|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Prove that love doesn't exist.
I'll prove it does..
Oh, and yeah.. I know I'm hated for trying to start a study thread.
It's cool, that's what love's all about. I still love ya.
j/k - lol
You are all welcome, not just the haters.
Anyone like to disprove my claim?
LOVE is real and beyond science's grasp.
Good luck with that...
Can you prove that some who crittersize your thread actually love you and do not hate you?
If you are able to do that then you need not prove no other thing.
Not sure I follow exactly.
They may not love me. [pretty sure I know a few who have told me verbatim]
You mean prove that one who was pursuing 'tough love' toward me and trying to help indeed loves me?
I don't really see how that proves or disproves Love itself. Sincerely.
When a man learns that those who speaks for him are more detrimental to him rather than those who speaks against him.
While neither of the two are really his enemy.
This man is able discover the true nature of love.
i'm don't see how you proved that love is real or isn't real but you are the guy who stated that science has proved the energy is eternal and i'm still chuckling over that one.
I claimed it. Not explained it. The concept is already well driven into reality and humanity.
I asked if you could disprove it's existence in light of it's escaping science's grasp.
This is why you 'chuckling' over a law I did not write doesn't bother me a wink. That is scientists before me that wrote that. And the world collective of scientists accepted it as a Law.
And I still love ya even though your trying really hard to make me look bad..
You can keep firing away if you like.
no actually according to you , you proved it. chuckle , chuckle. you're actually quite easy to prove wrong. if you look at your opening statement you claim "I'll Prove It Does" . next
Prove isn't past tense chuckles.
Hence, why you said "proved" which is past participle.
My statement was "I will prove it" - I'll equaling --> I will (future)
Any more flimsy bullets?
This is fun.
lol. i love how you turn things around to suit your purpose. you remind me of jim jones or someone like that. as usual you didn't prove what you said you would but that's ok. you'll come up with an excuse or use a play of words to justify it to YOUR liking and bud, every time i read something you wrote i chuckle.
Claiming that something is beyond the grasp of science is a positive claim.
Can you prove that science can and will never explain love?
I can't prove either way but I'm not the one making the assertion
Of course not, that would be me.
Considering the content of everyday media including social media, I believe my assertion is pretty solid. I've got plenty to stand on.
And yet, science hasn't a leg one.
I like your little "change the subject" technique.. lol
I've noticed a couple of old posts where you've got me with that trick.
Is there "proof?" No, but there's plenty of evidence. It's not beyond science's grasp. Sure, you can't do a blood test to show you love someone (chemical changes in the loving brain notwithstanding), but there is plenty of evidence people love each other.
I know I sound like a broken record to you, but until you understand, the same lesson has to be presented to you over and over again.
If love is real, but beyond science's grasp, YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT!
Yes, you need to, somehow, prove to us that LOVE is real, and, then you need to prove how it is beyond science's grasp. And, somehow, you need to use a medium other than science to prove this. Why? Because it is beyond science's grasp.
No. I need not. That is well established.
Science has never yet explained reasoning or cause for selflessness.
Sacrifice is well observed daily, where have you been?
Also, I didn't say logic and reasoning cannot provide answers. I mean specifically, atheistic modelled approach of physical elements and the physical approach of explanation will not provide the answer. That is what they call science.
Love is not physical. Nor is everything that exists physical.
Sorry Vector, but you are either wrong or uneducated. Love and every other emotion is a series of chemical reactions in the brain and subsequent neuron firings. Feelings of good will and love can be reproduced in a lab. Serotonin is a key element in this emotion. Soon all will be reproducible in the same fashion.
Selfishness and compassion are direct Darwinian processes arising from evolution. Selfishness is self preservation and survival, favoring your bloodlines over all others. Compassion is a societal response arising from the desire to have good deeds returned to you one day so we can all live in harmony.
Again, no god in the equation.
Vomit + more vomit = lots of vomit.
Chemicals are signs for your body to use. They communicate dear sir, they don't cause.
You burn your hand and chemicals are sent via electro-chemical impulses.
I suppose you'd like to suggest the pain is caused by chemicals there too?
Your wasting my time ignoring things I've placed into this discussion and repeating outdated theories.
The language of dna is wrote with chemicals as well, just like you're writing words into that little box. Each combination has a different "meaning" like the combinations of letters we call "words" which also have "meaning."
It's a communication tool. Not the cause for the message being sent..
Can we please clean the vomit and refrain from reproducing like material through article-spinner methods?
Vector, unfortunately, there is only one logical course of action for you and that is to immediately contact your local political representative and let him know you have not received a proper, science based education that others in the world are receiving. Maybe you can catch up quickly then join the modern enlightened world. Good luck.
PS: Lab reproductions are false stimulations rendering the signal being sent artificially. This explains exactly jack except they can fool the physical apparatus of the human body, and/or the subconscious.
And selflessness is not compassion.
Selflessness - which you ignored - has no desire for repayment.
Nice attempt to define something completely irelevant to my argument.
Yep, I guess that proves, categorically, that God, through His son Jesus Christ is creator of the universe, and love is the "special" magic that He, alone, produced for His children.
Because it says so in the bible...I believe...because it says so in the bible...I believe...because it says so in the bible...I believe...because it says so in the bible....
I said nothing about any of that.
Thanks for showing everyone what REALLY runs through your mind in spite of the subject at hand.
You're so far out I'd say the ballpark is no longer in view for you sir.
You mean God didn't dunnit? Wow, you really did start a thread just to debate the properties of love? And, I suppose, just for the sake of expanding your understanding of the different phenomena in our physical universe. I applaud you for your zeal and quest for knowledge.
I'm really glad that you are not starting from the conclusion that "GODDUNNIT"
I'm curious to see what the final conclusion to this fact finding debate will be.
Oh my goodness..
You can be aggrevating but sometimes you slap my giggle button hard and just crack me up.
Most of my questions are rhetorical, as I like to be aware of the outcome before proceeding to make a fool of myself.
If I ask one that I don't know the answer to, it's usually fairly obvious and more than likely about the person rather than the subject.
I hold the conclusion already. And please don't continue repeating yourself, you have no clue what is envisioned in my mind at the moment buddy. lol
I'm just being straightforward.
Make sure you don't take it too far, before you enlighten all of us.
Then you are just using us like Pavlov's dogs. Brilliant!
It is you who keep repeating yourself buddy. You are only projecting your egregious shortcomings onto others who are way ahead of your archaic worldview.
So, could you please share your conclusions with the rest of the forum group?
And, of course, you have evidence to back this claim.
Love is the result experienced from a chemical reaction in the body, so its origins are physical...like hate, envy, sorrow, delirium, confusion, anger, and fear.
If you can't accept a scientific basis for LOVE, then you can't accept a scientific basis for the others either.
Of course, you could go right on believing in whimsical, magical, invisible realities...which explains, absolutely, nothing!
Still not addressing what chemicals ARE little fella.
So the chemicals cause the lust for another person?
Or is the cause not the direct result of a thought pattern that stimulates the correct signals [ie-chemicals] to flow as in the case of fetishes?
The cause is the action the eye perceived by the observed person, a flash of a foot in the wierd fetish case.. NOT by some chemical - the chemical came from the thoughts TRIGGERED BY another person's foot..
I don't even know why I'm attempting to explain this to you.
It's not that hard to understand communication, language, and systems....
I think I'll refrain from entertaining any ignorance here forth.
Sure. Your statement is that "love exists" AND that "love is beyond science's grasp"
To prove anything, you must have a definition of it first - define love as the presence of certain chemicals in the brain. To prove the negative of a future event, one must also either have infinite time or accept partial evidence as proof of a possibility - the latter will be necessary as we do not have infinite time.
The first part of the premise is not in contention and is accepted as true.
Science can quite accurately detect those chemicals in the brain that produce the "feel good" feeling we commonly denote as "love" Therefore it is not beyond the grasp of science, and the second half of the premise is false.
Chemicals in the brain don't explain the meanings conveyed by them.
The chemicals are communicative signs that are used as language to the brain. The word love doesn't explain the meaning of the word itself any more than chemicals used as language explain the meaning conveyed by them.
That is an outdated approach and excludes completely the understanding of how chemicals are used as communicative tools in the brain.
The chemicals are not the meaning or the cause. They are a tool of the electro-chemical machine called the brain, just as these words aren't the cause for my reply but are a tool called english language [ie-communicative signs] by which we convey meaning through the social system, which works parallel in comparison to your brain.
Nice try on "the chemicals cause it" though. I've did many a night my share of homework.
Vector7 wrote "Who wants some love?"
If its cheap, I'll take a kilo. Or is it litre? Em! On second thoughts, give me a dozen.
You should read up on neuroscience and psychology. There is in fact a real, chemical basis for our feelings, including love. As regards your question, "Who wants some love?" I have plenty in my life thank you very much, no need to deplete your supplies on my behalf.
For you, it's sound like there is a fine line between Hate and Love. I did not read anyone here expressing their hate for you, just your lack of understanding of your topics.
Love is the most important behavior in the World. For example, I love a guy like born again GW Bush, because he needs all the love he can get.
The title isn't the "to be addressed" subject, although it seems many feel the need to do so for some reason.
I know very well of the studies you're referencing, and have sifted through them thoroughly, but you're lacking, and I'm not going to repeat what I've already explained.
It's there in black and white, easy to read, simple to understand. Stating "your wrong" has made no shift in reasoning toward your stance.
It's only been proven you didn't understand the content.
I didn't write the books, I just read them and put the pieces together.
strange how it's only you on here that seem to think what you state is simple to understand. chuckling again. any more misunderstandings that us simpletons can't grasp from the great vector 7.
Seems your attention is misdirected towards me again.
I'm not the only one. Most who understand it refuse to explain it because of what your displaying right now.
It's not my wit that matters. It's my sincerety.
Like my new shades?
Your sincere, it's just you have limited thinking coming from a one-sided group and point of view in life.
Oneness will never be achieve by one World Religion, many kinds of (Hitler like) groups have tried over ruling everyone throughout our human world history
Well adolf never REALLY believed in Christianity Castle.. lol - Mass murdering can't be justified with the account of Christ's doctrine in the Gospels, or any of the Bible for that matter.
And I admit my thinking is limited, as is every human beings, otherwise I wouldn't feel the need to discuss. Believe it or not, although I haven't announced it to the world prior, you've taught me a number of things. What group on what side are you referring?
what?why is it that you can never actually back up what you say but rather you seem to want to degrade others.as for your sincerety, surely you jest.but like i said , you love to babble but you have extremely limited knowledge.i thought perhaps you might be worth debating with but sadly another disappointment. ciao
Quote the degrading comment.
You accuse a lot, and address the OP very little.
It's getting somwhat silly.
Hitler was born a Catholic and died still a member of the church, his Nazi troops wore :God is with US. America fought Germany because it was their job to own the World and they printed money with :In God we Trust: The America printed off too much money like toilet paper, and now the world dose not trust them policing them, and they are losing the faith
Government never believe in the crap they spew anyhow. They are the most corrupt grouping of people on the planet.
Power can control you if you get more than your able to handle in a world with temptation to do evil with it.
The gov'ts are the primary examples for the above statement.
Have you noticed just how many outright blatent lies are recorded on visual media [ video ] from Obama's mouth?
It's DISGUSTING the bs they pull. Lie here lie there.. lies in the open everywhere.
He even admitted out his own mouth the states wasn't his birth country. Yep, it's on video too. Uploaded to youtube like hundreds of his other screw ups.
They "hide" behind the goodness of Christ and the Father which He taught of as being God. They don't believe in it. They use it like a cult leader does to kill people by twisting things for their personal gain.
It's the predominately Religious people who elect presidents and elect to go to War. :Onward Christian soldier as marching as to war: and :Fight the good fight: and all that ungraceful junk
Yeah I figured you'd say that.
Christianity causes all evil.. etc etc.. lol
This is one of the times you make me laugh Castle..
We can agree that Religion is used for a tool for the greedy.
It's just it coincides too much of the time with Religion and the religious people do not census each other well enough and do not take the responsibility well enough
Love does exist....and I don't think we need a proof for that...
Those who are eager to prove it doesn't, are probably wasting their time, energy and Internet connection....
Love does exist....and I don't think we need a proof for that...
Those who are eager to prove it doesn't, are probably wasting their time, energy and Internet connection....
I am wasting their time to some degree within this page aren't I? lol
I'm just testing some of my own theories. The subject is just bait..
I think that it depends on what you mean by "proof" and as well "love." It's key to the discussion.
If you talk about love as it's portrayed typically, then you can hook a person up to some instruments and check their bio stats, measure brain activity in certain areas or whatever else medical science does to indicate response to "stimuli" and have someone they care for deeply enter the room. You can call that a "proof" because of how the definition was made.
Scientific proof is really very well documented observation. I hypothesize on what I believe is correct, then conduct experiments and observe how closely my hypothesis aligns with my observation.
To prove love, we need to define love, i.e. it's characteristics, and then design the methodology to prove it (experiment, observation).
So first - what is love?
"Too many wolve's and not enough people keeping it real"
lol, this is why you're cool Castle..
You're right, there aint enough people keeping it real.
by sibtain bukhari4 years ago
"Experience of self is not required to be proved""God is experience of self""Therefore, God is not required to be proved"
by lizzieBoo6 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is...
by Alem Belton4 months ago
The "I can't move or talk" nightmare, what does it mean?Have you ever had the nightmare where something or someone is holding you down and no matter how hard you try, you cannot move, and when you try to...
by pennyofheaven7 years ago
I was on the other evolution thread a minute ago and read this comment and it brought to mind a few questions;(the comment was in reply to someone else)Please feel free to start those threads. You'll find that if...
by paarsurrey7 years ago
Is it within its domain?The Creator-God is only attributive; all physical and/or spiritual things are His creation.
by olivertwisted7 years ago
Can anyone back up the THEORY of evolution without junk science?"The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.