So, we can show you the Bible (the love letters) and we can show you the believers (the lover). Albeit in either respect, it still doesn't define the experience now does it?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

You obviously haven't seen love letters like mine. I have to keep them in an asbestos-lined filing cabinet.

But joking aside, that is simply not true. When a person says "I love you" it is evidence of love. Sure it's not perfect evidence. I have found that some people lie when they say it. Others mean it when they say it but then they stop loving you.

Weddings are evidence of love. Both people are there (usually) and they both say the words.

The evidence of love is all over the place. Sometimes you have to feed and house that evidence for eighteen (or more) years.
Now let's compare my evidence of love to your feelings for God. I cannot deny you have those feelings, but the object of your feelings is nowhere to be found. He hasn't written you any letters. He hasn't made any phone calls. He hasn't left you any children. Nobody has ever even seen Him. Now you can go all doe-eyed and talk about how he speaks to you and how such and such is a gift from God, but unless you can show me a signed receipt, I cannot say that you have any evidence, regardless of how strong your feelings are. You could have strong feelings for Aragorn, heir of Isuldur, but that wouldn't make him any less a fictional character. (But if Viggo Mortensen writes you, I want to know DETAILS girl! )

I apologize if I am sounding harsh, because I would guess your beliefs are very important to you. But I would also guess that you come here to discuss them frankly. I love frank discussion (and I have the posts here to prove it ) so I look forward to talking with you more. Please don't take offense at anything I say. Tact is not my strong suit.

LOL...I would never suggest that something which cannot be studied by science is therefore useless! On the other hand, I do not think that studying something scientifically takes away from its beauty--and since we can study love, and since it is beautiful and fascinating, I see no reason not to!I agree it is not impossible. But it is, and must be, imperfect. Any operational definition of love must be incomplete--no perfect definition (even if we could all agree on one) translates to a single operational definition. Heck, the purpose of operationally defining is to simplify a concept into a measurable entity.

The remedy for this, though, is that we do not work alone. Different researchers, with slightly or vastly different operational definitions, work as a community to approach any topic from many different perspectives. Working together, we chip away at an answer. It takes time, but there is real progress. And no, there is no guarantee we will come up with an answer... the only guarantee is that if we do not look, we will not find an answer.Although I am not an expert in stopping being in love, but the book in front of me has chapters on "conflict" and "dissolution and its aftermath". So the topic is at least under investigation. But if you want a "how-to manual", I don't think that either the scientists or the poets have one yet.

I'm not either, but (sadly) I know a few.

Here's one. Interestingly, the subject of the poem is "Cloe" which is an anagram of "Cleo". Do people ever call you "Cleo", Cleopatra? Diggy and Iacchy can tell you, I'm into nicknames. You can call me Gooze or Goozy
http://thewizardswebcommunity.homes...ofWriting4.html