23 Famous Scientists Who Are Not Atheists

[Orrex]

22. Meh

The same applies to you; if you're going to dismiss the assumption that a mundane human can assess mundane human perceptions, then you must certainly reject any hope that a mundane human can accurately assess the existence of a transcendent entity.

You seem to argue that there is some kind of proof that love is a real, and that it isn't an illusion. If it is real, it would also involve free will, and you seem to assume that your perception is not fallible.

For purposes of the discussion, I am willing to assume the correctness of my perceptions as they pertain to mundane matters. That's a much, much smaller assumption than "a transcendent spiritual entity exists, and my own perceptions confirm that existence in spite of the lack of any verifiable evidence."

Love, free will, self-certainty -- it all sounds very spiritual.

LOL, sure, if you're willing to assume your conclusion, as religionists generally are.

In contrast to that assumption, emotions (like love and self-certainty) are a function of neurochemical reactions, and "free will" is at best a nebulous concept.