Why should we agree to that "at least" definition? Or rather, this equivocation?
If I tell you that God doesn't exist, and I do that because it pains me to see others live their life in bondage to a falsehood, and I want to free them from it... I am speaking "truth in love", right? A "truth in love" that negates the existence of God, right? While at the same time confirming your definition of God.
How can this be?
I'd say: because "God" is not "at least truth in love". This is just something that you a) want it to be and b) think you can demonstrate.
But just by using the term "God" instead of simply "truth in love" (or whatever else you want to define God as), you are adding several millennia of theological and philiosophical discussion onto this "at least" definition... and I have that nagging feeling that you would just start to add them into the discussion as soon as someone accepted your definition.
Sorry, but it just doesn't work this way.
great thoughts! Putting myself in the atheists shoes for a moment—it may be that what we think of as God is really just the highest intellectual/emotional state we humans are capable of now and throughout all history.
Upvote
0