[Dogxzysl]

Why the emphasis on young? Did you set a time limit for things to happen?

[cialviagra]

I really am a loner.....I just happen to be able to meet women and have sex.

[Tarrccrys]

I'm really not sure which one I am since I turn down offers for company all the time.

[mbaueee]

Seriously try match.com. Yeah, you'll find a lot of dead ends and people who aren't serious but you'll also find a lot of ladies your age or younger who are and you'll certainly get a lot of dates. It sounds like you have your head on straight, have a good career, and can offer a lady a lot so they key is just to get yourself out there. It may seem daunting but in the end you'll be happy you did.

[dogdesign]

Think about changing yourself?

What does wealth get you? Same with 'career'. Maybe you have been chasing the wrong thing?

There is a difference between having a life partner and being able to spend time with women/have sex. The latter is very nice, but I think that people have a desire for the former (even if they have created themselves such that the former is hard/impossible for them).

41 is still young for a man (a woman is a bit different, because if she decides she would like kids it might be difficult.).

JM

[PriernPayorse]

So THAT'S why you keep your head up your ass!

[BalaGire]

Thanks wiglaf

[RogerButton33]

Yeah, having a relationship with an imaginary being is always a great substitute for one with a real person.

[Veronnisa]

Who was suggesting that?

JM

[AdvertisingPo]

But God isn't an imaginary being.

JM

[Adamanta]

Yeah, having a relationship with an imaginary being is always a great substitute for one with a real person.

There are several things wrong with your statement, but I'll just leave it alone.

[Pasy]

What proof do you have that relationships exist?

JM

[MormefWrarebe]

You could replace that with the view that God doesn't exist just as easily.

But for some reason atheists like attacking Christians much more than Christians like attack atheists...

JM

[lesso73]

People are observed having relationships with God.

The majority of people claim that God exists, just like the majority of people claim that people exist.

The point that you can claim that their experiences/beliefs are imaginary is just the same as someone else could claim that the observations of relationships are imaginary.

JM

[Glanteeignile]

If you start saying 'scientifically proof' (With all the assumptions and limitations of science), then suddenly you have difficulty proving the existence of things which most people believe in (like most people believe in God) like Love.

JM

[cokLoolioli]

I was showing that your 'proof' would also prove that God is real.

JM

[oplapofffe]

No, it would prove that relationships with 'God' exist. In fact, it proves the existence of thousands of different belief systems, and these belief systems can't all be true because they contradict each other, which proves that people can hold beliefs that don't reflect reality. Relationships with Zeus were real, but that doesn't mean Zeus was real.

[b3JOkwXL]

If you start saying 'scientifically proof' (With all the assumptions and limitations of science), then suddenly you have difficulty proving the existence of things which most people believe in (like most people believe in God) like Love.

JM

At least we can determine that love (and emotions) has a basis in biochemical reactions within our bodies and we can see evidence of love in the behavior from other people or pets.

[85IbLcwQ]

At least we can determine that love (and emotions) has a basis in biochemical reactions within our bodies and we can see evidence of love in the behavior from other people or pets.

Some argue that our relationship with God also has it's basis in biochemical reactions within our bodies.

We can see evidence of God due to our relationship with Him (if we are willing to have one).

Obviously if God exists (as defined by most theologians and philosophers for the last N hundred years) it would be impossible to scientifically investigate Him. This is why the demand for 'proof' when they mean scientific proof is crazy.

It is like demanding that a circle is 1 dimensional.

JM

[Accecyncphory]

You have a bunch of other assumptions (those of science) in your testable predictions. These assumptions are impossible with God (as defined by most philosophers and theologians for the last N hundred years).

JM
(I obviously have nothing against science.)