God is Love
Posted 05-19-2012 at 04:19 AM by Rj7237
What is love? Is it merely chemical reactions of the brain to a certain object in which creates a longing for more of that object,and we give the name love? Is the complex nature of God able to be reduced to this love? If we are to do this we must say whether or not God must have other qualifies.If God must have any other quality one than cannot reduce God to love. In the qualites ascribed to it, the first is must having a human image.This can be dismissed, for anything considered greater to humans must not be human,and something which is not human cannot have the image of a human.Next must it be omnipotent? The power of God a property can be said to be incomprehensible or transcendent. In the case of the former the incomprehensible nature of this quality allows it to be stated plausible that God has no power.In the case of the latter, the very nature of something being transcendent makes it incomprehensible,which in turn again allows the claim that God could have no power.
Total Comments 4
Comments
-
Therefore, God not have power. What of its knowledge?Akin to its power its knowledge is considered incomprehensible or transcendent ,and can be likewise questioned. If its knowledge is incomprehensible then it could have no knowledge and if it is transcendent the same claim could be made.Therefore, God need not have knowledge. What of omnibenevolence? Scholars debate the meaning of this quality,so all the ones I am aware of will be questioned.First, being all-loving.This not to say God is the embodiment of love, yet it loves all other things. This love for all things is incomprehensible or transcendent. It can be stated plausible that God loves nothing. Second meaning of omnibenevolence, it is intrinsicaly good, knowing something to be intrinsicaly good is impossible, one can belive or intuitively feel something as intrinsicaly good though not know it.Without knowledge of it could be said that it has no morality.Posted 05-19-2012 at 04:21 AM by Rj7237
-
Third meaning is righteousnes.It can be belived and intuitively felt what righteousness is.However,it cannot be known. It follows that if it can't be known then God could be unrighteousness.Forth possible meaning is holiness.What is to belived to be holy is not known to be so, God could be unholy.The final meaning of omnibenevolence I thought of is perfecton. To know God is perfect is impossible because it would have be known what it means to be without flaw. It could be said that God is imperfect.To summarize so far, God need not be intrinsicaly good,perfect,righteous, holy,and all-loving,or have any power or knowledge. To continue, that God need be omnipresent.This can be refuted when it is realized it is not known what constitutes existence. If perceived existence is an illusion,and it could be, then God could be present no-where.Therefore God need not be omnipresent. The quality that God is eternal.It cannot be known something that always was, is presently,and will be as it always was through time.Posted 05-19-2012 at 04:25 AM by Rj7237
-
God bears direct necessary relationship to Jesus.What is meant by this could be Jesus and God are the same entity or Jesus is God's son. First, no verifiable evidence of Jesus existing.If Jesus can't be proven then there's no relationship.Futher, even if said person could be proven it the knowledge of his relationship with God is impossible to know.Since it's impossible to know it could be said that there was no relationship between the two, therefore God need not have had a relationship with Jesus.All qualites examined to not be needed. Therefore, God can be reduced to love. In conclusion i sumbit that if God is love, and love is a chemical reaction and longing for that object, i say narcotics, sex, parties, and chocolate can be God. If God isn't love than these things are better than it. However, is love something beyond the description I gave? If so what is it? Saying it's transcendent is telling me it's incomprehensible.Posted 05-19-2012 at 04:29 AM by Rj7237
-
Possible criticisms I forsee; this was written with an atheistic/ anti-religious bias aganist Chrisianity/ monotheism/ religion . Don't we all have some bias to a topic? .Also, just because it may come from a biased author towards one view doesn't make it wrong. Also,this writing is better described as agonstic except the ending which did have a stab at reiligion.Second, the writing is flawed because, although you say you cannot know of quality x,and say the opposite of quality x is possible for God to have, then you say that God cannot have it which is a positve claim of knowledge.The problem with this is that's not what I'm saying when I say God need not have quality x. What it is I am saying is that the trait isn't necessary to God,not that God doesn't have them. I suppose that to could be said to a claim of knowledge.Even the greast skeptics will accept some axioms. Why refer to God as an it?The He pronoun would imply God has gender.The writing has ba grammar and mispellings. Tell me, I'll fix them.=^^=Posted 05-19-2012 at 04:30 AM by Rj7237
