Can God love?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Well I believe I have been given knowledge of God in a properly basic manner. I've explained this before and people differing about properly basic knowledge doesn't mean it cannot exist.

Please explain what information you have been given about god in a properly basic manner. Also, can you prove it?

I also believe I can witness my soul existing, and that it's not simply an assembly of material things giving me existence, but that I'm immaterial and of a unified substance. The existence of a soul lends itself obviously to believe in a supernatural creator.

Please explain to me how you can witness your soul existing. Can you prove it?

I also believe morality points to being eternally based, without that quality, it would be arbitrary and a delusion, which we know it's not, by our very knowledge of it, and also it points towards ultimate authority to the highest possible degree which to me can only be God, because he is the Ultimate Highest possible degree. I also believe greatness and honour must be eternally based.

It is nonsense to believe that morality is god given. If god was disproven tomorrow, then what would you say. Morality is the sum of human existence and interaction.

I also believe infinite regress is proven false, which means a first cause, which I don't believe something material can give rise to time and the laws that come with time. While this notion doesn't prove God, it does lend strongly to the idea, when looking at creation, our morality, fruits, friendship, emotions, love, etc, that Moral Creator exists, which lends the idea there is a strong possibility we would have been given some sort of knowledge of him. This supports the notion (although not conclusively) that I do have properly basic knowledge of God.

There are strong arguments against first cause whether you think infinite regress is false or not. The problem with first cause is always going to be that "something" needs to cause the first cause, but what caused that "something"? Oh well that "something" must be eternal people say (a pure guess, and nothing like an explanation). The obvious counter argument is that if "something" was eternal that caused the universe, why couldn't the universe just be eternal itself, therefore no first cause, no need for god.

Then you have the latest thinking of Hawking and Krauss, who note that the energy in the universe has an equal amount of negative energy, therefore the sum total of the energy in the universe is 0. Nothing. The universe is nothing. If there was literally nothing before the big bang, it doesn't matter because it still is nothing now. No need for god.

Some more reasons is that I don't believe everything that exists could have came out of natural means. Of these things is consciousness. I don't think conciousness could have emerged from non-consciousness.

You might not think it but it doesn't make you right. Surely consciousness is the product of your brain interpreting it's senses? I don't know I could be wrong.

As soon as creatures had senses I don't think there is any way natural selection and mutations lead towards that. It's not heading towards that direction by any means. There has to be a step between consciousness and non-consciousness, but I don't believe evolution can produce that.

If I can believe that my DNA in my cells due to evolution can build me to the blueprint of "me" without completely fucking up and making me a satsuma with an improbable green ear because they misread the plans, I can also believe that evolution can produce consciousness.

Really what you are saying is you find it hard to believe that such complex things can evolve without a creator.

What we and everything else are on this planet is due to gazillions of interactions of gazillions of things over a ridiculous length of time all doing individual things that furthered their survival, having a knock on effect. I find it harder to believe that ONE being did all that. And that's just on this blue speck in a huge universe.