f you could only write a book on the rational evaluation of love, I wager you would have a runaway best seller"
It has been done many times.
Really? Please cite for me.
When I speak the word "God" I am referring to a mythic force or
Being-
Since you profess not to believe in God, you are of course free to define the term any way you wan to. But I have no interest into buying into definitions posed by a person who is defining something they don't believe in.
Most people have experienced affection, and therefore they may accept that it is not a mythic quality, but rather an
actual dynamic in human experience.
And many people have experienced the presence of God, and therefore they accept that he/she/it is not a mythic quality, but rather an actual existence. I can only assume that you have never had such an experience, so you are like the person who has never experienced love having no idea what all the fuss is about.
I did not say that love, honor, etc. were not real. They certainly are real. That's the point you would have understood if you had been concerned to seek the meaning in what I wrote rather than just seek ways to be intentionally obstreperous.
Love, honor, pride, are real. But they are unseeable, and unmeasurable by any instruments of our science.
God is real, also. But he/she/it is also unseeable, and unmeasurable by any instruments of our science.
Both are known only by the experience of them by some (not all) persons, and by the observation by those who have the ability to see of the effects of their existence.
you have evidence that God is "Natural" and subject to decay and
death and gravity and hunger.
Now you're being intentionally obtuse. So I'll let you go do that without me. |
