Proof of God
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: December 15th, 2014, 4:45 am
Proof of God
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.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Proof of God
- A is B
A exists
Therefore, B exists.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Ambauer
- Posts: 65
- Joined: October 6th, 2015, 9:59 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Cosmo the Hedonist
Re: Proof of God
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: Proof of God
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.
- Evobulgarevo
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: November 13th, 2015, 2:47 pm
Re: Proof of God
- Mad economist
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: December 2nd, 2015, 10:54 am
Re: Proof of God
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Proof of God
Yes, precisely.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.
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.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13822
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Proof of God
That is valid but its premises are uneven in status.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.
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.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Proof of God
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is loveJaded 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.
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...
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15004
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Proof of God
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.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Proof of God
- Rederic
- Posts: 589
- Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: South coast of England
Re: Proof of God
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13822
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Proof of God
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.If god is love, then why is there bone cancer in children?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Proof of God
Mysterious, eh? You, my friend are very generous.Belinda wrote:Rederic wrote:
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.If god is love, then why is there bone cancer in children?
- Platonymous
- Posts: 8
- Joined: September 21st, 2015, 11:26 am
Re: Proof of God
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023