Of course. Those facts actually do exist but those facts don't have the same significance to everyone who reads about them.
Facts are things that are and/or can be shown to be true in reality. You have been asked on numerous occasions throughout different topics and couldn't show one fact. And you admit that it's impossible for you to show that messengers of God are a fact. No facts exist, but you're still a Baha'i. And you've just proved what I said in my older post.
What you say or what anyone on this forum says does not hurt me at all because I am firm in my beliefs and I also know that I am not dishonest.
Just because you can deceit yourself, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can do it for everyone as well. You can deceit yourself that you're not hurt but others can observe your actions and know that you're hurt. Making threats to other people is an example. I'm not saying that you are necessarily hurt at this exact moment. You can deceit yourself that you are not dishonest, but again, your actions can show others that you are dishonest. If you deny saying something, other people can go back to previous posts and see if you did say it or not. If they post your exact quote and you still say that you never said that, then it clearly shows that you are dishonest. Again I'm not necessarily saying that you are being dishonest at this exact moment.
So answer this hen. How would you know that you are not dishonest if you are currently active in self-deception?
What I know to be true is not anyone else's business, it is personal to me.
Then keep it to yourself. When a personal feeling/thought/idea is known by another individual other than yourself, we can logically conclude that the reason they are/were able to know, is because you have shared it with other(s).
You can disagree and say I don't really know it but you cannot change what I know to be true unless you can prove it is false, in which case I would reconsider what I believe.
Sorry, but reality and logic doesn't bend it's laws just because you want it to. Your way of reasoning is illogical. I dealt with this in some older posts, which you basically reasoned it to, "I know it's true because I know it's true."
Let's break it down again. You claim to know what's true unless I prove it to be false. So according to what you said above, it's safe to conclude that you know it's true that your reasoning is logical. Obviously, if you disagree with my conclusion, it will make whatever you just said, to be illogical. I'll break it down and demonstrate that it's actually illogical.
So you know and believe that proposition A1 is true unless I prove it to be false. After I proved that A1 is false, you are reconsidering your beliefs. And this is where your reasoning falls apart. Since I've just proved that A1 is false, this would mean that A1 was never true to begin with, therefore, you did not know that A1 was true. You only believed that A1 was true. This is why your method is flawed, since it's based on false belief. You believe things to be true before knowing that it's true. It's also based on special pleading and cherry picking. From the beginning, you wanted A1 to be true, resulting in cherry picking information associated with A1, while disregarding the rest. And in order for those cherry picked pieces of information to fit with your design, you made special pleas for those information so that they will fit in the places that your requires. Instead of coming up with a hypothesis, then look at all the information objectively to see which ones are actual evidence and follow whichever direction they lead to, and make a conclusion where the evidence ends, you did the opposite. You come up with a hypothesis and using it as your conclusion before you even look at any of the information. And by starting with the conclusion, you looked at the information subjectively and cherry picked pieces of information to fill in the holes of what you have designed.
And before you start accusing me of making all these things up according to how I want it, I can explain why you would be wrong. All of what I just said was formulated through making observations of what you've shared in this public forum, your arguments, claims, beliefs, ideas etc, regardless of whether or not it's personal or impersonal.
Your core argument(s) start off with your conclusion as its foundation, and your way up. And this foundation consists of Baha'u'llah being a messenger of God and using his writings to guide you to your conclusion, all while going to your religion's grandfather to cherry pick and reinterpret verses however you want so that it fits your religious beliefs.
It's self defeating from what you said in bold.
That was not a threat, it was a warning. Why would I deny what I posted? It is all there in black and white.
Please don't talk about this threat case to the public. It's against forum policy.
I don't care what you say about my beliefs but I will not tolerate being called dishonest. I have many character defects but dishonesty is not one of them. Would you like it if I called you dishonest? Did I ever call you or anyone else dishonest? That is a personal insult and it is uncalled for. When people can stick with the subject matter and hold their positions they have no need for personal insults.
You're wrong. It's a fact, and it's all there in black and white.
And of course you won't call me dishonest, because you have no reason and/or evidence of me being dishonest.
I disagree that I have been refuted but you believe you have refuted me so you are not being dishonest.
You disagree that I have evidence but I believe I have evidence so I am not being dishonest.
I know that fall is here, but there's no need to make a strawman here.
