Argument from love.

[AskTheFamily]

Love knows how to assess everything, all ideas, concepts, mathematical presentations, wisdom, body beauty, image sight beauty, sounds, music, computer programming code, etc...

It loves and assess and assigns value, beauty, worth, and greatness depending on what it is.

Love attaches to beauty of goodness and beauty of love in this regard, in it's love of goodness, with a higher attachment and appreciation to everything else.

Love grows in perception. It grows in skill. It grows in knowledge of what it values. It appreciates and loves all that we are given that is of worth and value.

If a being exist that is worthy of our highest love, it's love that will know this being exists.

It doesn't need to be proven to anything else, because it's love that sees value. It recognizes it.

If an absolute being didn't exist, the highest potential of love would be the all things (the positive sum of all things, all things positive, ignore negative existing things like Hitler). Therefore I would be a pantheist.

The best to assess all things though is the highest love as it assigns things and sees things as best as they are.

Highest love would exist if all things were given their true value.

Love when assess all things, never believes it knowns fully it's true value. Appreciation of parents, friends, etc, family, etc, is all about doing our best to see more of the truth and so love is endless in this regard.

There is no limit to how much we should love but everything is relative.

If God didn't exist, there would be no getting then closer or further from the true vision and love of things that are appreciated as they are.

Therefore love would be an illusion.

Premise: Love knows itself is not all illusion as only love can understand love for what is, we can't really prove this through other then observation of love.

Therefore ultimate highest loving being and love exists.

 

[cloudyday2]

I had an idea recently that God deliberately created humans to be disastrously flawed. In the Book of Job, Satan suggested that Job only loved God for God's good qualities, so God agreed to test Job's love by being cruel and unjust towards Job. In the same way, humans who are cruel and unjust can know that God's love is deeper than we can see.

 

[awitch]

Love knows how to assess everything, all ideas, concepts, mathematical presentations, wisdom, body beauty, image sight beauty, sounds, music, computer programming code, etc...

Except for Python. It uses white space to define blocks of code. I mean, who does that?!?

Therefore ultimate highest loving being and love exists.

And her name is Aphrodite.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I had an idea recently that God deliberately created humans to be disastrously flawed. In the Book of Job, Satan suggested that Job only loved God for God's good qualities, so God agreed to test Job's love by being cruel and unjust towards Job. In the same way, humans who are cruel and unjust can know that God's love is deeper than we can see.

You don't need to accept every idea that crosses your mind. Similarly, when I have a thought that it would be funny if I hold a spring-loaded door open until just the right time and let it go, so someone walks into the door and falls over, I don't have to accept that thought and do it, either. Scripturally, it might be called "taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ."

If you see God as mean-spirited, cruel and unjust, how do you explain the full life of Job? Let's re-visit that conversation you quoted without citing Scripture. It starts off with God mocking satan (who had rebelled and lost) by asking where satan was--when God knew full well where He was, because God forced him there. (Job 1:7) Then, God brags about Job--like He is actually proud of Job (Job 1:8). satan, then, says "does Job fear You for nothing? Have you not made a hedge around him...on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land." (Job 1:9-10) So was that a cruel and unjust God who has been protecting Job? See according to satan--who would know because he sees things we don't--God protected Job and prospered Job. So, after acknowledging all God does for Job, satan said: "But put forth your hand now, and touch all that he has and he will curse you to your face." (Job 1:11) God said: "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself put not forth your hand." (Job 1:12) So, God allowed satan to touch a man that God had been protecting. So, then after Job was attacked by satan (with God's permission), God, again brags on Job and takes responsibility for what He allowed satan to do to Job (Job 2:3) after mocking satan (Job 2:2). satan again challenges God that it is only because God kept some protections on Job (Job 2:4-5). And, God again allows satan to prove Job, but still doesn't let him take his life. (Job 2:6)

Fast-forward to the end of the story. Job gets to know God like he never has before (Job 38-41) ending with Job responding "I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear; but now my eyes have seen You." (Job 42:5) God restored Job's friends by helping them to see the error of their ways (Job 42:7-9). And God "turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends; also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. (Job 42:10) and had his family restored (Job 42:13) and you can bet the other kids will also be in heaven with Job. And, Job lived a long time with God's protections all around him again! (Job 42:16-7).

I don't see how you see that as a cruel and unjust God?????

Isn't it amazing to you that before Jesus came, God specifically names Job among three righteous men (the other two were Noah and Daniel) in Ezekiel 14:14, 18 & 20.

 

[dlamberth]

Love knows how to assess everything, all ideas, concepts, mathematical presentations, wisdom, body beauty, image sight beauty, sounds, music, computer programming code, etc...

It loves and assess and assigns value, beauty, worth, and greatness depending on what it is.

Love attaches to beauty of goodness and beauty of love in this regard, in it's love of goodness, with a higher attachment and appreciation to everything else.

Love grows in perception. It grows in skill. It grows in knowledge of what it values. It appreciates and loves all that we are given that is of worth and value.

If a being exist that is worthy of our highest love, it's love that will know this being exists.

It doesn't need to be proven to anything else, because it's love that sees value. It recognizes it.

If an absolute being didn't exist, the highest potential of love would be the all things (the positive sum of all things, all things positive, ignore negative existing things like Hitler). Therefore I would be a pantheist.

The best to assess all things though is the highest love as it assigns things and sees things as best as they are.

Highest love would exist if all things were given their true value.

Love when assess all things, never believes it knowns fully it's true value. Appreciation of parents, friends, etc, family, etc, is all about doing our best to see more of the truth and so love is endless in this regard.

There is no limit to how much we should love but everything is relative.

If God didn't exist, there would be no getting then closer or further from the true vision and love of things that are appreciated as they are.

Therefore love would be an illusion.

Premise: Love knows itself is not all illusion as only love can understand love for what is, we can't really prove this through other then observation of love.

Therefore ultimate highest loving being and love exists.

Of all of the forms on Earth, it seems that it's the Human Being that responds to Love the most. So I don't think there's any argument for Love. Love just is.

 

[ananda]

Therefore ultimate highest loving being and love exists.

Love can also be destructive.

 

[dlamberth]

Love can also be destructive.

If it's destructive, it's more likely ego and not Love.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Even as a high school student, I always found philosophical attempts at proving a god's existence to be woefully lacking. Back then, I could not really put my finger to the reason why, I just intuited that they were strangely circular and self-referential. Then I discovered post-structuralism and the linguistic turn, and my discomfort with these explanatory models became more tangible.

The problem, basically, boils down to the fact that language is not just a set of labels we slap onto pre-existing categories. Language is, in essence, a self-referential medium dealing in dichotomies and categories of its own making.
This isn't just a problem for theistic arguments, mind you. Ayn Rand's "1+1=2, therefore Capitalism is good" is just as woefully lacking. But I think this kind of approach is especially problematic when geared towards topics that are supposed to transcend the framework of language/ideology, existing beyond our conceptualisations and narrow boxes.

Ironically, I believe that a post-structuralist understanding of language can actually qualify as a better argument for a transcendental god than all of these "proofs" - even if it may be less immediately satisfying than staying within clearly delineated boxes.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't see how you see that as a cruel and unjust God?????

Well, I think Job would have agreed with my characterization of God. In my opinion, you're missing the point of the Book of Job. Job is supposed to challenge our thinking rather than confirm our thinking.

Isn't it amazing to you that before Jesus came, God specifically names Job among three righteous men (the other two were Noah and Daniel) in Ezekiel 14:14, 18 & 20.

It is also interesting that most scholars believe all three of these righteous men were fictional characters. Did Jesus believe these men actually existed, or was Jesus using them as examples as we might use the example of Frodo in the LOTR for inspiration without actually believing in the historicity of the LOTR?

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Well, I think Job would have agreed with my characterization of God. In my opinion, you're missing the point of the Book of Job. Job is supposed to challenge our thinking rather than confirm our thinking.


It is also interesting that most scholars believe all three of these righteous men were fictional characters. Did Jesus believe these men actually existed, or was Jesus using them as examples as we might use the example of Frodo in the LOTR for inspiration without actually believing in the historicity of the LOTR?

So, you agree with uninspired scholars--the kind who knew who Jesus was and tried to kill Jesus--rather than what God Himself says?

Where did Jesus Christ EVER give the idea that what was written in the Old Testament was just a bunch of fictional stories? HE DIDN'T. He treated the Old Testament Scriptures as if they were real, true, and authoritative. He treated them as if they were also written about Him and needed to be fulfilled.

No, Job wasn't given to make us think God is cruel and unjust, like you think. But, it certainly challenges those who think that the devil is somehow on an equal level with God.

But, you are free to believe what you clearly want to believe. And, with what you have stated, I can understand why you would hope that God doesn't really exist, since your thinking puts you in the category of the guy with the one talent who hides it and accuses the one who gave it to him of being cruel and unjust. (Matt 25:24-30)

 

[Robban]

If it's destructive, it's more likely ego and not Love.

A hasty thought came sailing past when I read this.

The flames in the burning bush did not destroy the bush.

Is love a flame?

Burns like fire.

Haha, hasty thought, I,m late out already.

 

[cloudyday2]

But, you are free to believe what you clearly want to believe. And, with what you have stated, I can understand why you would hope that God doesn't really exist, since your thinking puts you in the category of the guy with the one talent who hides it and accuses the one who gave it to him of being cruel and unjust. (Matt 25:24-30)

It's frustrating when I have ideas, but the ideas are lost because people are so wary of "wrong thinking" and seize on a single word out-of-context in a sentence to confirm their fears ... rather than reading what I wrote.

So let me rephrase. I had a dream like a flashbulb where it seemed that God showed me some things. Maybe I am deluded, but I choose to put faith in those things God showed me because I have nothing else to go on. The Bible and the traditions and theologies passed down by generations are DOA for me.

In this dream I saw my wholesale failure as a person. Even the things that I like to imagine as good were shown to be selfish and evil just beneath the surface. Then I saw God's love for me, and I thought "what is God seeing that would make him love me?"

So I try to remember that dream. People in my life often seem unlovable, but I remind myself that God surely has that unfathomable love for them too, so I need to TRY to mimic that love or at least remember that it exists.

And the point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that we need to understand our wholesale failure to understand God's unfathomable love. If we lived perfect lives and were perfect people, then we might think God's love is a result of our perfection rather than realizing the depth of God's love.

 

[Robban]

If it's destructive, it's more likely ego and not Love.

mind you,


"He intended to destroy them (and would have)

were it not that Moses,

His chosen one, stood before Him in the breach to return His wrath from destroying."
(Psalms 106:23)

Just as well Moses loved them otherwise it would have been curtains.

 

[cloudyday2]

Love can also be destructive.

One advantage God probably has over humans is that he might exist outside of time. Therefore God can love something without clinging and fearing for the loss of that thing. I suppose the past is just as real and immediate for God as the present and the future. But that's just speculation on how God might be. IDK

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

It's frustrating when I have ideas, but the ideas are lost because people are so wary of "wrong thinking" and seize on a single word out-of-context in a sentence to confirm their fears ... rather than reading what I wrote.

So let me rephrase. I had a dream like a flashbulb where it seemed that God showed me some things. Maybe I am deluded, but I choose to put faith in those things God showed me because I have nothing else to go on. The Bible and the traditions and theologies passed down by generations are DOA for me.

In this dream I saw my wholesale failure as a person. Even the things that I like to imagine as good were shown to be selfish and evil just beneath the surface. Then I saw God's love for me, and I thought "what is God seeing that would make him love me?"

So I try to remember that dream. People in my life often seem unlovable, but I remind myself that God surely has that unfathomable love for them too, so I need to TRY to mimic that love or at least remember that it exists.

And the point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that we need to understand our wholesale failure to understand God's unfathomable love. If we lived perfect lives and were perfect people, then we might think God's love is a result of our perfection rather than realizing the depth of God's love.

As long as we are sharing what is frustrating, it is frustrating for me when people think they can say things that oppose God and then can't understand why people who love God would be warning them and others of wrong thinking.

 

[cloudyday2]

As long as we are sharing what is frustrating, it is frustrating for me when people think they can say things that oppose God and then can't understand why people who love God would be warning them and others of wrong thinking.

Where did I say anything in opposition to God? Are you talking about this?
"so God agreed to test Job's love by being cruel and unjust towards Job"

Read it in context. What I said is not so bad. Maybe you would describe God's behavior in some more diplomatic way, but basically God wanted to see if Job loved God only for the goodies.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Where did I say anything in opposition to God? Are you talking about this?
"so God agreed to test Job's love by being cruel and unjust towards Job"

Read it in context. What I said is not so bad. Maybe you would describe God's behavior in some more diplomatic way, but basically God wanted to see if Job loved God only for the goodies.

I did. And, then I quoted the story of Job straight from Scripture line by line.

You believe God was cruel and unjust. I don't. satan was being cruel and unjust, God allowed it for Job's greater good--even Job, in the end, admitted that. Job got to see God, rather than just act on what he heard. God was forcing satan to see that Job loved God for more than His goodies, as you put it. And, God was blessing Job in the process. Yes, Job went through some stuff. Just like Joseph went through some stuff. Just like Abraham went through some stuff. Just like Moses went through some stuff. Just like Daniel went through some stuff..... But, the end of the story in all those situations was that the good they have gotten and will get, will far outweigh what they had to go through to get there.

I still don't see how you define Job's story as "God being cruel and unjust" toward Job. God isn't the one who asked to test Job, it was satan. God simply allowed him to. God certainly had more confidence in Job than satan did, then Job's friends did, then Job's wife did, and probably even more than Job had in himself. satan has always been trying to prove to God that we weren't and aren't good enough. That we don't really love Him. That we never will really love Him.

God told us that we will suffer through trials, tribulations, and persecution. That some will think they are serving God by killing us. Jesus Himself had to endure that. But, if our hope is more than just wishful thinking, then what God promises after this world is soooooo worth what we have to endure in this world. So, if we are going to believe there is a God, shouldn't we trust that His plans are really good? I mean what good is hoping for a next life with a cruel and unjust God?

Frankly, if I believed God was cruel and unjust, I would rather hope that the atheists were right. At least then, my suffering would stop at death and I could control that (death) when I had enough of this world.

 

[ananda]

If it's destructive, it's more likely ego and not Love.

The definitions of "Love" appear to be always associated with ego.

 

[ananda]

One advantage God probably has over humans is that he might exist outside of time. Therefore God can love something without clinging and fearing for the loss of that thing. I suppose the past is just as real and immediate for God as the present and the future. But that's just speculation on how God might be. IDK

Why love anything beyond itself, if God is (supposedly) complete and perfect, in and of itself?

 

[dlamberth]

The definitions of "Love" appear to be always associated with ego.

Definitions and doing are two different things. Love is something that comes from the Heart. Definitions come from the Head.