Again. That's not what I said. Your either having trouble reading "complicated" and "confusing sentences"...or obfuscating with misrepresentation. I said- "No we cannot prove that "people have the feelings"....that is not to deny that people have feelings...it just points out that we (and sometimes they) do not know what feeling they are having, can be faking a feeling and that they/we "cannot prove that "people have >the< feelings" that they claim.
Yeah, and that's just silly. The point is we have feelings. We can see that objectively. We determine which feelings we and others are feeling based on how it makes us or them act. So, yes, we can prove that people have the feelings.
I never said anything about the stimulus needing to be a particular person
Neither did I. I gave an example.
Maybe >that's< 'love'.............maybe love is something else...like a non emotionaly motivated or dependent- "Preparedness to do for others".
Like 'God'...there is no hard/fast definition and no way to >proove< the propisition
A statement of commonly held faith/belief in love that is no different to-
" You don't even need brain scans/proof to see that God exist".
OK, your ideas are way too irrational to make sense of. Love is what we define it as. All love is is a word we came up with to describe something we already know exists. If you want to call it something else, be my guest, but the thing we use the term for still exists.
Some things seem so obvious to some people that no proof is expected or required.
Some things (love, God, what's funny) cannot be proven.....doesn't mean they don't exist.
Love can be proven. This is the part you're intentionally missing. Love is proven because it's a word we use to describe certain actions and feelings. We know it exists because we came up with it to describe something we know exists. It's like having a table in front of you and coming up with the word "table", and then asking "How do you know a table exists?". Well, because it's right there in front of us, and we use the term table because we can see the table existing.
[/quote]Love is >not< just defined as an emotion or feeling[/quote]
Great, but who cares? Stop equivocating. Stick to one word. You want to see someone prove love exists. For that, we use the definition of a feeling or emotion. If you want to talk about other definitions of the word, then we can do that, but it's a separate discussion.
That's right...we see a "display"...We know that some "displays" are acting/pretending and some "displays" are snake oil deception and some "displays" are drug/mental illness induced and some "displays" are genuine...we know these "displays" >exist< but we have no way of >prooving< which is which!
We make our calculation and bet on the "display" based on experience, probability, faith, hope......but not certainty and certainly not >proof<.
We know love exists. It's possible in some cases people misunderstand their feelings, and it's possible that in some cases we don't know whether they're feeling love as they claim. However, that doesn't negate the fact that we know love exists. All it does is explain that we don't necessarily know whether someone is having that feeling/emotion.
>Likewise<....Some people find the world to be such a "display" of the 'love' of God they bet/believe God exists....but no one has >proof< of love or God.
Nope, we have proof of love, just not God. And I understand that some people find the world to be a display of the love of God, and therefore believe God exists, but that's not based on anything rational.
:yes: "describing reactions we have" to the "display"...reading the "display",
interpreting the display, applying logic and common sense and probability to the display....but not having any proof that the display can be sourced to love or God.
Please try to at least read what I say. There is no entity "love" to attribute things to. We're not saying there is some kind of force called love. We're saying the display is love. This is something I've explained more than once, and you're choosing to not understand it and continue on with your nonsense.
Generally psychopaths/sociopaths don't deny that people have the experiences they attribute to love, just that there is no love to attribute them to.
Cool, if you don't want to call those things love, then don't. You can call a table a heater, if you want, but the table still exists. Whatever the feeling is still exists whether you call it love or lust or whatever else.
In the same way, I know that people experience God because I can see them experiencing Him/Her and His/Her "display" in the universe.
No, all you know is that people are having a feeling. Assuming that feeling is caused by some god has no basis in reason. This makes it crystal clear. In both cases, you know the person is having a feeling. In one the feeling is what we're talking about (love). In the other, that feeling is being attributed to something else. We know the feelings are there, which proves love, but we don't know the outside being is there causing the feeling in the case of God.
