Meanie news 2017 10:59:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, 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.

Some people actually believe unicorns exist. ROFL, I know it sounds
crazy, but they do. Some people also think they can cast 'spells' and
have outside influence not only over their own life, but, others as
well by casting these spells. Nothing scientific about it mind you,
but they really believe they're witches and able to break the laws of
physics, etc, by using these 'spells'.

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

Your patience is admirable, considering how long you've put up with
her and her inane bull**** on a variety of topics thus far.




--
Nope, I can't go to hell.
Satan still has a restraining order against me.
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php