What’s wrong with this argument?

[Chriliman]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love

2. And we can say we’ve experienced truth in love

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

What’s wrong with this?

One issue I see is whether a definition of a thing and experiencing that thing is enough to conclude it exists and/or wether we can even agree to define God as at least truth in love

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't even know what "truth in love" means. "Truth in love" doesn't sound like something you'd define a person as. You may as well say God is gravity and we experience gravity; therefore, we experience God.

But, God isn't just "truth in love", is "he"?

 

[public hermit]

#2 (and #3) is subjective. It offers no platform for intersubjective agreement, particularly among those who would usually reject the conclusion. If the conclusion is to be accepted by everyone, the premises must meet the same condition.

 

[Sketcher]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love

2. And we can say we’ve experienced truth in love

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

What’s wrong with this?

One issue I see is whether a definition of a thing and experiencing that thing is enough to conclude it exists and/or wether we can even agree to define God as at least truth in love

"Truth in love" is a concept, not a personal entity. I can speak "truth in love" to someone. That is not the same as making God known (though it can be part of making God known).

 

[Oompa Loompa]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love

2. And we can say we’ve experienced truth in love

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

What’s wrong with this?

One issue I see is whether a definition of a thing and experiencing that thing is enough to conclude it exists and/or wether we can even agree to define God as at least truth in love

What is truth and what is love?

 

[Chriliman]

I don't even know what "truth in love" means. "Truth in love" doesn't sound like something you'd define a person as. You may as well say God is gravity and we experience gravity; therefore, we experience God.

But, God isn't just "truth in love", is "he"?

I would define truth as accurately describing reality and love as putting others before yourself. Is it safe to say a person is required to meet both conditions?

 

[Chriliman]

#2 (and #3) is subjective. It offers no platform for intersubjective agreement, particularly among those who would usually reject the conclusion. If the conclusion is to be accepted by everyone, the premises must meet the same condition.

How would you remedy that, if possible?

 

[Chriliman]

"Truth in love" is a concept, not a personal entity. I can speak "truth in love" to someone. That is not the same as making God known (though it can be part of making God known).

Another aspect of God in Christianity is that he resides within us, so why can't we make him known by simply speaking truth in a loving way? I agree "truth in love" is a concept, but a person is required to actually do it, right?

 

[Sketcher]

Another aspect of God in Christianity is that he resides within us, so why can't we make him known by simply speaking truth in a loving way? I agree "truth in love" is a concept, but a person is required to actually do it, right?

It's part of making him known, but it's not all of making him known. God is a personal God, who is offended by sin, and did something about it by sending Jesus Christ in the flesh to die and rise again to atone for our sins and provide us with eternal life. This amnesty that he offers is needed by everyone. We need to speak this, lovingly.

 

[public hermit]

How would you remedy that, if possible?

My opinion? All you can do is share your experience, strength, and hope. In terms of your argument...

Your 2nd and 3rd premises make an appeal to subjective experience, which is fine so long as the vast majority of people have the same experience.

For example, Aquinas's argument (Aristotle's argument) from motion includes a premise which states (basically) when something is moved it is moved by something else. Here, he is making an unspoken appeal to everyone's subjective experience. Most folks have seen things move. In other words, there is a platform for wide intersubjective agreement, given the same basic experience.

Your argument would work if the domain of those you were trying to convince only included those who had experience of #2. But, of course, those are the ones who don't need the argument. I really don't know how to extend that premise so it would include those who didn't have the experience, except, perhaps "Come and see," as Jesus put it.

 

[durangodawood]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love...

This definition falls way short of the typical Christian conception in which God is an actual being of some sort.

 

[Chriliman]

This definition falls way short of the typical Christian conception in which God is an actual being of some sort.

It’s a basic definition, kind of like scripture that says “God is love”. I added truth because I think it’s an important aspect of how we define God.

 

[Yttrium]

It’s a basic definition, kind of like scripture that says “God is love”. I added truth because I think it’s an important aspect of how we define God.

You're only really establishing God as an aspect of humanity, not an independent entity.

 

[Freodin]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love

2. And we can say we’ve experienced truth in love

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

What’s wrong with this?

One issue I see is whether a definition of a thing and experiencing that thing is enough to conclude it exists and/or wether we can even agree to define God as at least truth in love

Why should we agree to that "at least" definition? Or rather, this equivocation?

If I tell you that God doesn't exist, and I do that because it pains me to see others live their life in bondage to a falsehood, and I want to free them from it... I am speaking "truth in love", right? A "truth in love" that negates the existence of God, right? While at the same time confirming your definition of God.

How can this be?

I'd say: because "God" is not "at least truth in love". This is just something that you a) want it to be and b) think you can demonstrate.
But just by using the term "God" instead of simply "truth in love" (or whatever else you want to define God as), you are adding several millennia of theological and philiosophical discussion onto this "at least" definition... and I have that nagging feeling that you would just start to add them into the discussion as soon as someone accepted your definition.

Sorry, but it just doesn't work this way.

 

[dlamberth]

For myself anyway, it is through Love that God is made a reality in my life. If one wishes to get mystical about it, Love has a way of seeing into anther's soul. Love has a way of seeing the Divine around them. And Love has a way of bringing out gratitude. Love has a way of making us a more human, Human Being. The Christian Mystics have much to say about Love.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love

2. And we can say we’ve experienced truth in love

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

What’s wrong with this?

One issue I see is whether a definition of a thing and experiencing that thing is enough to conclude it exists and/or wether we can even agree to define God as at least truth in love

You just defined God into existence.

1. If we can at least define God as a X

2. And we can say we’ve experienced a X

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

The X can be anything from creation to a burrito. It does not mean much.

 

[dlamberth]

The X can be anything from creation to a burrito. It does not mean much.

I'd say that in this case X is more of a life force than a "meaning". And for some, that's everything.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'd say that in this case X is more of a life force than a "meaning". And for some, that's everything.

Maybe, but the X still needs to be demonstrated to be true and even if it can "life force" defined as a god does not seem useful.

 

[dlamberth]

Maybe, but the X still needs to be demonstrated to be true and even if it can "life force" defined as a god does not seem useful.

True to who?!?
As far as being useful, we are alive, breathing, creating, experiencing, feeling, expressing...everything a life force does. That sounds pretty useful to me. As far as meaning, I guess the question I ask myself is: What does it mean to be a more human, Human Being?

 

[Chriliman]

You're only really establishing God as an aspect of humanity, not an independent entity.

God certainly is an aspect of humanity. Whether he’s an independent entity apart from humanity remains to be fully known. Still depends on faith.