The "I've had it with madness" Challenge!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
you apparently don't know the definition of love and randomly assign it to whatever you want..

yes just like the word "objective" science can not explain the definition of love for each individual human on the planet... they may appear to do s using only the english language, but it would only appear.

what about before there were scientists ? can cavemen have felt love ?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Also, we already have definitions of love, and like I said before, you can't just change definitions just because it fits your narrative.

explain to me the definition of love then please

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by MrXYZ
you apparently don't know the definition of love and randomly assign it to whatever you want..

yes just like the word "objective" science can not explain the definition of love for each individual human on the planet... they may appear to do s using only the english language, but it would only appear.

what about before there were scientists ? can cavemen have felt love ?

You do realize things happen even if you don't have a definition, right? Like, in ancient times, people had no clue about atoms, yet they existed. So what's your point?

Still doesn't change the fact that you're randomly changing definitions...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Also, we already have definitions of love, and like I said before, you can't just change definitions just because it fits your narrative.

explain to me the definition of love then please

I posted you the link to the official definitions...you can click links, right?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Also, we already have definitions of love, and like I said before, you can't just change definitions just because it fits your narrative.

explain to me the definition of love then please

I posted you the link to the official definitions...you can click links, right?

oh I must have missed it... I would rather your own words though

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


We have official definitions for a reason, my words are useless. If we didn't, everyone could just make stuff up and call cars "birds" and stones "running"...kinda like you. I hope you see why that wouldn't work

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

like I been saying, until someone can prove to me that God is not love...

I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on the person who claims that this deity (whose existence is in high doubt) is in fact love.

And I've already pointed out that this deity is responsible for several genocides, millions of murders, mass rape, genital mutilation, and a demonization of the female reproductive cycle. Those are not qualities of 'love'.

even using or trying to get me to understand their mathematical formula I will have to believe what I believe.

I've already pointed out to you that this is a ridiculous claim in the first place.

until someone can post facts and evidence which backs up their claim that God is not love,

Again, you're shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon you to show that your deity is in fact love.

and evidence/fact we can all understand so easily that it would have to be truth...

...yet again, things that aren't easy to understand aren't necessarily false. I find calculus a bit hard to understand and calculus is far from false.

then I will just believe anyone who says any different is delusional and lost down the rabbit hole.

So anyone who disagrees with your unproven assertion is delusional? You're asserting something without evidence. Please prove to me that your deity is love before you call on me to disprove your claim.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Wow, thanks for taking a statement of mine and applying it a subject I wasn't talking about there. I was talking about the Bible. Nobody has proven that the Bible is fact.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on the person who

yes I am very sorry too MIMS, the topic is so far off-topic that there is no point any longer...

the burden of proof is on the wanna be scientists to explain love using mathematics, mothing more...

it is stated in the video that everything in the observable universe can be explain using math, you have even said this yourself..

well lets see it... love explained using "math" not the dictionary or personal words... just "math"

thanks, I will wait your evidence and proof.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


So basically, in your mind, unicorns exist until someone proves they don't exist? What about little dwarves? Or trolls?

Seriously? Your mind must be like "A Small World" at Disneyland

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

So basically, in your mind, unicorns exist until someone proves they don't exist? What about little dwarves? Or trolls?

Seriously? Your mind must be like "A Small World" at Disneyland

no you are searching for unicorns or white haired man with fiery eyes not me

I know of God thank you very much

reply to post by MrXYZ


well lets see it... love explained using "math" not the dictionary or personal words... just "math"

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

So basically, in your mind, unicorns exist until someone proves they don't exist? What about little dwarves? Or trolls?

Seriously? Your mind must be like "A Small World" at Disneyland

no you are searching for unicorns or white haired man with fiery eyes not me

I know of God thank you very much

I'm not searching for them at all, and why would I? We have zero evidence they exist for real, just like we have zero evidence deities exist. But we're going in circles here, you're confusing "knowing" with "believing"

it's still being searched for

Originally posted by MrXYZ
We have zero evidence they exist for real, just like we have zero evidence deities exist.

why are you asking for evidence then if you are not searching for God ?

are you not an atheist ?

be devout in your atheism and practice what you preach... (deities do not exist remember?)

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


The burden of proof makes on anyone making a claim. As of yet, I have not heard of anyone making a claim that they have found a way to express everything mathematically, merely that it is possible.

You, on the other hand, are making a claim that you have a book that is fact, where is your evidence for this claim?

Oh, and how about we do a proper debate now? (see? Back on topic)

There are many ways of understanding love: the love between parents and children, between other family relations, friendship, respect, the sexual love, the love for things and other feelings of love. The concept that includes the common element of all these types of love is that which best represents the so-called Universal Love which stands out precisely for not referring to anything in particular. In principle, there is an interesting parallelism between Universal Love and the attraction of gravity. Both forces are general, natural, invisible, powerful…the enigma of gravity of love. On some occasions, I had thought about the possible parameters of the Equation for Love as a mental relaxation exercise, but I never thought that anything more could come of these mathematical games than a precious moment with the Universal Love. Well, perhaps I thought so, you never know! However, when the mathematical Equation for Love occurred to me, I realized that some of the parameters were interesting, moreover, that they had a certain physical significance and, finally, when I linked the Equation for Love by substitution with Albert Einstein’s equation, E = m c², and the result was Newton’s formula for gravity, it left me a little perplexed. It appeared again the enigma of the gravity of love. So I decided to try to expose this particular enigma of the world of love to disorient someone some more:

uk.answers.yahoo.com...

humm...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

The burden of proof makes on anyone making a claim.

oh what's this switcharoo ?

I am making the claim that love can not be defined using "math"

so what is your point ?

I am researching now using the ultimate infallible internet and posting my findings

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


you have made the claim yourself (even before I seen the video on page 6) that everything can be explained using "math" just as the surfer physicist had claimed everything in the known universe can be explained using math.

I am waiting on you to post your proof and fact and evidence...

meanwhile I will refute you with evidence, truth and fact.

can someone explain this to me ? I do not think it is all encompassing and transcendent... what I mean is most mere mortals can't pick up on this, are there any smart people here who can help ?

Related to the subject of the “equation of love” is the popular so-called ‘mathematical proof’ that a woman equals problems, which is often given as a joke-answer to the premise that, supposedly, one can reduce love to a mathematical equation. It is difficult to track down the origin of this; online versions date several years, and the actual joke seems to have originated several decades back, but it amounts to a five step proof, with alternative variations in step four:

www.eoht.info...

why can't everything in the known universe be explained using math ?

love is observable, it is agree upon that it exists... why can't math teach me love