Quote from: noncontingent on January 17, 2019, 12:59:43 pmIf you want them to love you back, they have to know you love them and they are much more likely to know that if they feel it. So all the philosophizing in the world about God's goodness is meaningless to people who don't feel God's goodness. You baffle me, because you state that it is possible to “feel” another’s love for you, but I find no such powers or apprehensions within myself. I can feel love for another, but I have no experience of their love for me. If they love me in return there may be occasional subtle signs, but my role in the relationship is to stoke my own love fires. Love isn’t an exchange. I have no power over the love of the other, nor experience of it. It looks like you are going with the historical notion here that love is a form of exchange. But, what are you doing as you wait for the other to love you? Isn’t that laziness or inattentiveness? Additionally, if one wishes to be loved, one should bends one’s efforts into making oneself worthy of love. Then all rational people will respond with love, and not just in the family. Unfortunately the religions are not of much help here, offering the easy excuse of an inherently sinful nature and failing to present any plan for remaking oneself into a good companion for the other created souls. One has to wonder especially if repeated choruses of “I am a sinner,” would be more pleasing in God’s ears, than, “Let me help.”
If you want them to love you back, they have to know you love them and they are much more likely to know that if they feel it. So all the philosophizing in the world about God's goodness is meaningless to people who don't feel God's goodness.
Say we acknowledge for the sake of argument that a malicious Creator/Designer exists. Seeing as this being is evil, that signifies he does not carry out his moral responsibilities. But then exactly where do those come from? Just how can this evil god receive obligations to execute which he is violating? Who prohibits him to do the immoral things that he does? Without hesitation, we discover that such an evil being simply cannot be supreme: there needs to be a being that is even higher than this evil god which is the source of the moral duties which he prefers to shirk, a being that is unqualified goodness Himself. Hence, if god is evil well then there must necessarily exist a maximally splendid, incomparable God that is all powerful, all good as well as all loving; One who is actually the very paradigm of good. Which means that we don’t shower Him with affection for performing His duty. Really He is to be adored for His moral identity as He is fundamentally loving, just, kind, and so on. It is simply because God is that way that all these traits count as virtues to start with. In effect, God Almighty is good the very same way rain is wet, diamond gemstones are hard, photons tear across space at luminous speeds or cerulean suns blaze. Therefore if we envision God’s goodness in terms of His possessing definite virtues as opposed to fulfilling selected duties, we get an infinitely more exalted and correct notion of God.