It seems like the most common responses to this argument are (a) we can observe the emotion exists on brain scans or (b) we can witness the effects of love on a person's actions.
If these are proof of the existence of love, then it would seem the same proof is available for God via the "God Module" in the brain as well as various behavioral changes.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular
Are these occurrences proof of love and God, or is there a more appropriate answer to the question/analogy?
2007-12-19 02:24:46 · 30 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
love is an emotion. not a tangible object. it would be just as hard for me to prove hate exists, or happiness, or boredom. the answer to the question is no. you can't prove it exists. however, people claim that god is real and that he can do whatever he wants. emotions are not capable of this. therefore, god must be tangible. tangible things should be provable. especially when they are everywhere.
2007-12-19 02:28:19 · answer #1 · answered by just curious (A.A.A.A.) 5 · 9⤊ 3⤋
We can demonstrate the existence of love by reference to similar behavioral/physiological markers (in someone claiming the experience) to those we experience ourselves. Common point of reference, therefore not an extraordinary claim, and the cross cultural reference and correlative similarity makes for what we call soft objective corroboration of the emotion.
As for the experience of God, this is an extraordinary claim, thus requiring greater evidence. There is also no obviously common referent in all of the claims, since not all religions speak about God(s) in the same way. We may just see the common use of a word, with no actual common understanding, which means the word may be vacuous. We have not seen a common description of the experience of God, nor any common physiological correlates to such an experience, so there is nothing to evaluate here, either. All in all, the God claims have not been given any substance.
2007-12-19 02:44:31 · answer #2 · answered by neil s 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The difference is that God is purported to be an external influence, so merely having a chemical reaction to thinking about it doesn't prove it exists. Love, on the other hand, is a chemical response to something that is definitively there. I wonder what the brain pattern similarities would be if God and Santa were compared in the brain scan of a 4-year-old.
2007-12-19 02:35:07 · answer #3 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I'd argue that love doesn't inherently exist. It's really just something we made up - a word used to describe some actions. We decide what love is, and thus we define it into existence. The instincts to care for and protect those closest to us exist. Strong feelings tying us to those closest to us, especially our family, exist. Love, well, we can call parts of those instincts love, but it's just a word.
We can't do the same with God because we are not describing things we have observed. We tried to define God into existence from scratch - it is not a word applied to anything we can actually observe.
The "God module" is just a place in the brain that is stimulated during religious experience. It is also stimulated by other experience. It is not some internal religious center in and of itself - just an internal emotion center. It fires for many experiences - that just happens to include some religious ones.
2007-12-19 02:31:31 · answer #4 · answered by Phoenix: Princess of Cupcakes 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the problem here is that love (the chemical in the brain kind) that someone feels for another person is not the same 'love' that christians refer to as going to or coming from God.
After all I could 'love' the FSM - would this, by your criteria prove the existence of said mythical deity?
2007-12-19 02:32:32 · answer #5 · answered by Sly Phi AM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you use this analogy, then you are saying God is an emotion.
It is not widely held that God is an emotion, rather the creator of all things. So, I do not see how this is a good argument for God's existence.
2007-12-19 02:31:56 · answer #6 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Interesting article, too long to read all 6 pages. Interesting question.
If love only exists in the mind or love is attributed in the actions of lovers. Then love exists on the same level that God exists, in the perception of the mind.
2007-12-19 04:16:29 · answer #7 · answered by dougfr007 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Love doesn't exist as a tangible thing, it is just a word for something we do, much in the same way 'cold' does not really exist, it is just a word for how our bodies enterpret a lack of heat.
God on the other hand is not just a word, it is the given title of the Abrahamic deity, Yahweh.
Basically comparing love and God is like comparing Odin and cold.
2007-12-19 02:34:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
One thing about the nature of love is that it's something which is between one individual and another. Like yin and yang, you see love occur between two separate entities, it's dynamic, with both parties present.
A person's so-called relationship with God, however, is different. It's more like infatuation in that it's one-sided, with the worshipper giving love but the recipient, God, seemingly not acknowledging it, at least, not in the same manner as a loved one might acknowledge love.
2007-12-19 02:32:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I'd say those occurrences of proof of the brain's reaction to love and God, not proof of love and God. Love is not simply a chemical reaction in the brain. It is much bigger than that, and manifests itself in infinite ways. The same with God.
2007-12-19 02:30:58 · answer #10 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
And yet, a scan of a person's brain cannot prove that a supernatural being exists. Sorry.
Love is a concept. One can argue the existence of true love in the idealistic sense. In short, love cannot be proven and is a matter of interpretation.
2007-12-19 02:30:21 · answer #11 · answered by Keyring 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋