Is God-in-love unreasonable?

Is God-in-love unreasonable? Noson Yanofsky defines reason in his recent "The Outer Limits of Reason" as "the set of processes and methodologies that do not lead to contradictions or false facts." An excellent definition, to my way of thinking. God-in-love is a posited framework, not a process, so the better question to ask is "Does living and thinking within it lead to contradictions and false facts? " The most obvious possible false fact is God-in-love, the divine lover. The second is the beloved Other. The third is "the world yet to come." These are three very controversial propositions. But are they a-priori unreasonable--as I present them? They may be false, but it's hard to say how they could be shown so. They are not explanations which can fail to account for the observations. There are no testable predictions which can be shown to be untrue. They are either the case or not. 

However, the next good question to ask is whether the framework has internal contradictions or, more importantly, whether living in it necessitates denying well- established findings of science or human experience. I don't see that it does. For instance, exploration is implicit to God-in-love, and exactly what science does. What scientists discover has to be acknowledged as a legitimate aspect of the world which we encounter. Likewise, friendship has to acknowledge all the dilemmas of justice and disappointment which are part of just being  human. All the knotty issues of boundaries play out in the practice of hospitality. Logical contradictions? Let's explore them. 

God-in-love seems, in this discussion, very slippery and yet it's not a framework that asserts nothing, recommends nothing, risks nothing. As an approach of the meaning of life, it's big test is whether it makes our lives meaningful. Does it work on that level?  Do we find that conceiving our lives as encounters with others and otherness; and practicing hospitality, friendship and exploration; and thinking that, in doing so, we are participating in something cosmic and everlasting which will eventually have concrete expression, do we find this invests our moments and our sense of our lives as a whole with the kind of heft and luster and expectancy that all things meaningful should have? If the answer is no, then God-in-love is at best irrelevant, at worst, a distraction from something better. 

Regarding recent encounters, let me say marriage is a theater of encounter. Preparing for guests is a perfect occasion for richness of encounter. Here I am, in the midst, rolling the risking die: it's 3. Let me find a productive act of exploration (experimenting, querying, repurposing...?) to engage in, some expenditure of energies (something struggling, changing its form, beginning...?) to be sensitive to.