Absolute of Being?

[rwc109]

I always really wanted to find something [anything!] absolute in the world where human science, philosophy, even theology, always deals with relative concepts.

(1). That is what is so amazing about the deceptively simple acknowledgment that 'Love is absolutely Right '

[... that comes about by a somewhat hard-to-bear extension from the apparently absolute nature of the apparent rightness of apparent love ]...

This ABSOLUTE then is my main personal reason for belief in my God...!
for love simply doesn't exist outside a being

[one might say "I love therefore I am, apparently " and thus "God Loves therefore He IS ."]

so ACKNOWLEDGING Love beyond my ability to love [or that of anyone else except possibly Jesus]...

... actually PROVES the EXISTENCE of an external being ,God ,to mediate that Love

[whose way of Love I can rightly worship and seek... hence the term, God].

(2). There is also another external evidence to man, it is Truth!

... mankind periodically gets stumped for new ideas to solve what he sees as his problems{!}

... but there is a powerful witness that gets much ignored despite that it resolves this situation repeatedly...

... the answer or new concept just pops up in no time into the stunped individuals head at the very point that he admits he doesn't know , cannot think of the answer ,and stops thinking [exactly as one does in meditation!]

... Powerful ideas and answers beyond mankind given appropriately for nothing in an instant demonstrates powerfully a knowing intelligence way beyond mankind ...yet an intelligence with benevolence toward mankind at least in this sense of solving the insoluable for man...

... inspiration is for me thus a very powerful witness indeed of the existence of external benevolent intelligence that I have come by further considerations to associate with the same God [as distinct from adding a separate one].

(3). Then there is the witness of Jesus ,whom I cannot help but respect for his [reported] words

... well he did make some very strong statements about God's existence and love and truth ... can one come somehow to believe he was deluded or lying ?

{.....it is hard to construct any believable scenario where Jesus wasn't speaking the truth ...but that would mean that there is a God !]

(4). Then, whatever one thinks about it, there exists the 'bible' [and other interesting scriptures].... can one really come to believe that all these people who talk about God are deceived somehow or all lying for some cause...

How can one believe that when considering what they are talking about is of such consequence to them? [a serious question]

(5) There is also some evidence from prophecies that are beyond reasonabe chance in their predictions ... how can these occur if there is no knowing 'outside' or 'beyond' time?

(6) What counts against all this evidence? [serious and interesting question ]... what is the alternative but mere relative 'knowledge' that depends upon unverifiable assumption [belief !!!]

In my own life I fell out quickly with the religion of man and made the unrealised mistake that the god of religion was God

... escaping from that I have come to believe from the above that there must be God to explain our connection to what is beyond us [ but that probably few people know Him.]

(7) Love [and love] is beyond my own capability to DO ,even when I will to do it ...

This is a very powerful evidence, there is a power beyond my will which actually prevents me doing what I want to do and causes me to do what I hate

... and other human beings have just the same problem!

How can one explain this without an external being? [again a very interesting question]

 

[rwc109]

the rightness of love is an absolute truth

there exists love outside a [sinful] man's ability to love

love can not exist outside a being

therefor an absolute being must be the ultimate source

 

[tcampen]

the rightness of love is an absolute truth

there exists love outside a [sinful] man's ability to love

love can not exist outside a being

therefor an absolute being must be the ultimate source

This is a syllogism. But to examine whether it holds up, the premises must be examined individually.

(Premises)
"1. the rightness of love is an absolute truth."

This premise is too simple on its face. There are obsessive forms of love, and destructive forms of love that under certain circumstances may not be so right. But for the sake of argument, let's assume we're talking about the good kind of love.

"2. there exists love outside a [sinful] man's ability to love."

The premise has no support whatsoever. Love is a human expression, emotion and state of mind. It is defined in human terms, even when applied to one's religious views of a supreme being or beings. Finally, it sets up a circular argument, which we'll see below.

"3. love can not exist outside a being."

This seems like a sound premise. Some, however, would say the bible is an embodiment of love, whereas other would say writings can only describe love, but cannot contain it itself. But we'll assume the accuracy of this premise for the sake of argument.

(Conclusion)
"4. therefor an absolute being must be the ultimate source."

This conclusion comes from left field. There is no premise that an absolute truth, such as love, is related to an absolute being, what an absolute being means or entails, or why an absolute being need necessarily have anything to do with the concept of love. Using this kind of logic, this "absolute being" must also be the ultimate source for evil as well.

Second, none of the premises deal with the source of anything at all. They all deal with the characteristics of love, but not where love comes from. Thus the "absolute being" as the "ultimate source" gains no support from the premises even if they were assume to all be true.

Third, premise number 2 and the conclusion are involved in a circular argument. The premise requires the conclusion to necessarily be true for the premise itself to be true. (This "absolute being" is the basis for supporting that love can exist outside the human experience.)

As a result, the syllogism must be rejected as false due to a variety of logical falacies and errors, some of which I've pointed out above.