Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Dicky Underpants]

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?

What verifiable method of any love have we?

Givers and recipients of love have to exist for starters. From then on I should say that it's a matter of observing behaviour consistent with how we define love and what we regard loving behaviour to be.

Complicated by the observation (pace C.S. Lewis) that, in NT terms, there are four types of 'love' to choose from: storge, philia, eros, and agape.

[jeremyp]

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?

What verifiable method of any love have we?

No idea, but I'm not the one using God's love as a basis for evidence of a supernatural claim.

If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?

What verifiable method of any love have we?

Givers and recipients of love have to exist for starters. From then on I should say that it's a matter of observing behaviour consistent with how we define love and what we regard loving behaviour to be.

Yes that's true, next we have to demonstrate that there can only be material givers and receivers of love.

If you are a materialist of the Shaker variety you then get your 'Loveometer'' labelled with the correct SI units.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic.  The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true.  For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.

You might be, but I would suggest that deductive logic is based on an acceptance at some level of philospohpical naturalism. So for example Vlad wants to privilege his experince but if there are contradictory experiences, these are some how allowed in Vlad's world as not necessarotly being tur or false. Someone could either have an expereince of no god or some god with contradictory elements and, yet they are all somehow in Vlad's view true. Since this seems to me to against deductive logic,  he cannot have that either.

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?

What verifiable method of any love have we?

No idea, but I'm not the one using God's love as a basis for evidence of a supernatural claim.

If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.

That's something we can only really establish for ourselves I would have thought.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic.  The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true.  For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.

You might be, but I would suggest that deductive logic is based on an acceptance at some level of philospohpical naturalism. So for example Vlad wants to privilege his experince but if there are contradictory experiences, these are some how allowed in Vlad's world as not necessarotly being tur or false. Someone could either have an expereince of no god or some god with contradictory elements and, yet they are all somehow in Vlad's view true. Since this seems to me to against deductive logic,  he cannot have that either.

If philosophical naturalism demands cause and effect then what is the problem with God causing something since cause and effect is still definitionally maintained.

[Outrider]

Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic.  The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true.  For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.

You might be, but I would suggest that deductive logic is based on an acceptance at some level of philospohpical naturalism. So for example Vlad wants to privilege his experince but if there are contradictory experiences, these are some how allowed in Vlad's world as not necessarotly being tur or false. Someone could either have an expereince of no god or some god with contradictory elements and, yet they are all somehow in Vlad's view true. Since this seems to me to against deductive logic,  he cannot have that either.

If philosophical naturalism demands cause and effect then what is the problem with God causing something since cause and effect is still definitionally maintained.

Just as soon as you explain which cause your god is an effect of, of course...

O.

[Nearly Sane]

If philosophical naturalism demands cause and effect then what is the problem with God causing something since cause and effect is still definitionally maintained.

Because that's just naturalism we don't understand, and by its 'nature' this stops free will.

[jeremyp]

If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.

That's something we can only really establish for ourselves I would have thought.

Can I remind you that you introduced this line of argument to show that your claim that God is good is true.  It seems you re telling me that your own argument is a failure.

[Nearly Sane]

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.

That's something we can only really establish for ourselves I would have thought.

Can I remind you that you introduced this line of argument to show that your claim that God is good is true.  It seems you re telling me that your own argument is a failure.

So god is evil then....show your working out.

[jeremyp]

So god is evil then....show your working out.

Why?  I'm not arguing one way or another whether God is good or evil.  I don't think there is a god.  This little sub thread is about you showing us that various claims you have made about the supernatural are true.

[floo]

If the deity in the Bible is a 'god of love', its idea of love is what many would term hate.

[Dicky Underpants]

If you want to claim that God's goodness is established by his love, you have to establish his love, otherwise the claim that God is good fails.

That's something we can only really establish for ourselves I would have thought.

Can I remind you that you introduced this line of argument to show that your claim that God is good is true.  It seems you re telling me that your own argument is a failure.

So god is evil then....show your working out.

The whole saga of evolution as a 'divine experiment' that has continually gone wrong - with mass extinction following mass extinction of life. The increase in apparent 'complexification' only resulting in increased capacity for perceived suffering. And we humans, chasing after transitory pleasures and some believing in phantom deities who have our best interests at heart... Maybe 'God' is still experimenting, and looking on with all the compassion of a demented scientist, just nudging genes and environmental scenarios only for the 'fun' of seeing what happens?

(And no, I don't think the above scenario is true, since I do not believe in any god - but it seems as plausible as the 'good God' scenario, if you insist on dragging the supernatural into the matter.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.

That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.

[Dicky Underpants]

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.

That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.

You must listen to those who once thought they had 'experience' and then at later times (often at critical points in their lives) when they had 'non-experience'. Of course we must privilege non-experience, if by 'privilege' you mean take serious account of such things.

[Shaker]

Yes that's true, next we have to demonstrate that there can only be material givers and receivers of love.

Not really. That there are material givers and receivers of love is a given; as is always the case, if you want to posit anything over and above that, the burden of proof is yours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes that's true, next we have to demonstrate that there can only be material givers and receivers of love.

Not really. That there are material givers and receivers of love is a given; as is always the case, if you want to posit anything over and above that, the burden of proof is yours.

Prove love is being given. SI units please.

[Shaker]

Prove love is being given. SI units please.

You misunderstand. In the earlier scenario we were discussing, the existence of material givers and recipients of love - flesh and blood creatures, human or non-human - is the given. If you want to posit that something non-material can give or receive love, the floor is yours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.

That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.

You must listen to those who once thought they had 'experience' and then at later times (often at critical points in their lives) when they had 'non-experience'. Of course we must privilege non-experience, if by 'privilege' you mean take serious account of such things.

Why privilege non experience though, or are you specially pleading....Privilege Religious non experience or non religious experience?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prove love is being given. SI units please.

You misunderstand. In the earlier scenario we were discussing, the existence of material givers and recipients of love - flesh and blood creatures, human or non-human - is the given. If you want to posit that something non-material can give or receive love, the floor is yours.

Non material or non existent?

[Dicky Underpants]

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.

That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.

You must listen to those who once thought they had 'experience' and then at later times (often at critical points in their lives) when they had 'non-experience'. Of course we must privilege non-experience, if by 'privilege' you mean take serious account of such things.

Why privilege non experience though, or are you specially pleading....Privilege Religious non experience or non religious experience?

I say: examine them both and subject them to phenomenological analysis. Then, you pays your money and... I've made my decision, and it would take something pretty earth-shattering to change my view now. "I've looked at life from both sides now..."

[Shaker]

Prove love is being given. SI units please.

You misunderstand. In the earlier scenario we were discussing, the existence of material givers and recipients of love - flesh and blood creatures, human or non-human - is the given. If you want to posit that something non-material can give or receive love, the floor is yours.

Non material or non existent?

The former tends to look very much like the latter, and can certainly be treated as such 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.

That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.

You must listen to those who once thought they had 'experience' and then at later times (often at critical points in their lives) when they had 'non-experience'. Of course we must privilege non-experience, if by 'privilege' you mean take serious account of such things.

Why privilege non experience though, or are you specially pleading....Privilege Religious non experience or non religious experience?

I say: examine them both and subject them to phenomenological analysis. Then, you pays your money and... I've made my decision, and it would take something pretty earth-shattering to change my view now. "I've looked at life from both sides now..."

Sorry Pants I think we'd have to sort out such an analysis from philosophical naturalism and I am still puzzled by a focus on those who lose there faith as you seem to be saying they are somehow superior witnesses rather than Gumball machine theorists to put things bluntly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prove love is being given. SI units please.

You misunderstand. In the earlier scenario we were discussing, the existence of material givers and recipients of love - flesh and blood creatures, human or non-human - is the given. If you want to posit that something non-material can give or receive love, the floor is yours.

Non material or non existent?

The former tends to look very much like the latter, and can certainly be treated as such 

Well sorry you had your chance to be philosophically even handed but your antitheistic optical swivelity prevented it.