Philosophy Now Forum

How a God who is Love, fully self giving, could wish that everybody should Love him more than the amount you love others?

YHWH is a jealous god.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:29 am How a God who is Love, fully self giving, could wish that everybody should Love him more than the amount you love others?

God’s plan(s) cannot be understood by humans. This explains the premise of the question.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:11 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:29 am How a God who is Love, fully self giving, could wish that everybody should Love him more than the amount you love others?

God’s plan(s) cannot be understood by humans. This explains the premise of the question.

Your comment is void of any arguments. Religious people always says that, it's a (too) convenient way of dismissing any criticism of the belief in God.

philosopher wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:38 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:11 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:29 am How a God who is Love, fully self giving, could wish that everybody should Love him more than the amount you love others?

God’s plan(s) cannot be understood by humans. This explains the premise of the question.

Your comment is void of any arguments. Religious people always says that, it's a (too) convenient way of dismissing any criticism of the belief in God.

If God does not exist, there can be no plan of God’s.
If there can be no plan of God’s, there can be no understandable plan of God’s.
If there can be no understandable plan of God’s, there is no understandable plan of God’s that a human can understand.
If there is no God, there can be no plan of God’s that a human can understand.n
If God exists, God could have a plan. (a priori)
If God has a plan, it could not be understood by a human. (a priori)
If God exists or not, there can be no plan that a human could understand.
God’s plan cannot be understood by humans.

The foregoing explains why a question of the type, how can a God who is something wish something, might be asked: it is because the asker doesn’t know the answer, which, in turn, cannot be known as it cannot be understood.

I did not mean to imply that God exists. That can only be blindly believed, and not rationally proved.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:55 pm If God exists, God could have a plan. (a priori)
If God has a plan, it could not be understood by a human. (a priori)

If God exists or not, there can be no plan that a human could understand.
God’s plan cannot be understood by humans.

Why? Why can't God's plan not be understood by humans?

philosopher wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:53 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:55 pm If God exists, God could have a plan. (a priori)
If God has a plan, it could not be understood by a human. (a priori)

If God exists or not, there can be no plan that a human could understand.
God’s plan cannot be understood by humans.

Why? Why can't God's plan not be understood by humans?

A priori.

Crom isn't.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:19 am Crom isn't.

What/who is crom?

Like YHWH: a fiction.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:14 am

philosopher wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:53 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:55 pm If God exists, God could have a plan. (a priori)
If God has a plan, it could not be understood by a human. (a priori)

If God exists or not, there can be no plan that a human could understand.
God’s plan cannot be understood by humans.

Why? Why can't God's plan not be understood by humans?

A priori.

How? Why? Explain! You haven't explained ANYTHING so far. "A priori", you say, but you haven't provided any theoretical deduction whatsoever.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:29 am How a God who is Love, fully self giving, could wish that everybody should Love him more than the amount you love others?

FUCK IT - I know (of) this entity...and I'll say it:-

'GOD' suffered CHAOS. CHRIST'S physical pain was a blip in the ocean in comparison, IT just wanted us to comprehend suffering and to respect IT.

LOVE ? for what it suffered to form us and our reality, yes you should.

philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:17 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:14 am

philosopher wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:53 pm

Why? Why can't God's plan not be understood by humans?

A priori.

How? Why? Explain! You haven't explained ANYTHING so far. "A priori", you say, but you haven't provided any theoretical deduction whatsoever.

A priori is a claim that has been accepted by previous consensus. I have often heard in the common vernacular that God’s plan cannot be understood by mortal man. This lead me to believe that the claim that humans cannot understand God’s plan has been widely regarded as a given. I didn’t think I would have to explain or deduce an a priori assumption.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:35 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:17 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:14 am

A priori.

How? Why? Explain! You haven't explained ANYTHING so far. "A priori", you say, but you haven't provided any theoretical deduction whatsoever.

A priori is a claim that has been accepted by previous consensus. I have often heard in the common vernacular that God’s plan cannot be understood by mortal man. This lead me to believe that the claim that humans cannot understand God’s plan has been widely regarded as a given. I didn’t think I would have to explain or deduce an a priori assumption.

This is what we describe as Argumentum ad Populum - argument from consensus/popularity.
Or Argumentum ad Antiquitatem - appeal to tradition.

It is a fallacy.

Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that it is right. You have to investigate the reasoning BEHIND the consensus.
You have provided none of that.

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:37 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:35 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:17 am

How? Why? Explain! You haven't explained ANYTHING so far. "A priori", you say, but you haven't provided any theoretical deduction whatsoever.

A priori is a claim that has been accepted by previous consensus. I have often heard in the common vernacular that God’s plan cannot be understood by mortal man. This lead me to believe that the claim that humans cannot understand God’s plan has been widely regarded as a given. I didn’t think I would have to explain or deduce an a priori assumption.

This is what we describe as Argumentum ad Populum - argument from consensus/popularity.
Or Argumentum ad Antiquitatem - appeal to tradition.

It is a fallacy.

Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that it is right. You have to investigate the reasoning BEHIND the consensus.
You have provided none of that.

If it isn't right, nothing that follows can be false, no?