What is the true nature of 'I' in relation to sensations and thoughts?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
I ask, if they experience the same reality, how is this reality different from a material reality?.

It's different because what you thought was 'reality', is in fact no more powerful than a dream. The ultimate consequences to my philosophy are of a mystical nature. Spiritual. They affect the reality of your being. At this point, it goes beyond science.

Since you have continually refused to define exactly what The Mind is

The Mind is known by the attributes it has - which 'we' share. Namely: reason; emotion; will; desire; creative-imagination; etc..

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Give up this bit Heusdens - you can't prove materialism. You can show it's plausibility. You can show it's consistency with what you can observe, or remember. But given the restrictions of our perceptions, a proof itself cannot be provided.

Materialism is the only workable hypothese. It is implicitly assumed by all living organisms. Only in the human mind we can raise the issue as such. What has come out of it, is not a disproof of materialism as such, but has lead to a deeper understanding of the material world. We have a far better understanding of nature and how nature works as any other living organism. Yet, we ourselves are part of nature.

Everybody in real life develops his/her view on the world based on the 'assumption' that what one perceives is reflecting something outside of our perceptions and mind. We happen to be aware of the fact that our senses can deceive us, and that the way we perceive of things, is not the exact reality. The development of science has lead to an increase in our understanding of reality. We have more then what is called "naive realism" (what we perceive is true) and developed a view of reality which is based on science.

The doctrine of Idealism, which in first instance claims there is no objective material reality, and in later instance claims that the objective truth is some unknowable deity, is a claim which has no basis on our scientific understanding of the world. Our understanding of the world, by our accumulated knowledge of science which, although it is immense, is not and can never be complete, just focuses on the part of our missing knowledge. Our understanding of scientific practice and use of scientific methods to investigate reality - as mankind has been practicing the last couple of hundred years - however, never indicated the need for assuming the existence of a Deity. This at least indicates that profound doubt about the material reality, is rather unprofound and baseless.

The "proof" of materialism would contradict materialism as such, cause materialism is in no way like idealism, that puts forward to the doctrine of having knowledge of "absolutes". The "Absolute Idea" in form of God or anything like that, is rejected by materialism. A proof of something for which there is no proof, can not be given.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Calling reality a mind doesn't change what it is, it's just a new definition for mind.

I think you turned things upside down there, and meant to say: "it's just a new definition for reality".

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
It's different because what you thought was 'reality', is in fact no more powerful than a dream. The ultimate consequences to my philosophy are of a mystical nature. Spiritual. They affect the reality of your being. At this point, it goes beyond science.

Oh, realy? It goed beyond science...

The understanding we (that is human kind and esp. the scientific educated part of humanity) have of material reality is "just a dream"...

In my mind this just indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps it is you yourself, which is "dreaming his/her life" and doesn't see the reality of it.

You happen to have a total and basic misrepresentation of material reality as we know it. The fact is not, that such a reality doesn't exist, the fact is just that you yourself are unaware of it, and happen to have no real knowledge about it.

It's a funny and childish thing to claim on such ignorance that anything you do not know about, is not really existing. Isn't it?

The truth is really this. To see reality as it is, is not very popular, and 'human minds' have developed through the centuries various ways of escaping the reality. One of the scenario's to 'escape' reality is through religion, and others include drugs and the belief in 'spiritual' things and like.

Reality is just very hard. It's sometimes to tough for the weak minded person. However, there is no escape to reality, trying to escape reality is rather futile. We happen to be part of it, and have to deal with it, wether we want it or not. And the only way of progressing is to make use of the knowledge we have ourselves of reality, and try to improof that. Reality is not unknowable, and we have developed good ways of dealing with reality.

The Mind is known by the attributes it has - which 'we' share. Namely: reason; emotion; will; desire; creative-imagination; etc..

Then the issue is really simple. 'The Mind' is then the collective mind of all human beings. Nothing more and nothing less. And as such I can agree that such a thing can be called to have existence.

But it does not have the other properties you portrayed (being "all powerfull, omnipotence and omnipresent" etc.). Neither it solves your issue of matter, cause the "collective mind of all human beings" can not be held responsible for the "creation" of the material world.
Before there were human beings, there was a world, but no "collective human mind".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
A proof of something for which there is no proof, can not be given.

Knowledge within the presence of our sensations is, of course, confirmed by those sensations. Such knowledge is formulated by reason... and later verified with observation.
Whereas knowledge pertaining to the *origin* of those sensations is obviously not going to be confirmed within those sensations. Origin of sensation = before sensation. Therefore, the origin of sensation cannot be found within sensation. Such knowledge is also formulated by reason.
The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.

I maintain that my argument fulfils this criteria. At least, I know of no argument which shows why my argument fails in either department.

 

[FZ+]

The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.

3. Excludes or improves on other possibile solutions.

The idea of invisible Santa Clauses organising reality by singing happy songs is self-consistent and follows perceived reality. However, no one would say it is proven, would it?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Oh, realy? It goed beyond science...

Of course it goes beyond science. What does science have to say about 'God', except that 'he' doesn't exist?

The understanding we (that is human kind and esp. the scientific educated part of humanity) have of material reality is "just a dream"...

A meaningful dream. A purposeful dream.

Reality is just very hard. It's sometimes to tough for the weak minded person.

I see. So my philosophy is based upon need, and there's no sense whatsoever in any of it?
Give me a break. If all I wanted was 'hope', I'd be frequenting the church every week, and praying to an entity which (as espoused by most religions) resides externally to 'me' - for some later-reward.
That's not what I'm about.

And the only way of progressing is to make use of the knowledge we have ourselves of reality

You make it sound as though my own philosophy is not an improvement upon things as they are. You obviously don't understand the implications of my philosophy.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
3. Excludes or improves on other possibile solutions.

I know of no other possible solutions which fulfil the aforementioned criteria - except 'God'. Really; I don't. Materialism does not fulfil criteria 2.

The idea of invisible Santa Clauses organising reality by singing happy songs is self-consistent and follows perceived reality.

They do? How does observation or reason support the idea that the universe was created by an army of santas?

However, no one would say it is proven, would it?

Exactly.

 

[FZ+]

I know of no other possible solutions which fulfil the aforementioned criteria - except 'God'. Really; I don't. Materialism does not fulfil criteria 2.

Oh? Is this another one of these invisible disproofs that appeared? Materialism does fulfil criteria 2. What you said is purely an assertion.

They do? How does observation or reason support the idea that the universe was created by an army of santas?

I delegate to you, who has much more experience with arguing for undetectable entities whose key characteristic is their ability to defy logic. Remember, you reason, physical laws and consciousness are illusions created by the Santa Clauses... Did I just hear jingle bells?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Give up this bit Heusdens - you can't prove materialism. You can show it's plausibility. You can show it's consistency with what you can observe, or remember. But given the restrictions of our perceptions, a proof itself cannot be provided.

My objective is not to 'proof' materialism. I never claimed I did or could proof it. The formal system of reasoning which materialism in fact is, is based on assumptions that are believed to be without any doubt. But the formal system itself is unable to provide a proof for that. This is of course the case for all formal systems, materialism not excluded.

The question is just: can there be serious doubt about the premise of materialism. And if so, what premise can it be replaced with.
The only alternative we have come up with so far is in the form of objective idealism. The formal system in the form of the 'Mind hypothese' of LG, is such an attack and replacement of materialism.

The 'mind hypothese' has rejected the premise of materialism (claiming there is in first instance no material reality) and has replaced this with the premise that all of reality and existence is in the mind, and there is nothing outside it, what is represented in the mind, that reflects some objective material reality.

It is argued and proved however that such an hypothese is not holdable, and would lead to the doctrine of solipsism. This is corrected in later instance by claiming that the source of our awareness is 'created' by 'The Mind' (which is just another name for God).

So the real position which we have to choose between is either accept science based on the premises of materialism, or accept the existence of a Deity.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Knowledge within the presence of our sensations is, of course, confirmed by those sensations. Such knowledge is formulated by reason... and later verified with observation.
Whereas knowledge pertaining to the *origin* of those sensations is obviously not going to be confirmed within those sensations. Origin of sensation = before sensation. Therefore, the origin of sensation cannot be found within sensation. Such knowledge is also formulated by reason.
The proof of any theory which seeks to explain the origin of 'the perceived universe', can be verified thus:-
1. It is consistent with the observed order/law of perceived-existence.
2. It is logically sound unto itself.

I maintain that my argument fulfils this criteria. At least, I know of no argument which shows why my argument fails in either department.

If you'll excuse me, but materialism is not just a scientific theory, but materialism is a philosophical point of view. Any science ("real" science and not pseudo science) is based on the assumptions of materialism. Without the point of view of materialism, there would not be any science.

Regarding theories of the 'origin of the perceived universe'. Cosmology is just the field in which such theories are lively developed, and quite recently, cosmology is "married" to physics, cause in order to explain the very large (the observable universe) we need to be able to understand the very small (quantum mechanics, gravity, etc).

I think all would agree that cosmology does not deal with the philosophical viewpoint that a Deity created the Big Bang, but instead seeks to explain the material causes for this event.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Oh? Is this another one of these invisible disproofs that appeared? Materialism does fulfil criteria 2. What you said is purely an assertion.

I have already presented a disproof for materialism, in my last thread. You disagreed with it, but did not discuss what I had written.
But regardless of that, it is impossible to present a logical-argument for the existence of an external-reality, which requires no modicum of 'belief'. As such, materialism fails criteria-2.

I delegate to you, who has much more experience with arguing for undetectable entities whose key characteristic is their ability to defy logic.

Religions don't defy logic. They ignore it. But when you discredit a religion, you do not automatically discredit the notion of 'God'.
Don't presume that religion = God. If you do, then there is never a hope of a meaningful rational-discussion about such matters.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Of course it goes beyond science. What does science have to say about 'God', except that 'he' doesn't exist?

Wrong. Science does not and can not claim that 'God' does not exist, since there is no workable hypothese of 'God' that is meaningfull in scientific terms. Science can not deal with the concept of a Deity, and scientists keeps a healthy distance from such debates.

I see. So my philosophy is based upon need, and there's no sense whatsoever in any of it?

I could not be a judge upon that, can I?

If we take for instance Hegel, who was a great philosopher, and marxists philosophy owns a great deal on Hegel, esp. the dialectics part he developed, I would not in any way claim that philosophers that base their thinking upon 'objective realism' didn't contribute to philosophy as such.

Give me a break. If all I wanted was 'hope', I'd be frequenting the church every week, and praying to an entity which (as espoused by most religions) resides externally to 'me' - for some later-reward.
That's not what I'm about.

You make it sound as though my own philosophy is not an improvement upon things as they are. You obviously don't understand the implications of my philosophy.

What improvement is your philosophy? What is the need within the scientific understanding of the world for the re-invention of a Deity?

What part of reality is not dealt with in science that calls for the need of a hypothese based on 'objective idealism'?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
and would lead to the doctrine of solipsism.

Via your narrative of solipsist opinion (in that thread about solipsism), I was able to show why my views are not solipsist. In fact, I remember deviating from your very first narrative.
My philosophy leads to no preconceived doctrine. And I have never discussed the full implications of my philosophy (and neither have you); so you're not in a position to comment.

 

[FZ+]

I have already presented a disproof for materialism, in my last thread. You disagreed with it, but did not discuss what I had written.

You must be joking! I discussed it, but you ignored my reply. Your disproof was utterly incorrect, and can be easily disproved by evidence showing that what you think of as logically necessary did not in fact occur.

But regardless of that, it is impossible to present a logical-argument for the existence of an external-reality, which requires no modicum of 'belief'. As such, materialism fails criteria-2.

In creating either materialism or idealism, assumptions are made. For example you made the assumption that a Mind can exist without supporting reality, that sensations were rooted in the mind, that matter cannot explain mind, that genetic information cannot account for the abilities of logic, that intelligence cannot be evolved, that mind can create action without external influence, that the mind is original, that human reason is universally correct etc etc. Each one of these consititutes a belief. Similar assumptions are made in Materialism. Hence, by this statement, neither can be proven.

Religions don't defy logic. They ignore it. But when you discredit a religion, you do not automatically discredit the notion of 'God'.

Oh I am sorry. The Santa Clauses ignore logic. Happy now?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Via your narrative of solipsist opinion (in that thread about solipsism), I was able to show why my views are not solipsist. In fact, I remember deviating from your very first narrative.
My philosophy leads to no preconceived doctrine. And I have never discussed the full implications of my philosophy (and neither have you); so you're not in a position to comment.

I have explained to the readers on this forum that Idealism can be split in two main forms: objective idealism and subjetive idealism.

The later, subjective idealism, indeed leads to nothing else but solipsism. Objective idealism as such does not, but this goes on the cost of having to invent a "Deity" of some sorts.

But both directions in Idealism have a common viewpoint. They refuse to accept that there is an objective material reality, outside of our senses and perceptions and thoughts.

Idealism seeks for truth and understanding outside of the material world we actually perceive. Instead of adopting the idea that the source for our sensations, when observing a chair for instance, must be based on the reality of that chair as something that does not exist within our mind, but outside of it, and cause our sensations of that chair, as materialists claims, idealism deals with this as follows:
In first instance they claim they only 'see' things in their mind, and that outside of that nothing exists. This can be argued to lead to solipsism, which contradicts the fact that not only you but also someone else has the same sensory percecptions about the chair. In order to 'escape' the conclusion that the cause for the sensations about the chair, is the real existing chair itself, objective idealism then comes up with a Deity, which causes the sensations in the mind.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Idealism seeks for truth and understanding outside of the material world we actually perceive.

From a psychological prespective, is idealism a form of, quite simply, an excuse for a sanctuary where one belongs, or believes in?

In first instance they claim they only 'see' things in their mind, and that outside of that nothing exists. This can be argued to lead to solipsism, which contradicts the fact that not only you but also someone else has the same sensory percecptions about the chair. In order to 'escape' the conclusion that the cause for the sensations about the chair, is the real existing chair itself, objective idealism then comes up with a Deity, which causes the sensations in the mind.

How do you know that a chair looks the same for everyone?
True, you can all agree the chair is purple, but take this into consideration: the purple that person1 (P1) sees is your brown(by your definition) but since P1 has been taught that the color he/she sees is the color purple, (although for you it is brown) are you to say the person's perception of the chair is not consistent with the facts?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
From a psychological prespective, is idealism a form of, quite simply, an excuse for a sanctuary where one belongs, or believes in?

I think that can be said, indeed.

How do you know that a chair looks the same for everyone?
True, you can all agree the chair is purple, but take this into consideration: the purple that person1 (P1) sees is your brown(by your definition) but since P1 has been taught that the color he/she sees is the color purple, (although for you it is brown) are you to say the person's perception of the chair is not consistent with the facts?

That is of course also an assumption. What I call brown maybe the colour another person has in mind which he/she percerieves as yellow.

We have however the fact that the way our brains work, from their genetic origin, are more or less equal to everyone. So we don't expect that our mental perceptions of colours would be in any way different.

The question is intriguing though, as how we can be certain that "my yellow" equals "your yellow". We can only know from outside, by using a standard calibrated source for the perception, that our perceptions are alike. What is reflected inside, should cause the same sensation as both the input and equipment are equal. We should not expect differently in any way.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
In creating either materialism or idealism, assumptions are made. For example you made the assumption that a Mind can exist without supporting reality, that sensations were rooted in the mind, that matter cannot explain mind, that genetic information cannot account for the abilities of logic, that intelligence cannot be evolved, that mind can create action without external influence, that the mind is original, that human reason is universally correct etc etc. Each one of these consititutes a belief. Similar assumptions are made in Materialism. Hence, by this statement, neither can be proven.

But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.
Materialism is not based on belief. Materialism is developing by means of science, that is ordered observations of the world, and forming a consistent model of reality. This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand. Materialism is not claiming it has absolute knowledge.
Idealism on the other hand, claims it can deal all of reality as an absolute, by the invention of a Deity.

Idealism defends their case by claiming that Materialism is not able of disproving this concept of a Deity. Materialism on the other hand is claiming that it is not even engaged in disproving a Deity, but claims that all things can be understood, and have thus far been understood with science, and without the help of a Deity.

 

[greg]

Originally posted by heusdens
But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.
Materialism is not based on belief. Materialism is developing by means of science, that is ordered observations of the world, and forming a consistent model of reality. This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand. Materialism is not claiming it has absolute knowledge.
Idealism on the other hand, claims it can deal all of reality as an absolute, by the invention of a Deity.

Idealism defends their case by claiming that Materialism is not able of disproving this concept of a Deity. Materialism on the other hand is claiming that it is not even engaged in disproving a Deity, but claims that all things can be understood, and have thus far been understood with science, and without the help of a Deity.

prove materialy that there is love if you can't it doesn't exist

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by greg
prove materialy that there is love if you can't it doesn't exist

Why do you think that "love" would not be a physical phenomena in the first place? All the behaviour that comes with love, are based on physical phenomena, like the heartbeat and blood pressure, the content of your blood (hormones!) etc. Even when we would not be able to "witness" the internal phenomena, we would still be able to determine from the "outside" based on the psychologial behaviour a person shows, that he/she is in love.

But I am not an expert in this field, so I am not able of telling you what precise changes occurs in one's body, due to a person "falling in love", but I am sure the "feeling" goes with physical changes within the body that can be measured.

Would you expect otherwise?

 

[greg]

Originally posted by heusdens
Why do you think that "love" would not be a physical phenomena in the first place? All the behaviour that comes with love, are based on physical phenomena, like the heartbeat and blood pressure, the content of your blood (hormones!) etc. Even when we would not be able to "witness" the internal phenomena, we would still be able to determine from the "outside" based on the psychologial behaviour a person shows, that he/she is in love.

But I am not an expert in this field, so I am not able of telling you what precise changes occurs in one's body, due to a person "falling in love", but I am sure the "feeling" goes with physical changes within the body that can be measured.

Would you expect otherwise?

Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD

 

[FZ+]

Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD

You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...

But this is too much of a non sequitter, cause it would merit the thought we should treat materialism equal as idealism, since both can not be proven.

I didn't mean that. I meant that any declaration of proof, when assumptions are still made is premature. But relative to our experiences, you can say that one theory or the other is more consistent.

This model of reality is never finished though. But what we already have is immense, and upon that, upon the method used by science we can put some trust that is also able to understand all the other parts of reality we do not yet understand.

You see, here is the trust. You trust that the data you have received so far gives an adequate extrapolation. You trust that you can understand the non-understood, the non-sensed. This is an assumption. This assumption may or may not be reasonable to you, but in the context of my post, that is insignificant.
Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

• We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
• Logic applies to all existence.
• Physical laws are universal.
• Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
• Existence is objective and separate from perception.
• Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
  [/list=a]

 

[greg]

Originally posted by FZ+
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...


I didn't mean that. I meant that any declaration of proof, when assumptions are still made is premature. But relative to our experiences, you can say that one theory or the other is more consistent.
greg says: God is everything even you. the self in you is the self in all. all you think is the material universe is just a very small part of God

You see, here is the trust. You trust that the data you have received so far gives an adequate extrapolation. You trust that you can understand the non-understood, the non-sensed. This is an assumption. This assumption may or may not be reasonable to you, but in the context of my post, that is insignificant.
Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

• We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
• Logic applies to all existence.
• Physical laws are universal.
• Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
• Existence is objective and separate from perception.
• Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
  [/list=a]

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by greg
Greg says: thank you for the perfect difinition of GOD

I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...

Materialism did not include deities, cause materialism tries to explain the world without the help of deities. Consistent materialism therefore goes without any reference to a deity.

Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

• We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
• Logic applies to all existence.
• Physical laws are universal.
• Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
• Existence is objective and separate from perception.
• Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
  [/list=a]

• 
  
  Some critique on this list of "assumptions" hold by materialism...
  
  You refer to "logical loopholes" and the "application of logic" in the context of materialism. It can be shown however that the aristotelian logic does not apply to matter. So it seems to me, you made the wrong list of assumptions, since clearly they do not fit materialism.
  
  To mention one item of logic, that does not fit the material world:
  the most fundamantal law of logic is the law of identity (A=A).
  This law of identity works well for abstract categories of the mind, like numbers. For the material world however, the law of identity has no application. Nowhere in nature you will find something that is exactly equal to something else, not even something that equals itself, cause everything is changing and moving, and is never the same. The only way of introducing the law of identity in the real world, would be to consider things without their inherent motion, thus by removing time. But this is just an absurdity, because things don't exist outside of time. Even a proton is never equal to itself, cause it is constantly interchanging the gluon force particles (mesons) with other nuclear particles, and changes from proton to neutron and then back to a neutron. And there is no way in which you can stop a proton from being in motion.

 

[greg]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.

greg says: if I have a partner and am raising chidren that is love?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Majin says: No. Raising children isn't neccasiraly love. Some people raise children, but treat them brutally. Love is the result of a series of chemical reactions in the brain.

 

[greg]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.

greg says: I see you know there is a God so you don't have to define him. sounds good to me

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by greg
greg says: if I have a partner and am raising chidren that is love?

Human practices in the field of having partners and raising children, do not always include "love" I'm affraid.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by greg
greg says: I see you know there is a God so you don't have to define him. sounds good to me

You say so, all I do is look at the totality of things in a materialistisc way, and proceed from there.
As I said, nowhere in my reasoning I need to explain things by including God into the explenation. If I would need that, then it would be that I find myself being unable to explain things.