Proof of God

[Jaded Sage]

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've done logical proofs.

[Wyman]

Love is a verb, God presumably is not.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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've done logical proofs.

Like many logical conclusions, the value of the result is contingent on the veracity of the premise.

God is omnipresent.
Evil exists. Therefore god is evil.

God is the creator of the universe.
Cancer exists in the universe. Therefore god created cancer.

God is omnipotent.
Therefore he could cure all cancer.
Cancer kills people everyday in the most evil, painful and disgraceful way.
Therefore god makes people suffer.

[Jaded Sage]

I was hoping for someone to question the existing part. I've only skimmed, say, Kant on existence, but that seems to be the only possible weakness.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I was hoping for someone to question the existing part. I've only skimmed, say, Kant on existence, but that seems to be the only possible weakness.

Are you sure?
The existence is only the start. If you go on and accept existence, then you have to figure out the nature of god.

[Jaded Sage]

I'm pretty confident. Well, if love indeed equals God, then I just have to figure out the nature of benevolence. But, either way, that's an entirely other problem.

[Wyman]

If you're worried about the form of the argument, remember that identity is different from implication or equivalence. John said God is love, which I would take to mean that they are identical, not that they each imply the other. The proof in the case of identity would merely involve the rule of substitution, rather than Modus Ponens:

God = Love
Love exists.
God exists. (substitution)

[HexHammer]

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've done logical proofs.

Circular logic, go elsewhere with this retarded shit!

[Harbal]

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

I'm no expert but I know enough to be able to confidently say; no, it definitely is not correct. Besides, just because someone said "God is love" is no proof of anything, either.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm pretty confident. Well, if love indeed equals God, then I just have to figure out the nature of benevolence. But, either way, that's an entirely other problem.

That's absurd.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If you're worried about the form of the argument, remember that identity is different from implication or equivalence. John said God is love, which I would take to mean that they are identical, not that they each imply the other. The proof in the case of identity would merely involve the rule of substitution, rather than Modus Ponens:

God = Love
Love exists.
God exists. (substitution)

It may well be a false substitution.

You are also saying love is god? Is this reasonable? Ot does it have a slightly different meaning. If god wholly encapsulates love, then god is nothing more than love. It could well be that, even if god is love is true, love might also be something else.
Thus "Love exists, therefore god exists" is a false conclusion.

Dog is love. love exists, therefore dog exists is not necessarily true.

[Jaded Sage]

If you're worried about the form of the argument, remember that identity is different from implication or equivalence. John said God is love, which I would take to mean that they are identical, not that they each imply the other. The proof in the case of identity would merely involve the rule of substitution, rather than Modus Ponens:

God = Love
Love exists.
God exists. (substitution)

I'm sorry, I don't remember learning about identity, implication, equivolence, or substitution in school.

Would it be like this:

Books = Bound Pages
Books exist.
Bound Pages exist.

[Harbal]

I'm sorry, I don't remember learning about identity, implication, equivolence, or substitution in school.

Would it be like this:

Books = Bound Pages
Books exist.
Bound Pages exist.

Have you thought about taking up a pastime that doesn't involve thinking?

[Hobbes' Choice]

If you're worried about the form of the argument, remember that identity is different from implication or equivalence. John said God is love, which I would take to mean that they are identical, not that they each imply the other. The proof in the case of identity would merely involve the rule of substitution, rather than Modus Ponens:

God = Love
Love exists.
God exists. (substitution)

I'm sorry, I don't remember learning about identity, implication, equivolence, or substitution in school.

Would it be like this:

Books = Bound Pages
Books exist.
Bound Pages exist.

The obvious error here is that the premise is false. Books were originally roles of Papyrus, so for the ancient and early medieval period your premise is false. And since there is such a thing as Kindle books and other types of book the evidence of 'books' does not point to "bound pages".

The same problem exists with your original statement. "Love is God"? What does it mean. Is this a statement of direct equivalnece?. THis would mean that god is not the creator of the universe, but ONLY love. In which case your logic is meaningless as it only applies two words to the same concept which could be either or both. Also there is nothing in your statement that means that 'love' exclusively indicates god. SO there could be love and no god.
John did not say God = Love, he said Deus Caritas est.

What you have a is a clear demonstration deduction provides no new information.

[Jaded Sage]

My thing about books was about the form.