Having established the existence of a God who possesses absolute truth and the perfect moral standard, we now use the ontological argument to establish the God of love.
Recall that God is, by definition, the maximally great being. There are belief systems where the word “gods” doesn’t refer to the ultimate maximally great being, but supernatural beings in general. In some sense therefore, one can just consider the “maximally great god” as God. In particular, we have the following observation.
Theorem 1. Any belief system that posits that multiple distinct Gods exists (in the sense of maximally great beings) is false.
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. [Deuteronomy 6:4]
There are various kinds of love. There is parental love, where (conventionally) a father and a mother lead, protect, and care for their children, willing the good of their children. There is romantic love, where a man and a woman experience an intimate and exclusive relationship with each other, where ideally, both parties willing the good of the other.
He: Behold, you are beautiful, my love; behold, you are beautiful; your eyes are doves.
She: Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, truly delightful. Our couch is green; the beams of our house are cedar; our rafters are pine. [Song of Songs 1:15–17]
There’s friendship love too, where though no longer exclusive, refers to the willing the good of one another. Of course, here “good” refers to alignment with God’s perfect moral standard, carried out to the degree of our comprehension of His moral standard.
Axiom 1. At least one person exists.
Proof-in-cheek. Look in the metaphorical matter—who are you…?
Definition 1. We say that the person 
Axiom 2. Love is a positive attribute.
Proof-in-cheek. We consider it an objectively morally good thing to love others and to be loved by them.
Axiom 3. Love that is not selfish is better than love that is selfish.
Proof-in-cheek. Non-selfish love prioritizes the happiness and well-being of the other person without expecting anything in return, fostering deeper intimacy, empathy, and a lasting bond. In contrast, selfish love stems from a desire for personal gain or what another person can provide, which can lead to resentment and an unsustainable relationship once those needs aren’t met.
For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. [2 Timothy 3:2–5]
As a small aside, heartbreak is just as real of an experience. Many of us have experienced the pain of loving others and may be tempted that love is not good. But just like the discussion of evil in the previous post, the pain from broken love points to the longing for a pure and perfect love, therefore still corroborating Axiom 2.
Theorem 2. God possesses perfect love. In particular, this love cannot be selfish.
Proof. By Axiom 2, love is a positive attribute. Therefore, perfect love is a positive attribute. Therefore, God possesses perfect love. By Axiom 3, a non-selfish love is better than a selfish love. Since the love that God possesses is perfect, it must be a non-selfish one. That is, God’s love is not selfish.
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. [1 John 4:10]
However, the definition of love hinges on the word “persons”. Before human beings existed, were there persons? Some might argue that biological living things in general have personhoods. Fair enough; before biological living things in general existed, were there persons? Well, since God existed even before any biological living thing has, and God possesses perfect love, and perfect love consists of at least two persons, this one maximally great being God must exist in at least two persons—a giver of love and a recipient of love.
Theorem 3. If love exists, then the one God of perfect love exists in at least two co-eternal persons.
Proof. Assume the existence of love. Since God is maximally great, God is one being. Furthermore, this God has always existed from the start of creation. By Theorem 1, God possesses perfect love. In particular, this love is not selfish, and involves at least two persons. Since these persons must have existed even at the point that all of physical reality begins to exist, they must be co-eternal. Therefore, this one God must exist in at least two co-eternal persons.
Theorem 4. Any belief system that posits that God exists in less than two co-eternal persons is false.
By Theorem 1, the correct belief system involves only one God. By Theorem 4, this belief system must consider the one God as existing in at least two co-eternal persons. Currently, the only religion that satisfies both theorems is Trinitarian Christianity, since it posits that the one God exists in three co-eternal persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.
If Trinitarian Christianity holds, it is certainly consistent with the attributes of the maximally great being that we have been calling “God” all this while. It’s arguably even one of its central claims—that God is love!
Corollary 1. If at least one currently human-contemplated religion is true, then Trinitarian Christianity is true.
Proof. Theorem 4.
However, it is bold to claim that at least one currently human-contemplated religion is true. It is certainly possible that all currently contemplated religions are false—including Trinitarian Christianity! Sure, it’s arguably our best attempt at making sense of the reality we live in for now, but who’s to say some alien civilisation in the future wouldn’t come to earth to deliver the true reality of God?
This is where we need to start scrutinising Trinitarian Christianity and putting it to the test. Using first principles of inquiry, can we make the case that Trinitarian Christianity is really true?
Our next post will help us lay out some historical and literary principles that we accept in making sense of our world that I’m convinced will eventually point toward Jesus as the rightful King of all creation.
—Joel Kindiak, 27 Sept 25, 2029H
KindiakMath 
Leave a comment