My last post got me to thinking about another conversation I had regarding the existence of God. For some reason, a lot of believers seem to think that they have an answer that destroys the "I'll believe when there's evidence" argument. They'll ask me if I believe in love, and when I say that I do, the reply is, "But what is the scientific evidence for that?" (Or something along those lines.)
I don't see why this is such a good argument. For some weird reason, we humans take a wonderful concept like love and turn it into something that it's not. While it's hardly romantic, love is perfectly explainable. After all, what is love but a feeling that you have? The sheer fact that I feel love is proof of its existence. Not only that, but I feel all types of love. (A good thing, as otherwise my cat would get awfully nervous.) So there, it's proven.
From there though, the conversation turns to the believer saying something along the lines of, "But just as you know that you love your wife, I know that Jesus is real." (Of course, if we were in India, it would be Ganesha.) The argument is that they FEEL that Jesus is real. Well, there's not much I can say other than the fact that there's a big difference between feeling an emotion and feeling that God had a son who was himself only to later sacrifice himself to himself so we could be forgiven for something somebody else did. In other words, all I need to prove love is to feel it, because that's what it is by definition. Postulating the existence of a deity though, that's making a statement about the very nature of the universe.
I mean, I don't go around saying that I "feel" that photosynthesis exists, do I? Even if I did, it wouldn't matter. All that matters is the evidence. And I hate to break it to you, but the evidence for a water-walking carpenter is fairly weak.