Philosophy defends God

If the universe can be proven to have been founded for/by the reason, of love, and if love can be demonstrated as the height of reason, then philosophy defends God whereby wisdom is proven right by her deeds, or principals by their application. We would of course then need to see this made manifest in human form within the context of the relativity of human being or the brotherhood of man, to investigate it as a standard of reason and purpose presented in Absolute terms, oh that's right, we have!

Let us look also at that which is unloving and prove it to be unreasonable, which also defends God as love.

Faith is not divorced from reason, for those with the capacity to think these things all the way through free from any sort of aprior contemptuous bias prior to investigation..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Consciousness has been proven to a degree. Since love isn't quantifiable, and its symptoms only very loosely replicated, we can't really prove that love is the basis of that quantum consciousness, can we?

Guess it's back to square one - aka "faith".

In response to your edit:

Let us look also at that which is unloving and prove it to be unreasonable, which also defends God as love.

Hardly. Someone who is unloving can be entirely reasonable, possibly excepting matters of emotion. But looking at reason itself, I'll quote Shakespeare:

And yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays

So, if someone were to be loving, that would make them unreasonable, would it not? And quite honestly, I'd have to say I've seen more examples of that than I've seen of what you're suggesting...

reply to post by AfterInfinity

That depends.. on what our mutual committments and obligations are, on the same shared, unconditioned ground of being and becoming.. at source, in terms of what is entirely reasonable, and what is not.

... are we perhaps joined together by one shared source that is love whereby all creation was made by the father for the son because of love ie: that love might be possible between two or more?

Maybe some people just THINK they know everything already, but still haven't thought it all the way through with an open mind and a willing heart.

Love may be unreasonable, but only to the degree that it's unreasonably reasonable.

P.S. You're on fire!

reply to post by NewAgeMan

... are we perhaps joined together by one shared source that is love whereby all creation was made by the father for the son because of love ie: that love might be possible between two or more?

Are you so afraid of not knowing, that you are willing to swallow any lie as long as it promises answers and redemption? Are you so fearful of what you've done in your life?

Love may be unreasonable, but only to the degree that it's unreasonably reasonable.

That is a hyperbole more suited for ironic jests than actual logical discussion. I hope you know this, otherwise, it's as they say...

You can't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

P.S. You're on fire!

My avatar is utilizing something known as 'ki' in order to access a level of power that we can only dream of at this point. It is my vision of our potential, that has not been reached. It's from DBZ, and the character's name is Gohan. This image is from a point in the story at which he becomes the most powerful fighter in the world, and effectively saves it. Hence, my attraction to the image.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You presume to know both that I know not and that you already know, but what I've come to know is quite obviously, relative to you, in the realm of an unknown unknown, or what you don't even known you don't know, yet.

P.S. Don't call your brother "fool" (idiot) or you might have to answer for it in the fires of ki.

Re: your edit re: avatar meaning. Funny then, that you don't recognize that same one in another, and the one he follows, in terms of the war that's been waged, and won.

Originally posted by dpeacock
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

what you are suggesting is that there is nothing in the world that is actually wrong. Which if that is your view then that is fine but I feel sorry for you

There is no universal right or wrong. If a sun goes supernova and kills all of us, is that right or wrong? When people in India and other places throw their baby girls in the trash, they certainly don't think it's wrong.

We pretend to set up rights and wrongs, but that doesn't make any other species accountable. If eating babies is wrong, then we need to start arresting every wild animal that ate a deformed baby.

P.S. May I ask your age? Don't have to answer if you don't want to. I'm just curious.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

You presume to know both that I know not and that you already know, but what I've come to know is quite obviously, relative to you, in the realm of an unknown unknown, or what you don't even known you don't know, yet.

A quaint effort to derail me. If you actually knew what you say you know, you'd have empirical evidence to lay at my feet. Hopefully, someday, evidence will arise that will give us a common place to stand.

As for the fire of ki...I welcome it.

reply to post by jiggerj

then we need to start arresting every wild animal

Justice is also a human construct.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Virtue, is power, restrained - another argument for for God's inscrutibility/ineffibility.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj

 

then we need to start arresting every wild animal

Justice is also a human construct.

How can that then leave you with a smile at the end of the day, in the final analysis..?

Originally posted by dpeacock
Premise 1 If God does not exist then absolute morale values do not exist
premise 2 If Absolute moral values exist then God exist

Your argument is invalid unless you can adequately define your terms. What exactly do you mean by "God?" I see the term tossed around all the time, but I've never seen anyone define it well enough to be used in a logical argument. People who believe in God just assume everybody else knows what they're talking about. Also, a lot of people who believe in God never really sit down and try to understand specifically what it is they believe in. Because when they do, they often discover it doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by Blue Shift

I would define God as the ineffible first/last cause (the reason for) and the center and source, of everything. And in terms of information (in formation) via the Zero Point Field or Akashic Field, this same one, being fully informed is also perfectly self aware from every angle and perspective, enveloping all creation at all points in time and space - something like that.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I would define God as the ineffible first/last cause (the reason for) and the center and source, of everything. And in terms of information (in formation) via the Zero Point Field or Akashic Field, this same one, being fully informed is also perfectly self aware from every angle and perspective, enveloping all creation at all points in time and space - something like that.

That's a workable concept. However, it doesn't hold water when applied to the Bible.

Either the Bible or this. It can't be both...not logically.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Why not?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Why not smile at the end of the day in the final analysis, about Justice being nothing more than a human concept? Because of the cumulative weight of injustices, at all levels through society and history, many if not most of which do not even come up before a judge dealing in our human conceptions of justice. Eventually, it will wipe the smile off any decent person's face, if there is no such thing as justice anywhere down the line. All evil is relative, to the victim. What you say is there is no absolute standard, and therefore none even by which to measure. If you're still smiling, then something's missing in terms of your own evaluative skills and degree of compassion for all who've suffered an injustice in one form or another whereby we are all connected at some level. Could there be more to the knowledge of another (such as me) than you might have previously given credit..?

Me I CAN smile on the other side of it all, but it's for a reason that for you exists in the realm of an unknown unknown or what you don't know you don't know, yet..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

I would define God as the ineffible first/last cause (the reason for) and the center and source, of everything. And in terms of information (in formation) via the Zero Point Field or Akashic Field, this same one, being fully informed is also perfectly self aware from every angle and perspective, enveloping all creation at all points in time and space - something like that.

So you're argument is, God is Everything, and because Everything exists, then so does God.

A = A, therefore, A = A. Very neat and tidy.

reply to post by Blue Shift

It's a little more than that though, involving a formative causation driven by love.

reply to post by Wertdagf


except the many prophecies that God and His people have made that have come to pass and been true.

reply to post by Blue Shift


That is called "circular logic". Using something to prove itself. Not exactly accepted in standard conferences.

Originally posted by DominusIlluminatioMea
reply to post by Wertdagf

 

except the many prophecies that God and His people have made that have come to pass and been true.

Precisely. They say there is and can be no proof, but there IS! Not only that, but the culmination of that entire prophetic frame is highly meaningful and relates directly to such concepts as Absolute Justice and Absolute Love, first/last causes (first father of creation) etc etc. It's provable and meaningful, such that the importance and significance of that meaning cannot be denied except in willful ignorance, thus confounding the "learned and the wise". What a wonderful thing when the smug and arrogant and know-it-alls are rendered foolish, forgive me but I just can't get over God's own sense of humor in it all.