Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[Purple Rabbit]

Hope you have recovered from the strep tackattack.

Let's pick up the pieces of this discussion

I thought this was clear PR. Have you ever heard the phrase "I love my new lawnmower" or "I love that new show on HBO" Does that mean the objects reciprocate our love similarly, not they have no consciousness thus no emotion. Ever heard someone "Love their dog/cat". Are their emotional centers as developed as ours? No so we can be fairly certain that they don't love us the same way we love them, but we can see aspects of that love in their loyalty and affection, etc. Last example, ever loved an infant. Their cognitive processes and emotional development aren't the same at all as an adults. They obviously don't love us back the same, they're more interested in survival. I know of very few parents who wouldn't throw themselves in front of a moving vehicle to save their child or perhaps even someone else's.

All these are examples of human emotion, i.e. emotions humans have towards the things and persons that surround them. I leave it to you whether these emotions all can and should be classified under the category of love. Anyway in all these posts on this topic I've stated over and over again that this human emotion does not require a third party to enable the emotion or a second party to acknowledge the emotion..

If an aspect of God is consciousness and the ability to express that consciousness, perhaps his emotional center is far more developed than ours is ATM. I'm not saying God loves.. as an action. I'm saying God is love as a noun.Yes I feel it is possible to love something and it not love you back and vice versa. Yes I believe you can understand logically the concept of something you can't yet attain. Christians use God as an absolute concept for holiness, everything good and pure that we strive towards. Everything humans witness must be labeled from a category of human experience or abstract concept, because that is the nature of observation. We separate God concept from the human concept by observing, then identifying with abstract concepts, the most absolute version of observed attributes separated from human fallibility.

So what you are saying boils down to the observation, which I happen to agree on, that god is no active party in the human emotion of love. And you argue that all activities in that category can be denoted by the noun "love". You've failed however to argue that we need yet another noun "god" to be able to better understand the particular phenomenon of human emotion. And you've also failed to clarify how this association defines the newly introduced concept of god. In fact what you have shown here more than anything is how the god concept abuses a concept from reality (love) to force a superfluous meaning of god into existence. It is a clear case of semantic fraudulence to me.