A God Problem

[Jos]

No, God cannot be evil, because God is by His nature good.
God's nature cannot change.

But doesn't transcendent mean He can rise above His good nature and if He's all-powerful then surely He can do evil?

 

[Trailblazer]

Fair enough but doesn't Christianity as a whole pose a problem for the Baha'i faith since it teaches that it's the exclusive truth?

Christianity can teach whatever it wants to, but t that does not make it the truth Christianity is not the exclusive truth. All revealed religions are the truth, but each one is only pertinent to the age in which it was revealed. The religion for this age is the Baha'i Faith, not Christianity.

And can't Christians just say that they agree on the fundamentals of the faith and that's what matters as a response to the idea that "the Holy Spirit teaches Christians contradictory things"?

They can say that if they want to be illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't many religions pride themselves on being unreasonable and God being mysterious and unknowable and beyond reason therefore one needs to humble oneself and have faith in order to see God since reason and rationality won't get you far or anywhere at all? Isn't religion about the suspension of our rational faculties?

But God is all powerful so why couldn't He create us so that we could have a direct relationship with Him like how I assume angels have a direct relationship with Him?

Why does He want worship so badly even if it benefits us? Isn't it a bit egocentric to want worship all the time?

You have lots of good questions. I will catch you later. I have to go to work now.

 

[Jos]

Christianity can teach whatever it wants to, but t that does not make it the truth Christianity is not the exclusive truth. All revealed religions are the truth, but each one is only pertinent to the age in which it was revealed. The religion for this age is the Baha'i Faith, not Christianity.

But I don't know how to tell the difference since both Christianity and the Baha'i faith make claims that don't seem to be verifiable. How can I tell which one is true?

They can say that if they want to be illogical.

Yeah I would tend to agree with this but don't Bahai's disagree and say the same thing among themselves?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps. What are those?

You mentioned one earlier: judging the correctness of a belief by the number of people who hold it. While popular beliefs aren't necessarily false, deciding that a belief must be correct just because it's popular is not a reliable pathway to truth.

Glad I asked... Okay, that sounds like reasonable criteria.

And like I said, I've never found a religion that could clear that low bar.

Not necessarily, because more than one way of reasoning can be right. But if two people come to two different conclusions that are mutually exclusive, then one of them is wrong; e.g., if one person concludes that Baha’u’llah was a false prophet and another person concludes that he was a Messenger of God, one of them is wrong.

There's more to it than just the conclusion; the process must also be valid for the reasoning to be sound. If someone believe that they sky is blue because pixies painted it that colour, then they have a mistake in their reasoning even if they arrived at the wrong conclusion.

Or say that someone believes that Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God because he believes that everyone is a messenger of God; would you say that you agree with him?

That is true, but physical reality can denote different things to different people. Some people might understand that all the flowers that exist on Mount Carmel to be a sign that Baha’u’llah fulfilled the Isaiah blossoming desert prophecies, whereas others do not interpret that physical reality the same way.

Facts are the same for both: there are either flowers there or there aren't.

Similarly, inferring conclusions from those facts is either done correctly or not.

It had been prophesied that when the Messiah came, the desert would blossom as the rose. Isaiah foretold clearly:

Isaiah 35 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. 2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.

I'm sorry - this explanation sounds like nonsense.

I can't see any situation where it would be warranted to invole magic as the reason why flowers grow on a mountain.

I am not sure exactly what you mean; what kinds of things? If I do not accomplish what I set out to do I sometimes wonder why not, but I usually accept that it was simply not meant to be, after I have struggled long enough to accomplish it. I am very willful and I like to accomplish what I set out to do, but I do not insist on the outcome, especially if it involves other people. I never try to convince or convert other people to my beliefs or my values but sometimes I have to insist on things, such as in a business situation when I am renting my houses or hiring contractors.

You told us that you never try to convince people of your religion or your god. Why wouldn't you stop there and say "they aren't convinced because I didn't even try to convince them?"

No, you are reading too much into the passage.

You posted a link with very little explanation of what the text was supposed to tell us. I made my best guess at what you were trying to say. If I guessed wrong, then maybe just make your point directly.

Prophets write in flowery language in order to stir the soul. The question is how literally do we interpret this language? I do not think that any True Seeker has all the qualities in that Tablet; it is simply that Baha’u’llah wanted to convey an ideal state of the soul. I do not know any Baha’i who lives up to what Baha’u’llah enjoins us to achieve, myself included. I can tell you for a fact that I did not have earnest striving, longing desire, passionate devotion, fervid love, rapture, or ecstasy kindled in my heart before or after I became Baha’i , but nevertheless I have no doubts or misgivings and the lights of knowledge and certitude envelop my being. I came to the Baha’i Faith my way of my mind, not my heart, and I still struggle to have feelings in my heart for God. You might have noticed that I do not talk like some other Baha’is on this forum, about loving God. I understand the concept, but I have yet to translate that into an emotion.

Baha’u’llah never said there is something wrong with the unconvinced. He only ever said we all have the capacity to recognize God through the Manifestation, not that we would all be able to.

“Suffer not yourselves to be wrapt in the dense veils of your selfish desires, inasmuch as I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143​

Again, Baha’u’llah is stating an ideal. I am sure God is well aware that we all have different capacities.And what He is saying is that we are able to discover truth all by ourselves, without help from anyone else. That does not mean other people cannot help, but that the final decision to believe has to come from the seeker.

It seems to me that "appreciating the beauty of God" assumes the existence of God.

It's easy to believe something after you've already accepted it.

Absolutely, there are many such people who strive for truth yet do not agree with me.

Really? Because what you said earlier made it sound like you don't respect these people. Here's what you said a few posts back:

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

How do you reconcile this idea that non-Baha'is are closed-minded and intellectually lazy with what you just agreed to: that earnest, sincere people devoted to the truth might still disagree with you?

I certainly do not expect that all people are going to agree with me and become Baha’is. That would be highly arrogant as well as very unrealistic.

But this does seem to be the implication of things you've said.

I would ask that you leave homeopathy out of this. It is a debatable topic and I did not fall for it hook, line and sinker. I am sure there is much I do not know about it, but I did not continue to pursue it after I studied it because I went off on another life path. Had I decided to practice it, I would have put it under closer scrutiny.

Didn't you say that your degree is in homeopathy?

It seems strange to me to devote one's life to something for years before deciding whether there's truth behind it. I certainly didn't do this with engineering.

Of course I know that atheists consider the same things outlandish, and then I ask them why they consider them outlandish, but I usually do not get any answers that make any sense to me, if I get any answers at all. So now I will ask you why you dismiss those as outlandish.

One perspective that might be helpful is the outsider test for faith that I mentioned before: imagine that your religion didn't exist and someone told you that they had spoken to someone who had communicated with an invisible, magical, super-powerful alien who has all sorts of ideas for how humanity ought to live.

How much stock would you put in what you were hearing?

If there was a God, why wouldn’t He be intelligent and why wouldn’t He be concerned with the humans He created, and why wouldn’t He send Messengers with messages to benefit humanity and help them along on their spiritual path?

In other words, why doesn’t this make sense to you, or is it just the whole idea of any God at all that does not make sense to you?

The idea of God doesn't make sense to me, no. A mind is "what the brain does," so the idea of a mind that can effect change in the physical world without even having a physical brain strikes me as nonsense right off the bat.

But let's say that this is possible, and a super-powerful alien intelligence that we'll call "God" is out there somewhere. What makes you think we could relate to it?

We can't even relate to many of the intelligent animals on our own planet. Take squid: Caribbean reef squid flash messages to each other in complex patterns. It's definitely communication, but researchers can't decide if it's language because they can't tell if it has syntax: they aren't able to decipher the communication enough to even tell what its structure is.

Or take octopuses: they don't use language at all. They're incredibly intelligent with amazing problem-solving skills, but they just don't communicate (beyond very rudimentary stuff very occasionally) because they live solitary lives.

We share a planet and most of our genes with these creatures, but we find them utterly unrelatable.

... but you want me to believe that a magical alien - who shares even less in common with us in terms of environment, history, or shared lineage - is more relatable to us than the other intelligent creatures on our own planet?

And you want us to believe that this magical alien is social like a human or a squid, not solitary like an octopus, despite the fact that it's the only individual of its kind, with no innate instincts to socialize or communicate? This is ridiculous.

Have you ever heard of the concept of a "Mary Sue?" It comes from fan fiction: a Mary Sue is the personification of the author who ought to be a background character, but ends up being the centre of the story as some sort of wish fulfillment dream of the author. The classic example is a Star Trek story where the Enterprise would have been destroyed if not for the quick thinking of Ensign Mary Sue who saves the day and gets all sorts of accolades.

I see a lot of religious scripture in this light, where humanity is a "Mary Sue" inserted into a story of some god or gods. The only reason why a god described in the theology of any major religion would have a special place in its heart for humanity is that it's humans who are writing the stories.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't many religions pride themselves on being unreasonable and God being mysterious and unknowable and beyond reason therefore one needs to humble oneself and have faith in order to see God since reason and rationality won't get you far or anywhere at all? Isn't religion about the suspension of our rational faculties?

Just because God is mysterious and unknowable that does not mean religions have to be unreasonable; there is no correlation between the two. God is not beyond reason; God is beyond human understanding. Because nobody can prove that God exists we have to have faith but we should use our rational faculties to determine what religion is reasonable.

But God is all powerful so why couldn't He create us so that we could have a direct relationship with Him like how I assume angels have a direct relationship with Him?

God could have done that if He had wanted to, but He did not want to so He didn’t. I do not know that angels had a direct relationship with God either. God wants us to relate to Him through His Manifestations, what I refer to as Messengers. That is one reason he sends them to us.

Why does He want worship so badly even if it benefits us? Isn't it a bit egocentric to want worship all the time?

God wants us to worship Him for OUR benefit. God does not want worship for Himself. God does not need to be worshiped. God cannot be egocentric, only humans can be egocentric. God IS the center of all things by His very nature.

 

[Trailblazer]

"God wants us to love Him for our own benefit, not for His benefit. Everything we get from God is for our benefit because God does not need anything... "

Why does the Bible say that we were created for God's pleasure then?

I do not know the Bible very well because I was never a Christian. What it says in the Baha’i Writings if that God created us out of His love for us. Is that what you mean?

I do not think that we are like playthings of God, created for His enjoyment. God is not like a human who seeks enjoyment.

 

[Trailblazer]

But doesn't transcendent mean He can rise above His good nature and if He's all-powerful then surely He can do evil?

No, that is not what transcendent means.

The following passage explains what it means for God to be transcendent… God is transcendent because God transcends all human understanding. Sorry the passage is so long.

“Praise be to God, the All-Possessing, the King of incomparable glory, a praise which is immeasurably above the understanding of all created things, and is exalted beyond the grasp of the minds of men. None else besides Him hath ever been able to sing adequately His praise, nor will any man succeed at any time in describing the full measure of His glory. Who is it that can claim to have attained the heights of His exalted Essence, and what mind can measure the depths of His unfathomable mystery? From each and every revelation emanating from the Source of His glory, holy and never-ending evidences of unimaginable splendor have appeared, and out of every manifestation of His invincible power oceans of eternal light have outpoured. How immensely exalted are the wondrous testimonies of His almighty sovereignty, a glimmer of which, if it but touched them, would utterly consume all that are in the heavens and in the earth! How indescribably lofty are the tokens of His consummate power, a single sign of which, however inconsiderable, must transcend the comprehension of whatsoever hath, from the beginning that hath no beginning, been brought into being, or will be created in the future till the end that hath no end. All the Embodiments of His Names wander in the wilderness of search, athirst and eager to discover His Essence, and all the Manifestations of His Attributes implore Him, from the Sinai of Holiness, to unravel His mystery.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 60-61

 

[Trailblazer]

But I don't know how to tell the difference since both Christianity and the Baha'i faith make claims that don't seem to be verifiable. How can I tell which one is true?

God is not verifiable so no religion can be verified as a fact. In order to know what is true, you have to investigate for yourself. You need to investigate the claims of the Baha’i Faith and we call that independent investigation of truth.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

This 5 minute video explains how we investigate truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is not verifiable so no religion can be verified as a fact. In order to know what is true, you have to investigate for yourself. You need to investigate the claims of the Baha’i Faith and we call that independent investigation of truth.

If God isn't verifiable, then any search for God would be fruitless. Anyone who believed in God would be completely unjustified and any religion built around God would be a total fabrication.

 

[Trailblazer]

You mentioned one earlier: judging the correctness of a belief by the number of people who hold it. While popular beliefs aren't necessarily false, deciding that a belief must be correct just because it's popular is not a reliable pathway to truth.

I fully agree with that.

There's more to it than just the conclusion; the process must also be valid for the reasoning to be sound. If someone believe that they sky is blue because pixies painted it that colour, then they have a mistake in their reasoning even if they arrived at the wrong conclusion.

You are right again. The process by which you come to discover the truth needs to valid.

Or say that someone believes that Baha'u'llah is a messenger of God because he believes that everyone is a messenger of God; would you say that you agree with him?

Of course not.

Facts are the same for both: there are either flowers there or there aren't.
Similarly, inferring conclusions from those facts is either done correctly or not.

What would be the correct way to infer conclusions about the flowers?

I'm sorry - this explanation sounds like nonsense.
I can't see any situation where it would be warranted to invole magic as the reason why flowers grow on a mountain.

Flowers grow there because they were planted by the Baha’is. They fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah, but they were not planted with that intention. Now, if those were the only prophecies that were fulfilled by the coming of Baha’u’llah we might have a reason to be suspicious, but most of the prophecies were not related to anything that any humans did or had control over, and they were outside of Baha’u’llah’s control; e.g. when He was banished from sea to sea that fulfilled prophecies but He did not banish Himself.

You told us that you never try to convince people of your religion or your god. Why wouldn't you stop there and say "they aren't convinced because I didn't even try to convince them?"

Perhaps I should try harder, but it is against my religion to try to convert people.

You posted a link with very little explanation of what the text was supposed to tell us. I made my best guess at what you were trying to say. If I guessed wrong, then maybe just make your point directly.

Sorry I did not explain the Tablet of the True Seeker. It is essentially a description of the qualities we would expect to see in a person who was truly seeking God as well as the qualities of a person who would be successful in their quest and what would happen after they succeeded in their quest.

It seems to me that "appreciating the beauty of God" assumes the existence of God.
It's easy to believe something after you've already accepted it.

When Baha’u’llah said that “every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God” He means that every man is capable of recognizing the Beauty of God in the Messenger of God who represents and manifests God. It does not assume the existence of God, not before one has recognized the Messenger.

“Absolutely, there are many such people who strive for truth yet do not agree with me.”

Really? Because what you said earlier made it sound like you don't respect these people. Here's what you said a few posts back:

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

How do you reconcile this idea that non-Baha'is are closed-minded and intellectually lazy with what you just agreed to: that earnest, sincere people devoted to the truth might still disagree with you?

What I said does not imply that non-Baha'is are closed-minded and intellectually lazy. I said that in order to find the truth one has to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Some earnest, sincere people devoted to the truth might have done that and still they did not become Baha’is, because there are other reasons why people do not become Baha’is. In other words, not everyone who gives up their preconceived ideas, has an open mind, and thinks for themselves are going to get through the Baha’i gate, they might find another gate.

“I certainly do not expect that all people are going to agree with me and become Baha’is. That would be highly arrogant as well as very unrealistic.”

But this does seem to be the implication of things you've said.

It might seem that way but I think that is because you read into what I said.

“I would ask that you leave homeopathy out of this.”

Didn't you say that your degree is in homeopathy?

It seems strange to me to devote one's life to something for years before deciding whether there's truth behind it. I certainly didn't do this with engineering.

Oh, but I did not go to the homeopathy school before I decided there was truth behind it; I decided to go because I thought there was truth behind it, and that was because of my own experience as a patient. But please note that I did not end up devoting my life to it. I have now switched gears.

One perspective that might be helpful is the outsider test for faith that I mentioned before: imagine that your religion didn't exist and someone told you that they had spoken to someone who had communicated with an invisible, magical, super-powerful alien who has all sorts of ideas for how humanity ought to live.
How much stock would you put in what you were hearing?

None, not unless there was some evidence.

The idea of God doesn't make sense to me, no. A mind is "what the brain does," so the idea of a mind that can effect change in the physical world without even having a physical brain strikes me as nonsense right off the bat.

I never said that a mind can effect change in the physical world without a brain; it cannot do that. A body needs a brain and the mind works through the brain in this world, but it is the soul that animates the brain. That is why the soul can continue to exist in the afterlife, independent of the physical body. The soul will take on some kind of form in the afterlife in order to accomplish its tasks, whatever they are.

But let's say that this is possible, and a super-powerful alien intelligence that we'll call "God" is out there somewhere. What makes you think we could relate to it?

We can't even relate to many of the intelligent animals on our own planet. Take squid: Caribbean reef squid flash messages to each other in complex patterns. It's definitely communication, but researchers can't decide if it's language because they can't tell if it has syntax: they aren't able to decipher the communication enough to even tell what its structure is.

Or take octopuses: they don't use language at all. They're incredibly intelligent with amazing problem-solving skills, but they just don't communicate (beyond very rudimentary stuff very occasionally) because they live solitary lives.

We share a planet and most of our genes with these creatures, but we find them utterly unrelatable.

... but you want me to believe that a magical alien - who shares even less in common with us in terms of environment, history, or shared lineage - is more relatable to us than the other intelligent creatures on our own planet?

And you want us to believe that this magical alien is social like a human or a squid, not solitary like an octopus, despite the fact that it's the only individual of its kind, with no innate instincts to socialize or communicate? This is ridiculous.

Oh no, I do not want you to believe that at all, not about God. No human can relate to God, not even the Messenger has a direct relationship with God. He only hears the Voice of God but not a voice as we commonly think of it. It is something that is beyond our understanding. In other words, the Messengers know God, but not in any way we can understand, because they are on a level far above our level.

Have you ever heard of the concept of a "Mary Sue?" It comes from fan fiction: a Mary Sue is the personification of the author who ought to be a background character, but ends up being the centre of the story as some sort of wish fulfillment dream of the author. The classic example is a Star Trek story where the Enterprise would have been destroyed if not for the quick thinking of Ensign Mary Sue who saves the day and gets all sorts of accolades.

I see a lot of religious scripture in this light, where humanity is a "Mary Sue" inserted into a story of some god or gods. The only reason why a god described in the theology of any major religion would have a special place in its heart for humanity is that it's humans who are writing the stories.

No, I have never heard of a Mary Sue but I can understand how the Bible might sound like that.All I can say is that I do not believe that the Bible stories written about God really depict God. The Bible was written that way for a reason and it was written to a different audience that lived back in ancient times. You might have noticed that Baha’u’llah does not tell any stories about God, He just gives us the straight dope on God. That is because humanity is now able to take the straight dope, since we have a higher level of understanding because we have evolved spiritually and become more educated.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God isn't verifiable, then any search for God would be fruitless. Anyone who believed in God would be completely unjustified and any religion built around God would be a total fabrication.

God is not objectively verifiable because God is not a material being.

Searching for God and finding Him does not mean finding Him in the sense of locating Him on a GPS tracker. You will never locate God on a GPS tracker. God is the only one who has ever seen God.

“No one except Thyself can unravel the secret of Thy nature, and naught else but Thy transcendental Essence can grasp the reality of Thy unsearchable being. How vast the number of those heavenly and all-glorious beings who, in the wilderness of their separation from Thee, have wandered all the days of their lives, and failed in the end to find Thee! How great the multitude of the sanctified and immortal souls who were lost and bewildered while seeking in the desert of search to behold Thy face!” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 64

Searching for God and finding Him means you discover that He exists by looking at the evidence and then you know that in your mind. It is difficult to describe unless you have experienced it.

 

[lukethethird]

The New York Times doesn't usually run pieces of interest on the topic of religion, but there was an opinion piece in there today that I felt was worth sharing. It discusses the problems inherent to classical monotheism but also couches it in the philosophical history of the idea by a few well-known thinkers. It provides some interesting and valuable context for those of you who might be perplexed by the logically contradictory one-god as often characterized by followers of various Abrahamic traditions. I'd suggest reading the article in its entirety, but to highlight a paragraph or two:

"Does the idea of a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God make sense? Does it hold together when we examine it logically?

....

What about God’s infinite knowledge — His omniscience? Philosophically, this presents us with no less of a conundrum. ... if He knows what we know, then this would appear to detract from His perfection. Why?

There are some things that we know that, if they were also known to God, would automatically make Him a sinner, which of course is in contradiction with the concept of God. As the late American philosopher Michael Martin has already pointed out, if God knows all that is knowable, then God must know things that we do, like lust and envy. But one cannot know lust and envy unless one has experienced them. But to have had feelings of lust and envy is to have sinned, in which case God cannot be morally perfect.

...

It is logical inconsistencies like these that led the 17th-century French theologian Blaise Pascal to reject reason as a basis for faith and return to the Bible and revelation. It is said that when Pascal died his servant found sewn into his jacket the words: “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob — not of the philosophers and scholars.” Evidently, Pascal considered there was more “wisdom” in biblical revelation than in any philosophical demonstration of God’s existence and nature — or plain lack thereof."
Full article - Opinion | A God Problem​

Thoughts? What are your favorite logical inconsistencies from classical monotheism? Are there oddities from other types of theism that have also caught your attention?

My God is cool with lust and envy so still morally perfect.

 

[lukethethird]

God is not objectively verifiable because God is not a material being.

True, which is why the objective study of the belief in God, or the study of beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is not objectively verifiable because God is not a material being.

Then any inquiry into God ends before it begins.

Searching for God and finding Him does not mean finding Him in the sense of locating Him on a GPS tracker.

I didn't say it did.

Searching for God and finding Him means you discover that He exists by looking at the evidence and then you know that in your mind. It is difficult to describe unless you have experienced it.

When you say that God can't be objectively verified, you imply that it's impossible to find God by looking at the evidence.

 

[Shantanu]

God is not objectively verifiable because God is not a material being.

Searching for God and finding Him does not mean finding Him in the sense of locating Him on a GPS tracker. You will never locate God on a GPS tracker. God is the only one who has ever seen God.

“No one except Thyself can unravel the secret of Thy nature, and naught else but Thy transcendental Essence can grasp the reality of Thy unsearchable being. How vast the number of those heavenly and all-glorious beings who, in the wilderness of their separation from Thee, have wandered all the days of their lives, and failed in the end to find Thee! How great the multitude of the sanctified and immortal souls who were lost and bewildered while seeking in the desert of search to behold Thy face!” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 64

Searching for God and finding Him means you discover that He exists by looking at the evidence and then you know that in your mind. It is difficult to describe unless you have experienced it.

God is objectively verifiable in one's illusion of the Reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then any inquiry into God ends before it begins.

I meant that the Essence of God cannot be objectively verified, I did not mean that the existence of God cannot be verified. We can each verify that for ourselves.

I didn't say it did.

I know you didn't, I just wanted to clarify that, for others.

When you say that God can't be objectively verified, you imply that it's impossible to find God by looking at the evidence.

It is impossible to find the Essence of God, but it is not impossible to determine the existence of God. We determine that by looking at the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

God is objectively verifiable in one's illusion of the Reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I meant that the Essence of God cannot be objectively verified, I did not mean that the existence of God cannot be verified. We can each verify that for ourselves.

So now you're saying that the existence of God can be objectively verified? This is different from what you've argued in the past.

It is impossible to find the Essence of God, but it is not impossible to determine the existence of God. We determine that by looking at the evidence.

In the past, when I asked you for the evidence that you think demonstrates God, you said that God couldn't be demonstrated.

 

[Jos]

Just because God is mysterious and unknowable that does not mean religions have to be unreasonable; there is no correlation between the two. God is not beyond reason; God is beyond human understanding. Because nobody can prove that God exists we have to have faith but we should use our rational faculties to determine what religion is reasonable.

But what if I use my brain and conclude that Christianity is reasonable? Aren't there many people out there who were skeptics of Christianity and studied it and determined it to be reasonable?

God could have done that if He had wanted to, but He did not want to so He didn’t. I do not know that angels had a direct relationship with God either. God wants us to relate to Him through His Manifestations, what I refer to as Messengers. That is one reason he sends them to us.

Didn't God know how inefficient that would be and that it would lead to errors in translation and people clinging on to older messages and religions that aren't relevant anymore and other problems? Isn't He supremely intelligent and could have used a better means to get His messages across? Also I got the idea of angels having a direct relationship with God from Christianity and the idea that they're in heaven directly in God's presence.

God wants us to worship Him for OUR benefit. God does not want worship for Himself. God does not need to be worshiped. God cannot be egocentric, only humans can be egocentric. God IS the center of all things by His very nature.

Why make us so that worship is the best thing for us? Why not something else?

I do not know the Bible very well because I was never a Christian. What it says in the Baha’i Writings if that God created us out of His love for us. Is that what you mean?

I do not think that we are like playthings of God, created for His enjoyment. God is not like a human who seeks enjoyment.

It's not only for love but it says in the OT that God created humans for His own pleasure also. IDK, maybe I'm reading it too literally or a mistranslation or maybe it's meant to be interpreted differently.

No, that is not what transcendent means.

The following passage explains what it means for God to be transcendent… God is transcendent because God transcends all human understanding. Sorry the passage is so long.

“Praise be to God, the All-Possessing, the King of incomparable glory, a praise which is immeasurably above the understanding of all created things, and is exalted beyond the grasp of the minds of men. None else besides Him hath ever been able to sing adequately His praise, nor will any man succeed at any time in describing the full measure of His glory. Who is it that can claim to have attained the heights of His exalted Essence, and what mind can measure the depths of His unfathomable mystery? From each and every revelation emanating from the Source of His glory, holy and never-ending evidences of unimaginable splendor have appeared, and out of every manifestation of His invincible power oceans of eternal light have outpoured. How immensely exalted are the wondrous testimonies of His almighty sovereignty, a glimmer of which, if it but touched them, would utterly consume all that are in the heavens and in the earth! How indescribably lofty are the tokens of His consummate power, a single sign of which, however inconsiderable, must transcend the comprehension of whatsoever hath, from the beginning that hath no beginning, been brought into being, or will be created in the future till the end that hath no end. All the Embodiments of His Names wander in the wilderness of search, athirst and eager to discover His Essence, and all the Manifestations of His Attributes implore Him, from the Sinai of Holiness, to unravel His mystery.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 60-61

I understand what you mean you say transcendent but can God suspend His attributes and do evil?

God is not verifiable so no religion can be verified as a fact. In order to know what is true, you have to investigate for yourself. You need to investigate the claims of the Baha’i Faith and we call that independent investigation of truth.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

This 5 minute video explains how we investigate truth.

And what if someone investigates and doesn't think it's true or determines that another religion is true?