Proof of God

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Jaded Sage
Posts: 40
Joined: December 15th, 2014, 4:45 am

Proof of God

Post by Jaded Sage » August 27th, 2015, 10:45 am

1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists. Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God Love ∴ God


Is the form correct? It's been a long time since I have done logical proofs.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Proof of God

Post by Scott » October 10th, 2015, 8:53 am

That depends what you mean by correct. It appears to be a form of the begging the question fallacy. However, a begging the question fallacy is technically logically valid; it just doesn't actually provide any inference. The one in the OP takes the particular form:
  • A is B
    A exists
    Therefore, B exists.
If we simply define one thing as something else (A is B), then the proposition 'A exists' = 'B exists', and thus it is circular to conclude one from the other. It's the same as saying, well "If A, then A; A; Therefore, A."
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Ambauer
Posts: 65
Joined: October 6th, 2015, 9:59 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Cosmo the Hedonist

Re: Proof of God

Post by Ambauer » October 11th, 2015, 9:59 am

Although I am a Christian, and I accept that verse as truth, I doubt that most people would accept a verse from the Bible as a major premise.
"The things that are perish into the things from which they come to be..." - Anaximander

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1132
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme » October 11th, 2015, 10:20 am

God is love and what is love and how do you prove love? What constitutes as proof of such subjective experiences? Only subjectivity.

Paul Tillech defined God as "one's ultimate concern" - what they love or worship above all. Moses defined God as "I AM that I AM" - consciousness. Jesus (& Buddha who likely influenced Jesus) taught, "The kingdom of God is within you." Gotftried Lebneiz theorized that the essence of everything is the monad - based on perception, indestructible - pops into and out of existence based on internal principles and all monads are interconnected - expressing a mirror of the universe.

So, defining God is more appropriate than dysfunctional but traditional concepts of some finite tyranical grandpa that is projected from man in the image of man.

User avatar
Evobulgarevo
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: November 13th, 2015, 2:47 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Evobulgarevo » November 14th, 2015, 11:24 am

If we define God as the creator of it all, then God most definitely exists because we exist. Our existence is proof of God, but then again, how would you define God?

User avatar
Mad economist
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: December 2nd, 2015, 10:54 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Mad economist » December 2nd, 2015, 11:19 am

If we assume that, by definition, love and god are equivalent, observing the existence of one does entail the existence of the other. The conclusion is immediate and obvious, although, as someone pointed out, your argument is profoundly unconcinving.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Proof of God

Post by Scott » December 8th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Mad economist wrote:If we assume that, by definition, love and god are equivalent, observing the existence of one does entail the existence of the other. The conclusion is immediate and obvious, although, as someone pointed out, your argument is profoundly unconcinving.
Yes, precisely.

In the context that the first reply showed the original post commits a begging the question fallacy, I don't understand any of the other replies except that first reply and the one quoted here.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Proof of God

Post by Belinda » December 8th, 2015, 2:06 pm

Jaded Sage wrote:1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists. Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God Love ∴ God


Is the form correct? It's been a long time since I have done logical proofs.
That is valid but its premises are uneven in status.


Although God is normally accepted as absolute, love is relative to circumstances. If God is accepted as a work in progress i.e. a relationship between the human condition and/or the universe and what humans attempt to do to make the human condition and/or the universe good instead of bad then love and god mean the same.
Socialist

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2869
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by LuckyR » December 8th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Jaded Sage wrote:1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.

If love exists, then God exists. Love exists, therefore God exists.

Love ≡ God Love ∴ God


Is the form correct? It's been a long time since I have done logical proofs.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love

So to answer your questions: No, your logic does not follow. Just because god is love does not equate god with love. The sentance implies and is completely consistant with god being one of many possible manifestations of love, thus just because there is love, there may or may not be god. The opposite is true though, that is if you could prove there is a god, there must be love.

All of this ignores using Iron Age quotations as proof of anything at all, but I digress...
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6854
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Greta » December 8th, 2015, 11:07 pm

Trouble is, when did love first appear on Earth? The first species to care for their young? The first monogamous species? The first suckling mammals?

If such a thing as God exists, it is more than love, which is simply the most eloquent and least harmful form of attraction in nature. Another common form of attraction is predation - an attraction based on the wish to subsume the other. After all, many will tell you that they love chicken - not a love any of us would want!

That's reality in a nutshell - attraction and repulsion, aggregation and disintegration. Love is just one part of that broader dynamic.
This space left intentionally blank.

Jklint
Posts: 1199
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Jklint » December 9th, 2015, 3:46 pm

This is merely leapfrogging one premise to another and then going in reverse. Whether love exists or not has zero to do with whether god exists. There is no equivalence between the two proving you can prove anything with a simple syllogism.

User avatar
Rederic
Posts: 579
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: South coast of England

Re: Proof of God

Post by Rederic » December 10th, 2015, 9:41 am

If god is love, then why is there bone cancer in children?
There was a time when religion ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages. - Ruth Green.

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Proof of God

Post by Belinda » December 10th, 2015, 6:56 pm

Rederic wrote:
If god is love, then why is there bone cancer in children?
Because god is not all powerful. People who do believe that god is both all powerful and all-benevolent are forced to concede that god's ways are ultimately mysterious.
Socialist

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2869
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by LuckyR » December 10th, 2015, 9:24 pm

Belinda wrote:Rederic wrote:
If god is love, then why is there bone cancer in children?
Because god is not all powerful. People who do believe that god is both all powerful and all-benevolent are forced to concede that god's ways are ultimately mysterious.
Mysterious, eh? You, my friend are very generous.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Platonymous
New Trial Member
Posts: 8
Joined: September 21st, 2015, 11:26 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Platonymous » February 7th, 2016, 3:49 pm

It's in essence just another form of the circular argument so prominent within religious reasoning: The scripture is true, because it says so in the scripture.

Post Reply