A possibly new perspective on this thing that we know as God.

[unityconversation]

You didn't answer my question of: What do you mean by "demonstration?"

Well I took your advice and looked on circular reasoning and found this: "circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade."

So it seems that once again it comes down to "proof and evidence."

What exact proof and evidence are you looking for?

Wow! Thank you, actually, for being the very first theist I’ve ever engaged with in 6ish years that actually looked up a fallacy I’ve called them on. I give you sincere credit for that. As far as your question: when you put together some kind of argument, either formal or informal, you need to have some evidence that your premise/premises are true, or likely to be true. That is simply an immutable fact of logic. But, even if you can demonstrate your premise to be true (that only humans possess this list X of attributes) which I don’t think you have or can, the structure of your argument still has to be valid. Yours isn’t. You’re essentially saying these attributes are divine because only humans have them, and your evidence that they’re divine is that only humans have them. In other words, you’re asserting the same thing twice without any evidence. What would count as evidence? Some demonstration of a god, and a demonstration that these human attributes are related, or caused by, or imbued with the nature of this god.

Thanks for the compliment.

See the thing is, you were just denying the concepts, proofs and evidence that I was giving you.

All the stuff you just said I already touched on, so I'm not going to do it again, it's becoming repetitive.

[LadyForCamus]

Wow! Thank you, actually, for being the very first theist I’ve ever engaged with in 6ish years that actually looked up a fallacy I’ve called them on. I give you sincere credit for that. As far as your question: when you put together some kind of argument, either formal or informal, you need to have some evidence that your premise/premises are true, or likely to be true. That is simply an immutable fact of logic. But, even if you can demonstrate your premise to be true (that only humans possess this list X of attributes) which I don’t think you have or can, the structure of your argument still has to be valid. Yours isn’t. You’re essentially saying these attributes are divine because only humans have them, and your evidence that they’re divine is that only humans have them. In other words, you’re asserting the same thing twice without any evidence. What would count as evidence? Some demonstration of a god, and a demonstration that these human attributes are related, or caused by, or imbued with the nature of this god.

See the thing is, you were just denying the concepts, proofs and evidence that I was giving you.

Give me the post number that provides this proof and evidence. 

All the stuff you just said I already touched on, so I'm not going to do it again,  it's becoming repetitive.

Yes, it is getting repetitive; continually asking you for justification for your belief and getting nothing, lol.

---

Ok so I guess this topic has ran it's course.

It's been interesting talking to you all.

Have a good one.

Take your ball and go home then.

[unityconversation]

So I guess this topic ran it's course.

This conversation has been interesting.

Have a good one.

[Belacqua]

So I guess this topic ran it's course.

This conversation has been interesting.

Have a good one.

I'm familiar with some of the ideas you've been discussing here. I've never seen how they were expressed in Bahai, however. So that's interesting to me.

It's normal in Neoplatonism and Christian Neoplatonism to say that God is the Good, and that wherever we see good in the world this is a reflection or embodiment of God. And I've often read that since humans aren't capable of seeing the Good in its totality, that we know of God through his various names. The list of names you gave earlier was longer than what I've seen before, and that was interesting to me.

However in Platonism, embodiments of the Good are not limited to people. That is, the divine shows itself in anything that is good. Dante is at pains to show that the kind of good which appeals to us varies from person to person -- someone might be most attracted to the beauty of music, while another might devote his life to the goodness of justice. But he's clear that both of these attractions are entryways to God. 

Note, though, that beauty (which is also Plato's primary example) is not only human beauty. The beauty of art or music is as much a portion of God as the beauty of a beautiful person. 

So I don't see yet why you're saying the divine is only a characteristic of people, and not of, say, landscapes or starry skies. Or perhaps you limit the divinity of beauty to human creations, ruling out natural products but including human creations like symphonies. This would be something I'm not familiar with. 

Thanks in advance for your explanation!

[unityconversation]

So I guess this topic ran it's course.

This conversation has been interesting.

Have a good one.

I'm familiar with some of the ideas you've been discussing here. I've never seen how they were expressed in Bahai, however. So that's interesting to me.

It's normal in Neoplatonism and Christian Neoplatonism to say that God is the Good, and that wherever we see good in the world this is a reflection or embodiment of God. And I've often read that since humans aren't capable of seeing the Good in its totality, that we know of God through his various names. The list of names you gave earlier was longer than what I've seen before, and that was interesting to me.

However in Platonism, embodiments of the Good are not limited to people. That is, the divine shows itself in anything that is good. Dante is at pains to show that the kind of good which appeals to us varies from person to person -- someone might be most attracted to the beauty of music, while another might devote his life to the goodness of justice. But he's clear that both of these attractions are entryways to God. 

Note, though, that beauty (which is also Plato's primary example) is not only human beauty. The beauty of art or music is as much a portion of God as the beauty of a beautiful person. 

So I don't see yet why you're saying the divine is only a characteristic of people, and not of, say, landscapes or starry skies. Or perhaps you limit the divinity of beauty to human creations, ruling out natural products but including human creations like symphonies. This would be something I'm not familiar with. 

Thanks in advance for your explanation!

Baha'u'llah says:

"From that which hath been said it becometh evident that all things, in their inmost reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them. Each according to its capacity, indicateth, and is expressive of, the knowledge of God. So potent and universal is this revelation, that it hath encompassed all things, visible and invisible. Thus hath He revealed: “Hath aught else save Thee a power of revelation which is not possessed by Thee, that it could have manifested Thee? Blind is the eye which doth not perceive Thee.” Likewise, hath the eternal King spoken: “No thing have I perceived, except that I perceived God within it, God before it, or God after it.” Also in the tradition of Kumayl it is written: “Behold, a light hath shone forth out of the Morn of eternity, and lo! its waves have penetrated the inmost reality of all men.” Man, the noblest and most perfect of all created things, excelleth them all in the intensity of this revelation, and is a fuller expression of its glory."


Baha'u'llah says:

"The traditions and sayings that bear direct reference to Our theme are divers and manifold; We have refrained from quoting them for the sake of brevity. Nay, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that most great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him. Even as He hath said: “Man is My mystery, and I am his mystery.” Manifold are the verses that have been repeatedly revealed in all the heavenly Books and the holy Scriptures, expressive of this most subtle and lofty theme. Even as He hath revealed: “We will surely show them Our signs in the world and within themselves.” Again He saith: “And also in your own selves: will ye not then behold the signs of God?” And yet again He revealeth: “And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore caused to forget their own selves.” In this connection, He Who is the eternal King... hath spoken: “He hath known God who hath known himself.”

[EgoDeath]

You said: How do divine teachings prove the existence of god?

It is the combination of the divine teachings and the life of the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations that prove the existence of God.

So how do the divine teachings of the Prophets prove that god exist? Why are they a source we should consider credible? I honestly want you to think about what I'm asking you.

Even though the common human being can display all of the names and attributes of God at the highest level, there is a level beyond that.

What, specifically, do you mean by saying a "human being can display all of the names and attributes of god"... what, specifically, does that mean?

The Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations can manifest the names and attributes of God to the physical world at the highest level "perfectly."

Once again, what does that even mean? I can say:

The Elven Kings can manifest the names and attributes of the Elven Lord to the physical world at the highest level "perfectly." But what does it all mean, Basil?

So the thing is, if you "really" want to know God, the "absolute" best way to do that is to know the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations.

Why should we trust your prophets any more than Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, Buddha... or any other figure that could be considered a messenger of "god" or nirvana?

You said: "How do you know that god "is beyond the physical universe and beyond anything that we know"

We know that through the teachings of Baha'u'llah. He is the current divine educator of God for this time and age.

Who is Baha'u'llah? Why should I listen to him?

Okay, I'm just going to stop here.

The false assumptions you're making are abundant and strange. How do you not see this?

[unityconversation]

You said: How do divine teachings prove the existence of god?

It is the combination of the divine teachings and the life of the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations that prove the existence of God.

So how do the divine teachings of the Prophets prove that god exist? Why are they a source we should consider credible? I honestly want you to think about what I'm asking you.

Even though the common human being can display all of the names and attributes of God at the highest level, there is a level beyond that.

What, specifically, do you mean by saying a "human being can display all of the names and attributes of god"... what, specifically, does that mean?

The Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations can manifest the names and attributes of God to the physical world at the highest level "perfectly."

Once again, what does that even mean? I can say:

The Elven Kings can manifest the names and attributes of the Elven Lord to the physical world at the highest level "perfectly." But what does it all mean, Basil?

So the thing is, if you "really" want to know God, the "absolute" best way to do that is to know the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations.

Why should we trust your prophets any more than Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, Buddha... or any other figure that could be considered a messenger of "god" or nirvana?

You said: "How do you know that god "is beyond the physical universe and beyond anything that we know"

We know that through the teachings of Baha'u'llah. He is the current divine educator of God for this time and age.

Who is Baha'u'llah? Why should I listen to him?

Okay, I'm just going to stop here.

The false assumptions you're making are abundant and strange. How do you not see this?

I think I've said enough.

You can go back on post, most things you said I touched on.

[Belacqua]

Thank you. These quotes answer my question exactly.

These parts in particular:

all things, in their inmost reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them. Each according to its capacity, indicateth, and is expressive of, the knowledge of God. So potent and universal is this revelation, that it hath encompassed all things, visible and invisible.

This makes it clear that everything includes the names of God insofar as they are able. The standard explanation is that everything above pure inert matter contains some goodness, and so embodies God to some degree, and the quote above agrees with that. 

The next part is about people in particular:

a light hath shone forth out of the Morn of eternity, and lo! its waves have penetrated the inmost reality of all men.” Man, the noblest and most perfect of all created things, excelleth them all in the intensity of this revelation, and is a fuller expression of its glory."

So whereas every snail and flower and grain of sand contains some expression of God's glory, people have it to the greatest degree. 

The next part summarizes this:

whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that most great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man [...]
For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed.

While everything that exists has within it the attributes and names of God, people do so to a "supreme degree." 

So this is entirely in line with Neoplatonic Christianity. I don't know about other parts of the Bahai religion, and how they differ from the standard Neoplatonic view.

Of course there are differences of opinion on the subject, even among Neoplatonic Christians. Some thought that -- according to the principle of the Great Chain of Being -- there must be a complete gradation of greatness between inert matter and God. This would mean that from unformed matter to people there is a clear hierarchy of forms, with people at the top. But they also thought that the gap is so big between people and God that there must be many more forms in that gap, too. With the result that they speculated about aliens on other planets, or higher beings unknown to us, who lie in the hierarchy between us and God. This was generally not church teaching, but was widely discussed. 

Erasmus Darwin looked at the new archeological discoveries of his day and analyzed them according to the Neoplatonic hierarchy, which allowed him to posit that species changed and evolved. He got right up to the brink of the theory of evolution, leaving the last piece of the puzzle -- natural selection -- for his grandson Charles to figure out. 

The cool thing to me is that one of the criteria they used to rank the hierarchy is the capacity for enjoyment. Each creature in the chain can enjoy itself to the extent that its nature allows, but the higher you go on the chain the more things the creature is able to enjoy. So a snail can operate at 100% of snail-enjoyment-capacity, but people's capacity for enjoying different things is greater. We can enjoy books and music that a snail would be indifferent to. And since, according to this system, experiencing God equals the greatest possible enjoyment, people are said to be closer to God than snails are. 

It's a fascination subject. Thank you for the quotes.

[unityconversation]

Thank you. These quotes answer my question exactly.

These parts in particular:

all things, in their inmost reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them. Each according to its capacity, indicateth, and is expressive of, the knowledge of God. So potent and universal is this revelation, that it hath encompassed all things, visible and invisible.

This makes it clear that everything includes the names of God insofar as they are able. The standard explanation is that everything above pure inert matter contains some goodness, and so embodies God to some degree, and the quote above agrees with that. 

The next part is about people in particular:

a light hath shone forth out of the Morn of eternity, and lo! its waves have penetrated the inmost reality of all men.” Man, the noblest and most perfect of all created things, excelleth them all in the intensity of this revelation, and is a fuller expression of its glory."

So whereas every snail and flower and grain of sand contains some expression of God's glory, people have it to the greatest degree. 

The next part summarizes this:

whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that most great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man [...]
For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed.

While everything that exists has within it the attributes and names of God, people do so to a "supreme degree." 

So this is entirely in line with Neoplatonic Christianity. I don't know about other parts of the Bahai religion, and how they differ from the standard Neoplatonic view.

Of course there are differences of opinion on the subject, even among Neoplatonic Christians. Some thought that -- according to the principle of the Great Chain of Being -- there must be a complete gradation of greatness between inert matter and God. This would mean that from unformed matter to people there is a clear hierarchy of forms, with people at the top. But they also thought that the gap is so big between people and God that there must be many more forms in that gap, too. With the result that they speculated about aliens on other planets, or higher beings unknown to us, who lie in the hierarchy between us and God. This was generally not church teaching, but was widely discussed. 

Erasmus Darwin looked at the new archeological discoveries of his day and analyzed them according to the Neoplatonic hierarchy, which allowed him to posit that species changed and evolved. He got right up to the brink of the theory of evolution, leaving the last piece of the puzzle -- natural selection -- for his grandson Charles to figure out. 

The cool thing to me is that one of the criteria they used to rank the hierarchy is the capacity for enjoyment. Each creature in the chain can enjoy itself to the extent that its nature allows, but the higher you go on the chain the more things the creature is able to enjoy. So a snail can operate at 100% of snail-enjoyment-capacity, but people's capacity for enjoying different things is greater. We can enjoy books and music that a snail would be indifferent to. And since, according to this system, experiencing God equals the greatest possible enjoyment, people are said to be closer to God than snails are. 

It's a fascination subject. Thank you for the quotes.

Your welcome.

[Fake Messiah]

The cool thing to me is that one of the criteria they used to rank the hierarchy is the capacity for enjoyment. Each creature in the chain can enjoy itself to the extent that its nature allows, but the higher you go on the chain the more things the creature is able to enjoy. So a snail can operate at 100% of snail-enjoyment-capacity, but people's capacity for enjoying different things is greater. We can enjoy books and music that a snail would be indifferent to. And since, according to this system, experiencing God equals the greatest possible enjoyment, people are said to be closer to God than snails are. 

It's a fascination subject. Thank you for the quotes.

Again, that is very simple minded, you are not the one who can say if snail is enjoying life lesser than you do. Especially since snails can pick up and feel things that you can't.



Not to mention that people have been worshipping animals as Gods since the early days. Some cultures even preserved it, like native Americans.