I have not come across this "loving God" concept. Where did you get this?
Now that you ask all I can say is I can not recall however I do think the concept arises from the New Testament.
You certainly could question if such a God exists.
"From Greeks to present day philosophers there has never been any dispute that the GOD was all powerful and creator of this universe,
With respect I say that you can not know if there was never any dispute such as you claim.
Given the various accounts of the slayings of non believers I expect there will be few records of any dispute other than accounts of how whole cities were put to the sword because they were "different".
I reject the proposition that somehow God has always been a given.
Certainly a study of history will show that disputes regarding which God was the right God must suggest there was no concensus as to God.
Which one would you chose, Maimonides? Descartes? Kant?
Why dont we choose them all...they all share the mistake of speculating upon a invented concept with no proof of the concept in place before they assume what they discuss has any foundation in fact and reality.
Firstly the existence of God does not depend on a popular vote between humans who all proceed upon an un proved and superstitious assumption.
I am surprised you could take their words at face value and without question.
Just because folk talk about something as being real that does not then make the object of their discussion in any way real or that it magically becomes real.
Now a similar situation even exists in our sciences where a placeholder may be used to deal with a matter that has not been resolved but something is needed until more is understood and a satisfactory model is presented.
And yet many, those who claim scientific rigor but to a large degree ignore same, who will talk of the placeholder as being real and beyond question.
A fine example of this would be the discussion surrounding say dark matter.
The term is an indication that we really dont know all that much and to a large degree all we have is speculation about this as yet undetermined matter...and yet it is spoken of as real and as the conversations grow so does the existence of dark matter it would seem...and this is a matter that arises from careful science.
The condition of growing a story from imagination to reality clearly exists even today.
All I point to is the quality of humans to believe something if it is repeated often enough and in the case of a God of creation the story has been repeated for thoudands of years... but when we look there never was any thing more than an idea that grew from imagination and that idea only owes its misplaced credibility to that imaginative story being repeated and discussed as if true...All made the mistake of not seeking reasonable proof at the start before engaging in analysis of an object produced from mere imagination.
God and Gods are a product of imagination with absolutely no support in reality.
Discussion will never make it real..observation of God would be a sensible place to start...but humans got the idea and rather than to seek proof ran away speculating on something not shown to even exist.
And you can see how even the greatest minds can focus on a placeholder as real and quickly forget that the discussion moved from probable existence to a certain reality with little proof (dark matter owes its existence to man made equations which may not apply and we find dark matter an un necessary cteation) but fail to see just how much the matter proceeded upon much discussion and speculation.
I presented the place holder dark matter for your consideration it at least has observation to suggest it may be real...for God there is no observation...none.
We still know nothing about this hypothetical substance we called dark matter yet it has become real and beyond dispute but do we have any to examine in the lab?
And now its seems to have become real and beyond dispute for many...does the many discussions and even papers make it real?
So if this condition, of discussion and speculation leading to qualification of something now being real, can manifest in science does it not point to a human condition of repeated speculation of assuming a quality beyond where proof would place the concept.
Think of God. We cant do more than speculate for we have no observation...none.
God is discussed and those who devote their lives to religious study input their views but all fail to appreciate the discussion should not have taken place until some reasonable proof had been presented such that discussion could proceed upon what was observed rather that what was imagined.
We can speculate for another thousand years upon the qualities of God but all that additional speculation will not and can not serve us as well as a one time limited observation.
A picture is worth a thousand words they say and I suggest you consider the simple message contained therein...we require real evidence nothing less.
There is no observation of God...not one...all there is we find is discussion on what could be, what may be even what should be ...all of course is meaningless when we still do not have one single observation...not one.
So when you quote this known philosopher said this and that one said that just remember another million philosophers refining their speculation will not and can never be regarded as useful because every thing they present is speculation based on the lively imagination of a human rather than one simple yet powerful observation.
So although your essay is very nice it offers no proof other than that various humans commit the mistake of speculating upon a unsupported notion of a mythical entity existing with no observation or any evidence of any kind what so ever.
Do you offer any real proof or must you simply offer tired speculation upon an unproved God.
Alex
