I have been away for a few days so it has taken me a few minutes to read (struggle) through this.
Robi’ your circular arguments seem to stem from this “loves existence proves god exists”, comment, and that science must give you unequivocal proof to the contrary or stand aside, but as Rama & the Reptile have both pointed out, love & empathy as the product of Darwinian evolution would have beneficial effects both to the group and to the individuals’ genetic continuation. No god needed.
If you are unfamiliar with the up to date thinking in evolutionary biology, it’s probably best you don’t read about it on a Christian debunkers blog, but go to something like a Dawkins book as suggested, they are extremely well written and informative.
Getting back to the original proposition, that there is a problem with atheism. It seems that there can only be a problem with it, if you give it goals that it doesn’t actually have, as you do with science.
First, I said "The proof of God is that man is capable of love". It is based on the fact that man can survive completely without love, yet each individual intensely seeks to love and be loved, it is man's
raison d'etre. We have this observable phenomena that exists universally and is integral to man to the point that he will give his life to save his weak dying loved one. Nothing establishes this more profoundly then in the atheist who believes that death holds nothing for him. Why does he do it, what's the benefit?
We have fear to protect the self but its opposite love does not. Fear is completely about the self and self preservation, it is a mechanism within man and its center is the amygdala in the brain. Fear is selfish, it's only concern is the self. Human compassionate love is completely unselfish, it is greater than the self and the individual is willing to give the self driven by it.
You may disagree with my hypothesis, Dawkins may give his hypothesis but what I've said is true and has been observed. To disagree you must show that compassionate love has a scientific justification. So far science has no answer, the drive of self preservation and survival of the fittest would dictate that the group is strengthened through letting the weak die.
What's your answer?
And no one is forcing you to "struggle" through this, you have the choice to participate or not participate, so spare me this. Wasn't that you who left the debate when I asked you to enlighten me as to how you knew what the Wilde beast was thinking and what his juxtaposition to God is? I'm still waiting for those answers too!
R