Do You Believe In Love?

[Shell B]

i hear what you're saying shell. and indeed it is semantics here, that's my point. in pure science talk there is no such thing as a skyscraper, what a skyscraper really is is a big block of specifically arranged atoms that humans name a 'skyscraper' making it a convenient reference point.

and there is no such thing as love in science terms, just lots of elemental things reacting to create something that humans name 'love'.

you could write-off all criticism's of god's existence as mere semantics too, it's all just the study of meaning.

Semantics are a waste of time, unless used properly. This is improper use of semantics. It's a ploy to create confusion over a topic that is really quite simple.

By your example, atoms don't exist. Molecules don't exist, etc. That is ludicrous. The things that we name exist and their names exist. When you name something, it doesn't cease to exist. Because an ocean is made up of countless things, does the ocean not exist? If I make a house of legos, does the lego house not exist, but the legos do?

I see where you are going with this. So, I'll just cut to the chase. We know what makes up a skyscraper. We know the reactions that cause us to feel love. We don't know what god is made of because it doesn't exist. That's not semantics. Keep it simple, you little word illusionist.