The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

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.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by LuckyR » December 14th, 2018, 4:59 am

Philosch wrote:
December 13th, 2018, 10:59 am
Yeah...unfortunately the logic is valid...which says nothing about the truth value of the premises and therefore the conclusion. Love is not god nor is god love. The statement is a cutesy metaphor or maybe even poetic but in ordinary linguistical terms "god" is a concept in that has a series of debatable attributes to describe the concept and "love" is another such concept which the OP may be arguing is a subset of "god". They are not equal to one another except maybe poetically. If they were equivalent I could say the phrase "I god you" to my daughters and it would make perfect sense....but of course it doesn't. I could also say these ten commandments were spoken to Moses by "love". I didn't say with love or because of love. I said "by" love and it's a nonsensical statement. So trying to assert the truth value of premises based on constructing proper logical form from poetic notions is silly.
You bring up a good point. The original meaning of god is as a placeholder to mean the explanation of the origin of life, the universe and everything, as well as how things worked back before the invention of science and engineering. Currently the term has more of a cultural and historical importance, that is "believers" don't use the concept of god the same way as the inventors of gods did.
"As usual... it depends."

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Belindi » December 14th, 2018, 10:04 am

Some peoples who are not Christians or Jews and so on worship the high god who has various names. This high god is the creator god. The people also worship ancestors who represent the laws and customs that bind the moral consensus that holds the society together. There are also gods of place the function of which is environmental morality.

Abrahamic god whose name is God is usually the god for all of those functions. As such the Abrahmic god whose name is God is a strong Authority for any elite ruling group to claim to be in cahoots with. Roman Emperor Constantine well knew all this.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by LuckyR » December 15th, 2018, 2:58 pm

Belindi wrote:
December 14th, 2018, 10:04 am
Some peoples who are not Christians or Jews and so on worship the high god who has various names. This high god is the creator god. The people also worship ancestors who represent the laws and customs that bind the moral consensus that holds the society together. There are also gods of place the function of which is environmental morality.

Abrahamic god whose name is God is usually the god for all of those functions. As such the Abrahmic god whose name is God is a strong Authority for any elite ruling group to claim to be in cahoots with. Roman Emperor Constantine well knew all this.
You are of course correct about the co-opting of any and all cultural opportunities by the leadership in their quest to control the rabble. Though the percentage of the population who really believed the dogma in Roman times likely dwarfed that in current times in the west, where a large number show up in church either out of obligation, habit or for non-theistic reasons (social, business or family ones).
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1221
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme » January 11th, 2019, 12:59 pm

Greta,
I agree with much of your comments regarding churches essentially not being Christ-like. You didn’t phrase it that way, but it’s true that many Christian groups don’t prioritize Christ’s “greatest commandments... which hang all the law and the prophets.” They collect plenty of money but don’t share much with those in need. Having visited poverty-stricken places where people live in shacks with dirt floors and no running water, I’ve realized needs that are going unmet. I voiced my concerns in the religion I still attend (though no longer believe) and was reprimanded.

When it comes to churches being exclusive, I can see how it doesn’t seem right. Yet, I also can see how people can be harmed by those intent on harming. This is why prisons separate those who have been caught being harmful. Personally, through painful trial and error, I have discovered some people in my life who require boundaries. We get along better & they would hurt me & my family otherwise, as they have in the past. But I think it’s also good - or what Christ taught - to love your enemies and visit those in prison. Jesus (Joshua) had boundaries - sometimes he basically said no to some, yet he set a good example of loving everyone he came across.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1221
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme » January 11th, 2019, 1:13 pm

Philosch wrote:
December 13th, 2018, 10:59 am
Yeah...unfortunately the logic is valid...which says nothing about the truth value of the premises and therefore the conclusion. Love is not god nor is god love. The statement is a cutesy metaphor or maybe even poetic but in ordinary linguistical terms "god" is a concept in that has a series of debatable attributes to describe the concept and "love" is another such concept which the OP may be arguing is a subset of "god". They are not equal to one another except maybe poetically. If they were equivalent I could say the phrase "I god you" to my daughters and it would make perfect sense....but of course it doesn't. I could also say these ten commandments were spoken to Moses by "love". I didn't say with love or because of love. I said "by" love and it's a nonsensical statement. So trying to assert the truth value of premises based on constructing proper logical form from poetic notions is silly.
Do you think love is silly? God and love are both not easily defined. Is that why you see the definition of God as love, silly - because it’s not helpful in clarifying?

What if God is a word that represents that which cannot be clarified? Taoism, Islam and probably other religions suggest that. So, should we just ignore it - not bother with it? The bible lists over 800 characteristics or definitions of God. Love is one of them. “The kingdom of God is within you” is another.

Let’s take those 2. What is love? I’d say appreciating what is, while striving for what’s best. What is the kingdom (realm/experience) of God within me? I’d say it’s all internal thoughts, feelings and intuitions which have a deep, but often misguided, desire for the highest GOoD possible. Semantics aside, who doesn’t actively believe that? And what if consciously believing in God inspires and motivates you to live better than you would without such belief?

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Belindi » January 11th, 2019, 1:56 pm

I agree with Philosch that religious sayings are poetic not literal. And I think that "God is Love" which one sometimes sees written big on church display, claims that God and love are equivalent.

I gather that equivalence of God and love is Platonic idea from the Greeks same as "God is good".This is to interpret 'God is Love' literally. It's like love, and good, as Platonic forms.I think also that NewMe describes the Judeo-Christian God Who has been influenced by the Greek idea. Personally, I agree that this Platonic idea of God as equivalent to love is a good belief, although it requires parsing like Paul parsed it. Even then, it's sometimes difficult to decide which of several courses of action is the most loving. Moreover a lot of people have an over-sentimental view of what love is.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7742
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Greta » January 11th, 2019, 10:51 pm

Newme wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 12:59 pm
I have discovered some people [...] who require boundaries.
I agree with this. Religion has long proved helpful in difficult socio-economic situations in providing behavioural boundaries and hope.

User avatar
Intellectual_Savnot
Posts: 97
Joined: November 26th, 2018, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Myself
Location: Wokeville, California
Contact:

Re: Proof of God

Post by Intellectual_Savnot » January 12th, 2019, 4:11 am

omg I am just picking up Cohen's LOGIC book and I just learned what a cattegorical syllogism is. Cool! Also, good form, no room for a logical deduction with your premises alone proving the validity of the proposition while the premises are held true due to the truth relying on the trutch of the conclusion. Using a the words of the Bible as proof of the being that is critical to the validity of the words of the bible is self-proof from something unproven otherwise (in the context of the syllogism). Tell me if I am correct, I swear I am totally new to syllogistic reasoning and its categorical form.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Belindi » January 12th, 2019, 10:53 am

Greta wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 10:51 pm
Newme wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 12:59 pm
I have discovered some people [...] who require boundaries.
I agree with this. Religion has long proved helpful in difficult socio-economic situations in providing behavioural boundaries and hope.
I agree too.

Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Philosch » February 1st, 2019, 11:51 am

Newme wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 1:13 pm
Philosch wrote:
December 13th, 2018, 10:59 am
Yeah...unfortunately the logic is valid...which says nothing about the truth value of the premises and therefore the conclusion. Love is not god nor is god love. The statement is a cutesy metaphor or maybe even poetic but in ordinary linguistical terms "god" is a concept in that has a series of debatable attributes to describe the concept and "love" is another such concept which the OP may be arguing is a subset of "god". They are not equal to one another except maybe poetically. If they were equivalent I could say the phrase "I god you" to my daughters and it would make perfect sense....but of course it doesn't. I could also say these ten commandments were spoken to Moses by "love". I didn't say with love or because of love. I said "by" love and it's a nonsensical statement. So trying to assert the truth value of premises based on constructing proper logical form from poetic notions is silly.
Do you think love is silly? God and love are both not easily defined. Is that why you see the definition of God as love, silly - because it’s not helpful in clarifying?

What if God is a word that represents that which cannot be clarified? Taoism, Islam and probably other religions suggest that. So, should we just ignore it - not bother with it? The bible lists over 800 characteristics or definitions of God. Love is one of them. “The kingdom of God is within you” is another.

Let’s take those 2. What is love? I’d say appreciating what is, while striving for what’s best. What is the kingdom (realm/experience) of God within me? I’d say it’s all internal thoughts, feelings and intuitions which have a deep, but often misguided, desire for the highest GOoD possible. Semantics aside, who doesn’t actively believe that? And what if consciously believing in God inspires and motivates you to live better than you would without such belief?
Of course I don't think love is silly....my exact phrase above is "trying to assert the truth value of premises based on constructing proper logical form from poetic notions is silly", which is an opinion about this practice of trying to make formal logical truth claims about poetic or metaphorical statements....nothing more. I made no claims about the value of the terms god or love in my assessment. This kind of categorical mismatch is typical on this forum and in many other places in our modern world of communication and it's a not so clever and obvious attempt to try to sneak in logical proofs of things that aren't logically provable. That's it. The OP could have easily started a discussion about the relationship of the two terms God and Love and everyone could have had a perfectly lovely discussion about such a thing. Instead the OP thinks they've cleverly proven the existence of god using a syllogism that is "silly" at best. It's a sophmorphic misunderstanding of what formal logic is good for and how to use it properly. That is the entirety of my point.

What you have done in your third sentence is setup a straw man argumenet or at minimum a very lawyerly trick of asking me "why I think the definition of god as love is silly" which is absolutely nothing I ever said. Happens all the time on these forums and in courtrooms accross the country. You may not have done it intentionally or maybe you did, either way whatever kind of fallacious tactic that is, it needs to be pointed out whenever it oocurs.

The rest of your post although interesting and even thoughtful, has nothing to do with my oposition to the assertion by the OP.

User avatar
Bahman
Posts: 31
Joined: July 3rd, 2016, 11:51 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Bahman » February 2nd, 2019, 11:30 am

Jaded Sage wrote:
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.
The love that we subjectively experience is different from the love that is God in the verse "God is love". Therefore your argument doesn't follow.

User avatar
Kevin Levites
New Trial Member
Posts: 15
Joined: April 25th, 2019, 11:25 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Kevin Levites » April 26th, 2019, 10:11 am

If God exists, God could--by definition--do anything He wants.

Could He create a stone that is so heavy....that it would be impossible for Him to move it?

Think carefully before answering.

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1221
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme » April 27th, 2019, 4:02 pm

Philosch wrote:
February 1st, 2019, 11:51 am
Newme wrote:
January 11th, 2019, 1:13 pm

Do you think love is silly? God and love are both not easily defined. Is that why you see the definition of God as love, silly - because it’s not helpful in clarifying?

What if God is a word that represents that which cannot be clarified? Taoism, Islam and probably other religions suggest that. So, should we just ignore it - not bother with it? The bible lists over 800 characteristics or definitions of God. Love is one of them. “The kingdom of God is within you” is another.

Let’s take those 2. What is love? I’d say appreciating what is, while striving for what’s best. What is the kingdom (realm/experience) of God within me? I’d say it’s all internal thoughts, feelings and intuitions which have a deep, but often misguided, desire for the highest GOoD possible. Semantics aside, who doesn’t actively believe that? And what if consciously believing in God inspires and motivates you to live better than you would without such belief?
Of course I don't think love is silly....my exact phrase above is "trying to assert the truth value of premises based on constructing proper logical form from poetic notions is silly", which is an opinion about this practice of trying to make formal logical truth claims about poetic or metaphorical statements....nothing more. I made no claims about the value of the terms god or love in my assessment. This kind of categorical mismatch is typical on this forum and in many other places in our modern world of communication and it's a not so clever and obvious attempt to try to sneak in logical proofs of things that aren't logically provable. That's it. The OP could have easily started a discussion about the relationship of the two terms God and Love and everyone could have had a perfectly lovely discussion about such a thing. Instead the OP thinks they've cleverly proven the existence of god using a syllogism that is "silly" at best. It's a sophmorphic misunderstanding of what formal logic is good for and how to use it properly. That is the entirety of my point.

What you have done in your third sentence is setup a straw man argumenet or at minimum a very lawyerly trick of asking me "why I think the definition of god as love is silly" which is absolutely nothing I ever said. Happens all the time on these forums and in courtrooms accross the country. You may not have done it intentionally or maybe you did, either way whatever kind of fallacious tactic that is, it needs to be pointed out whenever it oocurs.

The rest of your post although interesting and even thoughtful, has nothing to do with my oposition to the assertion by the OP.
Ok, I see your point about the words, “God” and “Love” not being interchangeable, but that wasn’t suggested. Rather it was, that God is in part, Love. God may be considered in part intelligent design, (objective truth) but also spiritual intuition and love (subjective truth).

How do you define God? By what book or standard? Atheism is based on a straw man logical fallacy - taking the most ridiculous idea of God (usually as tyrannical grandpa in the sky), denying it and pretending the debate over God is conclusively over. It’s much more difficult to argue against intelligent design in the universe, or against love (subjective truth).

User avatar
Newme
Posts: 1221
Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Newme » April 27th, 2019, 4:04 pm

Bahman wrote:
February 2nd, 2019, 11:30 am
Jaded Sage wrote:
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.
The love that we subjectively experience is different from the love that is God in the verse "God is love". Therefore your argument doesn't follow.
How is it different? How can YOU perceive or sense anything besides subjectively?

User avatar
Bahman
Posts: 31
Joined: July 3rd, 2016, 11:51 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Bahman » June 15th, 2019, 2:29 pm

Newme wrote:
April 27th, 2019, 4:04 pm
Bahman wrote:
February 2nd, 2019, 11:30 am

The love that we subjectively experience is different from the love that is God in the verse "God is love". Therefore your argument doesn't follow.
How is it different? How can YOU perceive or sense anything besides subjectively?
My subjective reality mainly is the result of existence of an objective reality. Feeling is not an object in objective reality but a quality realized by an intelligent agent. Thoughts in another hand is about relation between objects in objective reality.

Post Reply