[Colin2B]

Duffyd asks
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
GG: This is for future science. ....

Sorry jerry, you are way behind the times, as well as moving off topic.
The science of love has been studied and includes not just hormone measurements but MRI, bodily reactions etc
There is a summary on the Harvard site http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/

[duffyd]

Love, a definition:

 Love is patient,
love is kind.
It does not envy,
 it does not boast,
it is not proud.
 It does not dishonor others,
it is not self-seeking,
 it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are
tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

Love might be all that, but science can't even prove it exists.

[duffyd]

Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists, let alone place a value on it? Out of 7 billion people I would bet almost everyone who is old enough to have an opinion would argue emphatically that they know without a doubt that love is real. I would go further and expect almost all 7 billion would say love is extremely important.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Good point

[Colin2B]

Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists,

So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?
The research shows that when people say they are in love, there are measurable physical changes in the brain and body which show they are not making it up. Those emotions are real.
Are you denying that those physical changes take place?

Good point

No, rubbish point

[duffyd]

Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists,

So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?
The research shows that when people say they are in love, there are measurable physical changes in the brain and body which show they are not making it up. Those emotions are real.
Are you denying that those physical changes take place?

Good point

No, rubbish point

 Thanks for sharing that information. Born from above Christians have exactly the same physical responses. 

[Bored chemist]

, but science can't even prove it exists.

Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.

Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists

Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.

But that's not really relevant for two reasons.
People believed things before "science" was a thing.
And, people know that love exists because (unlike God) they have personally experienced it.

I's not so much that it isn't a "good" point.
It's not actually a point at all.

[Bored chemist]

...Christians have exactly the same physical responses. 

Nobody is denying the experience.
People fall in love with soap opera characters.
Something does not need to be real to be loved.

[duffyd]

I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.

It doesn't prove that GOD is. It proves Christians are experiencing real emotions. There are many proofs that GOD is.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

DuffyD asks: Can I give you my wife's work address?
GG: For what purpose? Do you want an autographed copy of my book? Are you in the USA?

[duffyd]

DuffyD asks: Can I give you my wife's work address?
GG: For what purpose? Do you want an autographed copy of my book? Are you in the USA?

You said you were getting pretty darn good at controlling lightning strikes. I thought if you weren't too busy, you might pop by her place of employment and work a little magic and zap her building and its contents into 24 trillions bits. Just kidding.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

DuffyD said:You said you were getting pretty darn good at controlling lightning strikes. I thought if you weren't too busy, you might pop by her place of employment and work a little magic and zap her building and its contents into 24 trillions bits. Just kidding.
GG: That was in 1981. I have no ability on my own. God has the ability to control my mind and I suspect that my lightning experiment was more mind control than reality.I tried to get the spirit to lift a chair in my basement. It would not. Thus God could not readily lift a chair however excessive spiritual energy would destroy an object. The body of Jesus was most likely destroyed by spiritual radiation which also move the rock.
  As a child I always demanded small miracles as verification of the words and dreams. In the country for vacation I saw an interesting rabbit one day. I asked to see the same rabbit the next day at the same location. This happened for sure but the rabbit was dead. God killed it. Why? It seems that God did not want to always confirm his message in small miracles.

[duffyd]

DuffyD said:You said you were getting pretty darn good at controlling lightning strikes. I thought if you weren't too busy, you might pop by her place of employment and work a little magic and zap her building and its contents into 24 trillions bits. Just kidding.
GG: That was in 1981. I have no ability on my own. God has the ability to control my mind and I suspect that my lightning experiment was more mind control than reality.I tried to get the spirit to lift a chair in my basement. It would not. Thus God could not readily lift a chair however excessive spiritual energy would destroy an object. The body of Jesus was most likely destroyed by spiritual radiation which also move the rock.
  As a child I always demanded small miracles as verification of the words and dreams. In the country for vacation I saw an interesting rabbit one day. I asked to see the same rabbit the next day at the same location. This happened for sure but the rabbit was dead. God killed it. Why? It seems that God did not want to always confirm his message in small miracles.

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

DuffyD says:Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
GG: Unfortunately many religions treat God as an idol. You speak of a God that is an idol. The Jews such as myself speak of God as a partnership. We do something for God and God does something for us. We fight with God. You want to be obedient to the spirit of God. What will that do for you? All you will get is five minutes our time as you are absorbed by the light of your son of God. Then you are gone forever. The Father God will judge all the sons of God and cleanse them. Most faithful Christians will be cleansed and take no part in the world to come. Some will but those who achieve the new Earth of Isaiah will only be a little part of everyone else.
  The Muslims get their share. So do the Hindus and the Chinese. The Hopi Indians will have a big share as compared to their small numbers. God asks a lot and gives very little to the individual. Yet that is best.

[duffyd]

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

I don't believe in religion. Do you know who said what I quoted above? The God I speak of is an idol? How so?

[duffyd]

Duffyd asks
But, how can science prove love exists? Which tools does science bring to the table proving that what you've described is love?
GG: This is for future science. ....

Sorry jerry, you are way behind the times, as well as moving off topic.
The science of love has been studied and includes not just hormone measurements but MRI, bodily reactions etc
There is a summary on the Harvard site http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/

Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"

Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.

[Colin2B]

Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"

Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.

The reply was published in a public thread you were following.
However, the question is still valid as you also said

I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.

So your earlier statements were deliberately misleading as suggested by BC

, but science can't even prove it exists.

Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.

Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists

Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.

Why do you deliberately mislead people. You are denying Christ when you do that; Peter did it 3 times, how many times will you do it?

[duffyd]

Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"

Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.

The reply was published in a public thread you were following.
However, the question is still valid as you also said

I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.

So your earlier statements were deliberately misleading as suggested by BC

, but science can't even prove it exists.

Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.

Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists

Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.

Why do you deliberately mislead people. You are denying Christ when you do that; Peter did it 3 times, how many times will you do it?

Get your story straight. Troll someone else. Don't call me a liar again or I will report you to the powers that be. Don't expect replies in the future.

[duffyd]

I don't respond to trolls and baiters. I will report them to the authorities from now on.

[Colin2B]

Don't call me a liar again or I will report you to the powers that be. Don't expect replies in the future.

I will call you what you are and you consistently misrepresent the truth. I haven’t called you a liar because, like Alan, I am not certain you have the reasoning ability to understand how you are misrepresenting the truth.

I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning.

PS I will repeat my previous warning not to evangelise in your posts, it’s against the rules.