The evidence suggests it evolved driven by natural selection, as it presents a survival benefit.
Now it’s your turn to explain how it is the product of your imaginary deity?
No, this is still a false dichotomy, one can also simply disbelieve your claim an unevidenced deity exists, without making a contrary claim.
How does the existence of evolved emotions like love evidence a deity, or anything supernatural? You keep dodging this question, and I will keep pointing out your duplicity.
Still worrying this overchewed bone of yours?
Did you fail to notice my providing an explanation in a previous post? Viz:
Or the fact that I explicitly stated that relevant phenomena are regularly observed to take place in FISH SPECIES?
I bet you never even bothered to acknowledge the existence of those pages I scanned from a book covering this topic, let alone read the pages in question.
Do you ever bother learning FACTS when people present them to you? Are you so wedded to your goat herder mythology, that you prefer it over reality itself?
Oh I’ve got this one, ask me, please…
Fish in a barrel, ask me ask me, I know this one as well…
@Sid has zero interest in learning, and zero interest in reality, unless it reinforces his belief in religious superstition.
Ask him how, as he claimed, love is sufficient reason on it’s own, to believe a deity exists? He won’t even try to answer, he will simply use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, and insist the existence of love has no other explanation, despite several posters including your good self offering precisely such evidence and explanations, which he then ignores to repeat his unevidenced claim ad nauseam.
FWIW he was never hear for debate, and isn’t even pretending he is. He is here to make claims, and then scurry away for a while, then return to repeat those claims and ignore the responses.
“suggests” ,what total bollocks .
Blind pitiless meaningless purposeless lifeless inanimate matter that is nothing more than mass, charge , spin etc contains no “qualitative”.
Once again you steal Theistic values to try and account for a “qualitative” that has no place in materialistic models of the world .
“scanned from a book” hahaha . That’s makes it the gospel truth then does it ? ( pun intended )
Appeal to authority ? I’ll give it a go myself . Here’s one of those goat herders you like to bleat on about.
I suspect he has a little bit more science credentials than you like to claim for yourself . What’s amazing is the scientific background of people who you can find herding goats .
Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls.”
—Max Planck, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who made the crucial scientific contribution of founding quantum physics. Planck was a devout Christian and a member of the Lutheran Church in Germany.
Religion and Natural Science (Lecture Given 1937) Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 184
One claim or book is demonstrable and testable.
Another claim or book is bollocks and has failed at every hurdle.
Take a guess which one is which?
Please enlighten us what constitutes “devout”. How did you measure it.
We could play quote wars. Sounds fun. Here’s another of Planck’s from which one could extrapolate that the word “devout” might not be applicable:
“…“to believe” means “to recognize as a truth”, and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary occurrences contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely.“
Edited to add:
“ Noted historian of science John L. Heilbron characterized Planck’s views on God as deistic.[44] Heilbron further relates that when asked about his religious affiliation, Planck replied that although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe “in a personal God, let alone a Christian God.”[45]”
Probably the same way you measure Love . Evidence suggests survival benefits also.
Sigh…why don’t you just answer the question? How do you define and measure the qualifier devout?
When has this gone on long enough? Sid is saying nothing and I have begun reading his posts to help me fall asleep.
Well, @Cognostic, I’ve been considering what action, if any, to take. @Sid is terribly reluctant to answer direct questions with direct answers. @Sid seems to just want to poke the bear, so to speak.
On one hand, every poster here has the option to simply ignore him, thus allowing him to rattle on to empty seats.
On another hand, I think there is definite value in allowing him to remain active with responses offered by other posters. There are many silent visitors to these forums (often, hundreds a day). The counters to his posts provide a great deal of edification for a lot of folks. That he is selling vaporware starts to become obvious via the many, more though out, counters to his pitch.
I’ll cogitate on it a bit more. @Whitefire13 and I can confer. And he can provide, if he chooses, any reasons he may have for justifying his continued presence.
Par for the course . It’s your sandbox and you make the rules so kick me out anytime you like .
As you say there are many many silent visitors and they will be the judge on who and what makes for honest and respectful debate .
I’ll leave you with another goat herder
Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.”
—Sir John Eccles, who received the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for establishing the relationship between inhibition of nerve cells and repolarization of a cell’s membrane. He is here cited in his article titled “Modern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God.”
Aaaannnnnddddddddd….he still doesn’t directly answer any direct questions! Me thinks he’s either too afraid or simply unable to do so.
LOL - Now that is funny. You don’t actually think you have been honest, do you? You have defined nothing, gone nowhere, and repeated the same BS adinfintum. You don’t understand critical thinking what an actual dichotomy is, or how logic works. And you want to claim honesty? I what world?
And what pray tell what have you defined ?
Logic will tell you that there either is a God or there is not, if there is a third or fourth option then I’m all ears .
Logic will also tell you that if something - Love -cannot be a product of a godless creation then it must be a creation of God .
Unless you can provide Proof that a mass, charge , spin lifeless universe has a need to produce Love then its creation must lay elsewhere - God .
Pure logic and don’t go stealing Theistic values to try and account for it . You have the burden of proof not me
So which is it and why? What evidence do you have for either position? Every atheist you have interacted with has told you that they do not believe in gods. What god are you talking about and what is your actual evidence.
Demonstrate your claim. You keep repeating the same bullshit though it has been shown to be false.
UNIVERSE? What makes you think a universe created love? Go back and read my previous post. Speaking with you is tiresome.
The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. The universe created love is a positive claim. You are demonstrably wrong. ‘Love can not be a godless creation.’ is a positive claim. Demonstrate your claims… Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. What claim must I defiend?
That he would have received based on demonstrable, repeatable evidence.
This however is his imaginative word salad 
.
Not a thing written can be evidenced. His beliefs are his to have. Doesn’t make it so.
No evidence for his view.
It seems your only response to the evidence that human emotions evolved as a survival benefit, driven by natural selection, is handwaving, I shan’t even feign surprise.
Still waiting for you to offer a single word to explain how you think evolved human emotions are the product of your imaginary deity?
That is exactly hat the evidence indicates, which is why you were so keen to dismiss it with vapid handwaving, obviously.
Indeed, but that doesn’t bode well for your crap though clearly, since you have not answered a single direct question out to you, or demonstrated any objective evidence for your imaginary invisible friend, or been able to offer one single word in explanation for your superstitious claims, and when you ask for evidence and it is presented, quelle surprise your response is vapid handwaving.
More than one deity champ would seem like an obvious third option ,so you’ve actually invoked logic while using a false dichotomy fallacy, dear oh dear. However the fact remains you have failed to demonstrate anything beyond vapid rhetoric, that any deity is even possible.
Human emotions exist, the material universe exists, species evolution exists, your addition of an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic violates Occam’s razor.
At least you left the word logic out of that false dichotomy fallacy, and no we don’t need contrary evidence to your unevidenced assertion that goddidit, that one is called an argument ad ignorantiam fallacy.
PMLMAO, it’s pure something alright, but what it is definitely not is rational.
The evidence human emotions evolved has been given, all anyone need do is read this thread. However even if we had no idea where or how human emotions emerged, it still doesn’t remotely evidence any deity, why would it?
No we don’t, this is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, but do claim you’re being rational again, as that is absolutely hilarious given how relentlessly you’ve peddled known common logical fallacies in tandem.
So he held a subjective unevidenced religious belief, what’s your point? Are you going to offer endless appeal to authority fallacies now? I suppose it makes a change from all your appeals to ignorance fallacies and false dichotomy fallacies anyway.
No point asking @Sid as he won’t answer, but does anyone understand why the word suggest has triggered him? As in the evidence suggests that…?
Suggest
verb
Is he using another definition we don’t know about?