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

[Trailblazer]

Over and over you admit your evidence is only what convinced you. That it hasn't convinced others proves it isn't objective.

No, it only proves that all people interpret objective evidence differently.

Do all jurors view the 'objective' evidence the same way? No they do not and everyone knows that. Why then would everyone looking at the evidence for Baha'u'lah view it the same way? That would be logically impossible because no two brains think identically.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you understand the point I'm making?

No, sorry, I lost track given all these posts i have to answer. What is your point?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, have God become a member and assert this itself.

Sorry, that's impossible because God forever remains in His own high place, on His Throne of Glory.

Until then you are representing God, and given you are a fallible mortal and could be mistaken, I'm not convinced you are telling the truth.

I do not represent God, Baha'u'llah represents God. I am just the messenger for the Messenger so to speak.

How do we know you aren't bluffing us?

Why would I waste my time playing games?

 

[Trailblazer]

IF........

When you state an IF you have unproven premises. So now your claim is that you are uncertain that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. And you are equally uncertain that a God exists.

No, it does not mean that I am uncertain. That is just how logical arguments are worded, If/Then.

I left this out on purpose just to see if you would catch it. I am not making a logical argument because religious beliefs are not subject to logical arguments since they can never be proven to be true. So since I cannot prove the premise Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God that means I cannot conclude God exists in a logical argument. However I can conclude it by looking at the evidence.

You now create a burden of proof to demonstrate that God exists. And that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God.

No, I have no such burden. The burden is on you to look at the evidence if you want to know because as Baha'u'llah wrote...

“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.”Gleanings, p. 143

 

[Trailblazer]

Great, this is why we need exceptional evidence when you refer to a God existing. You believing it exists means nothing to us. It's not like you are claiming you ate a ham sandwich for lunch, that is plausible and not controversial. Where it comes to specific religious claims that any arbitrary person believes is true we need to have verification for it. Otherwise we can't accept the claims of everyone since they contradict themselves.

I do not expect anyone to accept what I believe, not claim. I provide the only evidence that I know about, people can take it or leave it.

So you need even more evidence for yourself as well as others since YOU could be mistaken. And if you care about truth then wouldn't you want to consider you ARE mistaken and assess your beliefs?

How do you know I need more evidence for myself? I have been a Baha’i for 51 years so I have looked at all the evidence over and over and over again. If I did not know what it means by now I would be a real slow on the uptake. How many years would I have to assess my beliefs in order to know I am not mistaken, 100 years? I also have to live life in this world, I cannot spend all my time on religion.

There's no problem with being a believer and you believe for your own sake of meaning. It is different when you opt to use your beliefs as a basis for belief in an open forum. It will be stressful, and others will ask you questions you don't ask yourself. Your mistakes are exposed.

But I am not using my beliefs as a basis for belief in an open forum.

How do YOU know what questions I ask myself? You might “believe” you are exposing my mistakes and that is your right to have that opinion but everything that atheist believe that are exposing is just like water off a duck’s back to me.

if you aren't here with openness to listen to others, and adjust your beliefs if you're shown to be in error, then you are just beating your head against a wall.

The problem is that my beliefs have not been shown to be in error. Do you really think I am going to adjust my beliefs because some atheists disagree with them? Not one of you have anything that could ever refute my beliefs, all you have are personal opinions. If you had something substantive you would bring it to the table.

There is a criteria set in logic. It's objective and not designed to give one idea more advantages than some others. There is also a criteria of evidence, in that valid evidence has to be available to the senses and not require heavy interpretation. These are the high standards critical thinkers use. You criteria has been exposed as vastly less reliable and personal.

My criteria have not been exposed at all, because you have done nothing to prove my criteria are unreliable. My criteria are base upon actual history. All you have is a personal opinion.

But it's flawed because you assume there are gods that send messengers. You don't consider that some, or all, might be frauds.

No, I do not believe there is a God who sends Messengers, I know that, and I know exactly who the real Messengers were.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have posted many flawed posts and others, and me, have pointed out the obvious flaws, and we observed you reject the criticisms. So you might THINK you're being honest with yourself, but the posts reveal you hold onto beliefs that don't have the logical foundation you think it does.

Only in your personal opinion are there any flaws. I have lots of flaws but not in my reasoning.

Of course I reject what I know is not true about ME. Don’t you have anything better to do than point out “what you believe” are flaws of other people? Do you think you are flawless?

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

I suspect you are aware of this to some degree which would explain your frustration. That would indicate cognitive dissonance kicking in.

Who said I am frustrated? You do not know my thoughts and feelings, you just think you do.

The facts that this person existed and claimed things is of no dispute. What is disputed is what he claims. Nothing suggests this guy was special or has any special knowledge from a supernatural source.

I do not care what it suggests to you. I am a separate person.

So you could be wrong and atheists be correct. Notice your language here acknowledges there's no certainty.

I guess you have not been listening very well. I am 100% certain.

There was a time a few years ago when I believed, but thanks to all the atheists and Christians I have posted to now I know.

This explains why you are so defensive, aggressive, and stressed as you defend you faith against critics.

I am none of the above. You are the one who is aggressive, and that is called psychological projection.

Of course you feel as if you are more certain. Wouldn't you be foolish to spend all this time defending your beliefs if it turns out you're mistaken? To justify all your time you HAVE to think you are certain.

Who are you to tell me what I think and feel? Maybe you were raised in a dysfunctional family where nobody had any boundaries. That is what it seems like to me.

I am certain. Why does that bother you so much? What do you get out of criticizing me and my beliefs?

Of course, this is how you manipulate the process to self-validate the beliefs you've already decided are true. The way you refer to criticism of your claims as "attack" indicates how you see debate as personal, and you have to defend yourself. This is part of the trap you set for yourself. It's a manipulative process. You avoid any objective approach. This is common among theists in debate forums.

You made this personal, I did not make it personal, and this is just more projection on your part. You seem to be obsessed with me and my beliefs. Otherwise why would you keep posting to me, except maybe because you think you are going to expose me and make me look bad. I guess you don’t know much about psychology because you are not going to make me or my beliefs look faulty unless people already think me or my beliefs are faulty because they can think for themselves.

This not a debate because you bring nothing to the table except a personal opinion. I bring things to the table which you cannot argue against them so instead you criticize me and my reasoning.

This whole post was a personal attack and everyone can see it but you and people who are like you. It is really sad when people have to criticize other people forcing people to either defend themselves or allow falsehoods about them to be posted, not that it matters what other people think. I only post back for the sake of justice. Baha'u'llah was big on justice, that a primary teaching.

2: O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 3-4

 

[F1fan]

No, it only proves that all people interpret objective evidence differently.

There is no subjective objectivity. You are making more excuses.

Do all jurors view the 'objective' evidence the same way? No they do not and everyone knows that. Why then would everyone looking at the evidence for Baha'u'lah view it the same way? That would be logically impossible because no two brains think identically.

Jurors typically have an obligation to review evidence objectively. Jurors are assessed to be as objective as possible. You are no juror and have no obligation to objectivity, and since you have only yourself to please you see things your way.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But there was verifiable evidence for the election results so how is that similar to NOT having verifiable evidence for God's existence?

But again, there was verifiable evidence for the election results so how is that similar to NOT having verifiable evidence for God's existence?

That is not similar at all. Trumpsters accept the claims of Trump solely based upon what he claims is true but I never accepted what Baha'ullah claimed based upon what He said was true. I only accepted Him because of the evidence that supports His claims.

I know exactly what special pleading is but it does not apply in this case because I fully justified the exception.

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

But it will never work for belief in God for the LOGICAL reasons I stated, namely that the God being can never be verified the way you require because God is not here on earth. What about that do you not understand?

I never told you to make an exception. It s your choice if you want to make an exception or not.

There is no good reason to believe in magical pixies so that cannot be compared with God. There is not only a good reason to believe in God, there is evidence for God, whereas there is no evidence that indicate that magical pixies exist.

I know exactly what special pleading is but it does not apply in this case because I fully justified the exception.

Don't be ridiculous. What you wrote below is your so called 'justification' and it's nothing more that a textbook example of special pleading.

God is a special case, a very special case, a case UNLIKE any other case, because God is not verifiable and never will be verifiable because God is not subject to verification.

I can use your exact same argument to 'fully justify' not needing verifiable evidence for my magical pixie claim. Because my magical pixies are UNLIKE any other case, it's a very SPECIAL case. Unlike every other claim about reality that requires verifiable evidence, my claim about magical pixies gets an exception. So in this special case you should accept that magical pixies are real based on unverifiable evidence, since magical pixies 'aren't subject' to verification.

The above is a case of special pleading and could be used to justify not needing verifiable evidence for any fantastical claim, that's why it's identified as a logical fallacy.

I never told you to make an exception. It s your choice if you want to make an exception or not.

You've told me repeatedly that your proposed god being wants me to make an exception, since you claim it wants me to believe it it, yet knows that I require verifiable evidence for belief. I see absolutely no reason to make an exception in the case of your proposed god or any other unverifiable claim. That would be saying that I have standard for assessing truth in every aspect of my life, but in just this one case I'm going to choose to abandon those standards.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, that's impossible because God forever remains in His own high place, on His Throne of Glory.

Assuming a God exists, and exists in the way you imagine.

I do not represent God, Baha'u'llah represents God. I am just the messenger for the Messenger so to speak.

Assuming Baha’u’llah was correct, which no one can say for sure.

Why would I waste my time playing games?

Entertainment. Like the rest of us.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're not being very clear there. I thought we'd agreed that people claiming to speak for God doesn't mean any of them actually are speaking for God. If you had actual known Messengers of God you would have evidence (actually proof) of God but you don't. All you have are people claiming to speak for God and therefore no evidence.

I did agree that people claiming to speak for God doesn't mean all of them actually are speaking for God, but that does not mean that none of them are speaking for God. I believe that a numbered few men were Messengers of God and really did receive communication from God and spoke for God. I also believe that the Messengers are the evidence for God’s existence that God wants us to look at.

Again, you're being inconsistent. You initially said you're not saying "I believe God exists because of x, y, or z." but now you are saying that.

No, I never said that I said “I can post what I believe God is, but I have no hypothesis about God since I am not trying to say that I believe God exists because of x, y, or z.” I believe that God exists because of what the Messengers reveal about God. Do you consider this a hypothesis?

Fine, but it is a direct contradiction to call God unknowable but then to say he is knowable in any way at all, regardless of the means or extent. Unknowable means unknowable. You simply can't have it both ways.

It is the Essence of God (God’s intrinsic nature) that is unknowable, but we can know some of the Attributes of God and the Will of God through what the Messengers reflect of God and reveal about God.

A concept conveniently designed to be impossible to disprove (like so much theology). You can't have any evidence for this by definition, since the evidence would require knowledge of the element you're claiming is unknowable. You're free to believe it but you can't claim to have evidence for it. You've still not progressed from "people claiming to speak for God" (or even "people who believe they speak for God").

That is correct, it cannot be disproven, but if it is actually true why would you want to disprove it? We can have evidence for the Messengers of God and what I mean by this is that there is evidence that indicates that they were telling the truth and they were really Messengers of God.

The following evidence (1-4) can be examined and evaluated because Baha’i history is well-documented and we have the original Writings of Baha’u’llah.

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

How else do you think you could determine if a man was a Messenger of God? There are also Bible prophecies that were fulfilled and many predictions that Baha’u’llah made that came to pass and that is also evidence.

Then I would argue it is wrong (and dishonest) to use the words for human emotions and, as I said, totally impossible for any human to define, know, understand the "emotions" of God. So again, a belief for which evidence is impossible.

We say God has a mind and emotions simply because that is the only thing humans can relate to, but God’s mind and emotions are nothing like a human’s. No, there is no evidence of God’s intrinsic nature and we do not need to know it as it is forever hidden from us. All we need to know are the Attributes (the qualities of God) and God’s will for us (how God enjoins us to live our lives).

What evidence do these messengers present to support their claims/beliefs? Remember that it can't be a circular argument that relies on believing them to provide the evidence. You also need something that doesn't also work for all the people claiming to be messengers for different, contradictory gods.

I explained what I consider to be the evidence above but another way to approach this in order to differentiate false messengers from true Messengers is by using a list of criteria a true Messenger would have to meet. I made the following list based upon who I believe that the true Messengers of God were, and they meet all these criteria. Any man who does not meet these criteria would not be a true Messenger of God.

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.

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God. That would be a dead giveaway that he was trying to promote his religion as being the only true one, which would lead to suspicion right off the bat because none of the true Messengers of God have talked down other Messengers who preceded them. It is the followers of these religions that talk down the other religions, not the Messengers. There are reasons for that but I do not want to get off the subject at hand.

A caveat I must add is that there have been lesser Prophets, but these are not the Messengers of God I am referring to. I am referring to the universal Manifestations of God who are few in number.

Question: How many kinds of divine Prophets are there?

Answer: There are three kinds of divine Prophets. One kind are the universal Manifestations, which are even as the sun. Through Their advent the world of existence is renewed, a new cycle is inaugurated, a new religion is revealed, souls are quickened to a new life, and East and West are flooded with light. These Souls are the universal Manifestations of God and have been sent forth to the entire world and the generality of mankind.

Another kind of Prophets are followers and promulgators, not leaders and law-givers, but they are nonetheless the recipients of the hidden inspirations of God. Yet another kind are Prophets Whose prophethood has been limited to a particular locality. But the universal Manifestations are all-encompassing: They are like the root, and all others are as the branches; they are like the sun, and all others are as the moon and the stars.

The Three Kinds of Prophets

 

[Trailblazer]

Assuming a God exists, and exists in the way you imagine.

Assuming Baha’u’llah was correct, which no one can say for sure.

Nobody should assume any of that. They should take it seriously and research it and then decide if they believe it is true, IF they care to know the truth about God.

Entertainment. Like the rest of us.

It is entertaining for me at times, but I am not like the some of the rest of you. I am a serious person and a serious believer.
God is serious business.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For more, check here: serious business cartoons - Google Search

Belief in God, soul, final judgment, prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis is great fun for atheists.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know exactly what special pleading is but it does not apply in this case because I fully justified the exception.

Don't be ridiculous. What you wrote below is your so called 'justification' and it's nothing more that a textbook example of special pleading.

Believe whatever you want to, it does not affect me in any way. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived, and such a God is not subject to piddly human logic just because atheists want to think they are smart because they know logic. I know logic too, got an A+ in college, so I am logical enough to know that God who is an unknowable being cannot be subject to logic.

God is a special case, a very special case, a case UNLIKE any other case, because God is not verifiable and never will be verifiable because God is not subject to verification.

I can use your exact same argument to 'fully justify' not needing verifiable evidence for my magical pixie claim. Because my magical pixies are UNLIKE any other case, it's a very SPECIAL case. Unlike every other claim about reality that requires verifiable evidence, my claim about magical pixies gets an exception. So in this special case you should accept that magical pixies are real based on unverifiable evidence, since magical pixies 'aren't subject' to verification.

With all due respect your analogy using magical pixies is dorky and it only makes atheists look silly when they compare God, the Creator of the Universe, with imaginary characters such as this or others like tooth fairies..

The reason that magical pixies are not subject to verification is because they do not exist but the reason God is not subject to verification is because God is nowhere near earth! What about THAT do you NOT understand? How can you verify a God that is not present to be verified? This is absurd, and that is why we are enjoined to verify the Messenger of God who was on earth, and as such we have information about Him.

The above is a case of special pleading and could be used to justify not needing verifiable evidence for any fantastical claim, that's why it's identified as a logical fallacy.

special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

No, to say that God cannot be verified is not deliberately ignoring aspects that are unfavorable to my point of view, it is to use logical reasoning because one cannot verify a God that is not on earth to be verified!

Logical fallacies do not apply to God, they are useful only to identify errors in HUMAN reasoning.

I never told you to make an exception. It s your choice if you want to make an exception or not.

You've told me repeatedly that your proposed god being wants me to make an exception, since you claim it wants me to believe it it, yet knows that I require verifiable evidence for belief. I see absolutely no reason to make an exception in the case of your proposed god or any other unverifiable claim. That would be saying that I have standard for assessing truth in every aspect of my life, but in just this one case I'm going to choose to abandon those standards.

What you just said is illogical on its face. Just because you make one exception that does not mean that you would have to make any other exceptions. I verify everything before I make any decisions, but these are related to people on earth and material things that CAN be verified! I mean I do not just pick a contractor to work on my house unless I have verified him thoroughly. I got nine bids for a new roof and everyone thought that was a bit overboard but I got the best man and the best roof and the best price so it was worth all the time and trouble it took.

Anyhow, I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am just trying to employ reason. the day that atheists finally realize that God is the exception to all the rules is the day there might be hope for them believing in God. Maybe that is why I start so many God threads. I love logic and reason. I don't always like God so much but that is another story.

 

[Trailblazer]

Belief in God, soul, final judgment, prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis is great fun for atheists.

You always show up just at the right time. God must know I need a break from all this serious God talk.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no subjective objectivity. You are making more excuses.

Objective, subjective, these are just words. The point is that you cannot change everything that makes a person unique -- factors that cause us to choose what we choose (e.g., childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and life circumstances.) It is the combination of these factors that will determine how we will view the evidence and make a choice.

It is utterly preposterous that everyone would view and interpret the evidence for Baha'u'llah in the same way and thus come to the same conclusions about Him.

Jurors typically have an obligation to review evidence objectively. Jurors are assessed to be as objective as possible. You are no juror and have no obligation to objectivity, and since you have only yourself to please you see things your way.

Seekers are also enjoined by Baha'u'llah to review evidence objectively - be fair in your judgment was something He wrote in various Tablets. That means we should not be biased but rather we should be fair when we assess the evidence.

“Tell, O ‘Alí, the loved ones of God that equity is the most fundamental among human virtues. The evaluation of all things must needs depend upon it.” Gleanings, p. 203

“Say: Observe equity in your judgment, ye men of understanding heart! He that is unjust in his judgment is destitute of the characteristics that distinguish man’s station.” Gleanings, p. 204

 

[rational experiences]

I once prayed to God to heal my family.

Then I had a human realisation the living light owned human reasons for healing which involved human scientific explanations. So I stopped the need to pray yet instead said I will fight myself for human rights.

As only humans can argue whilst they live owning human realisations.

I also meditated and realised spirit messages of men or women loving memories owned pre human warnings.

Which I knew involved why I had nearly died as a baby and the humans I heard had actually died.

The man's message as a human messenger on behalf of his man's god image voice shared the data said I need to teach you everything I know in this one moment....yet I can't.

You will live and learn what is needed. And I did.. because human science by human machine design had caused the death of human life.

Reasoned as fact.

After life's destruction big massive evil beasts roamed the earth who mainly gave birth by huge eggs...they died. Ice ruled the earth.

After the ice age new spirit animals came out of the eternal and so did human parents. The same human DNA owned for everyone.

The exact reason why it was the same.

Even though their continent as ground mass was different. Proving they had come out of the eternal. Eternal... Not in never was in creation.

Reason human spirit dies and is destroyed whilst in creation.

After our satanist brother had destroyed all life on earth the ground melted as Phi signals the evidence the ice age snap freeze had cooled gases.

A pre existing living records re emerged saying pyramid technology that did not own the realisation in image of life burnt to death.

That advice given in Moses event realisation.

Moses I am a liar scientist of man causes in Egypt version but an old man told me how to do it again. Was not holy advice. Not considered that the records only re emerged in a cooled atmosphere.

So Egyptian mayan American Indian science proven 100 per cent wrong about pyramid safety. What you learnt before. Why you lied about how evil nuclear science atmospheric effects were.

It is why Phi stops atop of crops as it never owned any reason involving life's existence.

Otherwise no ground transmissions would be seen as life only would exist if Phi had created life as a God.....

Modern scientists thesis never tells you what they believe.

A measure is only imposed by the theist.

The theory Phi said two old men memories taught you science. Both had lied.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Nimos

Don't think I have forgotten your post but as you can see I am knee deep in posts here. Your post was a longer one which will require more time so I saved the Alert in a Word document with all the other posts I have not had time to answer yet.

God willing it will start to die down on this thread because Trailblazer is exhausted!

 

[Segev Moran]

Why do you think that a messenger is only validated through other messengers?
No, you won't encounter a real Messenger of God because there are none living right now.

It is all throughout scriptures. They are called injunctions.

If God expects, doesn't it make it in need?

 

[HonestJoe]

I did agree that people claiming to speak for God doesn't mean all of them actually are speaking for God, but that does not mean that none of them are speaking for God.

Correct, but it also means that we don't know if any of them are legitimate, and if so, which ones. The fact you believe some of them are doesn't mean you can present their words as evidence.

No, I never said that I said “I can post what I believe God is, but I have no hypothesis about God since I am not trying to say that I believe God exists because of x, y, or z.” I believe that God exists because of what the Messengers reveal about God. Do you consider this a hypothesis?

We have the phrases;
"I believe that God exists because of x, y, or z.”
"I believe that God exists because of what the Messengers reveal about God."
They are the same, the second one is just more specific. You can't claim to be saying the second but not the first!

That kind of describes an informal working hypothesis, though not in anything like enough detail to assess or formally test (by design, even if you don't realise).

It is the Essence of God (God’s intrinsic nature) that is unknowable, but we can know some of the Attributes of God and the Will of God through what the Messengers reflect of God and reveal about God.

I still see a contradiction there, even talking about knowing attributes of something that is intrinsically unknowable. If we can't trace those attributes back to that "Essence" of God, we can't say that they are from God in the first place.

That is correct, it cannot be disproven, but if it is actually true why would you want to disprove it?

I don't. The problem is that the concept of gods that can't be disproven is then used as a basis to assert such gods do exist. My core point remains that you can't have it both ways.

How else do you think you could determine if a man was a Messenger of God?

I don't think you can. I'm saying it is impossible because you've defined God as unknowable.

There are also Bible prophecies that were fulfilled and many predictions that Baha’u’llah made that came to pass and that is also evidence.

Even if they were fulfilled (which is strongly disputed), that is only evidence about the Bible and Baha’u’llah, not necessarily about God. God need not be involved in fulfilled prophecy, even if people believe he was.

You also have the complication that other faiths have claims of fulfilled prophecy (no more disputed) which they attribute to entirely different (and often contradictory) gods. Ultimately, your "evidence" is no better (or worse) than theirs but you can't all be right (if any of you are).

We say God has a mind and emotions simply because that is the only thing humans can relate to, but God’s mind and emotions are nothing like a human’s. No, there is no evidence of God’s intrinsic nature and we do not need to know it as it is forever hidden from us.

I would argue that concepts like "mind" and "emotions" would be part of the intrinsic nature of a being and the unknowable part of God by your own definition. On that basis, you can't talk about them at all (other than on a basis of blind faith).

I explained what I consider to be the evidence above but another way to approach this in order to differentiate false messengers from true Messengers is by using a list of criteria a true Messenger would have to meet.

I disagree that any of your criteria is evidence that a person is a true messenger of God, and certainly not specifically the God you believe in. They are all characteristics a person could have without anything to do with God and characteristics it can be argued that loads of people have had, both those claiming to represent different gods and those who didn't.

You also have the circular aspect given that your basis for the nature of God, and therefore the characteristics his messengers would have, all come from those alleged messengers. They're not only marking their own homework, they're deciding what the questions were in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, sorry, I lost track given all these posts i have to answer. What is your point?

There's only one "proven." There are only two possibilities:

- what you're calling "proven for you" isn't actually proven. You're mistaken for considering it "proven for you."

- what you're calling "proven for you" is actually proven. Everyone who doesn't accept it is mistaken for not accepting it.

So which is it?