God is a being-by-itself, i.e. God [theoretically and theologically] has to to be totally unconditioned by anything else except exist by-itself.
But Being-by-itself is an impossibility.
Being-by-itself is a soul-by-itself or God-by-itself which are impossibility.
There is no way [try as you may] of proving the existence of the above without involving being-by-ourselves.
That we are here is ‘being-by-ourselves’ which is a reality and possibility.
We can easily prove the existence of ourselves and others via empirical experiences and evidences.
Why we insist on the impossible is real is due to an existential crisis and impulse that compel theists to reify an impossible God out of nothing for psychological comfort. What is real is the psychological activities and effects.
When you assign LOVE and JUSTICE to a God you are making it anthropomorphic as love and justice are human values and nothing else.
Because the absolutely absolutes of anything [so LOVE and JUSTICE] are impossibility.
Re your
P1) A is B & A is C
P2) B=/=C
C ) A cannot exist.
Above model can be interpreted as;
P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal
P2 Diamond is not charcoal
C3 C cannot exist
The above is not sound since Carbon-C exists.
The problem is the equivocation of senses, i.e.
P1 Carbon-C is diamond, C is charcoal -Atomic sense
P2 Diamond is not charcoal - common sense
C3 C cannot exist
Thus your model above is logically correct but
when you impute Love and Justice into the syllogism, it does not work.
In a God’s sense, Love is the same as Justice in reconcilable terms of the mind of God.
Thus your sylllogism should be;
P1 God is Love, God is Justice - Divine sense
P2 Love = Justice -Divine sense
C3 Cannot conclude - non-sequitor.
We can arrive at a conclusion if;
P1 God is Love, Divine sense
P2 Love exists -Divine sense
C3 God exists - Divine sense.
While the syllogism is logical, it is not sound in reality.
How can you prove divine love exists?
How can you prove God is love when there is so much evil is God is assumed to exist?
Even if you can do so, your conclusion is confined to the divine sense but never in the real sense.
My point is;
God is an impossibility to be real. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
Therefore question of God being real is moot and a non-starter.
Thus no one can raise the question whether God is real or not.
The only sound reason for a consideration of God is only related to a person’s psychology to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Carbon-C is an element whereas diamond and charcoal are not.
You are comparing apple with orange here when you change your perspective from atomic sense to common sense.
It is not non-sequitor.
This is problematic either since God cannot be different from Love and same to Love at the same time. When you say that God is Love you mean that Love is something that is God yet Love is not similar to God otherwise the premise becomes God is God which carry no information.
Love and Justice can only be anthropomorphic elements.
You don’t seem to get it.
If you look a both diamond and charcoal through an electron microscope they are comprised on the same material, i.e. carbon atoms.
If you look at ice and steam, they are not the same in one perspective, but looking at both via an electron microscope they are the same H20 molecules.
Nope. You use the wrong analogy.
I am not comparing “diamond” with “ice”, which would be like apple with orange.
I am comparing things of with the same atoms but appearing differently within common sense.
This is like comparing two apples of different color or shape but they both have the same apple molecules.
How can you follow and jump to your premises to ‘God does not exists’?
First the syllogism is logically correct BUT
I am not stating the premises are true and the whole argument is sound.
However,
the proposition ‘God is Love’ is a very common claim by Christians quoting Paul and elsewhere in the Bible. Such a claim imply God is Love and whatever else at the same time.
Thus from the theists POV, God is Love is an acceptable premise.
Personally I would not agree with it.
If you do not agree with it, then you have to present;
No. Love and Justice are not same as love and justice. They are something which to best of my knowledge no theologian have ever explained what they are.
I completely got it. You need to replace Carbon-C by graphene to see what I mean.
No, you change the scheme in which you look at things.
That is the result of contradiction in two premises.
I have problem with God is Love in the first premise. I notice that later. To me it is inconsistent if Love is different from God and carry no information if Love is God.
That is the point.
When your two premises has a contradiction, then your syllogism is wrong, thus
you cannot proceed to have a conclusion, i.e. non-sequitor.
Another point is;
Re your premise;
P1 God is Love, God is Justice
Your above premise1 is flawed and false.
You seem to have jumped to the conclusion “P1 God is Love, God is Justice” without proof that God exists. ‘God exists’ is heavily disputed. You admitted you do not agree ‘God is Love.’
If your P1 is unproven and false, how can you proceed with your argument.
You cannot start an argument with a false premise.
Note;
All men [humans] are mortal - empirical- undisputable inductive fact
Socrates is a man - empirical historical fact
Socrates is mortal - empirical conclusion
As you can see the above syllogism is based on premises that are undisputable and established empirical facts.
That is not a standard syllogism yet still valid. It is about two statements which both are assumed to be true. Two statement however leads to a contradiction. So you either have to drop one of the statement or conclude that such a entity cannot exist.