Can God love?

[Mystic]

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.

Well two me, two things seem obvious about God. 1) That his greatness is such that there can be nothing more to make him greater 2) That he is the living reality by which all other things exist.

As for the 1, you can deduce a lot from that. For example, if he was not loving, then he would be less great.

As for 2, to me it seems obvious that the essence of reality cannot be lifeless essence, but the true reality is something that is ultimate existence, not minimum existence. To me at least, it seems "time" cannot be generated reality without a Creator and Super reality. It also seems obvious that it is generated and this universe isn't just magically in motion, without a creator.

When I think of what this super reality must be, it seems to me like I know what it must be. It must be ultimately powerful, ultimately good, ultimately loving, ultimately compassionate, etc..

To me this knowledge doesn't seem far fetch , if this is a description of true existence.

What I mean by true existence, is what exists by virtue of itself. It seems to me, such a thing must be immensely great, as oppose to significantly nothing in the Atheist perspective.

It seems to me I've been given this knowledge much like I know other things in a properly basic way.

So that God is the True reality by which everything depends on, and that he is Ultimately Great are the properly basic knowledge to me, that seems obvious to me at least.

As for proving it, I think the nature of morality and honour and greatness points towards God...and once you acknowledge him existing, then us having properly basic knowledge of his existence is not far off and seems rather intuitive to believe that would be the case.

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

Simply I can and I think everyone can, see that they are exactly that, if they reflect over the vision they constantly have over themselves. I can't prove it by a rational argument, you just have to look and reflect.

It is nonsense to believe that morality is god given. If god was disproven tomorrow, then what would you say.

I would say morality is a delusion then.

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"?

This actually a weak argument.

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.

As I said, I believe infinite regress is proven illogical, as well as a universe at zero time creating time and laws that come with time to be illogical.

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.

Sophistry nonsense.

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.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

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.

If evolution can produce something, it doesn't mean it can produce everything. I think this a fallacy many people are in.

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

It doesn't have to do with complexity, but by the nature of the thing.