Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Trailblazer]

There is no objective evidence for God except the Messengers of God.

Case closed.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no objective evidence for God except the Messengers of God.

So (quote apart from the fact that the "messengers" obviously aren't objective evidence for a god) what happened to all the times you claimed objective evidence was impossible and not what god wanted to give us anyway?

 

[KWED]

All the Messengers of God are evidence that God exists, the only real evidence.

I never implied that me saying Baha'u'llah is God's Messenger is evidence of any kind.
I have no claims, I only have beliefs. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He supported His claims with evidence, just as Jesus supported His claims to be sent from God.

So no evidence. Only belief.
That has long been established.

 

[KWED]

Wait a min, in one breath atheists say the Bible has been edited and tidied up over the centuries to make it look good,
Wish they'd make up their minds..

Do we? I wasn't aware of this.

then in the next breath they're saying its full of discrepancies.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Let's face it, religious zealots aren't necessarily the brightest candles on the altar.

 

[Trailblazer]

So (quote apart from the fact that the "messengers" obviously aren't objective evidence for a god) what happened to all the times you claimed objective evidence was impossible and not what god wanted to give us anyway?

All this is just a misunderstanding of what I meant by what I said. I only meant that there can be no direct objective evidence such as seeing God Himself. Seeing the Messengers of God is indirect objective evidence.

Direct objective evidence of God is impossible because nobody can ever see God.

 

[Trailblazer]

So no evidence. Only belief.
That has long been established.

me saying Baha'u'llah is God's Messenger is not evidence of any kind because anyone can say anything....

but God's Messengers ARE the evidence that God exists.

 

[Dropship]

..Let's face it, religious zealots aren't necessarily the brightest candles on the altar.

Well jesus said "I'm not of this world..I'll tell you things hidden since the beginning of the world",
but atheists say 'nah not interested', so for them it's "out out brief candle"..
Hey Spock will you listen to an alien visitor?

"Affirmative, I'm all ears"

 

[KWED]

Guys guys, like I said, many atheists were shouting for years that there wasn't a Nazareth in Jesus's time, then got humiliated real bad when digs uncovered it, haha.
For examp this guy's street cred plummeted bigtime..-

Didn't realise that this book (by a music teacher) was required reading for atheists. Didn't get that email.

BTW, he never claimed it didn't exist, just that it had been abandoned so was not an established settlement at the time.

 

[KWED]

me saying Baha'u'llah is God's Messenger is not evidence of any kind because anyone can say anything....

but God's Messengers ARE the evidence that God exists.

What is the evidence that proves they are god's messengers?
Bear in mind you have to first prove that god exists before you can claim anyone is his messenger.

 

[Dropship]

...BTW, he never claimed it didn't exist, just that it had been abandoned so was not an established settlement at the time.

Nazareth was just a loose straggle of farms in Jesus's time, more of an "area" than a village and is not even a dot on old maps.
Furthermore there was big building work going on at Sepphoris a few miles to the north and its possible Jesus and his dad and other craftsmen from the Nazareth area were press-ganged by the Romans into lodging and working there.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is the evidence that proves they are god's messengers?
Bear in mind you have to first prove that god exists before you can claim anyone is his messenger.

No, I do not have to first prove that God exists before I can believe that anyone is God's Messenger and that is impossible to do because the only proof that God exists is His Messengers.

Proof that Jesus was a Messenger of God is as follows:

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

And if Jesus was telling the truth about God then God exists.

 

[KWED]

Nazareth was just a loose straggle of farms in Jesus's time, more of an "area" than a village and is not even a dot on old maps.

Oh. So Salm's claim that Nazereth had once been an established settlement but had been abandoned by Jesus' time is actually reasonably accurate?

Furthermore there was big building work going on at Sepphoris a few miles to the north and its possible Jesus and his dad and other craftsmen from the Nazareth area were press-ganged by the Romans into lodging and working there.

So the Bible's claim that Jesus was "from Nazareth" might be inaccurate?

Thanks.

 

[KWED]

No, I do not have to first prove that God exists before I can believe that anyone is God's Messenger and that is impossible to do because the only proof that God exists is His Messengers.

This was covered in Circular Logic 101.
You can't use the thing you are trying to establish, to establish itself.

Before any claim can be made about god, you first have to establish god exists. If you can't then the claim that someone is god's messenger is clearly incoherent.

Proof that Jesus was a Messenger of God is as follows:

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

So the fact that people claim that Jesus was god's messenger is evidence that Jesus was god's messenger?
Cool!
I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh. So Salm's claim that Nazereth had once been an established settlement but had been abandoned by Jesus' time is actually reasonably accurate?

So the Bible's claim that Jesus was "from Nazareth" might be inaccurate?

Thanks.

To be honest Salm's claim looks rather weak. I do not like to invest time in weak arguments when the strong arguments are more than enough.

For example he has no answer for the ten year gap between Matthew's date of birth and if that in Luke. Nor is he likely to have an answer to the fact that the earliest Gospel was more than thirty years after Jesus's death. Or, since he appears to make the error of creationism, he has no answer for the Flat Earth verses of the Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to piddly human logical analysis. That is totally illogical and irrational. What is absurd is to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with logic. Of course it helps to know something about God before you talk about God.

There IS objective evidence for God and that objective evidence is Baha'u'llah (and all the other Messengers of God such as Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad, etc.)

I know exactly what I think but it is nearly impossible to explain it to atheists since they have no conception of who God is so I am starting from scratch.

How can you know anything about God if "piddly human logical analysis" doesn't apply to said God? Nothing we can deduce about this God could have been arrived at using "piddly human logical analysis."

 

[SkepticThinker]

All the Messengers of God are evidence that God exists, the only real evidence.

I never implied that me saying Baha'u'llah is God's Messenger is evidence of any kind.
I have no claims, I only have beliefs. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He supported His claims with evidence, just as Jesus supported His claims to be sent from God.

You have made several knowledge claims in this thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I do not have to first prove that God exists before I can believe that anyone is God's Messenger and that is impossible to do because the only proof that God exists is His Messengers.

Proof that Jesus was a Messenger of God is as follows:

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

And if Jesus was telling the truth about God then God exists.

Sure you do. If there are no Gods then there are no God messengers.

 

[KWED]

To be honest Salm's claim looks rather weak. I do not like to invest time in weak arguments when the strong arguments are more than enough.

For example he has no answer for the ten year gap between Matthew's date of birth and if that in Luke. Nor is he likely to have an answer to the fact that the earliest Gospel was more than thirty years after Jesus's death. Or, since he appears to make the error of creationism, he has no answer for the Flat Earth verses of the Bible.

I'm not familiar with his work, but I assumed his intention was to debunk Christianity not defend it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not familiar with his work, but I assumed his intention was to debunk Christianity not defend it.

It was. And it was not a very good attempt. If I go after creationists or others for using poor arguments I cannot rely on poor arguments myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

This was covered in Circular Logic 101.
You can't use the thing you are trying to establish, to establish itself.

Hell if I can't. I suggest you take a course in logic before you say I can't.

Are all circular arguments invalid?

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid.Aug 18, 2017
Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

So here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Before any claim can be made about god, you first have to establish god exists. If you can't then the claim that someone is god's messenger is clearly incoherent.

No, it cannot ever be established that God exists without a Messenger of God (who is also a Manifestation of God) and who is the only evidence that God exists and God's mouthpiece and God's representative on earth.

“The Person of the Manifestation hath ever been the representative and mouthpiece of God. He, in truth, is the Day Spring of God’s most excellent Titles, and the Dawning-Place of His exalted Attributes. If any be set up by His side as peers, if they be regarded as identical with His Person, how can it, then, be maintained that the Divine Being is One and Incomparable, that His Essence is indivisible and peerless? Meditate on that which We have, through the power of truth, revealed unto thee, and be thou of them that comprehend its meaning.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 70

So the fact that people claim that Jesus was god's messenger is evidence that Jesus was god's messenger?
Cool!
I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

Please do not misrepresent what I said. I never said that the fact that people claim that Jesus was god's messenger is evidence that Jesus was god's messenger.

Jesus was God's Messenger because Jesus was God's Messenger. The evidence is not the reason that Jesus is God's Messenger. Jesus is God's Messenger because God made Jesus His Messenger. Evidence is just what people want in order to know that Jesus was God's Messenger.

If a man committed a murder, he committed a murder, even if there is no evidence. Evidence is just what is needed by the prosecutor to prove that the man committed the murder.