As far as I can tell, calling it benevolence would get rid of confusion.Harbal wrote: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.Jaded Sage wrote:
The point being that no one can believe in God and be a philosopher at once?It would be far less confusing if you could stick to calling God "God".Jaded Sage wrote:I just called God by it's other name: benevolence.
Proof of God
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Proof of God
Re: Proof of God
So why didn't you call your topic "Proof of benevolence"? You strike me as being someone who has difficulty focusing on the subject at hand.Jaded Sage wrote: As far as I can tell, calling it benevolence would get rid of confusion.
Re: Proof of God
God = Benevolence??
Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
Re: Proof of God
I'm dubious.Dubious wrote:God = Benevolence??
Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Proof of God
Because it didn't occur to me that anyone might need a proof of benevolence, whereas, many do appear to need a proof of God.Harbal wrote:So why didn't you call your topic "Proof of benevolence"?
Re: Proof of God
I have to confess that I have never felt the need for it.Jaded Sage wrote:Because it didn't occur to me that anyone might need a proof of benevolence,Harbal wrote:So why didn't you call your topic "Proof of benevolence"?
Even though I don't need that, either, I would be interested to hear it.Jaded Sage wrote:whereas, many do appear to need a proof of God.
Re: Proof of God
...my default position on philosophy forums.Wyman wrote:I'm dubious.Dubious wrote:God = Benevolence??
Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
-
Jaded Sage
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:00 pm
Re: Proof of God
You're in luck. I might have just provided it on the very first post.Harbal wrote:Even though I don't need that, either, I would be interested to hear it.Jaded Sage wrote:whereas, many do appear to need a proof of God.
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
Re: Proof of God
That's exactly the kind of luck I have when I buy a ticket on the lottery.Jaded Sage wrote: You're in luck. I might have just provided it on the very first post.
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
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Proof of God
WHooahh- Well how very un-philosophical of you.Jaded Sage wrote:Harbal wrote: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 wrote:
I would argue that anyone without a firm practice of benevolence is not employing a love of wisdom.
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.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Proof of God
Surely you know that this is just rubbish?Jaded Sage wrote:You're in luck. I might have just provided it on the very first post.Harbal wrote:Even though I don't need that, either, I would be interested to hear it.Jaded Sage wrote:whereas, many do appear to need a proof of God.
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
God is Evil
If evil exists then god exists.
evil does in fact exist
Therefore god is in fact evil.
Re: Proof of God
You were supposed to say:Dubious wrote:...my default position on philosophy forums.Wyman wrote:I'm dubious.Dubious wrote:God = Benevolence??
Has there ever been a better stated example of an oxymoron?
No, I'm Dubious
Why?
Because I chose that name first.
What name?
I'm Dubious.
About what?
- Necromancer
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Contact:
Re: Proof of God
Gödel! Gödel! Gödel!
Like this?
From:
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Theorem 3 in other words: God exists! (And maybe this is sound.)
Like this?
From:
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Theorem 3 in other words: God exists! (And maybe this is sound.)
Re: Proof of God
Hi JS -- Your post has inspired me to follow-through on creating a thread I've been planning on: "Seeking courageous answers from theists". I hope you will participate by answering the first few questions I have asked there, as I would very much like to hear your answers. Thank you.Jaded Sage wrote: You're in luck. I might have just provided it on the very first post.
1 John 4:8 defines God as love, so God is love.
If love exists, then God exists.
Love exists, therefore God exists.
Re: Proof of God
Sounds a lot like the beginning of who's on first.Wyman wrote:
You were supposed to say:
No, I'm Dubious
Why?
Because I chose that name first.
What name?
I'm Dubious.
About what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg