It can be very physical.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Your Disbelief?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
It can be very physical.
Do you really think this is what love is?
This is measuring chemicals. You are not your chemical emotions. Love is not an emotion, or a feeling, or any such thing.
Ask any poet.
My goodness, this reductionism!!!!
I'm not talking about the act. I'm talking about love itself.
Yes love is an emotion in that its chemical changes in the brain . Emotions are chemical changes in your brain, and i wouldn't ask a poet for a medical explanation of anything.
Because love isn't a medical condition....
If you really think your love for you kids is just brain chemicals, go ahead.
PureX
Veteran Member
And yet your disbelief is itself non-physical. So it looks like you have quite the conundrum on your hands.
God, like love, can be measured in chemical changes in the brain as well. So by your explanation of love existing physically, you are also saying God exists physically as well?
Mentally, physically as in measurable chemical changes in the brain.
I don't really rule out anything as a possibility. However not all possibilities are worth investing belief in, not until there exists some kind of verifiable evidence for it.
As I've said in several posts, love is a chemical reaction on the brain, that reaction can be measured therefore it's physical.
PureX
Veteran Member
Measuring the "real" heat coming off an engine while it's working does not negate the work that engine is doing as being "unreal"
Measuring the "real" biomechanics of a thinking brain does not negate the thoughts being produced by that brain as being "unreal". Especially when "real" and "unreal" are two of the very thoughts that you're presuming to negate, here. The logic of such a claim would be blatantly incoherent.
Measuring the "real" biomechanics of a thinking brain does not negate the thoughts being produced by that brain as being "unreal". Especially when "real" and "unreal" are two of the very thoughts that you're presuming to negate, here. The logic of such a claim would be blatantly incoherent.
I have never said gods are not imagination, a chemical reaction in the brain.
By that logic, love is imagination. Either both exist or both do not. Your logic cannot dictate that one exists and the other does not.
Memories are physically stored. Thoughts are a physical process. So who I am is a collection of physical processes.
While we may not understand all of these physical processes there is no reason to think a non-physical element is necessary for me to identify.
They exist in the brain as a chemical process, they exist on paper when written down.
No. The symbols that represent numbers exist on paper, not the numbers themselves.
Only if it uses a non-physical element in its hypothesis.
Hopefully you'll explain that. I guess I'm just not smart enough to make the connection.
Therefore just as chemical reactions in the brain