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

[Trailblazer]

So what exactly are you in here for?

To respond to posts.

Yes you did.

Yes you did, no I didn't.... Sorry, I am not playing that game.
That is not what I am here for.

 

[Trailblazer]

First of all, argument from popularity.

There you go again, using those pesky logical fallacies.

Nope, it is not argument from popularity because I did not say Messengers are true because many or most people believe in them. I only ever said that most people believe in God because of Messengers.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Secondly, need I remind you that most people only recognise ONE of them, so they've still got it wrong by your accounts!

That is completely irrelevant! Most people believe in God because of a Messenger, holy man, etc. Whether they believe Baha'u'llah or not is a red herring since it is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.

The point is that even if there were no messengers, God could still find a way to make sure lots of people believed.

God could make all people believers if He chose to do that. I have already said that umpteen million times on this forum and I posted the appropriate passage from Baha'u'llah where He wrote that..

I think it means that you're all wrong.

You can think whatever you want to because you have free will.

True.

However, concluding that they are all wrong fits perfectly with all of the claims.

Nope. Concluding that all the religions were right before they got corrupted by man fits perfectly with all of my claims.

You have demonstrated many times that in virtually all respects they are essentially identical. Pointing out one way in which Bahai is a little bit different doesn't mean that Bahai is completely different.

No, I have never demonstrated that in virtually all respects all religions are essentially identical.
I have said that all religions are different because humanity has different needs in every age.

However, Baha'i is not completely different because it teaches the same spiritual virtues as all the other religions since those virtues are eternal

What if God knew that I would dismiss them all 50 years before I was born? Then I wouldn't have been able to freely choose to do anything else.

If God knew that then that is what you will freely choose to do because you wanted to choose it, not because God knew you would choose it.
However, there is NO WAY you can know what God knows so you do not know what you will ultimately choose.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes you did, no I didn't.... Sorry, I am not playing that game.
That is not what I am here for.

Don't say no you didn't when I pointed to exactly where you did it.

 

[Tiberius]

Nope, it is not argument from popularity because I did not say Messengers are true because many or most people believe in them. I only ever said that most people believe in God because of Messengers.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Most people believe that there have been messengers from God, therefore there have been messengers from God.

There's your argument from popularity.

That is completely irrelevant! Most people believe in God because of a Messenger, holy man, etc. Whether they believe Baha'u'llah or not is a red herring since it is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.

So what? Most people believing something is meaningless. There was a time when most people believed that heavier things fell faster than lighter things.

God could make all people believers if He chose to do that. I have already said that umpteen million times on this forum and I posted the appropriate passage from Baha'u'llah where He wrote that..

And yet he didn't!

You can think whatever you want to because you have free will.

Not if God knew ahead of...

Oh, why bother...?

Nope. Concluding that all the religions were right before they got corrupted by man fits perfectly with all of my claims.

And let's not forget your claims are by far the minority.

No, I have never demonstrated that in virtually all respects all religions are essentially identical.
I have said that all religions are different because humanity has different needs in every age.

However, Baha'i is not completely different because it teaches the same spiritual virtues as all the other religions since those virtues are eternal

I have lost track of how many times I have pointed out you are using the same flawed reasoning as people of other faiths.

 

[Trailblazer]

Most people believe that there have been messengers from God, therefore there have been messengers from God.

There's your argument from popularity.

But that is not MY argument, that is your twisting of my argument.

My argument was that most people believe in God because of Messengers.
That is not an argument from popularity because it does not imply that Messengers are from God is true.
It is s simple observation of why most people believe in God, based upon statistics.

So what? Most people believing something is meaningless. There was a time when most people believed that heavier things fell faster than lighter things.

I did not claim that what most people believe is meaningful. We were discussing efficiency. I was responding to what you said after I said that God communicates via Messengers (post #5935).

Tiberius said: It's not a very efficient way of doing it, is it?
Trailblazer said: It is perfectly efficient since most people in the world recognize the Messengers.

My point was that most people believe in God because of Messengers of God.

And yet he didn't!

No, He didn't because He did not choose to, and God only does what God chooses to do.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209

Not if God knew ahead of...

Oh, why bother...?

God does not determine what you choose to believe by His 'knowing ahead of time' what you will choose to believe. That would be predetermination and we agreed that you do not believe in that:

@Trailblazer , since you gave this post a like, can I assume you are going to drop your cries of "God's foreknowledge doesn't force you to make a choice" argument? Because I've told you many times that I have not claimed that God's foreknowledge does so. #514 Tiberius

And let's not forget your claims are by far the minority.

And I have explained why Baha'is are in the minority.

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.

Logic and reason tell us that few people are able to enter through the narrow gate because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through and few people are able to follow the narrow road because it is narrow, so it is difficult to walk on. It is much easier to enter through a wide gate and walk on abroad road.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

I have lost track of how many times I have pointed out you are using the same flawed reasoning as people of other faiths.

No, all you have pointed out is that I was using the same reasoning as people of other faiths when we say 'we believe' that our religion is true.

 

[samtonga43]

My point was that most people believe in God because of Messengers of God.

I disagree. I believe that most people believe in God because of God.

 

[joelr]

Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence atheists say “that’s not evidence.”

So if “that’s not evidence” what would be evidence of God’s existence?

If God existed, where would we get the evidence? How would we get it?

As I see it there are only three possibilities:

1. God exists and there is evidence so we should look for the evidence.
2. God exists but there is no evidence so there is nothing to look for.
3. God does not exist and that is why there is no evidence.

I believe (1) God exists and there is evidence, because if there was no evidence God could not hold humans accountable for believing in Him. Why would God expect us to believe He exists and provide no evidence? That would be unfair as well as unreasonable.

Then where is the evidence? There are no prophecies any different than vague prophecies in other religions. The science (all of it) he gave was literally wrong. He has no new philosophy in a world of incredible philosophy from Greek thinkers to Kant and modern thinkers who are mind-blowing. He performed no magic or told/wrote down any science or equations that would answer questions of help humanity. He didn't cure cancer or do anything except make a claim that he's getting messages from a God.
And people believed him. But people also believe Mormonism, JW (Satan has influenced all scientists they claim), Roswell aliens, abductions, mediums who speak to their dead relatives...
His literary skills are not impressive, he writes a lot but says very little.
The evidence that has been put forward as evidence is not evidence that one is speaking for a God? There is no evidence for a theistic God anyways and now someone comes along also providing no evidence, how is that impressive?

I have asked before?

Why didn't he write down several branches of science/math. Solved the Riemann hypothesis, given E=Mc2, cured a disease, predicted something real like computers and the internet will be big in 2000. Or Terrorists will fly a plane into the WTC or give a formula to cure all cancer. This would be a start. Or God could just show up and advance our science 1000 years, cure all disease, show cures for all disease, demonstrate time travel, make us a time machine. Give us a drug to live for 10000's of years, kill someone by disintegration and re-form them. Help. us make a spaceship that can travel faster than light. Let us colonize other planets with terraform devices.
These would be places to start.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then where is the evidence?

The Manifestations of God are the evidence.

“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

 

[Sheldon]

The Manifestations of God are the evidence.

What evidence?

 

[Tiberius]

But that is not MY argument, that is your twisting of my argument.

My argument was that most people believe in God because of Messengers.
That is not an argument from popularity because it does not imply that Messengers are from God is true.
It is s simple observation of why most people believe in God, based upon statistics.

Then it's entirely irrelevant, since they could all be wrong.

I did not claim that what most people believe is meaningful. We were discussing efficiency. I was responding to what you said after I said that God communicates via Messengers (post #5935).

Tiberius said: It's not a very efficient way of doing it, is it?
Trailblazer said: It is perfectly efficient since most people in the world recognize the Messengers.

My point was that most people believe in God because of Messengers of God.

And it also depends on them actually being messengers from God in order to show that it's efficient. Thus it presupposes that God is real and sent messengers, and that turns it into an argument from popularity.

No, He didn't because He did not choose to, and God only does what God chooses to do.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209

And yet no explanation as to WHY.

God does not determine what you choose to believe by His 'knowing ahead of time' what you will choose to believe. That would be predetermination and we agreed that you do not believe in that:

@Trailblazer , since you gave this post a like, can I assume you are going to drop your cries of "God's foreknowledge doesn't force you to make a choice" argument? Because I've told you many times that I have not claimed that God's foreknowledge does so. #514 Tiberius

You also said you'd drop that stupid strawman argument in post 519, and yet here you are using it again.

And I have explained why Baha'is are in the minority.

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.

Logic and reason tell us that few people are able to enter through the narrow gate because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through and few people are able to follow the narrow road because it is narrow, so it is difficult to walk on. It is much easier to enter through a wide gate and walk on abroad road.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

Perhaps you've forgotten that I've already responded to that?

No, all you have pointed out is that I was using the same reasoning as people of other faiths when we say 'we believe' that our religion is true.

And if it was not flawed, you'd believe that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc all had just as solid evidence that their faiths were correct as you do for yours.

Since you obviously don't, you clearly find that reasoning flawed - except when you use it for your own faith.

 

[rational experiences]

A human man men agreed says their human and man presence is proof that God exists talking direct to self the man as a human.

Saying I am the God.

So you ask what's earth then?

A planet he says.

What's the heavens then?

A body of gases cooled we live in water oxygenated by nature garden portion held at ground mass.

It's a thin body of water we live with.

The heavens.

So a God human says I own what type of God presence himself?

Human biology he says mainly water with microbiome God and bio chemistry as a Human god type.

Oh so the human god type is a whole being a one being by type human and not separate in any status?

Yes says the human teacher.

What types does a human use in human chosen sciences as God types? Mainly substances he named living as the human god. As nobody else named separated bodies but the human.

Okay so a human god is defined by being the human described as the human type human and substances human stated without argument by any other human?

Of course says an intelligent human.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then it's entirely irrelevant, since they could all be wrong.

So what? They could also all be right.

And it also depends on them actually being messengers from God in order to show that it's efficient. Thus it presupposes that God is real and sent messengers, and that turns it into an argument from popularity.

No, it does not depend upon that in order to show that it is efficient, and as I have said numerous times it can never be proven that God sent Messengers.

No, it is not an argument from popularity because I am not saying that Messengers were sent by God is true just because many or most people 'believe' that Messengers were sent by God.

And yet no explanation as to WHY.

God could make all people believers if He chose to do that. God does not choose to do that because God does not want to do that.

The world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of God's Will and that is why God only chooses to do what He wants to do and never chooses to do what He does not want to do.

Who can tell God what to do and make God do it? There is no entity more powerful than an all-powerful God so God can choose to do anything He wants to do and choose not to do anything He does not want to do.

You also said you'd drop that stupid strawman argument in post 519, and yet here you are using it again.

That is because you keep presenting it again, so it is no strawman.

Tb: You can think whatever you want to because you have free will.
Tibs: Not if God knew ahead of...
Oh, why bother...?

You are saying that what God knew 'ahead of time' prevents you from thinking what you want to think, so you are saying that God's foreknowledge takes your choice away, yet you continually deny that is what you are claiming. #514 Tiberius

Perhaps you've forgotten that I've already responded to that?

So what?
Tiberius said: And let's not forget your claims are by far the minority.

If you keep saying that my claims are in the minority I will keep posting Matthew 7:13-14 and the reason why there are very few Baha'is.

And if it was not flawed, you'd believe that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc all had just as solid evidence that their faiths were correct as you do for yours.

Since you obviously don't, you clearly find that reasoning flawed - except when you use it for your own faith.

No, I do not believe that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc all had just as solid evidence that their faiths are true as I have and that is why I am not a member of their faiths.

Adherents to each religion 'believing' their religion is true is a matter if belief, not a matter of reasoning, so it cannot be flawed reasoning.

What people believe has no bearing on what is actually true so it is a red herring to bring up what I believe or what they believe.

 

[ppp]

So what? They could also all be right.

Could they? I see no evidence to support that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Could they? I see no evidence to support that.

I see the evidence that supports that.

 

[Sheldon]

I see the evidence that supports that.

Is it surrounded by bright lights? You may be imagining it, you certainly haven't been able to demonstrate any.

 

[joelr]

The Manifestations of God are the evidence.

“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

What manifestations? I've already spoken on the writings of Baháʼu'lláh and while nice do not demonstrate any type of literary mastery to any degree. He sources older religions, is highly repetitive, literally failed all of the science he gave, produced no modern philosophy (please read some Kant, or even go back and read Plato and Aristotle. Read The Republic. I have pointed this and more out.

What else? Moses? Moses is a myth?
"Generally, Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE.["

Moses - Wikipedia
A man named Moses may have lived but the character in th eBible is a blend of Egyptian myths:

1. We cannot be sure Moses ever lived because there are not traces of his existence outside the tradition" (p.2) "I shall not even ask the question—let alone, answer it—whether Moses was an Egyptian, or a Hebrew, or a Midianite. This question concerns the historical Moses and thus pertains to history. I am concerned with Moses as a figure of memory. As a figure of memory, Moses the Egyptian is radically different from Moses the Hebrew or the Biblical Moses.
2. ^ Dever, William (November 17, 2008). "Archeology of the Hebrew Bible". Nova. PBS. Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.

Jesus?
A mythic narrative. The gospel Jesus is just a story. All of the stories surrounding Jesus and Moses are re-worked myths from previous cultures. They are no different than Inanna and Romulus except they became more famous.


So someone starts a new religion, uses what he likes from the main surviving religions, writes nothing of importance except the usual "be good" and "believe in God" and then claims proof of God is those old religions AND the fact that this new person is writing all this content? Content that has ZERO proof he is in communication with a divinity? He wasn't allowed to have one single clear piece of information that could actually make people stop and think? "Sorry I can't cure cancer, which kills like everyones parents at some point and sometimes kids and young adults. But for sure....be good and love God..."


Yeah that is not evidence. Do you understand what the word means?

 

[Tiberius]

So what? They could also all be right.

No they can't, because each one claims that all the others are wrong.

No, it does not depend upon that in order to show that it is efficient,

You've got nothing to show that it's efficient.

and as I have said numerous times it can never be proven that God sent Messengers.

I know. That's why I don't believe.

No, it is not an argument from popularity because I am not saying that Messengers were sent by God is true just because many or most people 'believe' that Messengers were sent by God.

TB: "Many people believe..."

Also TB: "It's NOT an argument from popularity!"

God could make all people believers if He chose to do that. God does not choose to do that because God does not want to do that.

The world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of God's Will and that is why God only chooses to do what He wants to do and never chooses to do what He does not want to do.

Who can tell God what to do and make God do it? There is no entity more powerful than an all-powerful God so God can choose to do anything He wants to do and choose not to do anything He does not want to do.

Assertion. Provide support.

That is because you keep presenting it again, so it is no strawman.

Tb: You can think whatever you want to because you have free will.
Tibs: Not if God knew ahead of...
Oh, why bother...?

You are saying that what God knew 'ahead of time' prevents you from thinking what you want to think, so you are saying that God's foreknowledge takes your choice away, yet you continually deny that is what you are claiming. #514 Tiberius

If I watch Jurassic Park, I know that the lawyer is going to run from the car halfway through the movie. Is my knowledge that he will run the thing that causes him to run?

If I watch Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, I know that Spock is going to die at the end. Is my knowledge the cause of Spock's death?

So what?
Tiberius said: And let's not forget your claims are by far the minority.

If you keep saying that my claims are in the minority I will keep posting Matthew 7:13-14 and the reason why there are very few Baha'is.

How about I start citing that same passage as an explanation as to why so few people believe that I can turn into a fire breathing dragon?

No, I do not believe that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc all had just as solid evidence that their faiths are true as I have and that is why I am not a member of their faiths.

So what? You said it was the SAME REASONING. If the reasoning is valid for your case, it is valid for the Christian case, the Muslim case, etc.

Adherents to each religion 'believing' their religion is true is a matter if belief, not a matter of reasoning, so it cannot be flawed reasoning.

Then why do you keep telling us the REASONS you disagree with us?

What people believe has no bearing on what is actually true so it is a red herring to bring up what I believe or what they believe.

Okay then, so let's discount any and all religious BELIEFS.

Seems to me that all we can do now is look at real world evidence.

So what real world evidence have you got? Remember, anecdotes and claims are not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

No they can't, because each one claims that all the others are wrong.

I was not referring to the claims if the followers of the religions, I was referring to the messages of the Messengers. They were all right before the messages were corrupted by the leaders and followers of those religions. The messages were different, but differences are not contradictions.

You've got nothing to show that it's efficient.

All the people who believe in God because of the Messengers is what I have to show.
84 percent of the world population has a faith and all those faiths have a Messenger or the equivalent who acted as an intermediary between God and man.

I know. That's why I don't believe.

That's your choice.

TB: "Many people believe..."

Also TB: "It's NOT an argument from popularity!"

You just committed the cherry picking fallacy by picking out only a few words I said instead of the whole sentence.

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone focuses only on evidence that supports their stance, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.
Cherry Picking: When People Ignore Evidence that They Dislike – Effectiviology

Pay close attention to what I said followed by the definition of the ad populum fallacy.
No, what I said is not an argument from popularity because I am not saying that Messengers were sent by God is true just because many or most people 'believe' that Messengers were sent by God.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Assertion. Provide support.

It is not an assertion, it is just logic 101. God is omnipotent so God could make all men into believers (by providing proof that He exists) if God chose to do that. The fact that God does not do that means that God does not want to do that since an omnipotent God can do anything He wants to do.

If I watch Jurassic Park, I know that the lawyer is going to run from the car halfway through the movie. Is my knowledge that he will run the thing that causes him to run?

If I watch Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, I know that Spock is going to die at the end. Is my knowledge the cause of Spock's death?

Your knowledge does not cause anything to happen.
The lawyer ran because the lawyer chose to run, according to the movie script.
Spock died because it was written into the script.

How about I start citing that same passage as an explanation as to why so few people believe that I can turn into a fire breathing dragon?

Go right ahead. This is a public forum.

So what? You said it was the SAME REASONING. If the reasoning is valid for your case, it is valid for the Christian case, the Muslim case, etc.

But it has no bearing upon which faiths are true, none at all.
The key point is that those faiths were once true before they were corrupted by man.
Another key point is that those faiths do not have what humanity needs in this new age.

Then why do you keep telling us the REASONS you disagree with us?

I present those reasons if they come up in a conversation.

Okay then, so let's discount any and all religious BELIEFS.

Seems to me that all we can do now is look at real world evidence.

So what real world evidence have you got? Remember, anecdotes and claims are not evidence.

You already know what I have for real world evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

I was not referring to the claims if the followers of the religions, I was referring to the messages of the Messengers. They were all right before the messages were corrupted by the leaders and followers of those religions. The messages were different, but differences are not contradictions.

"Hmmm, how can we get it so all religions agree with each other when they clearly don't? I know, let's say that all religions in their pure form DO agree with each other, but then Humans corrupted them which is why it just APPEARS that they disagree! Genius!"

All the people who believe in God because of the Messengers is what I have to show.
84 percent of the world population has a faith and all those faiths have a Messenger or the equivalent who acted as an intermediary between God and man.

Go on then, tell me that this isn't argument from popularity...

I dare you.

You just committed the cherry picking fallacy by picking out only a few words I said instead of the whole sentence.

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone focuses only on evidence that supports their stance, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.
Cherry Picking: When People Ignore Evidence that They Dislike – Effectiviology

Pay close attention to what I said followed by the definition of the ad populum fallacy.
No, what I said is not an argument from popularity because I am not saying that Messengers were sent by God is true just because many or most people 'believe' that Messengers were sent by God.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

You said, "most people believe in God because of Messengers of God."

So your argument is that most people in the world believe in God's messengers (post 5945), and that makes it an argument from popularity.

It is not an assertion, it is just logic 101. God is omnipotent so God could make all men into believers (by providing proof that He exists) if God chose to do that. The fact that God does not do that means that God does not want to do that since an omnipotent God can do anything He wants to do.

Apparently you failed Logic 101.

I could say the exact same thing about me. I am omnipotent, but I choose not to use my omnipotence because I do not wish to.

Your knowledge does not cause anything to happen.
The lawyer ran because the lawyer chose to run, according to the movie script.
Spock died because it was written into the script.

And I know that it will happen because I am familiar with the script, right?

Go right ahead. This is a public forum.

Very well. You should try walking on the narrow path to the truth that I can turn into a fire breathing dragon. The truth will set you free.

But it has no bearing upon which faiths are true, none at all.
The key point is that those faiths were once true before they were corrupted by man.
Another key point is that those faiths do not have what humanity needs in this new age.

You assert that those faiths have been corrupted, but no support. You assert that those faiths do not have what humanity needs in this age, but no support.

I present those reasons if they come up in a conversation.

You miss the point, once again.

How can you have reasons for something that is not a matter of reasoning?

You already know what I have for real world evidence.

Yeah, anecdotes and claims. So you got nothing.

 

[CG Didymus]

So what exactly are you in here for?



Yes you did.

I pointed out (in post 5918) that it is a double standard for you to cast doubt on the NT accounts of Jesus (as you did in post 5905) and then use those same accounts to support your Baha'i beliefs (as you did in post 5923, as well as other posts in the past too numerous to mention).

There's little to no continuity between the Scriptures of the different religions. Yet, Baha'i create some. And when they can't, then those verses don't mean what they say. Like with reincarnation in Hinduism and Buddhism and the resurrection in Christianity. Then also claiming "prophecy" fulfilled with verses that are taken out of context. Like the "comforter" or Holy Spirit coming at Pentecost is switched to the Baha'i prophet. And like with Christians, taking one verse out of Isaiah and making it a prophecy about a virgin birth. The double standard is really troubling. It causes me not to trust them. That and that after all these threads and posts, still their only evidence is because their prophet said that he was sent from God...in writing.