Only if they can be confirmed as being sent by god, so you still have the same problem.
Nobody can confirm that as a fact, they can only look at the evidence and confirm it in their own mind.
Kinda does.
If god does not send messengers, or there is no god, it means that anyone claiming to be god's messenger is delusional or dishonest.
That's true but you do not
know that God does not send Messengers.
Given the evidence we see in the world, there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities:
1. God exists and sends Messengers to communicate to humans, or
2. God exists but does not communicate to humans, or
3. God does not exist
No, but if all we have are false messengers, it is unreasonable to insist that there definitely are real messengers.
That would be true IF all we had were false Messengers, but how do you know that there are no true Messengers?
It is a poor analogy because it assumes the existence of the thing you are trying to prove, so just more question begging. We already know new cars exist. We have clear, objective, verifiable evidence for them.
Also, if no one had ever seen a new car and our only experience was of old bangers, people would be naturally sceptical of claims that there exist these shiny, smooth, quiet wonders but we just have to believe it.
It does not
assume the existence of true Messengers of God, it was only an analogy to make the point that the existence of false messengers in no way means that there cannot be true Messengers.
Let's say that you were an alien who just landed on earth in a junkyard and you had never seen a new car. You might believe that no new cars exist since you had never seen one, but that does not mean that new cars do not exist.
God would give his true messengers some means by which they could prove their validity. (Of course, claiming "but Jesus/Muhammad/whoever did miracles" is just more unsupported claims. There is zero evidence for any miracle.
God
could give his true messengers some means by which they could prove their validity, but why
would God do that? God did give the Messengers such a method and it could have been used had the Messengers chosen to use it. Baha'u'llah could have appeared to us as superhuman, but only those who saw Him would have seen that and everyone else would have had to take their word for what they had witnessed.
So let's say that Jesus or Muhammad had performed miracles and it was recorded in scriptures. how would miracles be proof to anyone else except those who actually witnessed them? How would you be able to verify that they had performed miracles?
Straw man. Not aware of anyone making that claim.
I did not say that anyone made that claim, I was just explaining that fallacy.
And none have provided any such evidence.
Remember, a person claiming to be a messenger of god is not evidence that they were. Neither is you believing those claims.
Well obviously a claim does not constitute evidence and me believing that claim is not evidence. Anyone can make a claim and anyone can believe a claim, but that is not evidence of anything at all.
The highlighted bit is the part you are still failing to demonstrate. You are just assuming that there must be true messengers.
I m not
assuming that there must be true Messengers. I did my due diligence in order to determine if there were any. I cannot demonstrate that to anyone else because we all have to do our own due diligence. Otherwise you would just be taking my word for it ans that is never a good thing. We all have to do our own independent investigation.
And the facts are that is no evidence that any claims "messenger of god" actually was one.
So, no evidence for god, no evidence for any true messengers. What part of that convinces you that there is a god or that a particular person was a true messenger?
There is evidence but there is no proof because such a thing cannot be proven as a fact, it can only be proven to oneself.
Please bear in mind that the following criteria are
my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.
The minimum criteria would be:
1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.
3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.
5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.
This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.