"You can't empirically prove love, logic, thoughts, numbers, wind, etc." Responses?

[jayman]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?


P.S. I'm not saying that all theists or believers use this line of argument or agree with it. I just want to address these specific arguments that are used by some theists and believers.

[rocketdodger]

The concept of empirical proof is subjective just like anything else -- it all comes down to degrees of belief.

Curiously, many atheists and skeptics are just as ignorant of that fact as the other side.

[fls]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?


P.S. I'm not saying that all theists or believers use this line of argument or agree with it. I just want to address these specific arguments that are used by some theists and believers.

I might start by asking them whatever gave them the idea that love can't be subject to empirical proof?

Linda

[Brian-M]

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Amazing things can be done with MRI scanners... you possibly could prove emirically that you experience sensations of love, consciousness and are capable of thought.

You can empirically prove wind with a windmill... or anything else that is affected by the presence of wind.

Numbers are abstract concepts used to describe and represent reality, but aren't actually real.

Many claims by believers; claims that are supported by their religious texts such as the power of prayer, can be empirically tested.

God, if he existed, would be able to provice empirical evidence of his existance.

[athon]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?


P.S. I'm not saying that all theists or believers use this line of argument or agree with it. I just want to address these specific arguments that are used by some theists and believers.

Yeah, it's unfortunately a response that comes up often. Let me begin by saying all discussion on the topic is really moot - it's not being offered as a form of debate, as such, but rather a way of dismissing all discussion. So while it's easy to put to bed, anything you say as a reply to the 'explain love' rebuttal will be ignored.

The problem is that, like God, 'love' isn't a single, easy-to-define concept. We can mean a whole lot of things by the term; it's a verb, a form of expression, an emotional state, a description, an abstract poetic device...it's a lot of stuff. It can refer to something platonic (I love my friend), sexual (I love my girlfriend), deep (I love my wife), shallow (I love that movie), tangible (I felt love for my puppy), intangible (the world needs more love) etc.

So, first you need to nail down what the hell you mean by 'love'. Like God, most people of faith like to keep it as abstract as possible. That way there is room for contradiction and relaxation of that awful sense of dissonance that occurs when definitions collide.

If you mean the feeling you have for something, it becomes defined as a behaviour. That's technically observable, albeit as with many behaviours, is difficult and depends on an individual identifying their own motivation as being inspired by emotions. On the other hand, we could also associate that sensation with its hormonal origins, which is also observable.

Athon

[tsig]

I might start by asking them whatever gave them the idea that love can't be subject to empirical proof?

Linda

I tried love without proof once but she went out with someone else who had the courage to ask.

[Dunstan]

I'll focus on the "love" argument.

We judge questions of love on empirical evidence all the time.

If I claimed that Olivia Wilde (the actress who plays 13 on "House") is in love with me, would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "sure, ok, can't evaluate that claim with evidence anyway"? No, you'd probably ask a few questions, like "have you ever met her?"

If you think that's a silly example -- I don't, but perhaps it's too easy a case -- here's one that many of us have had to deal with. A good friend of yours is troubled and asks for your advice. His girlfriend spends as little time with him as possible. She only wants to get together with him if he's spending money on her at dinner, at clubs, taking her shopping, etc. She makes cruel remarks about him in front of his friends and family. She openly flirts with other men. You, quite sensibly, tell him to break up with her already (DTMFA, for Dan Savage fans). He replies, "but I know she loves me!!!!!!"

If you're thinking -- whether you say it to him or not -- "no, she doesn't," then you're admitting that you can use empirical evidence to determine love.

Or, on the happy, non-delusional side of things, when someone really does love you, chances are you aren't just taking their word for it, or picking up "love vibes" through the ether. You know it by the way they look at you, the way they speak to you, touch you, and thousand other ways that people show other people that they care.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

How would you "empirically prove" I had a cheese sandwich for lunch? If you can't "empirically prove" that, then I'd say "empirical proof" is a silly idea.

[themusicteacher]

Love is a concept that manifests itself as a verb; we show, in many ways, that we love someone. Think about it: we put up with those little (and sometimes big) things that bug us, we do things for someone we normally wouldn't do when we care deeply (read: love; there are many types of love) for them, we sacrifice, we forgo, we excercise incredible amounts of patience, we forgive, we don't hold grudges, etc. We let that person know, through our actions, that we love them. While this may not be unassailable empirical proof of "love" in an emotional, esoteric sense, it is an illustration of what emotions push us to do, an externalization of an internal phenomenon (much as speaking is to thought).

[vIQleS]

sexual (I love my girlfriend), deep (I love my wife),

Wow - you're brave posting that... Or do they know about each other?

:D

[Ron_Tomkins]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?


P.S. I'm not saying that all theists or believers use this line of argument or agree with it. I just want to address these specific arguments that are used by some theists and believers.

Even if you, hypothetically, couldn't prove that you love someone, that does not follow that God exists. That's a fallacy, though the name of that specific fallacy escapes me right now.

[athon]

Wow - you're brave posting that... Or do they know about each other?

:D

;)

Oh, they know. They have empirical data on it. :p

Athon

[athon]

How would you "empirically prove" I had a cheese sandwich for lunch? If you can't "empirically prove" that, then I'd say "empirical proof" is a silly idea.

I think it's more a question of the use of the term 'prove' than the question of empiricism.

Science isn't concerned with the absolute certainty connoted by the word proof. It is about gaining confidence in an idea.

Athon

[UNLoVedRebel]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?
Yes. People have a tendency to turn a verb into a noun and then go searching for that noun. This is called the reification fallacy. The logic falls apart.

[!Kaggen]

Yes. People have a tendency to turn a verb into a noun and then go searching for that noun. This is called the reification fallacy. The logic falls apart.

Otherwise known as idolatry

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151854

[Brian-M]

How would you "empirically prove" I had a cheese sandwich for lunch? If you can't "empirically prove" that, then I'd say "empirical proof" is a silly idea.


Quick.... get the stomach pump before he finishes digesting the evidence! :D

[HansMustermann]

How would you "empirically prove" I had a cheese sandwich for lunch? If you can't "empirically prove" that, then I'd say "empirical proof" is a silly idea.

Actually,

A) that's a textbook-example of the Fallacy Of Distribution. Just because one proof is not possible, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with all proofs or with the concept of empirical proof.

It's just as silly as going "if you can't meet chairman Mao Zhedong (because he's dead), then I'd say meeting people is a silly idea." Or even, "if you can't eat Idun's legendary apples, then I'd say eating is a silly idea." You just can't extrapolate from one case to the whole like that.

B) you can nevertheless check the plausibility of the elements involved in the story.

We know that cheese sandwiches exist for a start. Whereas if you said you ate a sandwich of Alpha Centauri unicorn, I might want to see some evidence that such a beast actually exists.

We know that cheese sandwiches are edible by people. If you were to say you ate a steel plate or a pound of cynide, again, we might want some evidence that you can do that.

We know that cheese sandwiches are cheap and easily available. If you were to claim you ate fillet of cloned bronthosaur, then we might want some evidence that you can actually get that and that the price is within your means.

Etc.

We _can_ apply the same criteria to god claims.

[Rasmus]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?


P.S. I'm not saying that all theists or believers use this line of argument or agree with it. I just want to address these specific arguments that are used by some theists and believers.


... and yet, the same believers will then turn around and tell you god loves you. :faint:

[Beerina]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?


I can empirically prove love to myself. I can prove it in others to my own satisfaction by observing they have the same behaviors, and descriptions of their mental experiences, that I do.

Come to think of it, all of that is empirically provable, including numbers.

What was this thread about, then?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Love is all about proof. I recommend 100 or above for your best chances.

[rocketdodger]

Actually,

A) that's a textbook-example of the Fallacy Of Distribution. Just because one proof is not possible, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with all proofs or with the concept of empirical proof.

It's just as silly as going "if you can't meet chairman Mao Zhedong (because he's dead), then I'd say meeting people is a silly idea." Or even, "if you can't eat Idun's legendary apples, then I'd say eating is a silly idea." You just can't extrapolate from one case to the whole like that.

B) you can nevertheless check the plausibility of the elements involved in the story.

We know that cheese sandwiches exist for a start. Whereas if you said you ate a sandwich of Alpha Centauri unicorn, I might want to see some evidence that such a beast actually exists.

We know that cheese sandwiches are edible by people. If you were to say you ate a steel plate or a pound of cynide, again, we might want some evidence that you can do that.

We know that cheese sandwiches are cheap and easily available. If you were to claim you ate fillet of cloned bronthosaur, then we might want some evidence that you can actually get that and that the price is within your means.

Etc.

We _can_ apply the same criteria to god claims.

Yeah but there is still a large amount of subjective assumption going on here. Namely, that logic is somehow absolute.

But it isn't absolute, it is subjective, and to the extent that you and I might use logic to argue our points it is only because we agree upon the standards used.

The proper way to approach this issue is as a third party to two entities that are completely uninformed regarding the other. A human and an alien, for example. If an alien came up to you, how would you "empirically prove" anything to it?

Clearly you couldn't just state your logic and move on. You have to establish communication standards, and to do that you first need to agree upon objective things about the world you two have in common, and to do that there needs to first be objective things that you two have in common to begin with, etc.

My point in bringing all of this up is that many theists are so insane that they require a full reboot of this process as if they were an alien. You can't just jump in assuming they agree with common sense logic like we do.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, it seems to me like logic itself isn't subjective at all. Otherwise theirs would be just as good as yours (both being just subjective personal constructs after all), and there would be no more reason to "reboot" his than there is to "reboot" yours.

The reason why it needs a "reboot" in the first place is that their _understanding_ of logic is faulty or lacking. Logic is the same. What works still works, and what doesn't work still doesn't work, regardless of whether they agree or not.

E.g., an "if X then Y" implication can still only be followed from left to right, never in reverse, no matter how many ID or FT apologists would like it to be otherwise. E.g., an argument from ignorance is still not really a proof, regardless of whether the proponent understands it or not. E.g., correlation still isn't causation, no matter how many people think otherwise. Etc.

We had thousands of years to figure out all the working ways you can connect premises X and Y to the conclusion Z, and _why_ the other ways don't actually support a conclusion. Someone's lack of knowledge or faulty knowledge, won't make a broken inferrence valid, nor viceversa.

The only thing that's subjective is, really, their own knowledge of it.

Look... Logic all being just an arbitrary and subjective construct is the woowoos' handwaving against logic. Let's not fall for that canard.

[rocketdodger]

Look... Logic all being just an arbitrary and subjective construct is the woowoos' handwaving against logic. Let's not fall for that canard.

But it is all arbitrary and subjective.

What is not arbitrary and subjective is the behavior of reality that humans have observed and abstracted out into the language we call logic.

So the real issue is whether or not a given language, used by a given entity, accurately describes the behavior of reality. And furthermore, the only good metric for "describes the behavior of reality" is "allows the entity to predict the future behavior of reality."

And that is where the woowoos fall short -- they criticize our existing formal languages, E.G. first or second order logic, but offer nothing as a replacement that could even begin to match their predictive power.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, no, the behaviour of the real world is more the domain of science. Logic, like mathematics, is a tool used by those.

Well, anyway, I understand what you're trying to say, but I'll still disagree. Sorta. Technically.

Yes, the actual language used is subjective, but the valid modes of inference are not. No matter how you define that language, the same things work, and the same things are provably wrong.

I think the best example is based on when I said "like mathematics". No matter how you formalize the language, 1+1=2. You can put it as "1 1 +" (Polish notation), or as "(sum 1 1 X)" (micro-Prolog) or as "sum(1, 1)" or whatever other language you wish, it must describe the same reality. If you drop an apple in an empty basket, and then drop another apple, at the end you must have two apples in the basket. Any kind of a useful maths will have to be able to describe that.

Basically what I require and what call "logic" is not the actual formalism and proper notation, but merely valid inferrence modes. I don't care if they learned the proper symbols and names.

And I don't think that the underlying inferrence is even that subjective (though, again, the formal language describing it is.) Most people, even the dumbest ones, make instinctive inferrences every second of their lives. If anyone was genuinely unable to use correct logic, they wouldn't be able to even figure out they need to open the umbrella when it rains or to go to the toilet when they have that sensation in the bowels.

Even a dog is basically able to learn "if the bell rings, I get food" and put that together with "the bell just rang" and follow it to a conclusion. Even a dog knows to not follow that "if X then Y" in the wrong direction. Well, not even as much "knows", as just that's the way the brain works.

The brain itself is one big inferrence machine, although arguably a more bayesian version rather than binary logic. But nevertheless, it takes no special effort or education to use good (enough) logic. It's the default and the instinctive thing, and more or less the same in everyone. So it doesn't seem very subjective to me. IMHO.

IMHO it actually takes extra effort to, basically, lie to oneself and justify it with broken logic. Where people fail and seem illogical, is when they search for good enough premises and fallacies to support a bogus conclusion that they would really really like to be true. Often enough even inventing a more acceptable problem than the one they're actually solving.

[pgwenthold]

others have explained how love can be considered empirically, but honestly, who in the world claims that you can't empirically prove _wind_?

Shoot, when it comes to the wind, pretty much all we HAVE is empirical! How do we know the wind blows? We feel it, or hear it, or see things carried by it (or smell them). Empiricism is all we have!

[Rrose Selavy]

Let's take what we might term an "transcendent" experience. Someone listens to , and is moved by say a Mozart symphony.

That is an emotional response etc. No one disputes that person may have had such a response while another person may not.

No one seriously disputes that the piece of music exists. Mozart is an historical figure for which there is evidence. Few would dispute that Mozart existed.


No supernatural forces are required.

Unlike the existance of a God, the wind, numbers, the behaviour of people "in love" etc, do not require supernatural explanations or interventions to describe or explain them.

That is the difference.
-

[Brian-M]

others have explained how love can be considered empirically, but honestly, who in the world claims that you can't empirically prove _wind_?


I think the actual theist argument involving the wind goes something like this:

You can't see the wind, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
You can't see God, but that doesn't mean he isn't there.

Or something like that.

ETA:

And if you point out that you may not be able to see the wind, but you can feel it, they'll reply that they can feel God (within themselves / all around / in their souls / etc).

[Jonnyclueless]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?


P.S. I'm not saying that all theists or believers use this line of argument or agree with it. I just want to address these specific arguments that are used by some theists and believers.

But think about their argument for a second? What are they really saying? Sounds like the argument is "If you can't prove X and you know X exists, then it proves that Y exists even though we can't prove Y"

As pointed out this is a logical fallacy. It's basically saying "Since you have no explanation for this, I can then insert my god without being required of an explanation which I require from you and don't feel obligated to provide." So this person is not meeting their own criteria of evidence they expect from you.

And one of the problems is that we can prove love. We can't prove one person specifically loves another specific person any more than we can prove I am thinking about a ham sandwich.

And another part of their argument is basically saying "If something is not made up of matter, then it's supernatural." Again, the argument is an attempt to try and make people who are skeptics think that they too believe in supernatural things because they accept love and emotions and things that have no matter. And therefore since everyone accepts supernatural things, the playing field is even.

But of course these things are not supernatural and the natural universe doesn't require everything have mass. Gravity doesn't nesc have mass but we know it exists. We can test it and we can prove it.

The argument is trying to suggest that these things are part of a soul since they don't have mass. But generally anyone making this argument will think that only humans have souls. Yet we can see other animals express emotions.

Things like love are chemical reactions in our brain that have been developed through evolution as a survival mechanism because we are a pack animal. Having love for each other causes us to look out for one another and thus increasing our chances of passing on our genes. So any mutations that enhance this kind of behavior will lead to a species having a better chance of passing its genes. And species without such traits will have less chance of passing genes than those that don't.

There's even a part of the brain that is dedicated to religion. When you have religious feelings or thoughts, a specific area of the brain is used. And using electromagnetic stimulation in that area can induce religious feelings. You know those feelings people get where they just *know* they are talking to God, etc? This can be induced artificially.

And the brain is an amazing organ. So when you see someone you recognize, there is more than just your eyes at work. You have your optical path, your auditory path, and your emotional path. All of these sending signals to your brain to help you recognize a person. But the brain can be damaged and one of these paths can be cut off. There are people who think that their parents have been replaced by imposters. Why would they think this? Because part of recognizing someone is an emotional connection in the brain. It gives you that feeling when you recognize people who you are familiar with. You may not realize it, but you feel an emotion. When you see your parents, it triggers a specific emotion which is part of how you recognize them, and not just your eyes. People who's brains have been damaged can see their parents, know them by looks, but insist they are not really their parents. Or they could be in their own house but insist it's not their house and ask to be taken to their house. Because of this damage in the brain that only affects one of the several paths.

There are some people who cannot recognize living organisms. They can see them and hear them, but they cannot identify them visually. So for example you could be standing next to your wife and have no idea who she is despite being married for 50 years. but as soon as she talks, you will instantly recognize her. In this brain damage scenario, the visual signal is not triggering with the emotional signal, but the auditory is. One could draw a person or an animal or a plant and the person would not be able to identify those objects. Draw a lion and the person will not be able to tell you it's a lion. But play the sound of a lion and they will. This is due to a specific area of the brain which contains information about living orgnaisms being damaged. Why a specific area for living things? Because it was once important to quickly tell if another organism is a predator, or food, etc.


So what is the point of all of this nonsense? The point is that by looking at a damaged brain, we can better understand a functioning one. At first it may appear that there is no natural explanation for something like emotions. But when we look at a damaged brain, we can see how the damaged brain can impair things like emotions and therefore demonstrating how these things are part of the physical brain. And therefore we CAN empirically prove things like love and conscience, etc etc.

[Jonnyclueless]

Let's take what we might term an "transcendent" experience. Someone listens to , and is moved by say a Mozart symphony.


To add to this...

Music is part of our communication system. Even when speaking we speak in different pitches and things like this communicate our feelings which is an important part of communication and survival.

For example if we talk at a really high pitch and high tempo, it indicates anxiety, or panic, or urgency. When someone speaks this way you quickly give your attention because it could indicate impending danger or trouble.

When someone talks at a slow tempo and in a low voice it can indicate depression or sadness. If they talk in a low pitch, slow tempo, but with a sharp timbre, it can indicate sexual desire, or arousal and can indicate mating, etc.

So these different parameters of communication communicate important emotional information. Music simply takes advantage of this and communicates emotion which makes us in tern feel emotion. A fast tempo high pitch song will bring out enthusiastic emotions. A slow, dark, and low pitch song will bring out sad emotions.

All of these things evolved in us for survival. And while our survival as a species may no longer depend on them, we still use them to communicate. Someone talking fast an high once could have helped you more quickly know that a lion is attacking. A slow low voice could let you know someone is in need of help. All these come back to survival. Maybe not anymore, but we wouldn't be here to not need such things for survival if we didn't have them to get here.

[Marduk]

I can empirically prove love to myself.
yup, and we can go weigh the tissue when youve finished
:D

[Dancing David]

I think this is a variation of the two fold meme
'science is a beliefs system' (which it is but science is not a faith)
'you are embedded in reality so you can't talk about reality'

The second one is rather common: 'all you have is sensation so the world is made os sensation', 'all you have is thought so the world is made of thought', 'all you have is thought and it is subject to error', 'objective reality is a subset of subjective reality'.

My counter for this is that it does not matter: we could be Brains in vats, butterfly dreams, godthought or dancing energy.

the points all come to the same place:

1. Either the behavior of reality is consistent or it isn't.
2. If it is consistent you can use the scientific method to model reality.


BTW: Emotions are easy to prove in an empirical fashion, it is the label applied to the emotions that is vague, context sensitive, cognitively framed and hard to determine.

[Beerina]

Love is all about proof. I recommend 100 or above for your best chances.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/Gnurl/alcohol.jpg

[Safe-Keeper]

That is one heck of a scandalized look on the party-goer farthest to the right. Is the photographer about to regret snapping the picture:D?

[CurtC]

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

Here's how I'd respond to that statement:

"Well 'love' is a pattern of thought that exists only in your head. Are you saying that 'god' is just a thought that's only in your head? If so, then I can believe that - that's what I've figured all along! I thought you were claiming that 'god' is real, in an external objective sense."

[pgwenthold]

I think the actual theist argument involving the wind goes something like this:

You can't see the wind, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
You can't see God, but that doesn't mean he isn't there.

Or something like that.

ETA:

And if you point out that you may not be able to see the wind, but you can feel it, they'll reply that they can feel God (within themselves / all around / in their souls / etc).

Then again, I can put a windmill out in yard and watch it spin because the wind hits it. Shoot, I can even measure velocity of the wind, without ever feeling it myself.

Where is the "god detector"?

[Beth]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."

Since we can't empirically prove things like love, wind, numbers, thoughts, consciousness, etc., we can't expect to empirically prove a god (according to certain theists and believers).

Any responses to this type of argument?


P.S. I'm not saying that all theists or believers use this line of argument or agree with it. I just want to address these specific arguments that are used by some theists and believers.

I think you have to be careful about what exactly they are claiming. For example, the first statement above isn't exactly false. The second, while quite similar, is false.

You cannot prove you love someone and you cannot prove that god exists. The 'therefore' isn't appropriate unless they define god as love. A popular definition in some circles.

On the other hand, to claim that because proof of love is not attainable therefore god exists is not a valid conclusion and it's fairly easy to show why not. Others have done so in this thread.

Proof, as I think someone else mentioned, is for mathematics. Outside of that, you have to settle for a preponderance of evidence and consensus of knowledgeable people. It's a good idea to keep in mind that reasonable people can examine the same evidence and come to different conclusions on such matters.

The third statement isn't exactly false either - at least insofar as some definitions of god are concerned. If you claiming that their god is empirically testable, you'll have to get them to define what they mean by god and then it may or may not be empirically testable.

I think your best response to that type of argument is to determine why they are bringing that point up? Are they trying to convince you they are right? Are they trying to explain to you why empirical evidence isn't necessary for their belief? Are they just wanting you to back off attacking their beliefs? Your response should be appropriate both to what you percieve as their motivation and how you want your relationship with them to proceed.

If you just want to win the argument, I think can declare victory at that point. They are essentially admitting they have no objective evidence for their belief.

[atavisms]

On more than one occasion I've dealt with the following argument:

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, you can't prove a god exists."

or

"You can't prove that you love someone, therefore, god exists."



neither one makes complete sense to me bc there is no relationship between the love people share/experience and 'proving' whether god exists or not or whether that love is real or not.
You can 'prove' that you love someone by expressing it and making sacrifices, dedication etc.

I think what you are trying to say is that as there are things we know are real and yet we still cannot arbitrarily or in some quantifiable manner convey to others their existence on command.
Like we might a physical property.

That does not mean love is not a real experience.

If god does exist it is good to consider that our brains are a subsequent part of this process of creation. How can we hope to grasp all of it?

Spirituality is an exploration of the self - of the universe.
Tied to the mystery of our own being we are alive but do not even know what life or matter is. We are at the cusp of creation and science has only broadened these horizons greatly for us.

As science is universal so must religion become to remain viable. So long as it remains tribal and exclusionary of all outsiders it will become an ever more archaic and outdated institution. (we can only hope)

The only thing that makes you jewish or christian or whatever group or tradition you identify with is chance. It is good to remember that when you hear the people in your mosque or church talking about the 'one true god' and the rest will go to hell.

[Soapy Sam]

You can't measure idiocy, but I know it when I hear it.

[themusicteacher]

You can't measure idiocy, but I know it when I hear it.

We can't define lewd, lascivious or inappropriate conduct but we know it when we see cheerleaders doing it.

[pgwenthold]

We can't define lewd, lascivious or inappropriate conduct but we know it when we see cheerleaders doing it.

I can't define pornography, but I recognize it when I download it from the internet.

[godless dave]

If we couldn't empirically prove the wind, meteorologists would be out of work.

[Brian-M]

We can't define lewd, lascivious or inappropriate conduct
I can't define pornography


Hey... I should get you two dictionaries for Christmas... there's all kinds of definitions in there. :D

[beachnut]

... The only thing that makes you jewish or christian or whatever group or tradition you identify with is chance...

Did you mean choice? http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Choice.jpg