Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Tiberius]

I don't believe non-messengers can do what Messengers do because they don't have the divine part.

Please tell me what prevents someone who lacks a divine part from doing those things.

Specifically, you said a genuine messenger from God, that is, somneone who has a divine part, will:

1. have a good character, exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient;
2. believe they have been given a mission by God and do everything they could to see that it was carried out. They will also be completely successful before their death, and accomplish everything that they set out to do;
3. write much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who speak for them, and firmly believed that the work they are doing is for the Cause of God;
4. have many followers while they are alive, and still have millions who follow their teachings and gather in groups based on the religion they founded;
5. their followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

So tell me, which one of these can NOT be done by someone unless they have a divine part?

I never said you should believe what I do about what happened and I would not expect that you would unless you were a Baha'i.

Oh, don't worry, I don't.

People are free to believe whatever they want to believe.

But why believe a supernatural explanation when there's a perfectly rational natural explanation?

I never said that I rejected other faiths, I was referring to the claimed miracles of other faiths.
No, I did not research other faiths before I became a Baha'i because I had no reason to so do.

So you never actually did your research then, did you?

All those times you said you had done your research and thus were certain that your conclusions were correct, you were no different to the people who think the moon landings never happened, but only ever look for sources that show that the moon landings were impossible.

That's not actually research. That's called cherry picking, and it's a logical fallacy. It 's it seems to be a habit with you, doesn't it? Logical Fallacy: One-Sidedness

 

[Trailblazer]

Please tell me what prevents someone who lacks a divine part from doing those things.

Specifically, you said a genuine messenger from God, that is, someone who has a divine part, will:

1. have a good character, exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient;
2. believe they have been given a mission by God and do everything they could to see that it was carried out. They will also be completely successful before their death, and accomplish everything that they set out to do;
3. write much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who speak for them, and firmly believed that the work they are doing is for the Cause of God;
4. have many followers while they are alive, and still have millions who follow their teachings and gather in groups based on the religion they founded;
5. their followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

So tell me, which one of these can NOT be done by someone unless they have a divine part?

#2 and #3 CANNOT be done by someone unless they have a divine part.

But why believe a supernatural explanation when there's a perfectly rational natural explanation?

Simple, because I believe that the Bab was a Messenger (Manifestation of God) so I know He could do miracles.

Question.—It is recorded that miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles really to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning? It has been proved by exact science that the essence of things does not change, and that all beings are under one universal law and organization from which they cannot deviate; and, therefore, that which is contrary to universal law is impossible.

Answer.—The Holy Manifestations are the sources of miracles and the originators of wonderful signs. For Them, any difficult and impracticable thing is possible and easy. For through a supernatural power wonders appear from Them; and by this power, which is beyond nature, They influence the world of nature. From all the Manifestations marvelous things have appeared.

Some Answered Questions, p. 100

22: MIRACLES

So you never actually did your research then, did you?

No, I did not research all the religions, I only researched the Baha'i Faith.
There was no need to research all the older religions once I found the new one and determined that it was true.

I also have no need to go to a wrecking yard and look for a car that no longer runs when there is a new car lot down the street that has cars that actually run and will get me where I need to go.

 

[Tiberius]

#2 and #3 CANNOT be done by someone unless they have a divine part.

That's incorrect. Lots of people have believed completely that God spoke to them, that God gave them a mission, and they have consequently written a great deal about God. Yet you would not call them divine messengers from God or anything like that.

Simple, because I believe that the Bab was a Messenger (Manifestation of God) so I know He could do miracles.

No, you believe he could do miracles. You do not know. You simply believe you have knowledge because you believe so strongly. But beliefs do not become knowledge when they are held strongly to be true.

No, I did not research all the religions, I only researched the Baha'i Faith.
There was no need to research all the older religions once I found the new one and determined that it was true.

And what an amazing coincidence that the first one you start looking at just so happens to be the true one! How lucky you were!

Of course, I suspect that you could have looked at a different religion, heard an argument for that other religion that convinced you, and then you'd be following that religion rather than Bahai...

I also have no need to go to a wrecking yard and look for a car that no longer runs when there is a new car lot down the street that has cars that actually run and will get me where I need to go.

Wow, that's a terrible analogy.

It's more like you were after the best car you could possibly get, and the salesman at the first dealership you went to gave such a convincing pitch that you bought a car from him, utterly convinced that you were buying the best car at the best price, despite the fact that you had never looked at any other cars or any other dealerships.

 

[samtonga43]

#2 and #3 CANNOT be done by someone unless they have a divine part.

You really have not thought this through, Tb.

You are saying that a person without 'a divine part' COULD NOT believe they have been given a mission by God and do everything they could to see that it was carried out.

You are saying that a person without 'a divine part' COULD NOT be completely successful before their death, and accomplish everything that they set out to do; Read the following again:

You are saying that a person without 'a divine part' COULD NOT write much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively,

This is nonsense, Tb. It is irrational, and someone who tells us often about her prowess in the field of logic should know this.






.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's incorrect. Lots of people have believed completely that God spoke to them, that God gave them a mission, and they have consequently written a great deal about God. Yet you would not call them divine messengers from God or anything like that.

Those people can believe what they want to believe but unless they were Messengers with a divine part they could not be completely successful in carrying out a mission from God and accomplish everything that God gave them to do. Unless they had a divine part they could not know anything about God, so whatever they wrote was not about God.

No, you believe he could do miracles. You do not know. You simply believe you have knowledge because you believe so strongly. But beliefs do not become knowledge when they are held strongly to be true.

I am not going to argue about the meaning of knowledge vs. beliefs and how I know my beliefs are true.

And what an amazing coincidence that the first one you start looking at just so happens to be the true one! How lucky you were!

It is a coincidence and I was lucky because my older brother was not so lucky. He thoroughly researched all the major religions and read the Bible five times before he heard about the Baha'i Faith.

Of course, I suspect that you could have looked at a different religion, heard an argument for that other religion that convinced you, and then you'd be following that religion rather than Bahai...

No, I can tell you I would not be doing that, because I was not even LOOKING for a religion or for God when I stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith. I only believed that the Baha'i Faith was true because it made sense and the teachings and message resonated with me. None of the older religions have the teachings and the message that the Baha'i Faith has so they would not have resonated with me.

Wow, that's a terrible analogy.

It's more like you were after the best car you could possibly get, and the salesman at the first dealership you went to gave such a convincing pitch that you bought a car from him, utterly convinced that you were buying the best car at the best price, despite the fact that you had never looked at any other cars or any other dealerships.

No, that is not what happened at all because there was no salesman. I independently researched the Baha'i Faith and determined that it was true.

After researching the Baha'i Faith I was utterly convinced that I was choosing the best religion, despite the fact that I had never looked at any other religions. Fast forward, and I now know about some of those other religions and knowing about them, I know I made the right choice.

All the major religions have the same spiritual teachings as the Baha'i Faith but they are lacking the message that God wants humanity to have in this new age. They are also lacking the most important teaching of the Baha'i Faith, progressive revelation, the teaching that there is only one God and many religions that were revealed by that God throughout the ages.

Finally, I could never believe in any other religion as a standalone because no other religion is logical to me, since no other religion allows for all the other religions to be true. It will never make sense to me that only one religion is true because that would mean that all the other religions are false, and I don't believe that. i simply believe that the older religions are outdated and falling apart, like an old car, so they are not going to take humanity where we need to go in this new age.

 

[Trailblazer]

You really have not thought this through, Tb.

You are saying that a person without 'a divine part' COULD NOT believe they have been given a mission by God and do everything they could to see that it was carried out.

You are saying that a person without 'a divine part' COULD NOT be completely successful before their death, and accomplish everything that they set out to do; Read the following again:

You are saying that a person without 'a divine part' COULD NOT write much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively,

This is nonsense, Tb. It is irrational, and someone who tells us often about her prowess in the field of logic should know this..

A person without 'a divine part' COULD believe they have been given a mission by God and do everything they could to see that it was carried out, but it would not be a mission given them by God because God only gives missions to Messengers who have a divine part.

A person without 'a divine part' COULD be completely successful before their death, and accomplish everything that they set out to do, but they would not be accomplishing a mission given them by God because God only gives missions to Messengers who have a divine part..

A person without 'a divine part' COULD NOT write much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, because they would have NO WAY to know anything about God or God's purpose for humans unless they were a Messenger of God who had both a divine and a human nature.

No, any logical person would know that without a divine part a man would be just a man like any other man and he could not accomplish what Messengers of God such as Jesus and Baha'u'llah accomplished. Every Christian knows that Jesus was human but He also had a divine part.

 

[samtonga43]

A person without 'a divine part' COULD believe they have been given a mission by God and do everything they could to see that it was carried out, but it would not be a mission given them by God because God only gives missions to Messengers who have a divine part

.
Logical Fallacy: Begging the question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.
Your logical fallacy is begging the question
A person without 'a divine part' COULD be completely successful before their death, and accomplish everything that they set out to do, if they believed that they were accomplishing a mission given them by God.

A person without 'a divine part' COULD NOT write much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, because they would have NO WAY to know anything about God or God's purpose for humans unless they were a Messenger of God who had both a divine and a human nature

.
However, the person without 'a divine part' COULD write much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, if they believed they were a Messenger of God.

No, any logical person would know that without a divine part a man would be just a man like any other man and he could not accomplish what Messengers of God such as Jesus and Baha'u'llah accomplished.

How do you know that a person who believed they had 'a divine part' could not accomplish what Mr.B accomplished?

Every Christian knows that Jesus was human but He also had a divine part.

No, I’m afraid you’re wrong again. Every Christian does not know that “Jesus was human but He also had a divine part”.

Tb, your logical reasoning skills are not working well.

 

[Trailblazer]

.
Logical Fallacy: Begging the question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.

I was not presenting a logical argument, but even if I was it would not matter because if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.

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. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

Furthermore, circularity does not invalidate the argument.

Invalid: an argument that is not valid. We can test for invalidity by assuming that all the premises are true and seeing whether it is still possible for the conclusion to be false. If this is possible, the argument is invalid.
Validity and Invalidity, Soundness and Unsoundness

My argument cannot be an invalid argument because if the premise is true then the conclusion must be true. However, I can never PROVE that the premise is true and that is why I am not presenting a logical argument.

This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.
Your logical fallacy is begging the question

Begs the question is a term that comes from formal logic. It's a translation of the Latin phrase petitio principii, and it's used to mean that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. Begging the question - Wikipedia

I am not begging the question because my premise does not lack support.

A person without 'a divine part' COULD be completely successful before their death, and accomplish everything that they set out to do, if they believed that they were accomplishing a mission given them by God.

So what? They could believe it was mission given them by God but it would not be a mission given them by God because God only gives missions to Messengers who have a divine part and that was my point. It is a belief so it is not subject to logical proof, so don't pull out logical fallacies again.

However, the person without 'a divine part' COULD write much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, if they believed they were a Messenger of God.

A non-messenger of God could believe he was a Messenger of God, but if he wrote about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, it would not be COMING from God so it would just be gibberish.

How do you know that a person who believed they had 'a divine part' could not accomplish what Mr.B accomplished?

Simple, because nobody ever accomplished any such thing (unless they were a Messenger of God with a divine part.)

No, I’m afraid you’re wrong again. Every Christian does not know that “Jesus was human but He also had a divine part”.

Christians do not call it a divine part but it amounts to the same thing. Christians believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God, and that means that Jesus has a twofold nature, a divine nature and a human nature. That is what I mean when I say that Messengers of God have a 'divine part' and a 'human part.'.

Tb, your logical reasoning skills are not working well.

My reasoning skills are just fine.

 

[samtonga43]

I was not presenting a logical argument, but even if I was it would not matter because if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.

Premise: Mr A. believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out.
Conclusion: Mr A. had ‘a divine part’.
Is it possible that this conclusion is false?

Premise: Mr B. believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out.
Conclusion: Mr B. had ‘a divine part’.
Is it possible that this conclusion is false?

Premise: Miss C. believed she had been given a mission by God and did everything she could to see that it was carried out.
Conclusion: Miss C. had ‘a divine part’.
Is it possible that this conclusion is false?

So what? They could believe it was mission given them by God but it would not be a mission given them by God because God only gives missions to Messengers who have a divine part and that was my point.
A non-messenger of God could believe he was a Messenger of God, but if he wrote about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, it would not be COMING from God so it would just be gibberish.

I simply do not understand how you, who think you are logical, cannot see that your above statements are completely illogical.

It is a belief so it is not subject to logical proof, so don't pull out logical fallacies again.

Oh, but I certainly will, Tb. If I am around, and you present an illogical belief, or an illogical statement, I will point it out to you. So please don’t tell me what to do and what not to do.

Christians do not call it a divine part but it amounts to the same thing.

Wrong. It does not amount to the same thing. As you say, Jesus is fully human and fully God. He does not have two parts.

My reasoning skills are just fine.

They’re obviously just fine for you, but I’m afraid this means nothing to most of us reading your posts.

(Wait for it, folks! Will we be linked to the ‘you know which’ logical fallacy?)

 

[CG Didymus]

Wrong. It does not amount to the same thing. As you say, Jesus is fully human and fully God. He does not have two parts.

Unbelievable, 262 pages of claims that aren't claims, they are "beliefs"? And now logical arguments that aren't logical arguments? Circles that aren't circles? Proving the unprovable by showing evidence that's not objective evidence to prove something that can't be proven? It still makes me dizzy.

But now a divine messenger has two parts? I thought that Baha'is believe everybody has two parts, a lower animal nature and a higher spiritual nature?

Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”

The soul is ‘the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him”.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá states: “In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men.”
​

Here's an article I found about Baha'is and debating... Avoid Debate—Instead, Explore the Truth Together

This can be hard. When we feel passionately about something, we tend to go into debate mode, simply trying to make the strongest argument for the perspective we already believe to be true. It can be difficult to detach and listen to what another person says. Instead, we should endeavor to do as Abdu’l-Baha advised:

In accordance with the divine teachings in this glorious dispensation we should not belittle anyone and call him ignorant, saying: ‘You know not, but I know’. Rather, we should look upon others with respect, and when attempting to explain and demonstrate, we should speak as if we are investigating the truth, saying: ‘Here these things are before us. Let us investigate to determine where and in what form the truth can be found.’ The teacher should not consider himself as learned and others ignorant. Such a thought breedeth pride, and pride is not conducive to influence. The teacher should not see in himself any superiority; he should speak with the utmost kindliness, lowliness and humility, for such speech exerteth influence and educateth the souls. – Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha,​

And in another article it said...

“If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act,”[10] said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. “Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion.”
​

So many great teachings. Too bad they are seldom applied.

​

 

[Trailblazer]

I simply do not understand how you, who think you are logical, cannot see that your above statements are completely illogical.

There is nothing illogical about anything I said, nothing at all. That is why you cannot show me WHY they are illogical, you can just keep spouting it.

I said: A person could believe it was mission given them by God but it would not be a mission given them by God because God only gives missions to Messengers who have a divine part and that was my point.
A non-messenger of God could believe he was a Messenger of God, but if he wrote about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, it would not be COMING from God so it would just be gibberish.

Now explain WHY that is illogical.
There is NOTHING illogical about it, it is just what I believe. You can disagree with what I believe but that does not mean it is illogical.

Oh, but I certainly will, Tb. If I am around, and you present an illogical belief, or an illogical statement, I will point it out to you. So please don’t tell me what to do and what not to do.

You will sure point it out but you will never EXPLAIN why it is illogical because you can't explain why.

Carry on. Obviously you have nothing better to do that follow me from thread to thread and criticize me. Maybe you should ask yourself why you feel a need to do that.

 

[ppp]

I was not presenting a logical argument, but even if I was it would not matter because if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.

Premises. Plural. And if your argument is circular then one of the premises is necessarily not true. Which is not saying that it's false. False and Not True are not equivalent.

Also, you're using validity incorrectly. An argument can be valid but not be true. What you are trying to claim is that your argument is sound. Sound is deductive argument that is valid and it's premises are true.
Since at least one of your premises is necessarily not true in a circular argument, your argument is not sound.

 

[Trailblazer]

Premises. Plural. And if your argument is circular then one of the premises is necessarily not true. Which is not saying that it's false. False and Not True are not equivalent.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Also, you're using validity incorrectly. An argument can be valid but not be true. What you are trying to claim is that your argument is sound. Sound is deductive argument that is valid and it's premises are true.
Since at least one of your premises is necessarily not true in a circular argument, your argument is not sound.

I never claimed that my argument was sound and in fact I am not even making a logical argument for my beliefs!

I don't know why some people keep insisting I am making a logical argument for my religious beliefs. I am NOT making a logical argument. There are NO premises that can ever be proven true for ANY religion so I am NOT making a logical argument for my religious beliefs.

I only ever said that IF the premises are true then the conclusion must be true, but I can never prove that my premises are true so I cannot and I DO NOT assert that my conclusion is true.

My premises are not necessarily true but that does not mean they are false. My premises might be true or they might be false, but since I cannot ever prove that they are true, I am not making a logical argument.

Certain people (not you) on this thread are trying to say I am making a logical argument just so that can try to make me look foolish. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

 

[ppp]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Maybe. Not true generally means not always true or not necessarily true. But I think that it's practical use is that the statement has not been shown to be true. So if I say that I have $20 in my wallet, then that would be not true to you since it has not been established to be necessarily true. This is not calling the statement false.

I never claimed that my argument was sound

When you said it was valid and that your premises were true, you were calling it sound. Just because you don't use the word, does not mean that you aren't saying what the word means.

and in fact I am not even making a logical argument for my beliefs!

Um. Okay.

Certain people (not you) on this thread are trying to say I am making a logical argument just so that can try to make me look foolish. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

Weeelllll. You kind of are. It's very hard to write a paragraph of text outlining your flow of thought without creating a logical argument, at least an informal one. This contains logical argument:

I only ever said that IF the premises are true then the conclusion must be true, but I can never prove that my premises are true so I cannot and I DO NOT assert that my conclusion is true.

P1: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
P2: I can never prove my premises are true
Conclusion: I cannot assert that my conclusion is true.
We do it all the time. If you are coherent and thinking and writing a paragraph of text, then you have a really good chance of making some sort of logical argument.

Not necessarily valid. Not necessarily sound.

Such is life.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe. Not true generally means not always true or not necessarily true. But I think that it's practical use is that the statement has not been shown to be true. So if I say that I have $20 in my wallet, then that would be not true to you since it has not been established to be necessarily true. This is not calling the statement false.

Okay, and that is what I am saying. I believe that my beliefs are true but they are not necessarily true because it has not been established that they are true.

When you said it was valid and that your premises were true, you were calling it sound. Just because you don't use the word, does not mean that you aren't saying what the word means.

Please show be where I ever said that my premises are true OR that my argument was sound. I only ever said IF my premises are true THEN the conclusion is true, and that is all hypothetical.

Weeelllll. You kind of are. It's very hard to write a paragraph of text outlining your flow of thought without creating a logical argument, at least an informal one. This contains logical argument:

Trailblazer said: ↑
I only ever said that IF the premises are true then the conclusion must be true, but I can never prove that my premises are true so I cannot and I DO NOT assert that my conclusion is true.

P1: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
P2: I can never prove my premises are true
Conclusion: I cannot assert that my conclusion is true.
We do it all the time. If you are coherent and thinking and writing a paragraph of text, then you have a really good chance of making some sort of logical argument.

Not necessarily valid. Not necessarily sound.

You can call it whatever you want to call it, but I am not saying that I can use a logical argument to prove that my beliefs are true, nor can anyone use a logical argument to prove my beliefs are false. I never said such an argument would be valid or sound. It would not be valid or sound -- if I was trying to make such an argument -- because I could ever prove any premises related to religious beliefs are true.

So my point stands.
Certain people (not you) on this thread are trying to say I am making a logical argument just so that can try to make me look foolish. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

 

[ppp]

Please show be where I ever said that my premises are true OR that my argument was sound. I only ever said IF my premises are true THEN the conclusion is true, and that is all hypothetical.

My argument cannot be an invalid argument because if the premise is true then the conclusion must be true.

The if is in the subordinate clause, and is therefore being used as grounds for your assertion that your argument cannot be invalid unsound. When used that way you are using the fork of the if that supports your assertion. I am not claiming that is what you intended. I am just saying that is what you communicated.

 

[samtonga43]

There is nothing illogical about anything I said, nothing at all. That is why you cannot show me WHY they are illogical, you can just keep spouting it.

I have been trying to lead you to recognize your failure of logical reasoning for yourself. Seeing it for yourself is the only way you will understand.

I said: A person could believe it was mission given them by God but it would not be a mission given them by God because God only gives missions to Messengers who have a divine part and that was my point.

MrA believes that it was mission given them by God
MrA is mistaken.
MrB believes that it was mission given them by God
Mr B is mistaken.
MrC believes that it was mission given them by God
MrC is correct.

A non-messenger of God could believe he was a Messenger of God, but if he wrote about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, it would not be COMING from God so it would just be gibberish.

Not necessarily. Just because it’s not coming from God does not mean that it is gibberish. Logic 101. In any case, would you recognize the non-messenger nature of MrA and Mr B? If so, how?

There is NOTHING illogical about it, it is just what I believe. You can disagree with what I believe but that does not mean it is illogical.

And it does not mean it is logical.
You are desperately holding on to an illogical belief.

You will sure point it out but you will never EXPLAIN why it is illogical because you can't explain why.

I have tried. You don’t understand.

Carry on.

Thanks, but I really don’t need your permission.

Obviously you have nothing better to do that follow me from thread to thread and criticize me. Maybe you should ask yourself why you feel a need to do that.

LOL!! But I don’t have a need to follow you around Tb; you’re being silly now. (And you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself).

 

[Tiberius]

Those people can believe what they want to believe but unless they were Messengers with a divine part they could not be completely successful in carrying out a mission from God and accomplish everything that God gave them to do. Unless they had a divine part they could not know anything about God, so whatever they wrote was not about God.

Unfortunately, that leaves you with no way to tell the difference.

• Someone comes from God as a messenger, believes they have a quest, gains followers, writes a great deal
• Someone BELIEVES they come from God as a messenger, believes they have a quest, gains followers, writes a great deal

How would you differentiate between the two?

I am not going to argue about the meaning of knowledge vs. beliefs and how I know my beliefs are true.

Don't blame you. You've tried before and failed.

It is a coincidence and I was lucky because my older brother was not so lucky. He thoroughly researched all the major religions and read the Bible five times before he heard about the Baha'i Faith.

Meaningless. Everyone who holds any faith always believes that the faith they hold is the ONE TRUE FAITH.

No, I can tell you I would not be doing that, because I was not even LOOKING for a religion or for God when I stumbled upon the Baha'i Faith. I only believed that the Baha'i Faith was true because it made sense and the teachings and message resonated with me. None of the older religions have the teachings and the message that the Baha'i Faith has so they would not have resonated with me.

So Bahai makes sense and resonates, so it must be true. What about for those people for whom it makes no sense and does not resonate? Does that prove that it is not true?

No, that is not what happened at all because there was no salesman. I independently researched the Baha'i Faith and determined that it was true.

So you sold yourself on it.

After researching the Baha'i Faith I was utterly convinced that I was choosing the best religion, despite the fact that I had never looked at any other religions. Fast forward, and I now know about some of those other religions and knowing about them, I know I made the right choice.

All the major religions have the same spiritual teachings as the Baha'i Faith but they are lacking the message that God wants humanity to have in this new age. They are also lacking the most important teaching of the Baha'i Faith, progressive revelation, the teaching that there is only one God and many religions that were revealed by that God throughout the ages.

Finally, I could never believe in any other religion as a standalone because no other religion is logical to me, since no other religion allows for all the other religions to be true. It will never make sense to me that only one religion is true because that would mean that all the other religions are false, and I don't believe that. i simply believe that the older religions are outdated and falling apart, like an old car, so they are not going to take humanity where we need to go in this new age.

"I had a look at one car in the first dealership, and I was utterly convinced it was the best car, despite the fact I had never looked at any other cars or dealerships. Afterwards, I looked at some other cars and knew I had made the best choice."

Cool story.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL!! But I don’t have a need to follow you around Tb

Then why do you follow me around?

(And you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself).

How does my pointing out that you are following me around have anything to do with my opinion of myself? If a stalker followed me around that would have nothing to do with how I feel about myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Unfortunately, that leaves you with no way to tell the difference.

• Someone comes from God as a messenger, believes they have a quest, gains followers, writes a great deal
• Someone BELIEVES they come from God as a messenger, believes they have a quest, gains followers, writes a great deal

How would you differentiate between the two?

I know by studying the history, the character of the alleged Messenger, what he did on His mission, the content and quality of what he wrote, what his mission led to, how may followers he had, what those followers did during his life and after he died.

Meaningless. Everyone who holds any faith always believes that the faith they hold is the ONE TRUE FAITH.

And so? What does that mean?
I will tell you what it does NOT mean. It does not mean that nobody actually HAS a true faith. A faith is either true or false, and what people BELIEVE about it has no bearing on truth or falsehood.

So Bahai makes sense and resonates, so it must be true. What about for those people for whom it makes no sense and does not resonate? Does that prove that it is not true?

I did not say that it is true because it made sense to me and resonated with me. It is either true or false. What I believe about it has no bearing on that.

No, it does not prove it is false just because it makes no sense to someone and does not resonate with them. It is either true or false and what people believe about that has no bearing on that.

So you sold yourself on it.

No, that is not what I said. I said I independently researched the Baha'i Faith and determined that it was true. How else would I know? I was not going to believe what someone else said about it.

"I had a look at one car in the first dealership, and I was utterly convinced it was the best car, despite the fact I had never looked at any other cars or dealerships. Afterwards, I looked at some other cars and knew I had made the best choice."

Cool story.

After I saw the car I wanted there was no need to look at other cars.
I have picked all my cars that way and I still have all of them. Of course I took all of them to my mechanic to have the 100 point check before I bought them.

I picked all my houses the same way and I still have all three of those houses and never regretted the purchase, but of course I hired a home inspector before I purchased them.

I picked all my colleges the same way and I graduated from all of them and got various degrees.

I picked my husband the same way and we are still married over 36 years later...

Comparison shopping is not always necessary and could cause the best deal to get away.