In a scientific worldview lots of evidence points towards there being no free will. If this turns out to be actual fact, one could be more comfortable believing it's not, but it wouldn't change reality."

Typical. We're right, you're wrong, deal with it. Saying that there's no free will is like saying that you don't exist, you can't actually prove free will or prove that you're not a part of some virtual reality, but I think it's pretty obvious. Besides, I'd like to know, if we don't have free will, what leads us to accurate observations and conclusions about the world? Only an entity that is free can make logical conclusions and adhere to those that seem most reasonable.

1over137 wrote:Evolutionary psychology suggested that the human capacity to experience love has been evolved as a signal to potential mates that the partner will be a good parent and be likely to help pass genes to future generations. Evolutionary theory also suggests that love keeps two people together, and this would help raise a child. People with the ability to form love would produce more offspring than those without that ability. And these offspring would have the genes for love. Thus, the genes for love would become common, and that is why most people today have the ability to love.

Cool story, but I disagree. A polygamous man is much more likely to produce more offspring than a monogamous one, despite the advantages of a monogamous relationship. If it was for the reproductive advantages, we'd still be producing offspring by asexual reproduction, as it's the most efficient method.

1over137 wrote:It is interesting to read about chemicals in brain which are involved when people experience love. Some chemicals are found during the attraction phase of a relationship, other seem to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments. It is also interesting to read that antidepressants disrupt balance of organism. Then there is the nerve growth factor which has high levels when people firts fall in love and returns back to normal after one year. And so on and so on.

Reading all this how one can say that chemistry and physics cannot account for love? If God is real then he invented chemistry and physics and with it the love. The only thing then a theist will disagree with is the evolutionary theory of love since first people would not be capable of it. If God is not real then there is this evolutionary explanation of origin of love.

Basically, what you're describing is the infatuation vs. love difference. The answer is simple - although some people confuse those two terms, the difference is obvious.

Infatuation is chemistry - it's not reasonable, a human becomes obsessed with another one for no apparent reason, and although pursuing this quirk may lead to real love, when you cut off the connection to that person in this phase, the feeling fades away, as it never existed.

Love is a profound connection between people. Since a person in love can actually point out the reasons as to why he/she is in love, we may say that it's reasonable. Unlike infatuation, love is not affected by distance. Beside romantic love, there is also family love, between parents and children, brothers and sisters etc.

What IS it with Wiki and YouTube that has them slobbering at the mouths? I don't get it. I know they're sources of information, but they hardly have the reliability of an editorial medium.

Reactionary wrote: Cool story, but I disagree. A polygamous man is much more likely to produce more offspring than a monogamous one, despite the advantages of a monogamous relationship. If it was for the reproductive advantages, we'd still be producing offspring by asexual reproduction, as it's the most efficient method.

Lol, "cool story" indeed. I completely agree with you, Reactionary. I've heard that explanation for the existence of love as well but it just didn't take. If more offspring really was the issue, then how does the fact that millions upon millions of men stay faithful to their wives when they're long past childbearing years? Yes, the argument could be posed that many men leave their wives or cheat with younger women, but as much as I'd like to make men to seem like the dogs here (:P) the majority of them are loyal.

And I think you nailed it: "Infatuation" is a chemical process that unfortunately, many people think is "love". Many of us can think of people we've been extremely attracted to, but were aware it was JUST chemical. So many guys out there that I've found attractive, but then they open their mouths..and suddenly I forget they're even there

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:If more offspring really was the issue, then how does the fact that millions upon millions of men stay faithful to their wives when they're long past childbearing years? Yes, the argument could be posed that many men leave their wives or cheat with younger women, but as much as I'd like to make men to seem like the dogs here (:P) the majority of them are loyal.

I agree that most men are loyal... I blame society, however, for distorting the image of masculinity, and ruining the self-confidence of those young men who have the potential for becoming gentlemen. Turns out it's almost a disgrace if you treat a girl like a lady, instead it's desirable to be promiscuous and "gain experience", which as I've seen, is common advice given to young men (along with learning idiotic pick up lines). Anyway, as I've drifted a little off topic here, many use this common degradation of male-female relationships as evidence in favour of evolutionary psychology, so in recent times we see "studies" that show how humans are not monogamous by nature, blah blah, in other words, anything that would attempt to justify sexual immorality.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:And I think you nailed it: "Infatuation" is a chemical process that unfortunately, many people think is "love". Many of us can think of people we've been extremely attracted to, but were aware it was JUST chemical. So many guys out there that I've found attractive, but then they open their mouths..and suddenly I forget they're even there

Tell me about it.

If the concept of love is to lie within the domain of the discipline of evolutionary psychology, then we'd all better pack up and go home now, for knowledge of how we ought to love and how we ought to think is abandoned, replaced by a dubious, descriptive psychology. And we are reduced to self-referential absurdity.

If anyone needed reminding ... Naturalism fails on all counts.

If anyone needed reminding ... Naturalism fails on all counts

And shoots logic square in the head.

Reactionary wrote:

1over137 wrote: One reaction was: "In a scientific worldview lots of evidence points towards there being no free will. If this turns out to be actual fact, one could be more comfortable believing it's not, but it wouldn't change reality."

Typical. We're right, you're wrong, deal with it.

The guy said nowhere that there is no free will. He said: "If ..."

Reactionary wrote: I'd like to know, if we don't have free will, what leads us to accurate observations and conclusions about the world? Only an entity that is free can make logical conclusions and adhere to those that seem most reasonable.

So, do you think that computers are not/will never be able of observing the world?

StMonicaGuideMe wrote: What IS it with Wiki and YouTube that has them slobbering at the mouths? I don't get it. I know they're sources of information, but they hardly have the reliability of an editorial medium.

I hoped that guys from the other forum would give me better references. Not only wikipedia. As I continue to talk with them I will see if they can give me something better.

Well, talking about love, this is what I found:
"Swans usually mate for life. At least 85% of them are monogamous. Once bonded, the male (cob) and female (pen) affirm and support each other in all things. They build their nest together. They share egg sitting so each has feeding and brooding breaks. They teach their newborn cygnets to forage for food, and defend them from all predators. The cob will lay down his life for his family. If one of the pair dies, the other often lives out the rest of his or her life alone. The love and loyalty of these beautiful birds has inspired legends for centuries." So, any comments on this? Are humans special or not, concerning the love? By the way, looking at the pictures of swans I think I know the origin of the shape of heart.

1over137 wrote:Well, talking about love, this is what I found:

"Swans usually mate for life. At least 85% of them are monogamous. Once bonded, the male (cob) and female (pen) affirm and support each other in all things. They build their nest together. They share egg sitting so each has feeding and brooding breaks. They teach their newborn cygnets to forage for food, and defend them from all predators. The cob will lay down his life for his family. If one of the pair dies, the other often lives out the rest of his or her life alone. The love and loyalty of these beautiful birds has inspired legends for centuries." So, any comments on this? Are humans special or not, concerning the love?

What does this tell you about love?

By the way, looking at the pictures of swans I think I know the origin of the shape of heart.

Yeah?

1over137 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:

1over137 wrote: One reaction was: "In a scientific worldview lots of evidence points towards there being no free will. If this turns out to be actual fact, one could be more comfortable believing it's not, but it wouldn't change reality."

Typical. We're right, you're wrong, deal with it.

The guy said nowhere that there is no free will. He said: "If ..."

It's a contradiction. If there is no free will, we can't choose to believe something for any reason other than chemical predetermination. Plus, I don't know how it could "turn out to be actual fact".

1over137 wrote:

Reactionary wrote: I'd like to know, if we don't have free will, what leads us to accurate observations and conclusions about the world? Only an entity that is free can make logical conclusions and adhere to those that seem most reasonable.

So, do you think that computers are not/will never be able of observing the world?

No, computers don't "observe" anything. They process the inputs in a way that humans programmed them, and produce results in a predictable manner. Nothing more, nothing less.

Reactionary wrote: A polygamous man is much more likely to produce more offspring than a monogamous one, despite the advantages of a monogamous relationship.

May I know how do you know what is more likely? It may be possible, that back in the tribal days—when much of human evolution took place—it would probably require two people to successfully raise an offspring, and a mother with a supporting partner would probably have more surviving offspring than a mother who does not have such a partner.

DannyM wrote:

1over137 wrote:Well, talking about love, this is what I found:
"Swans usually mate for life. At least 85% of them are monogamous. Once bonded, the male (cob) and female (pen) affirm and support each other in all things. They build their nest together. They share egg sitting so each has feeding and brooding breaks. They teach their newborn cygnets to forage for food, and defend them from all predators. The cob will lay down his life for his family. If one of the pair dies, the other often lives out the rest of his or her life alone. The love and loyalty of these beautiful birds has inspired legends for centuries." So, any comments on this? Are humans special or not, concerning the love?

What does this tell you about love?

Well, it seems to me that humans and swans experience love in very similar way. How that can be? Is it better explained by evolution or not?

Reactionary wrote: No, computers don't "observe" anything. They process the inputs in a way that humans programmed them, and produce results in a predictable manner. Nothing more, nothing less.

Can you first define what you mean by 'observing'?

Well, it seems to me that humans and swans experience love in very similar way. How that can be? Is it better explained by evolution or not?

I would humbly suggest that there is no concrete way, or perhaps a theory to conclude that animals, such as swans experience Love. I may be wrong but the safest line of thought for the sake of the argument would be that animals may not have the same emotions and feelings, such as love. They are more of instincts. For example a baby snake, in the first hour of its birth starts to hunt for small insects, it is instinct. How can we assume that the swans are not doing it out of instinct but out of love. I am afraid building an argument on this would be prone to disqualification if someone does not regard love in animals.

neo-x wrote: I would humbly suggest that there is no concrete way, or perhaps a theory to conclude that animals, such as swans experience Love. I may be wrong but the safest line of thought for the sake of the argument would be that animals may not have the same emotions and feelings, such as love. They are more of instincts. For example a baby snake, in the first hour of its birth starts to hunt for small insects, it is instinct. How can we assume that the swans are not doing it out of instinct but out of love. I am afraid building an argument on this would be prone to disqualification if someone does not regard love in animals.

And how can we assume that humans are not doing it out of instinct but out of love? I am still deep down in question what is really the difference between animals and humans. This is what I wrote month ago to one person (still has not replied):
---
According to Bible people were created in the image of God. What does that really mean? Christians say that it means that human beings are like God, with mind, emotion, and will. But reading about dolphins and stories in which they rescued people even when they put themselves in danger, it seems to me that they have also will and emotions and mind. They also communicate with each other, have consciousness and self-awareness (can recognize themselves in a mirror), can reason, can behave in altruistic way.

If it is a free will that makes the difference between humans and animals, then I ask what is a free will. I ask that because an answer I got to that question is that a free will is something people possess. This leads to a circular reasoning.

If it is a religion, then I ask how do we know that animals do not have a religion? (Elephants even mourn their dead)

And if it is a soul, then how do we know they do not have a soul?
---

Sorry if I just do not see some things.

1over137 wrote:

neo-x wrote: I would humbly suggest that there is no concrete way, or perhaps a theory to conclude that animals, such as swans experience Love. I may be wrong but the safest line of thought for the sake of the argument would be that animals may not have the same emotions and feelings, such as love. They are more of instincts. For example a baby snake, in the first hour of its birth starts to hunt for small insects, it is instinct. How can we assume that the swans are not doing it out of instinct but out of love. I am afraid building an argument on this would be prone to disqualification if someone does not regard love in animals.

And how can we assume that humans are not doing it out of instinct but out of love? I am still deep down in question what is really the difference between animals and humans. This is what I wrote month ago to one person (still has not replied):
---
According to Bible people were created in the image of God. What does that really mean? Christians say that it means that human beings are like God, with mind, emotion, and will. But reading about dolphins and stories in which they rescued people even when they put themselves in danger, it seems to me that they have also will and emotions and mind. They also communicate with each other, have consciousness and self-awareness (can recognize themselves in a mirror), can reason, can behave in altruistic way.

If it is a free will that makes the difference between humans and animals, then I ask what is a free will. I ask that because an answer I got to that question is that a free will is something people possess. This leads to a circular reasoning.

If it is a religion, then I ask how do we know that animals do not have a religion? (Elephants even mourn their dead)

And if it is a soul, then how do we know they do not have a soul?
---

Sorry if I just do not see some things.

All living things have souls. All souls are not the same. There are inanimate objects that have no soul, plants and vegetation that have an insentient soul, animals that have a sentient soul, and humans who have a rational soul. It is the latter in which we are made in the image of God.

1over137 wrote:

Reactionary wrote: A polygamous man is much more likely to produce more offspring than a monogamous one, despite the advantages of a monogamous relationship.

May I know how do you know what is more likely? It may be possible, that back in the tribal days—when much of human evolution took place—it would probably require two people to successfully raise an offspring, and a mother with a supporting partner would probably have more surviving offspring than a mother who does not have such a partner.

Well, I was talking about offspring in general, not surviving offspring. If one has sexual encounters with multiple partners, logically it's more probable that more offspring will come out of it. As for surviving offspring, I have two objections:

1) If evolution is an ever-changing process (which it should be, as it allegedly switched from asexual to more risky and complicated sexual reproduction), then it shouldn't be a problem for it to adapt to modern-day conditions. Now that we're a society with developed social welfare, being polygamous should therefore, from an evolutionary point of view, be more beneficial.
2) By assuming that evolution is capable of doing cost-benefit analysis of various types of reproduction, we're esentially attributing intelligence to it, and one has to come up with the question how a random chemical process could perform such a feat.

1over137 wrote:

Reactionary wrote: No, computers don't "observe" anything. They process the inputs in a way that humans programmed them, and produce results in a predictable manner. Nothing more, nothing less.

Can you first define what you mean by 'observing'?

Some definitions of "observe", according to the Free Dictionary by Farlex:
= To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice.
= To make a systematic or scientific observation of

1over137 wrote:Well, it seems to me that humans and swans experience love in very similar way. How that can be? Is it better explained by evolution or not?

Why does it "seem" that way to you? In what way does evolution "explain" love?