Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I do not have to first prove that God exists before I can believe that anyone is God's Messenger.
All I have to do is prove that the Messenger was sent by God and I have done so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.
- Thread starter infrabenji
- Start date
All I have to do is prove that the Messenger was sent by God and I have done so.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Sure you do. How can someone be a messenger for a being that hasn't been shown to exist?
When did you do that?
Dropship
Member
"Abandoned" is too strong a word, certainly the craftsmen had gone to earn big bucks at Sepphoris a few miles up the road, but there was no need for their wives and kids to go, and anyway somebody had to stay behind in Nazareth to tend the livestock.
Jesus certainly grew up in Nazareth, as in 'Jesus of Nazareth' ..
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The ONLY way we can EVER know anything about God is through God's Messengers who reveal who God is.
Jesus came to reveal the truth about God and that is why He said...
John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
How do you think you are going to analyze God using logical analysis, when you do not even know anything about God? You cannot analyze a being you know nothing about. That is illogical.
That s 100% correct.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How can a God be shown to exist without evidence? The Messengers are the evidence that show that God exists.
About 50 years ago.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You've already said all this several times. It doesn't address my point.
Now you're claiming that we can't know anything about God. But earlier you claimed you have knowledge of God. Pardon me for pointing out that this all sounds rather nonsensical.
Oh, it's illogical alright.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
And so?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Great question.
I'm a messenger of the magical fairy pixies. I can make things up too. And I don't even have to show that magical pixie fairies exist in the first place. I'm still 100% correct. That's according to your logic. Or lack thereof.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Try reading it next to the other sentences I typed.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I never said we cannot know anything about God. I have always said that we can know something about God through the Messengers of God (Manifestations of God) and what they reveal.
“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
You only make yourself look foolish when you compare Messengers of God to magical pixies. The difference between the two is that there is no evidence that indicates that magical pixies exist whereas there is evidence that indicates that Messengers of God exist.
If atheists do not want to look foolish I suggest they not talk like this.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
And how do we know who the actual Messengers of God are and who are the fakers?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I've shown how foolish your argument actually is.
All I have done is replace the word "God" with "magical pixies" in your arguments.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
We check them out by looking at the evidence that shows who they were.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
And that is what is foolish.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, until you support your claims there is no real difference between pixies and God. The burden of proof still applies to you.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The burden of proof does not apply to me because I have no claims. Baha'u'llah made the claims and He supported His claims with evidence.
The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah on this thread:
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please, you care constantly making claims. Do you want me to go back and find some for you? Quit blaming your founder for your inability to properly support your claims.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I make no claims. I just state my beliefs.
I have nothing to claim so there would be no reason for me to make claims.
The reason you want to turn my beliefs into claims is so you can say I have the burden of proof. I was not born yesterday...
But again, I have no claims.
And we all know where this is going. Trailblazer will once again end up being critical of her reasoning methods. But of course, at the end, she won't include herself as the ones to blame for criticism of her reasoning.