Love

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Mystical
Valued Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:51 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#16

Post by Mystical » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:27 pm

If science can't define or prove love, why is it's existence acknowledged?
As kids we were all told in kindergarten that when a frog becomes a prince, that is a fairy tale. But when I was in high school and college, they told us that when a frog becomes a prince, that is science! --Mark Cahill (One Heartbeat Away)

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#17

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:15 pm

Mystical wrote:If science can't define or prove love, why is it's existence acknowledged?
Because science is not the be all and end all to human knowledge.
It is only one of many tools at our disposal.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#18

Post by Jbuza » Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:31 pm

Mystical wrote:If science can't define or prove love, why is it's existence acknowledged?
I'm not sure that I would agree with your analysis that science cannot define or prove love. Perhaps it could be defined as a facet of the human psyche that makes the human behave contrary to selfish impulses, for example. It matters little, but the definition is very important, as it will be critical in guiding what information to gather as evidence to support your hypothesis.

This is far more testable than chatter and speculation about mecahnisms for speciation that are contrary to observations.

Logic, reason, and careful observation are science, not interpretations always based on the popular or accepted structure and framework of other interpretations.

It is not at all beyond the scope of science.

thereal
Established Member
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:40 am
Christian: No
Location: Carbondale, IL
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#19

Post by thereal » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:57 am

Thought this may be of interest to this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4478040.stm

It tells of Italian scientists' research concerning physiology and love...small sample size, but I guess it's something...

Mystical
Valued Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:51 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#20

Post by Mystical » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:41 am

Because science is not the be all and end all to human knowledge. It is only one of the tools at our disposal.
Ahhh...so refreshing that you finally realize that. :P
As kids we were all told in kindergarten that when a frog becomes a prince, that is a fairy tale. But when I was in high school and college, they told us that when a frog becomes a prince, that is science! --Mark Cahill (One Heartbeat Away)

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#21

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:48 am

Mystical wrote:
Because science is not the be all and end all to human knowledge. It is only one of the tools at our disposal.
Ahhh...so refreshing that you finally realize that. :P
Apparantly you have been misreading all of my posts.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mystical
Valued Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:51 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#22

Post by Mystical » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:55 am

I'm not sure that I would agree with your analysis that science cannot define or prove love.
I think they can measure the changes in the brain that are an indication of love, but they cannot "prove" that someone loves or how love arises. Love's effects can be observed, but not love itself. Funny, here is a concept, action, emotion, essence, whatever, of the very backbone of this world, and science is utterly perplexed by it. :lol:
Perhaps it could be defined as a facet of the human psyche that makes the human behave contrary to selfish impulses...
I love the bible's definition of love: 1Corinthians 13:4-6
As kids we were all told in kindergarten that when a frog becomes a prince, that is a fairy tale. But when I was in high school and college, they told us that when a frog becomes a prince, that is science! --Mark Cahill (One Heartbeat Away)

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#23

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:02 am

Is your point of showing the limitations of science somehow an effort to discredit it?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#24

Post by Jbuza » Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:26 pm

Mystical wrote:
I'm not sure that I would agree with your analysis that science cannot define or prove love.
I think they can measure the changes in the brain that are an indication of love, but they cannot "prove" that someone loves or how love arises. Love's effects can be observed, but not love itself. Funny, here is a concept, action, emotion, essence, whatever, of the very backbone of this world, and science is utterly perplexed by it. :lol:
Perhaps it could be defined as a facet of the human psyche that makes the human behave contrary to selfish impulses...
I love the bible's definition of love: 1Corinthians 13:4-6
Makes it sort of like gravity, intertia, light, atoms, etc, etc

Mystical
Valued Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:51 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#25

Post by Mystical » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:40 am

Is your point of showing the limitations of science somehow an effort to discredit it?
Why, certainly not! Why would you say such a thing!?
As kids we were all told in kindergarten that when a frog becomes a prince, that is a fairy tale. But when I was in high school and college, they told us that when a frog becomes a prince, that is science! --Mark Cahill (One Heartbeat Away)

User avatar
madscientist
Valued Member
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:29 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: St Andrews, Fife, UK / Prievidza, Slovakia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

LOve etc

#26

Post by madscientist » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:55 am

Well love is something that doesnt exist as such; it is abstract, like other things. There are many tngs that are abstract, and love is one of them. Love cannot exist by itself, without free will beings. GFor example, before human was created there was no love. But when human was created, love started to exist (although God existed forever so love kinda existed?? dunno). But love is, apaprt from a concept, an emotion, which, again, i dont think science will be able to explain easily. I believe it will arrive there once, but since human spirit has no mass etc i dont think theres much science to go for about it.
I however believe God is also part of science even if he has no mass etc because, science is also a concept etc...
So love is an emotion or concept, soemthg abstract that doesnt exist as such... or at least my opinion on iT!!!

User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#27

Post by puritan lad » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:14 am

From a scientific standpoint, there is no difference between love and hate. Both are behaviors which are the product of certain stimuli (just like joy and sadness, pleasure and pain, etc.). Acknowledging a difference between these is acknowledging something beyond the physical makeup of a person.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#28

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:14 am

I am going to have to completely disagree.

I think it's the other way around, nothing physical can exist without love.
Creation is abstract and is a manifestation of love.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5306
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Tulsa, OK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times

#29

Post by Canuckster1127 » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:20 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am going to have to completely disagree.

I think it's the other way around, nothing physical can exist without love.
Creation is abstract and is a manifestation of love.
So since God is Love .... You're casting your lot with Intelligent Design now?

:lol: :shock: :lol: :wink:
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

//bartsbarometer.com/

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6016
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 142 times

#30

Post by Byblos » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:24 am

Canuckster1127 wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am going to have to completely disagree.

I think it's the other way around, nothing physical can exist without love.
Creation is abstract and is a manifestation of love.


So since God is Love .... You're casting your lot with Intelligent Design now?

:lol: :shock: :lol: :wink:


All hail Bgood!

My friend, you've just singlehandedly proven the existence of God. Congratulations! :wink:

Post Reply