Maybe you recall my argument against gods that I called restricted choice. It was of the form, "If there is a God, the world could be this way or that, but absent a god, it must be that." Several examples were provided.
Yes, I remember that, but I it is just your personal opinion that the world would be a certain way if there was a God, so I do not consider that evidence that there is no God. We all have different opinions about how we think the world should be. That is why opinions are not reliable as a way to make any determinations.
You left out the one that applies to me. I find the evidence for belief insufficient. You never consider the possibility that Baha'u'llah was just another man claiming to speak for a god that either doesn't exist or doesn't communicate with people.
The evidence is insufficient for you but it is more than sufficient for me. No, I do not consider the possibility that Baha'u'llah was just another man claiming to speak for a God because the evidence to the contrary is too overwhelming. There is absolutely no way to explain the person of Baha'u'llah and all that He did on His mission, as well as all the Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by His coming as being "just another man claiming to speak for a god." Baha'u'llah also performed miracles than no ordinary man could perform, but that is only evidence to those who witnessed those miracles.
Obviously, I view the evidence differently from you, but maybe that is because I actually look at it and know what it is.
So what is reliable evidence (your term)? Is that supporting evidence?
Reliable evidence is evidence that supports the claims of Baha'u'llah.
Proofs of Prophethood
I'm aware that people evaluate evidence differently, but that doesn't make all such evaluations equally valid or valuable. We've discussed this before. Reason isn't arbitrary. Some people become adept at recognizing what evidence is relevant and what it implies using valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions. Others do not, and cannot recognize that their analysis is flawed. Yet the ones that can do this well will identify the flawed thinking. This creates a situation where both sides think they have valid albeit different answers, and only one knows the other doesn't.
Do you realize how arrogant this sounds: "Some people become adept at recognizing what evidence is relevant and what it implies using valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions."
What makes you think that you are adept at recognizing the evidence and using valid reasoning and others are not?
Who is the judge of flawed thinking? How do you know somebody's thinking is flawed? It could well be that it is your thinking that is flawed and you don't even realize that. It could well be that Baha'u'llah is actually a Messenger of God and you missed the boat. Only people who are sincerely seeking truth will ever catch that boat because it is not an easy boat to catch and only a few will board it. What was true when Jesus first walked the earth is true now, only these verses no longer apply to Christians because many people have boarded that boat, one third of humanity. I believe that the narrow gate and the road that leads to life is now the Baha'i Faith.
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.