These are interesting questions that aim to figure out the very nature of God, or at least shed some light on it. However, they presume some rather problematic premises. The major premise you presume is that concepts have an ontological existence or nature. I would argue that the concepts are nothing more than abstract and thus do not have nature. Therefore, saying God is perfect love, hate, etc. is just like saying God doesn’t exist.
God exists and is the source of all that is good, including love and joy. Moreover, in him humans find the ultimate fulfillment of our desires for such goodness. In this sense, I think it is permissible to say that God is the perfection of goodness.
We have to make a distinction between things that exist because they have substance, and experiences that happens as a result of the absence of something. For example, we experience darkness because of the absence of light, but darkness has no substance (which is why we say that all the darkness in the universe cannot extinguish the light of a single candle). We experience cold, but only as the absence of heat. Likewise, sin is experienced as the absence of good, or the perversion of that which is initially good. Therefore, God would not be the perfection of hate, selfishness, or any other manifestation of sin, because sin has no existence in and of itself.
God possesses the fullness of being so the perfections of all things is in God in an infinite degree. Whatever perfections are found in created things are in God as their source for he is the creator of created things. All created things participate in some likeness or manifestation of God’s being in a more or less manner. For example, whatever has being or existence participates in God’s existence. Some created things not only exist but have life such as plants, animals, and man. So these things participate in a more or less manner not only in the existence of God but also in having life. Human beings also possess perfections of knowledge and love which they have through their intellects and wills. This is a participation in God’s knowledge and love and free will. The perfections of God, among others, includes being or existence, goodness, knowledge, love, mercy, justice, simplicity, power, etc. These perfections are in God in an infinite degree and are not distinct from one another in God nor distinct from God himself as God is an absolutely simple Being. God is being itself, goodness itself, love itself, justice itself, etc.
Yes you are quite correct.
That is not a great insight. He simply ignore the very fact that evil is real to make things consistent. We experience evil and we know very well that is real. Moreover, God himself declared that he is the one who create evil (Isaiah 45:7).
Now I understand your “religion.”
No you don’t understand my religion because I don’t have any. I don’t have a fixed system of thoughts. I just let it goes.
No, I can experience evil by itself as you can. Consider a serial killer who experience pleasure when s/he kills someone. You cannot possibly explain this sort of experience as lack of good. It is simply different. Moreover one can argue opposite of your argument saying that good is absence of evil. You don’t have any rule to justify which way is the correct. You could claim that God is good and I can claim that God is evil.
Hate and selfishness is not a nature. It is a privation.
Yes, that’s what I meant. You don’t have a single, coherent system.
Well one can define “evil” in many ways.
This seems somewhat vague. I see moral evil here, but not in the pleasure.
Coherent system? How we could possibly have any coherent system if knowledge is infinite? Unless you provide an argument which prove that the knowledge is finite.
The only objective truth is that we are conscious being. The rest is the result of experience so they are all subjective. Hence evil cannot be possibly be defined objectively.
Pleasure is the result of releasing the stress which accumulate over time because of internal force for act of killing. They are exactly similar to us. They just do different things.
One of the basic pillar of the morality is the purpose. They have their own purposes which is hard for us to feel and comprehend since we are simply are not like them. We are simply different.
Bahman your philosophy ultimately ends in solipsism, its true for you. So there seems little if any possibility of objectivity and so no common base from which to discuss anything beyond the banal. Cheers.
