LOVE

[justifyothers]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

[McCulloch]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Without defining love, how can you be so sure that it does not exist in nature?

Why would you say that love is not beneficial to the survival of our species? We are a social mammalian species with one of the longest periods of childhood dependence of any known species. I would think that it is somewhat obvious that love is beneficial to the survival of our species.

How did you conclude that we are at the top of the hierarchy of beings?

Is your God the God-of-the-Gaps? If you cannot explain something then you automatically assume that goddidit?

[justifyothers]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence. It is felt, but not seen, it is desired and fought for, but not necessary.
It is not required for survival. In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings', where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Without defining love, how can you be so sure that it does not exist in nature?

Well, doesn't nature rely on survival of the fittest? Don't birds push the weakest baby out of the nest? Don't male lions eat their babies? Does a mother pig spend extra time feeding the runt of a litter?

Why would you say that love is not beneficial to the survival of our species? We are a social mammalian species with one of the longest periods of childhood dependence of any known species. I would think that it is somewhat obvious that love is beneficial to the survival of our species.

Of course love is beneficial - I said it's not needed for the survival of our species. We've all seen children and adults that are unloved and the sadness of that - but they're not dead and often reproduce.

How did you conclude that we are at the top of the hierarchy of beings?

Not sure what you mean here.......I guess I meant on earth we are and besides God we are. In terms of intelligence, emotions, etc. Do you disagree?

Is your God the God-of-the-Gaps? If you cannot explain something then you automatically assume that goddidit?

God of the gaps??
Did you have a perspective to share?

[bernee51]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence.

Before testing for something should we not first set some parameters defining what we are testing for.

It is not required for survival.

Is altruism indicative of love? Is not altruism necessary for the survival and development of community?

In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

Does it exist in humans? Are humans not part of nature?

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

Our species is communal. Does love not aid in the survival and evolution of community?

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings',...

This is an anthropocentric view. Probably unwarranted.

where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

It didn't 'come from' anywhere. It is an evolutionary development related very closely to the evolution of consciousness.

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Of course there is. I just gave you one.

Is there any way of getting around the logical impossibility of a creator deity?

[justifyothers]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence.

Before testing for something should we not first set some parameters defining what we are testing for.

Sure - we are trying to prove the existence of love.

It is not required for survival.

Is altruism indicative of love? Is not altruism necessary for the survival and development of community?

NO, it benefits the animal kingdom only for survival, not mankind.

In nature, it does not exist (except possibly within elephant communities)

Does it exist in humans? Are humans not part of nature?

Yes, I meant other species, besides man...animals, etc.

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

Our species is communal. Does love not aid in the survival and evolution of community?

Not at all. It is lovely and beneficial - no doubt - but not necessary for survival. There are a lot of people living and reproducing in this world, without it.

If we are at the top of the 'hierarchy of beings',...

This is an anthropocentric view. Probably unwarranted.

OK - on the earth and that we know of.........

where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

It didn't 'come from' anywhere. It is an evolutionary development related very closely to the evolution of consciousness.

If it evolved, it came from somewhere....

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Of course there is. I just gave you one.

Are you quite sure?
Is there any way of getting around the logical impossibility of a creator deity?

No, we can only access what is available to us at this time.

[bernee51]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence.

Before testing for something should we not first set some parameters defining what we are testing for.

[
Sure - we are trying to prove the existence of love.

Would you like to take a crack at a definition..

It is not required for survival.

Is altruism indicative of love? Is not altruism necessary for the survival and development of community?

NO, it benefits the animal kingdom only for survival, not mankind.

Mankind is a social animal, in order to survive as a species, community is necessary. It would not do this without altruism.

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

Our species is communal. Does love not aid in the survival and evolution of community?

Not at all. It is lovely and beneficial - no doubt - but not necessary for survival. There are a lot of people living and reproducing in this world, without it.

Show me a community that is surviving without some degree of altruism.

where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

It didn't 'come from' anywhere. It is an evolutionary development related very closely to the evolution of consciousness.

If it evolved, it came from somewhere...

We can observe altruism in other animals – where did that come from? We can observe consciousness in other animals? Where did that come from? It didn’t ‘come from’ anywhere. It is emergent, it is constantly ‘becoming’. In our species it has evolved to a greater level of complexity.

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Of course there is. I just gave you one.

Are you quite sure?

Positive. It is an emergent property of existence.

Besides, if a ‘loving creator’ is a logical impossibility and therefore non-existent there is no alternative but to be another explanation.

Is there any way of getting around the logical impossibility of a creator deity?

No, we can only access what is available to us at this time.

OK when the laws of logic get reviewed and updated I may have to change my conclusion. As it stands at the moment I can see no alternative but to deny the possible existence of a creator deity.

[McCulloch]

Without defining love, how can you be so sure that it does not exist in nature?

Well, doesn't nature rely on survival of the fittest?

That is a common misunderstanding of evolution. Survival of the fittest refers to species not individuals. The species which are the most fit to survive in their environments will survive.

Don't birds push the weakest baby out of the nest? Don't male lions eat their babies? Does a mother pig spend extra time feeding the runt of a litter?

These are all true. Pointing out examples of behaviors in nature which are not love does not prove that there is no love in nature.

Why would you say that love is not beneficial to the survival of our species? We are a social mammalian species with one of the longest periods of childhood dependence of any known species. I would think that it is somewhat obvious that love is beneficial to the survival of our species.

Of course love is beneficial - I said it's not needed for the survival of our species. We've all seen children and adults that are unloved and the sadness of that - but they're not dead and often reproduce.

This is where your misapplication of evolution to individuals and not species confuses things. We (the human species) have evolved love as a way to improve the survival rate of our collectives. As with any adaptive behaviour, some individuals have more others less. Without love, our species would not survive. Without love, some individuals might survive, in a society where there is love.

How did you conclude that we are at the top of the hierarchy of beings?

Not sure what you mean here.......I guess I meant on earth we are and besides God we are. In terms of intelligence, emotions, etc. Do you disagree?

You're not sure what I mean? You are the one who made the statement that humans are at the top of the hierarchy of beings. I am simply asking what you mean by that. Humans have the greatest known intelligence of any species we know. That does not mean that some other species might not develop greater intelligence. Do you think that humans have the greatest intelligence possible? Is there something that I don't know that has conclusively put intelligence at the top of the heap of desirable qualities?

Is your God the God-of-the-Gaps? If you cannot explain something then you automatically assume that goddidit?

God of the gaps??
Did you have a perspective to share?

Yes.

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

This is the lame fall back position of most creationists. If they have not got the patience to accept that we do not have a full explanation for some phenomenon, in this case love, then they fill the gaps in their knowledge with an assumption that it must have been done by God.

At one time, the religious believed that disease was caused by sin, transgressions against God, and would be cured by forgiveness. We now know that there are naturalistic causes and treatments for disease. You believe that because you do not understand the scientific causes for love, that God must have created it. This is what is called the God-of-the-Gaps.
Some further reading about this concept:

• What Does "God of the Gaps" Mean? by Allan H. Harvey
• God of the gaps in Wikipedia

[justifyothers]

There are no tests, scientifically or otherwise to prove its existence.

Before testing for something should we not first set some parameters defining what we are testing for.

[
Sure - we are trying to prove the existence of love.

Would you like to take a crack at a definition..

I think it is subjective, but generally could be described as unselfish commitment and devotion for another, expressed through compassion and kindness.

It is not required for survival.

Is altruism indicative of love? Is not altruism necessary for the survival and development of community?

NO, it benefits the animal kingdom only for survival, not mankind.

Mankind is a social animal, in order to survive as a species, community is necessary. It would not do this without altruism.

Mankind is certainly not the only social animal. Our sociality may have resulted from love, but if we didn't have love, we could still reproduce, care for our young and continue on. This would be our survival instinct - not love.

It is LOVE. Why do we have it, want it, & seek it if we don't need it for the survival of our species?

Our species is communal. Does love not aid in the survival and evolution of community?

Not at all. It is lovely and beneficial - no doubt - but not necessary for survival. There are a lot of people living and reproducing in this world, without it.

Show me a community that is surviving without some degree of altruism.

The janjaweed community in Sudan - (kind of tongue in cheek, but still true) All communities have some degree of love, I suppose. But, different from instinct to survive, we can choose to develop it or not.
If the janjaweed are allowed to continue the genocide and complete their goal, they will still survive, I maintain, without love.

where did love come from? Science can't explain it , so why is it here?

It didn't 'come from' anywhere. It is an evolutionary development related very closely to the evolution of consciousness.

If it evolved, it came from somewhere...

We can observe altruism in other animals – where did that come from? We can observe consciousness in other animals? Where did that come from? It didn’t ‘come from’ anywhere. It is emergent, it is constantly ‘becoming’. In our species it has evolved to a greater level of complexity.

So, you are equating love with intellect ? In some of our species it has evolved, in some of our species it has regressed. Is this also true in other animals, or are we set apart by this choice?

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

Of course there is. I just gave you one.

Are you quite sure?

Positive. It is an emergent property of existence.

Besides, if a ‘loving creator’ is a logical impossibility and therefore non-existent there is no alternative but to be another explanation.

I wasn't aware that logic closed the door on things not yet proven. Intelligent design seems as logical as any other explanation to me....whatever logic is.

Is there any way of getting around the logical impossibility of a creator deity?

No, we can only access what is available to us at this time.

OK when the laws of logic get reviewed and updated I may have to change my conclusion. As it stands at the moment I can see no alternative but to deny the possible existence of a creator deity.

No, you can only say that you personally have not had adequate experience to justify the existence of God. But can we ever really deny the possibility? You said yourself above that if the laws of logic get reviewed, you may have to change your conclusion. Isn't logic evolving as we do? If so, it leaves open the possibility.

[justifyothers]

Without defining love, how can you be so sure that it does not exist in nature?

Well, doesn't nature rely on survival of the fittest?

That is a common misunderstanding of evolution. Survival of the fittest refers to species not individuals. The species which are the most fit to survive in their environments will survive.

What is your definition of love and which, if any, animal species demonstrate it?

Of course love is beneficial - I said it's not needed for the survival of our species. We've all seen children and adults that are unloved and the sadness of that - but they're not dead and often reproduce.

This is where your misapplication of evolution to individuals and not species confuses things. We (the human species) have evolved love as a way to improve the survival rate of our collectives. As with any adaptive behaviour, some individuals have more others less. Without love, our species would not survive. Without love, some individuals might survive, in a society where there is love.

If humankind has 'evolved love' as a means of survival, then it changes from genuine love to survival instincts. Since when does love ensure survival? I don't love my children, so that they are better guaranteed to survive.

How did you conclude that we are at the top of the hierarchy of beings?

Not sure what you mean here.......I guess I meant on earth we are and besides God we are. In terms of intelligence, emotions, etc. Do you disagree?

You're not sure what I mean? You are the one who made the statement that humans are at the top of the hierarchy of beings. I am simply asking what you mean by that. Humans have the greatest known intelligence of any species we know. That does not mean that some other species might not develop greater intelligence. Do you think that humans have the greatest intelligence possible? Is there something that I don't know that has conclusively put intelligence at the top of the heap of desirable qualities?

I doubt that any species on this planet will surpass humankind in intelligence any time soon. But I do not think we have the ultimate intelligence either. But for the here (earth ) and now (at this time) we do, don't we? And no, I don't think intelligence is the greatest quality. Quite the contrary.....I believe love is the greatest quality and most beneficial and meaningful. I'm saying we survive because of intelligence, though - not love.

Is your God the God-of-the-Gaps? If you cannot explain something then you automatically assume that goddidit?

Absolutely not - there is a multitude of things I cannot explain. I do not say goddidit to all of them. (murder, hate, abuse, global warming) Some things I accept as unexplainable at this time. It may be that I am a simpler creature than you are, but sometimes, it is OK with me not to have all the answers. Sometimes there is an answer and I simply don't understand it. As I said, I don't consider intelligence to be the ultimate characteristic.
Hopefully, I have something else to offer to society.

God of the gaps??
Did you have a perspective to share?

Yes.

Is there any other explanation than that of a creator, a 'loving' creator?

This is the lame fall back position of most creationists. If they have not got the patience to accept that we do not have a full explanation for some phenomenon, in this case love, then they fill the gaps in their knowledge with an assumption that it must have been done by God.

The need for human touch has been studied in infants for their 'success to thrive'. Love is different from touch. It comes from within and cannot be explained, nor is it necessary for survival. You are equating love to mankind evolving = intelligence.

At one time, the religious believed that disease was caused by sin, transgressions against God, and would be cured by forgiveness. We now know that there are naturalistic causes and treatments for disease. You believe that because you do not understand the scientific causes for love, that God must have created it. This is what is called the God-of-the-Gaps.

What are the scientific causes for love?


Some further reading about this concept:

• What Does "God of the Gaps" Mean? by Allan H. Harvey
• God of the gaps in Wikipedia

Thank you...will check it out

[McCulloch]

What is your definition of love and which, if any, animal species demonstrate it?

You are the one who made the positive assertion that no species except humans and elephants have love. Define your terms and then we can evaluate your assertion. However, even if I could produce no examples other than humans and elephants, it would not prove that your assertion is correct.

If humankind has 'evolved love' as a means of survival, then it changes from genuine love to survival instincts. Since when does love ensure survival? I don't love my children, so that they are better guaranteed to survive.

There is a difference between proximate and ultimate causes. So, there are at least two answers as to why we love our children. The proximate reasons would include things like love and familiarity. The ultimate reason is that by providing care and attention to our offspring, we maximize the propagation of our genes.

I doubt that any species on this planet will surpass humankind in intelligence any time soon.

Yes, evolution is a very slow process.

But I do not think we have the ultimate intelligence either. But for the here (earth ) and now (at this time) we do, don't we? And no, I don't think intelligence is the greatest quality. Quite the contrary.....I believe love is the greatest quality and most beneficial and meaningful. I'm saying we survive because of intelligence, though - not love.

I say that we survive due to a very complex combination of factors which include intelligence and love and opposable thumbs.

The need for human touch has been studied in infants for their 'success to thrive'. Love is different from touch. It comes from within and cannot be explained, nor is it necessary for survival. You are equating love to mankind evolving = intelligence.

I don't think that we could have the love that we experience without the degree of intelligence that humans have.

What are the scientific causes for love?

I don't think that this has been fully researched yet. It looks to be related to intelligence and group survival. Just because more research is needed is not a reason to abandon science and opt for the supernatural solution.