On 01/06/2017 12:17, Bod wrote:
On 01/06/2017 11:59, Meanie wrote:
On 5/31/2017 11:13 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/31/2017 6:13 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/30/2017 11:25 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/30/2017 4:27 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/30/2017 1:26 PM, Muggles wrote:

Many people feel the need for something called "love", but that
doesn't
prove love exists.

Prove to me there is a physical being/creator in the sky or anywhere.

Prove to me love exists.

Will you attempt to use empirical or anecdotal evidence? Which one is
valid?

Your problem is assuming it has to be one or the other along with
trying
to compare it with a physical creator. You simply refuse to bow down
from your adamant "I'm a strong woman" attitude which you frequently
display.

It's not my problem. People have been after Christians forever to
"prove" by providing empirical evidence that a God exists.

There is nothing wrong with me asking an atheist to prove love exists by
using empirical evidence, too?

The shoe is on the other foot, and the atheist is a bit irritated that
he can't prove love exists by using empirical evidence. He thinks by
giving anecdotal stories as evidence should suffice as proof. After all,
don't most people understand that love exists because they've felt love
themselves?

**If it's acceptable to use anecdotal evidence to prove one thing
exists, then it should be acceptable to use anecdotal evidence to prove
a God exists.**

Simple. Don't you agree?

The fact is, you cannot prove a physical deity exist....period.

You can't use empirical evidence to prove love exists, either, and can
only offer anecdotal stories as evidence.

Do you know the difference between empirical vs. anecdotal evidence?

The question is, do you? Empirical is to experience which everyone
does and love is an experienced emotion. Otherwise, why did you marry
or are you afraid to admit you're wrong? Don't answer, we all know it.

If love didn't exist, then why did you marry?
If love doesn't and your husband (or any family member) died, you
wouldn't care.

Irrelevant to this discussion.
The irrelevancy is trying to spin an emotion to a physical being.

I provided my answer as did others. Your refusal to accept it doesn't
erase the fact

Please provide EMPIRICAL evidence that love exists.

If all you have to offer is anecdotal stories about love as your proof,
then I will have to conclude that you approve of also using anecdotal
stories as proof a God exists. At this point, we will have determined
"what sort of evidence is valid to prove a God exists."



No, I explained the example of love and the comparison to a physical
creator. It's apples to oranges but you simply want it to spin your way,

The feelings of Godlike emotions doesn't prove the physical existence
of one. It simply proves people associate the emotions taught from the
goodness that religion teaches. If I was taught that unicorns created
the earth and they were a symbol of love and goodness, I'd act in that
manner believing unicorns will take me to a better place after death.
Emotions exists but a physical creator does not. Once again, you
unwilling to accept that is your problem.

Have the last word. I don't have the patience to deal with your spin
attempts.

What Meanie is virtually implying, is that god exists, but emotions
don't if you follow it to its logical conclusion, yet emotions are
visible and known by everyone to exist. God only exists in peoples minds
and treated as an emotion.

Big Whoops!! I obviously meant MUGGLES. [slaps face]