• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evidence of "love"

Wessexman said:
Surely all proof is relative by definition, being distinct from the thing it is proving in itself. To know something in itself would require no proof.
Click to expand...

That's why I typically don't use the word "proof", I use the word "evidence". I also disagree that knowing something requires no proof. You must have some means of coming to that knowledge and that means needs to involve having evidence for it's factual correctness.

Anyway you skipped my questions. When you talk about about the real things being testable what do you mean? Do you mean measurable?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you can use that word in most circumstances.
 
Cephus said:
That's why I typically don't use the word "proof", I use the word "evidence".
Click to expand...
Well evidence would itself just be relative, it isn't the thing in itself, but evidence of it. It will always be a discursive and separative way of grasping and understanding something.

I also disagree that knowing something requires no proof. You must have some means of coming to that knowledge and that means needs to involve having evidence for it's factual correctness.
Click to expand...
In terms of discursive thought this is true, but if one could know the thing in itself then you would need no evidence or proof.


Yes, I think you can use that word in most circumstances.
Click to expand...
But to measure something involves explaining it in terms of something else, and in the normal course of things today usually something more quantified. This would seem that to suggest that all that you are calling real is always going to be something separative and not known to us in itself, and also tend to give a heavily quantitative bias to what we consider 'real'.
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around: "examine it for evidence".:shock:


"Daddy. I love you. Can I have a hug?"
"Well, hon. Wait a minute. I have to examine you needing a hug because you 'love' me".
 
Enola said:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around: "examine it for evidence".:shock:


"Daddy. I love you. Can I have a hug?"
"Well, hon. Wait a minute. I have to examine you needing a hug because you 'love' me".
Click to expand...

If we know it exists and what the causes are then there is no need for examination in every single instance. Everytime she says something to him, does he have to make sure she has a tongue? No. Also the implications of love being being observable in the brain are important, definitely when it comes to conversations about things such as souls. Many people ask "Where does love come from? You think it's just a chemical reaction in our brain?" implying that our souls are responsible. Now there is strong evidence that love is infact a combination of chemicals. No need for a soul.
 
Last edited:
Pinkie said:
You are free to believe so, Enola. Just as I am free to believe that death is the end.
Click to expand...

Pointless statement. Everyone on this site knows that you are both free to believe what you want to.
 
Misbelief said:
Pointless statement. Everyone on this site knows that you are both free to believe what you want to.
Click to expand...

That freedom to believe doesn't mean that everyone's beliefs are true though, which is often the implication. Sure, you can believe you're Elvis if you want to. You're still wrong, you're still delusional and you probably belong in a straight jacket, but you can believe it.
 
Cephus said:
That freedom to believe doesn't mean that everyone's beliefs are true though, which is often the implication. Sure, you can believe you're Elvis if you want to. You're still wrong, you're still delusional and you probably belong in a straight jacket, but you can believe it.
Click to expand...

Oh I completely agree. I would never imply that all beliefs or opinions are equally validated or deserve equal respect as most people including the person I quoted seem to do.
 
Misbelief said:
Oh I completely agree. I would never imply that all beliefs or opinions are equally validated or deserve equal respect as most people including the person I quoted seem to do.
Click to expand...

Which is the real problem. These people seem to think that as long as their beliefs make them feel good, they're justified in having them, no matter how factually incorrect they are.

These people have serious issues.
 
Tigger said:
I have not seen any evidence of the existance of this thing called "Love". I can honestly say that I have never experienced it myself or seen any evidence of it every existing towards me from anyone else. I'm open to the idea that it exists, but after 37+ years I'm a little skeptical.
Click to expand...

A sociopath not experiencing love does not surprise me.
 
I think you've got to define "love" correctly before you can find evidence of it. The instinct to survive is the origin of caring (love) for one's life. From that extends the capacity to form caring for others, even in procreation. It's actually very simple when reasoned in this way. I think therefore I am. I am because I care (love). We are because we share (love). Keep it simple.
 
If we accept love as a merely biological construct 'caused by' (and not made manifest in) mere chemical reactions in the brain, explain then 'jealousy.'
 
Pinkie said:
You are free to believe so, Enola. Just as I am free to believe that death is the end.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Enola and I can look you up one day and say, "See? We told you so." Even if you are right, you will have no such satisfaction.

Love is something you feel, not something you can measure. Is there such a thing as pleasure? Pain? Fear? You can measure physical changes in the body when a person is experiencing them, sure, but how do you measure the emotions themselves?

Some things are subjective and not quantifiable by any objective observation. That fact does not mean that these things don't exist.
 
Goshin said:
Evidences of the existence of love, as the OP says.


Definition? Easy.

1. "Love is a state of being where the happiness and well-being of another person means at least as much to you as your own, if not more."

2. "Love is a committment to a course of action of putting another person's interests equal to or ahead of your own."
Click to expand...

Then it exists in a lot of species, not just human, for good evolutionary reasons.
 
Goshin said:
I must politely beg to differ... some of us know exactly what we mean when we say "love".
Click to expand...


I'm sure you know what you mean, assuming you have full faculties. I was talking about you knowing what anyone else means. Do you claim to know what the others in this thread means by that word?
 
Last edited:
IMO, the best evidence of love is the irrational actions we make for the people we do love, actions that we, otherwise, would never do.
 
I want to know exactly which chemicals are responsible. Then, I want to know which are responisble for things like jealosy, hatred, etc..
 
DashingAmerican said:
IMO, the best evidence of love is the irrational actions we make for the people we do love, actions that we, otherwise, would never do.
Click to expand...

but at the same time,we must make rational actions to prove our love

Wake said:
I want to know exactly which chemicals are responsible. Then, I want to know which are responisble for things like jealosy, hatred, etc..
Click to expand...

jealousy is a part of our genetics.....even if you dont love your wife ,you may be jealous of her..
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
These people seem to think that as long as their beliefs make them feel good, they're justified in having them, no matter how factually incorrect they are.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe that even though you have no proof that it is true

Your belief seems to be based on how it makes you feel
 
Medusa said:
jealousy is a part of our genetics.....even if you dont love your wife ,you may be jealous of her..
Click to expand...

Where is it in our genetics?

Genetics is an issue that fascinates me because there is still so much about it that we don't understand.
 
Enola said:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around: "examine it for evidence".:shock:


"Daddy. I love you. Can I have a hug?"
"Well, hon. Wait a minute. I have to examine you needing a hug because you 'love' me".
Click to expand...
Better yet, "No...child...you dont 'love' me. You are merely experiencing a biological reaction caused by an unknown combination of chemicals in your brain. I dont 'love' you either. I merely contributed to your genetic makeup and have an evolutionary and sociologically defined pattern of behaviors learned through generations of behavior. Love is a silly notion...one I hope to help you learn to ignore so that you can better cope in a world of fantasy and make believe. But if it will ease your pathetic impulse for 'connection', sure...I will hug you..."
 
Wake said:
Where is it in our genetics?

Genetics is an issue that fascinates me because there is still so much about it that we don't understand.
Click to expand...
if we were able to understand everthing,we would be god..
 
Medusa said:
if we were able to understand everthing,we would be god..
Click to expand...

I don't want to know everything, and that wouldn't make someone "god."

It'd be boring to be perfect, because there's be nothing new to know.

Merely, I want to understand better the concept of genetics.
 
Wake said:
I don't want to know everything, and that wouldn't make someone "god."

It'd be boring to be perfect, because there's be nothing new to know.

Merely, I want to understand better the concept of genetics.
Click to expand...

but god knows what we dont know and İ Think as long as the science improves , we will have to try to understand different and new concepts ,because what the science proves can always be falsified...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom