i would offer that the proof is in the pudding. It is not until you sample the pudding, that the true flavors and textures are known. So Spiritual logical tests start with the very ingredients and combination which give it meaning. So can we offer that the premise of Love in this case would be defined in the word and life of the person offering the meaning. If the person offing the definition of Love in word, then also offer it as a reflection of their own person and their life, then Logically they are the definition of that attribute. It is shown to us as a Relative truth.
I'm not seeing where logic comes in.
This "proof" seems entirely subjective, it's like an experience or emotion. These are not proofs.
I see faith is built on the Logical evidence I have mentioned above. Words are what everyone can use and do not distinguish us for any other person who can use the same words. There are the rare few that will reflect exactly what they say in their person and their lives, they become the proof of the Word.
No. Knowledge is built on evidence. Faith is belief without evidence.
Yes I am offering to embrace God is always a choice, but at the same time it is a gift to the extent we are looking for God in Attributes. I have found the more we meditate on what is an attribute, the more we are inspired by people that portray that attribute.
Before discussing embracing god, you first need to establish that God exists. You're proposing an unsupported premise.
Again, what does inspiration have to do with a mathematical formula? Logic has nothing to do with emotion or 'inspiration'.
God can only be known by Attributes, they do not define an unknowable God, but all we can know of God and all the apext of virtues we can aspire to is found in those Attributes.
OK, so can these attributes be measured or tested objectively, like gravity or relativity?
You're imagining these attributes and assigning them to an entity that you acknowledge as unknowable. Before we can even start discussing this subject we need to establish the existence of this thing you call God. We need objective, measurable, falsifiable evidence that scientists all over the world can examine.
Virtues require knowledge with education and practice. Studies show what happens to us if we are left in the animal world without such guidance. There are many case samples of children from the wild. So where do we find the best example of those virtues to teach?
But who's talking about virtues? These virtues are entirely hypothetical, and you're arbitrarily assigning them to a being with no objective evidence of existence.
All the holy books talk of an age where we will consider ourselves as one people on one planet. To achieve this will take more than has been offered to date, faith can guide us, but faith can also hold us back. So how can we achieve this if a new way is not considered? Has there been any person that has offered a life and the way to achieve this? If there has been, then what they offered will become that standard and that standard will be open for critical analysis and the testing of facts
Not all the holy books posit this.
Now you're talking about political organization. What does this have to do with reality? This might be a good idea, but it's not evidence of any objective, physical truth imagined by an invisible man in the sky.
It is an example of how easily man can suppress a knowledge beyond their own capacity without a second consideration. Unfortunately this is the history of all God given Faiths and why humanity is slow to progress in capacity of mind.
I'm asking you first to objectively establish the existence of this God,
then to show evidence of his attributes,
then show how they apply to us.
You're mixing disparate things up: ontology, theology, sociology, ethics, history, &c.
Take things step by step. Establish God. Establish his attributes, Establish the relationship of these to us.
One world, one people, one government is all well and good, but political desirability has nothing to do with ontology or the reality of God.
Those stories are what this OP is about, they have been the guides to better ways. Time has proved what they offered is possible, but only to the extent of our receptivity and capacity to what was offered. An example is that Jesus taught us a way to become One people on one planet, but our nature, nurture and prejudices prevented that capacity from unfolding. Truth is relative.
So this thread is about politics or sociology? Why bring up theology, then?
Discussing politics is fine, but if you're going to base it on theology you'd better first establish the ontological reality of this God, and the validity of all these attributes and political plans of his.
The data set is all the Virtues, luckily we have a test subject, the name of that test subject was Abdul'baha. Pick a virtue and we can test it against our concept of it ans how it was practiced by Abdul'baha. I hope you will appreciate the enormity of what was just offered.
But how do you examine and measure virtues in the lab, and how do we know which virtues are virtues?
Virtue is a human construction; it's an abstraction, not physically real.
Different cultures have different virtues.You seem to be attributing absolute virtues to a particular person. How are we to verify this, when virtue itself is an abstraction?
I'm sur Baha'u'llah was an idealist, and displayed what were considered virtues in his culture. That's all fine, and he had a political theory that might be beneficial for mankind, but lots of writers have posited utopian societies. Most have presented them for consideration on their own merits. Baha'u'llah presents them as an edict from God. This is an extraordinary claim, and it's not evidenced objectively.
[/quote]Thank you for participating, that is the longest answer I have ever attempted.
Regards Tony[/QUOTE]It does seem to be evolving into a book-length discussion.
