>Now.. If what you say is true then aren't the following also true:

I think you're getting it.

>Also, if love is a chemical reaction then you are also asserting a deterministic point of view.

Not necessarily. I can understand how this would immediatly appear to be true, but the logic isn't complete.

>1) Man really has no free will. All is a chemical reaction.

Same as the above. The problem gets more interesting than "Were we given free will", no doubt.

>If I am able to write or speak words that cause these responses in you or anyone else then it is also true that the order is not chemicals-->response but response-->chemicals.

Please explain. Did you consider chemical->chemical?

>how can you explain how mere chemicals are self-aware or socially conscious?

How can you assume they are?

>I must admit that I've never seen chemicals cooperate.

Um... proof of these exists every day.

>So, it all boils downto chemicals then? But we don't know where and we don't know how and we don't know which ones or in what measure

Like what, in particular?

>or really much of anything else otherwise we'd immediately use them to stop all the ugliness in life, right?

So the fact that there are still problems to solve means that all of what we've discovered so far should be discarded and the supernatural should be embraced? I'm sorry, I just don't understand that mindset.

>And, if man has a spiritual side he got it from somewhere.

Evolution comes to mind.