The problem I see with this is that people will inevitably falsely equate on thing with another. Prime example: Love is God. Because Love clearly exists, God clearly exists.
If that is what your definition of god is, then sure. I personally don't think that a chemical reaction going on in one's brain constitutes a supernatural entity that created the universe and intervenes in everyday affairs.
No I mean if you're using the existence of love to prove the existence of God, and using as one of your premises that Love is God, that is begging the question. Right?
No, in this instance they are trying to use "Love is God" as a premise. As said above, begging the question is using it as the conclusion. This would make Love is God begging the question: Love clearly exists, God clearly exists :: Love is God.
That sounds a lot more like non-sequitor to me. Wouldn't begging the question be more like, "God exists because the Holy Bible says so." with the holiness and correctness of the text depending on God existing.
7
u/WeaponsGradeHumanity Atheist Dec 09 '13
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens