I don't see any moderation in hating God.
You would have to understand why I hated God in order to know why I was a moderate believer back then. I really was not a fervent believer because my faith was weak, I was more like an atheist who could not believe in God because a good God would not allow so much suffering in the world. However, it was because of my own suffering that I hated God. I did not have enough faith to trust that God was good in spite of my suffering and that is why I said I was a moderate believer.
Well, I think calling it human logic is misleading; logic is logic. That most or all humans (currently) can't understand something doesn't mean it is outside the scope of logic and the fact something involves infinity doesn't mean it is outside the scope of logic. There is no reason for thereto be any kind of fundamental barrier that puts anything beyond logic. Lots of things can be difficult or even impossible to fully understand using logic in a given context or environment but that is not the same as it being beyond logic.
Well, I think you are right. What I was trying to say is that we cannot encapsulate God since God is beyond our understanding.
While searching for something else I found this and I found it interesting.
What does God say about logic?
Logic is an attribute of God. God is not subject to logic in the sense that he is beneath it, nor is logic an "invention" of God.
God is always utterly logical, because logic is part of who he is. Logic is the set of rules we must follow to think like God thinks, which is to think rightly.
Logic: The Right Use of Reason
I believe that humans have the capacity to reflect God’s attributes, so it makes sense that when we are logical we are reflecting an attribute of God.
That is applying logic though; "God is infinite therefore we can't predict his actions.". That is a statement of pure logic.
Thanks, I never thought of it that way. Logic certainly has many applications.
As I explained, a desire is about something that may or may not happen in the future. If a being is omnipotent, the concepts of future and things that may or may not happen would be practically meaningless. That can't desire anything because everything that could be already and always has been from their point of view. It is a very difficult concept to get your head around, part of what you're saying is beyond logic, but that is the problem when you assert the existence of an omnipotent being.
Yes, from God’s omniscient point of view everything has already happened since it is written on the Tablet of Fate but since it has not
yet happened to us in this world God can desire for us what has not yet happened, even though it has already happened in God’s Mind. Yes, this is a very difficult concept and it is hard to grasp and explain.
Anyhow, I believe that God desires things for humans because Baha’u’llah wrote that and it makes sense to me in the context of what He wrote. Below is one short passage about desire. The omniscient God already knows that the entire human race will be united someday but God desires to observe that, to see it as it is played out in this world.
“He Who is your Lord, the All-Merciful, cherisheth in His heart the desire of beholding the entire human race as one soul and one body. Haste ye to win your share of God’s good grace and mercy in this Day that eclipseth all other created Days. How great the felicity that awaiteth the man that forsaketh all he hath in a desire to obtain the things of God! Such a man, We testify, is among God’s blessed ones.” Gleanings, p. 214
Only with a specifically defined god, which nobody has really done. I can make some up but I did that before and you just dismissed them because they weren't like your concept of religion (which is irreverent in the context of this question). So again;
"God physically created the Earth 6000 years ago"
"God carries the sun across the sky in his golden chariot"
"God will cure my illness if I pray to him"
All testable (though not necessarily easily or definitively) beliefs about hypothetical gods.
Yes, I can see how that would be testable and if we tested for such a God we would realize it does not exist.
Other than trying to use logic to support the existence of something you've defined as being beyond logic?
Some atheists think I am making a logical argument to try to prove that God exists but I keep telling them that is not what I am doing.
For example…
Circular reasoning is a
logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically
valid because
if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
So, If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.
Likewise, if the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.
The problem of course is in
proving that either of these premises are true. I am well aware that I cannot prove the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true so I would never try to make such a logical argument.
Nevertheless, if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, then God exists would be the reality, even if it cannot be proven. I believe that is the reality even though I cannot prove it to anyone else.
Because the definition is not "able to be observed by scientists", it is "observable (full stop)". Science as a concept is not limited to humans. Everything we have ever studied and all the things we've yet to be able to study but will be able to in the future were always within the scope of science even before humans existed. If some other intelligent being had come along, they could have applied scientific method to those things instead.
That makes sense. I had never thought if it that way. It is a Baha'i belief that both religion and science are constantly evolving so there is really no limit to what can be discovered by science or revealed by God in the future.
And so they could use science to study heaven at that point. I know lots of people who would want to do exactly that if they found themselves in heaven after they died, myself included.
It certainly would be a lot more interesting than floating around in the clouds for all of eternity as some Christians believe. The worst hell I can imagine is being bored for all of eternity. Baha’is believe that we will continue our work in the spiritual world (heaven), much to the chagrin of some Christians I know who were looking forward to taking it easy. Boring.
To put it bluntly, I think that is just a get out clause, a tool to be able to dismiss or ignore any difficult questions or contradictions that are raised about your beliefs. I do think that if you're unilaterally declaring any aspect of God as being beyond logic, you can't apply logic to any other aspect of God. Once you've established a limitation to logic, you can just spread that to cover anything you want.
That does not make logical sense to me because it is all-or-nothing thinking. I think we can apply logic to the attributes (qualities) of God because they are known but we cannot amply logic to an unknown, the Essence of God. What is meant by the Essence of God is not clearly defined in the Baha’i Writings but I think it means the intrinsic nature of God although it is more than that. It is definitely a topic for further study.
And hasn't that been ever so convenient for the religious leaders over the centuries? "We can't explain everything, so you'll just have to take our word for it... but keep bringing the offerings."
You could interpret it that way but from my perspective there are simply things that are beyond human understanding and Baha’u’llah explained that. He also wrote that He knew much more than He revealed but if He had revealed all that He knew, every man on earth would be dumbfounded and that is why religious truth can only be disclosed to the extent of the capacity of the recipients. In the future more of God’s truth will be revealed, more and more in each successive age, as humans evolve spiritually.
