Proof of God

[Harbal]

THis would mean that god is not the creator of the universe, but ONLY love. In which case your logic is meaningless

But so is yours so I'm not sure you are the right person to be trying to put him straight.

[Hobbes' Choice]

My thing about books was about the form.

I think you might have a long road ahead.

[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)

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.

No, of course I don't accept his premise. I was just commenting on the form, which is what he asked for - why, I don't know.

[Jaded Sage]

I don't understand why this always happens. You accept that the Bible posits some thing called God, but you do not accept the definition it gives of God. I think you only reject it because then God would be an existent thing and you don't want that to be the case, and/or if you say don't accept that God is love because there is no evidence, you are in even bigger trouble.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't understand why this always happens. You accept that the Bible posits some thing called God, but you do not accept the definition it gives of God. I think you only reject it because then God would be an existent thing and you don't want that to be the case, and/or if you say don't accept that God is love because there is no evidence, you are in even bigger trouble.

When you address someone with "you". It would be well to indicate who you are addressing.

[Jaded Sage]

Anyone and everyone to whom this applies, obviously. Why are half the posts on this website not even about philosophy?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Anyone and everyone to whom this applies, obviously. Why are half the posts on this website not even about philosophy?

In that case the "you" to whom you refer is a straw man and applies to no one.
Why don't you stop using philosophical fallacies?

[Wyman]

Anyone and everyone to whom this applies, obviously. Why are half the posts on this website not even about philosophy?

Now THAT is a very intelligent, perceptive, apt post.

[Harbal]

Anyone and everyone to whom this applies, obviously. Why are half the posts on this website not even about philosophy?

Anyone who has a firm belief in the existence of God is not employing philosophy.

[Jaded Sage]

Anyone and everyone to whom this applies, obviously. Why are half the posts on this website not even about philosophy?

Anyone who has a firm belief in the existence of God is not employing philosophy.

I would argue that anyone without a firm practice of benevolence is not employing a love of wisdom.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Anyone and everyone to whom this applies, obviously. Why are half the posts on this website not even about philosophy?

Anyone who has a firm belief in the existence of God is not employing philosophy.

I would argue that anyone without a firm practice of benevolence is not employing a love of wisdom.

Then you are a fool. But I'd like to hear you make your case.

[Jaded Sage]

Then you are a fool. But I'd like to hear you make your case.

Not with that attitude. There's a mini-case for ya.

[Harbal]

I would argue that anyone without a firm practice of benevolence is not employing a love of wisdom.

You complained about a lack of philosophy and I commented on it but rather than sticking to the point you just go of at a tangent about something else.

[Jaded Sage]

I would argue that anyone without a firm practice of benevolence is not employing a love of wisdom.

You complained about a lack of philosophy and I commented on it but rather than sticking to the point you just go of at a tangent about something else.

The point being that no one can believe in God and be a philosopher at once? I just called God by it's other name: benevolence.

[Harbal]

The point being that no one can believe in God and be a philosopher at once?

It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God. If you have an absolute belief in God's existence you have not aquired it through philosophy.

I just called God by it's other name: benevolence.

It would be far less confusing if you could stick to calling God "God".