So what's the difference compared to others?
Do you mean other religions or other Prophets (Messengers of God)? If so, the
difference is that Baha’u’llah was the Messenger of God for this age in history, so His revelation is pertinent to this age. The older revelations from God have messages and social teachings and laws that were intended for previous dispensations, and they are no longer pertinent to this age. However, their spiritual teachings are just as relevant as they ever were, because the spiritual teachings of all the major religions are eternal.
Just because an argument is valid, doesn't automatically mean that it is true. Logically valid is nothing if it's not sound. Which yours isn't.
That is right. Logically valid doesn't automatically mean that it is true. Now, tell me WHY my reasoning is not sound. That sounds like a personal opinion of yours, not something you can actually prove. I have been down this road many, many times. Either prove what you assert or do not state it as an assertion, because it is a bald assertion unless you have proof. It is a bald assertion and a personal opinion.
Now you're just being dishonest. You didn't post the whole thing. You posted what you think would be in your favor. Here's the whole thing.
I was not being dishonest. I posted only what was pertinent to what I was saying. You implied that because I used circular reasoning my argument cannot be logical, and I just pointed out that a circular argument is often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
FYI, I am not trying to WIN anything here. I am just trying to have a respectful discussion. Why do some nonbelievers always have to make it about winning?
Circular reasoning (
Latin:
circulus in probando, "circle in proving";
[1] also known as
circular logic) is a
logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically
valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
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. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.
[3]Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
[4]
So your argument is circular. So you still need evidence.
Of course I need evidence to back up any premises I have or any conclusions I have come to. But if it fails to persuade YOU or anyone else, that does not mean it is not evidence. It is evidence to whoever is persuaded by it because it indicates that the belief is true TO THEM.
Your argument/claim is that god exist. So to say that they are messengers of god is a claim not evidence. It's still claiming that god exist.
It is the claim of the Messengers that God exists and that they represent God. It is not MY claim.
And you're confused about what evidence are needed to support an argument. The last part is only showing evidence that those people and their religion existed. It's not evidence for it being true nor is it evidence of the existence of god.
Their lives, their mission, what they wrote or what was written by others on their behalf, and how their coming impacted civilization as well as the religions that were established is
evidence that the Messengers spoke for God, but it is not proof. Evidence is not the same as proof.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information
indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
https://www.google.com/search
Evidence: anything that
helps to prove that something is or is not true:
EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Proof: evidence or argument
establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:
https://www.google.com/search
Nobody can ever
prove that the Messengers of God spoke for God; only they know that since they were the only ones who experienced the communication. We can prove that to ourselves by looking at all the evidence but it can never be an established fact, it will always be a belief.
Yes, I do want the number to your attorney so I can ask him/her, how this is evidence for you asserting that god cannot and will not betray humans. This is why your so called "evidence" for god is no evidence at all.
I never said I had evidence from my attorney that God cannot and will not betray humans, I said I had evidence that humans can and do betray humans.
I don't need evidence because I never made an assertion. I showed that your assertion was not the only possibility.
Of course not, anything is possible. I did not make an assertion, I shared a belief.
“Do you have sufficient information to prove that God thrives on human suffering?”
If you know the fallacy, then you know that your argument was an argument from ignorance.
Trying to shift the burden of proof because I refuted your argument isn't helping you.
You did not refute anything I said, because you cannot prove that God thrives on human suffering. Your argument was
an argument from ignorance because there is insufficient information to prove the proposition that God thrives on human suffering is true.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
I am not arguing that the proposition that “God thrives on human suffering” is false, I just
believe that it is false. There is
no reason to believe it is true since there is no evidence whatsoever.
