If one accepts Libertarian’s “equation”-
God is Love - Love exists - Therefore God Exists
How does one refute the “equation”
Love is Hate - Hate Exists - Therefore God Exists?
My definition of hate-
Hate is the unconditional removing of life. Everything has an end.
Libertarian
OK. Let me see if I have this right. If we assume that God is love and we agree that love exists, the it follows that God exists. I can’t argue with that logic. Do I need to point out this is a tautology? You start with something that we agree exists – love; then say “Well, that’s God.”
You said: “God is therefore the very Source of Love.” No. You state this as though it were a foregone conclusion. This is not a conclusion; it is the very premise of your arguement.
Without this baseless assumption, there is no proof.
Also when glee asked “Why is He reluctant to reveal Himself?”, you responded with “Well, God is not a rapist.” God has revealed Himself before. Was it rape then? If I ask God to reveal Himself and He does, what does rape have to do with anything? I think for Him not to reveal himself is deception.
Whoops! My fourth sentence above was supposed to say
God is Hate - Hate Exists - Therefore God Exists.
One doesn’t. Consult the truth table. If A is false and B is true, then A implies B is true. If a man posits that his god is hate, you must allow him his axiom. And indeed, his belief system is consistent if he worships his god.
It is the God Whom I (and some others) worship Who is Love.
No, it isn’t. It’s a syllogism.
No, the statement “God is therefore the very Source of Love” followed from His being the Giver of Life. Love was defined as the Giving of Life.
It has been my experience that God is Love. It isn’t baseless from my reference frame. I am sufficiently satisfied as to my experience that I define God the way I do and present the axioms that I do. You must decide for yourself what criteria, if any, you will use to identify an entity worthy of your own worship.
If God were to force Himself upon you, despite your will to the contrary, He would be a rapist (of your will). I tell you the truth, though a man stare straight at Him, were it not that man’s will to see Him as He is, he would see nothing at all.
That’s what I thought Libertarian. But then based on your answer to my question, and this statement “You must decide for yourself what criteria, if any, you will use to identify an entity worthy of your own worship.” this means that we are indeed, creating god in our own image. It comes then as no surprise that the god people find so often conforms to the image of god presented to them during their childhood. Are all these people finding the same god who can assume different (and contradictory) characteristics, or are they finding separate gods?
You must decide these matters for yourself, Arnold. My journey won’t be your journey. Our respective consciousnesses are closed to one another. People create gods and find God, each in his own way and time. In the end, we worship whatever it is that we treasure. “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.” — Jesus
Speaking for myself, that Entity that is worthy of worship is morally perfect, unconditionally loving, endlessly forgiving, frightfully beautiful, and eternally alive. I found Him simply because He was Whom I was looking for, and Whom I treasured.
I think it’s also a tautology.
(I know this has nothing to do with the OP, but I like this sort of thing.)
Let:
A=God
B=Hate
The syllogism can be stated as the proposition: (pretend the E is the existential quantifier, and & is conjunction)
( (A=B) & ( Ex(x=B) ) ) => ( Ex(x=A) )
This is a tautology.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
But I’m not suggesting God is going to ** force ** me to worship Him. I just want Him to reveal Himself to me, so I can then make the decision to worship or not.
I’m ready to believe in God - I just want a physical manifestation (like for everything else I believe in).
Your last sentence above concerns people ** denying ** God, even though they know He exists. I have an open mind. Where is He?
I hope jhyll06 doesn’t mind the way the discussion has gone. Apparently the best evidence for God is a strictly personal experience, and that there is Love in the World.
Well, it’s still good debating practice!
Libertarian, though I find your reasoning inoffensive, it also seems to me that it puts God’s nature under the creative control of the person searching for him/her, which IMHO would be contradictory to the nature of God.
In any case, if I do find God sometime, I hope that s/he is similar in most essentials to yours (assuming of course that s/he will allow me and like-minded individuals to form our communist utopia. ;))
No, sorry. A tautology is an argument wherein the conclusion is the same as the axiom (or one of the axioms, if they are multiple). Hence, “God is Love” (the axiom) is not the same as “God exists” (the conclusion).
Yes, it is! Yes, there is! And yes, it is!
I can think of no more practical way to implement free-will than to create a moral context (your experience) within an amoral matrix (the atoms) and then give you creative control.
Interestingly, you will note God’s attribute of quiet noncoercion. 
It happens to be true in my experience that God exists. Or that there is compatible validity in the collective set of statements and tales regarding God when my own are compared and contrasted. Or, if you prefer, that a defensibly substantial number of people who have used that term have described their use thereof in ways that match my own experience.
I have noticed an historical trend with regards to understanding of such matters within our culture and others, towards simplification and childish metaphor. I have little patience with that, as I see little to be gained by painting a cartoon Superhero representation of God. The world is full of mindless followers who believe most literally in the caricature and haven’t the vaguest idea of what any of it means.
I have heard profound truths uttered eons ago repeated without comprehension by modern people who are so enamoured of the idea that Truth has been encapsulated in a form that they can own and carry about with them that they have embraced it wholesale without examination.
But some things require a searching and soul-searing examination.
I couldn’t believe any of that shit. I asked God. I got my own answers. They shed light (for me, at least) on the old cobwebby answers. I believe someone, at some point, knew things, understood things, saw things, experienced things, and did speak of God. I believe damn few people who use the word “God” have the vaguest fucking idea what they are talking about, though. They just bought a plastic bag filled with little plastic beliefs so that they could have something to believe in, and they feel good when they preach the doctrine of the pre-packaged plastic bag.
That some of what they blindly repeat has deep import to it is sadly ironic.
IANAL (I Am Not A Logician), but I disagree with your definition of tautology. (I’m also pretty sure you meant “premise” when you wrote “axiom”.)
From my philosophy textbook -
From my textbook “Introduction to Languages and the Theory of Computation” -
From my artificial intelligence textbook -
From my other philosophy textbook -
Nothing about axioms at all. I think the true meaning of tautology is clear from these examples.
Let me simplify things a bit:
a=God
b=Hate
E(x) means “x exists”.
So the syllogism in question is represented by:
((a=b)&(E(b)))=>E(a)
If a is not b, then the conjunction is false, and therefore the left side of the implication is false. Therefore, the implication (i.e. the entire sentence) is true.
If it is not the case that E(b), then the conjunction is false, and the left side of the implication is false, and therefore the implication (the entire sentence) is true.
Obviously, if both (a=b) and E(b) are false, the entire sentence is true.
What if (a=b) and E(b) are true? Then E(a) must be true, because a is the same thing as b and can be substituted for b in E(b).
So for all possible truth values of the parts, the sentence is true. Therefore, by definition, the sentence is a tautology.
The catholic church use a panel of experts to prove miracles, the definition is that ‘god has suspended the normal natural laws’.
As they do approve SOME miracles then you could use that argument.
You could also uses newtons argument that there is a god but he only intervenes now and then and hence its difficult to see.
You could also mention that a lot of smart yale and harvard people go to church or study religion BUT not many do astrology etc.
If your really,really stuck i could try dig out gods email address, think i lost it somewhere.
If the god I find is going to be the god that conforms to my personal beliefs, then although it might be an interesting exercise in self-knowledge, it seems to me that it does very little to help confirm the existence of a supernatural being. On the contrary, I would think that this helps support the “self-delusion” idea, i.e. the point of view that those who think they have found god are mistaken.
I have God here with me now. He’s odorless, colorless, and silent. He told me (through thought transference) that he’s responsible for the singularity that existed before the Big Bang. The fact that matter does exist and that you can’t smell, see, or hear God is consistent with the aforementioned description of who he is and what he did. To finalize the notion of his existence, you have only to believe he exists. Therefore, until someone or something else can be proven to have created all matter in the universe, if you believe he exists, he exists.
Blacknight:
It’s entirely possible that terms have evolved since I taught formal logic to computer programmers way back when. I won’t quibble with you over your terms.
As a matter of interest, here’s how I learned it. A compound proposition (a proposition being a statement that is either true or false, but not both true and false, nor neither true nor false) is a tautology if it is true regardless of the truth value of its component propositions. For example, “Either Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, or he didn’t.” That is (or was) a tautological compound proposition.
A syllogism, however, which strictly comprises (or did comprise) two propositions and a conclusion, is tautological if the conclusion is a restatement of the first proposition, which is called (or was called) the axiom, i.e., the initial premise. In other words, the conclusion would have to be true because it is the same as its axiom, and all axioms are true. An axiom is simply a premise that is offered without proof, and is taken as true on its face.
In my day, rigid logical proofs followed a specific format, beginning with definitions, which are themselves tautologies. Then the writer would offer his axiom set. In almost every case, the very first axiom, after a definition of A as any arbitrary abstraction, was “A is A”. This very obvious proposition was quite necessary because, without it, the definitions would not hold a one-to-one correspondence with the items they defined. After the axioms would follow the premises, each of which was required to follow from its predecesor. The proof ended with its conclusion, which was, in effect, the last premise.
Ayn Rand, of course, was so fetishly fond of “A is A”, appropriating it for her famous Objectivism philosophy, that these days, it is practically identified with her, although she was most certainly not its inventor by any means. She did, however, contribute one thing new in her (vain) attempt to validate what she considered to be objective reality. Her first axiom, even before “A is A” was “Existence exists”. Her disciples thought it was wonderful; I thought it was banal.
But there you go. Anyway, thanks for the updates on the modern terminology and its usage.
Arnold:
If there is a supernatural god who exists outside you, I can’t offer any advice on how to find him. But the God I found was within me. According to Him, He is within you, too. Search there.
I agree with AHunter3 that you must begin by defining “God.” Further, you’re going to need at least a broad definition of “exist.” You haven’t a prayer (moan) of proving the existence of God unless you can set some working definitions.
For example, if existence is subjective (perceived within each individual’s mind), then one can argue that a god exists for as long as people continue to believe in it, because reality is essentially a collective mental construct and god is part of that construct. Every god since prehistory becomes equally real and valid (or equally unreal and meaningless, depending upon your perspective) as long as it “exists” in popular consciousness.
If God is defined as a corporeal or integrated being – a self-aware personality, rather than a prime mover or underlying force of nature – then its existence is harder to prove, because the parameters are more narrow. It is comparatively easy to argue for a guiding force in evolution, for example, compared to an anthropic god.
Ultimately the existence of God is a matter of Faith, and not amenable to logical proof or disproof. I think the “pro-God” side is at a disadvantage in this debate simply because the defining tool is logic.
Welcome, Ironrod. Good stuff.
Sadly, I have problems with all the above.
As I understand it, the Catholic church only elect a Saint after they’ve done 2 ‘miracles’. The Saint has to be dead. I’ve never heard of any serious scientific investigation of these ‘miracles’, so I assume it’s just that some believer reports something that happened decades ago, without supplying any evidence. (That leads to the question as to what the panel are ‘expert’ in …)
Please state the last time that God ‘intervened’. Remember we only want ONE instance …
Yes, educated people do go to church. They go to lots of different faiths (with contradictory beliefs) and different sects within the same religion. There is no agreement on a definition of God.
Depressingly, lots of people read horoscopes and pay money to fortune-tellers. This shows people are gullible, not that astrology (or God) exists.