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

[Trailblazer]

Indeed, I can see why you'd believe that.

Why?

 

[samtonga43]

No, the Bible is nothing like the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The Bible was written by men whereas Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God who wrote His own scriptures.[/QUOTE]

Well, the B. man said that he was a manifestation of God. I have read much of what you call 'the evidence', and I don't believe for one second that he was who he said he was. I

 

[CG Didymus]

"Well, the B. man said that he was a manifestation of God. I have read much of what you call 'the evidence', and I don't believe for one second that he was who he said he was."

I question the claims of fulfilled prophecy and the Baha'i concept of progressive revelation. What is it that you've found that you're questioning?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, the B. man said that he was a manifestation of God. I have read much of what you call 'the evidence', and I don't believe for one second that he was who he said he was.

Why am I not surprised? Not very many people believe that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.

Not very many people believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be either, not for many years after He walked the earth, but that does not mean that Jesus was not who He claimed to be. There is no more proof that Jesus was who He claimed to be than that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. The only difference between Jesus and Baha'u'llah is that the Gospel message has had over 2000 years to spread whereas the message of Baha'u'llah has had only about 150 years to spread.

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

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

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

What was true in Jesus' day when only a few people believed in Jesus is also true in this day, as only a few people believe in Baha'u'llah. History repeats itself.

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.

“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, and that includes the Baha'i Faith... that has objective evidence that a man claimed he was a manifestation of God. You've proven it true to yourself. But... since you are not them, they shouldn't take your word for it, they must prove that this man's claim is true for themselves.

That’s right, they should not take my word for it.

And that is exactly what you say too. Great. And you say they said investigate it for themselves. The problem with that is how far should they carry out their investigation? Their question is does God really exist. The Baha'i Faith says "yes". They say, "Fine, what objective proof do you have." And it sounds like there is none for God, because we can't see him or touch him... all we can know about him is what his manifestations say about him. Okay, what proof is there that they are telling the truth... that God is real and that God sent them?

There is no proof, only evidence.

We can't trust what the older religions said, but we can trust what the Baha'i writings said?

I did not say we cannot trust the older religions at all. I said: ..we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic.

But we can't prove that Baha'u'llah, or any other messenger, actually spoke to God? But we can trust Baha'u'llah what said and wrote? And he says God is real and that he is a messenger from God and so were several other people. But he is "other" people. Why should someone trust what he says? And they shouldn't. They should investigate on their own if he is telling the truth. So what is his reasons to say that God is real? Anything there that would convince an Atheist?

Apparently, there is nothing that would convince an Atheist.

Apparently, no. Some things in it might be true, but what things? Baha'is believe whatever Baha'u'llah has quoted must be true. Why should an Atheist believe that?

I never said an Atheist should believe that. Atheists would have no reason to believe it unless they believed that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, in which case they would not be Atheists, they would be Baha’is.

It all comes back to, they shouldn't. They should investigate for themselves if what Baha'u'llah claims are true. God is real. He was sent by God. Which, after all of this, a person can only prove it themselves? And they can tell you why they believe it, but why they believe it is not proof as to why someone else should believe it?

That’s right. Why someone believes it is not proof as to why someone else should believe it.

So, where does that leave us? Still questioning... Why believe that Baha'u'llah is a messenger from God? If that can be proven, then what he says is true. He is the only proof and the way we can know about God. Can that be proven? No, only to oneself? So, we're nowhere. It depends on what a person wants to believe. What they think is true. But, when it comes to religious truth, some people refuse to except things that can't be proven to be true. And that, I think, is a good thing. Although, I can't prove it.

It leaves you still questioning, or believing what can never be proven, based upon the evidence.

A religion/God exists can never be universally proven to be true. We can only prove it to ourselves, or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly right!

Why, just the other day I saw a young child run out into the middle of a busy road with cars and trucks and busses speeding along. I saw the kid running, and I could have stopped him, but I didn't. I just let the kid run out into busy speeding traffic.

And you know why?

Because parents are responsible for their children, not me.

I do not know if you are being facetious or you are serious. I hope you are not serious.

I said that parents are responsible for their children, not God.
I did not say that other people should not care about children just because they are not their parents. If I even see a dog or cat run into the road I will stop traffic for that animal, so of course I would do the same for any child.

My point was that God is not responsible for intervening on earth and doing what humans are responsible for.
NOTHING in the world could be more idiotic than to expect that, NOTHING.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please read my post careful and note what I said.

Objective TRUTH - something that is actually true in reality, something that is true for everyone.

You are being dishonest by twisting my words and pretending I was talking about objective claims. It's called the Strawman Fallacy. Naughty naughty, go sit in the corner, and there'll be no desert for you.

NO, I was not having a dialogue with you so I was not representing you at all. I just posted what I found on a website.
Strawman Fallacy. Naughty naughty, go sit in the corner, and there'll be no desert for you.

What is objective truth?

Answer

If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”

Objective is the opposite of subjective. If a person says, “The 1966 Ford Mustang is the coolest car ever made,” he is making a subjective statement. It is simply the opinion of one person. There is no way to measure that statement against reality; it cannot be evaluated apart from the opinions of other people. Others will either support or oppose the statement depending solely on their own, equally subjective opinions. It’s really impossible to say that a subjective statement is true in any meaningful sense; however, in modern parlance, someone might say, “It is MY truth,” which introduces a brand-new spin on subjectivism. At one time “my truth” would have been more accurately labeled “my opinion.”

An objective statement is factual; it has a definite correspondence to reality, independent of anyone’s feelings or biases. If a person says, “I own a 1966 Ford Mustang,” he is making an objective statement. If that person owns such a car, then the statement is true. If a person does not own such a car, then the statement is false. The truth or falsehood of the claim does not depend upon subjective opinion.

In recent years there has been an attack upon the very concept of objective truth. Things that were once deemed to be objective have been labeled subjective. For instance, the simple statement “God exists” was, in the past, recognized as an objective statement. People might agree or disagree, but everyone considered it an objective statement regarding external reality. Most people agreed with the statement, but even atheists who disagreed treated it objectively—the statement was either true or false.

Within the past thirty years or so, a new response has become popular. Instead of treating the statement “God exists” as an objective statement, many began to treat it as subjective. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing, the response might be something like “That is your truth. God may exist for you, but He doesn’t exist for me.” The focus has changed from objectivity (which seeks correspondence to objects in the real world) to subjectivity (which depends upon the subject who is making the statement). Today it is popular to view all statements regarding religion or theology as simply subjective statements of opinion—and, of course, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

In more recent years, we have seen subjective opinion elevated to the level of objective truth. If a person embraces “his truth” or “her truth,” then everyone else is supposed to embrace that as “truth” as well—at least in certain “politically correct” matters. We see this in recent developments in transgender issues. For millennia, gender was considered an objective issue—a person was male or female based on a set of external, objective, and verifiable criteria. Now, certain cultural forces are attempting to make gender subjective. A male who decides to be female is simply embracing “his truth” or as the cultural forces would have us say, “her truth.” And even though the transgender person’s gender is “subjective,” his or her subjective truth must be treated as objective, as if it fully conformed to reality. If a person hints that the chosen gender of a transgender person is merely “their truth,” then he has committed an almost unforgiveable sin. The subjective has been elevated to the level of the objective, and the objective has been denigrated to the level of the subjective. The world has been flipped upside down.

But reality has a way of encroaching on people’s opinions. Try as they might, it is impossible for people to get away from the concept of objective truth. A person who says that a person can choose his own gender is, in fact, making an objective statement. That statement is either true or false. The person who makes the statement will not be satisfied if you agree that this is only “their truth.” They will insist that this is an objective statement that is true for everyone. Even the statement “objective truth does not exist” is an objective statement. Those who make it will often try to argue that it corresponds to reality and is therefore objectively true, thus defeating their own argument.

Postmodernism is a philosophical movement that does not deny the existence of objective truth, but it denies that we can ever know it for sure, because we are all swayed by various cultural forces that cloud our judgment. In postmodern thinking, it is only ignorance and pride that allows one to say, “I know this is true.” However, when postmodernists say, “It is impossible to know anything for sure,” they are making an objective statement. If it is impossible to know anything for sure, then it is impossible for them to know that it is impossible.

In short, facts and opinions are different. Objective truth is the opposite of (subjective) opinion. People may argue over whether a particular statement is objective or subjective. If it is objective, they may argue over whether or not it is true. But no matter what, it is impossible to escape the fact that objective truth does exist. At one time, the job of the Christian was to demonstrate the truthfulness of the biblical claims. Now, his job has been made more difficult because, before talking about the truth of the Bible, the Christian must often convince the listener that truth actually exists, especially touching religious claims.

What is objective truth? | GotQuestions.org

Please note that the article does not say anything about proof.
If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”

So I believe that God exists and Baha'ullah was a Messenger of God are objective truths because they have correspondence with reality and they are true for everyone, whether they agree with these statements or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

No you haven't. You've even stated several times that there can be no real evidence for the religious claims that a religion makes.

Now you are telling me that you've provided some of this evidence that you say can't exist?

No, I never said there was no evidence for my religion, I said there is evidence. I only ever said that there can never be any proof that God communicated to Baha’u’llah (or any other Messenger of God).

Neither do I/ I just have a problem when they start treating it as though it's objective fact.

It can be an objective truth without it being an objective fact (see my previous post)

Argument from popularity is not a fallacy IF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN SHOW YOU.

No, it is not argument from popularity if they have verifiable evidence that it is true, in which case it is not a belief, it is a fact. Is there any verifiable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

Yeah, for religion you have to use a different method that gives you the results you expect to get.

No, it gives you the results that are based upon the facts about that religion, if you look at those facts in an unbiased manner. Nobody should expect anything until they have completed their due diligence.

Sorry, I must have missed the post where you gave a reasonable explanation for why testable evidence isn't needed to find religious truth. Because all I've seen from you with regards to that is the same old weak, "But religion's different because it's religion."

In many posts I you gave a reasonable explanation for why testable evidence isn't a method whereby you can find religious truth because religions cannot be tested the way you want to test them, as one tests scientific theories. Religion is different from science because religion is not the same as science. It seems to me that everyone knows that except you, including most of the atheists I have ever posted to.

Kinda like how you ignore the aspects that are unfavorable to your religious point of view and invent ways to handwave them away, right?

I do not care if people point out things that are unfavorable to my religious point of view and I do not handwave them away because I do not need to, since I am firm in my beliefs..

If there can never be any verifiable evidence for God or religion, why do you keep claiming that you have evidence for them that you have verified?

There can never be any verifiable evidence for God or religion that is universally accepted as true, but that does not men that individuals cannot verify for themselves that the religion is true and God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then how do you know it can be objectively true?

By doing your own research and investigation.

I'm not. I know they are different.

But they are BOTH claiming to be methods of finding out the truth.

They are methods to finding out the truth, but they are looking for very different KINDS of truths. Scientific truth pertains to the physical world and all that is therein; religious truth pertains to God and spiritual things such as the soul and the afterlife, although it also applies to moral behavior. When looking for different kinds of truths we have to use different methods.

If everyone who shared my views did that, then there'd be no one to stop the people who think that religion should be used to determine what we do as a society.

And I don't fancy living in a theocracy.

So, you are on a mission to convince people that religion is not necessary for society? How do you think you are going to accomplish that?

I don’t think you will ever have to worry about living in a theocracy, any possibility of that came to an end when Baha’u’llah came and ushered in a completely new religious dispensation.

I know they aren't the same.

I'm here talking about methods of finding out what is true. And I'm saying that any method that we use to find out what is true MUST have a way of checking the results, otherwise we can never be sure that what we have found is the truth.

You sure do not talk as if you understand that they are not the same.

The best way of checking your results is by doing more research and checking those results against other results you have come up with and if you want to check your results with other people who have done similar research you can do that too because Baha’is are more than happy to explain what they have determined and why. You can also read the arguments against the Baha’i Faith and see how much sense they make to you. I was doing that just last night because I wanted to determine if a certain Bible prophecy referred to the return of Christ.

BUT it goes further in that the Messiah is to return onto the Mount of Olives, East of Jerusalem anyway when He does eventually come.

Well, that bothered me because I want to know the truth, I don’t want to hold a false belief, so I went on the internet to try to determine if Baha’u’llah had ever stood on the Mount of Olives and then when I could not find anything that said he had I asked @Truthseeker9 if he knew of any references to that, and he sent me the following which demonstrates that Zechariah 14:4 is about the first coming of the Messiah, Jesus, it does not refer to the second coming. There is nothing in the Bible that says that verse refers to the second coming, that is just what some Christians try to use to say that Baha’u’llah cannot be the return of Christ, and it is a vain attempt.

“In Zechariah (14:4) we read: "14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south." Not surprisingly, Christian commentators through the centuries have identified Jesus as the “branch of the Lord” (also referred to in the book of Jeremiah 2:5-6), as “the Lord…the messenger of the covenant” and John the Baptist as the “messenger” of the Lord, who “shall prepare the way before me”, and have noted that the feet of Jesus did indeed stand “upon the mount of Olives” and that an earthquake occurred upon His crucifixion.

This was in:
Essays on Jesus and the New Testament
by Peter Terry

 

[Trailblazer]

So lucky we have you here to speak for God. Hey, maybe you're the next Messenger from God! Wouldn't that be neat?

No, I do not speak for God, Baha'u'llah speaks for God. I am just the messenger for the Messenger.

“Attract the hearts of men, through the call of Him, the one alone Beloved. Say: This is the Voice of God, if ye do but hearken. This is the Day Spring of the Revelation of God, did ye but know it. This is the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God, were ye to recognize it. This is the Source of the commandment of God, did ye but judge it fairly. This is the manifest and hidden Secret; would that ye might perceive it.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 34

 

[Sheldon]

If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”

Something is objective if it is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Think of objectivity as a scale, with bare subjective opinion at one end, your favourite colour for example, and facts supported by all the objective evidence at the other, like species evolution for example.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I'm still here.
It is quite obvious that you are bluffing and have no idea what you are talking about.

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.
- Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia -

Are you asking me to show you the maths of something that is common knowledge for physicists? What is the point of that?

However, the information from one can not travel to the other faster than the speed of light. So God would still be prevented from knowing the future before it had actually happened from my point of view.

 

[Tiberius]

My point was that God is not responsible for intervening on earth and doing what humans are responsible for.

Well, why the hell not?

 

[Hidingfromyou]

For me to believe in your deity would require the same evidence that it would take for me to believe in Thor.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Well, why the hell not?

Because make-believe has no power.

 

[Tiberius]

NO, I was not having a dialogue with you so I was not representing you at all. I just posted what I found on a website.
Strawman Fallacy. Naughty naughty, go sit in the corner, and there'll be no desert for you.

What is objective truth?

Answer

If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”

Objective is the opposite of subjective. If a person says, “The 1966 Ford Mustang is the coolest car ever made,” he is making a subjective statement. It is simply the opinion of one person. There is no way to measure that statement against reality; it cannot be evaluated apart from the opinions of other people. Others will either support or oppose the statement depending solely on their own, equally subjective opinions. It’s really impossible to say that a subjective statement is true in any meaningful sense; however, in modern parlance, someone might say, “It is MY truth,” which introduces a brand-new spin on subjectivism. At one time “my truth” would have been more accurately labeled “my opinion.”

An objective statement is factual; it has a definite correspondence to reality, independent of anyone’s feelings or biases. If a person says, “I own a 1966 Ford Mustang,” he is making an objective statement. If that person owns such a car, then the statement is true. If a person does not own such a car, then the statement is false. The truth or falsehood of the claim does not depend upon subjective opinion.

In recent years there has been an attack upon the very concept of objective truth. Things that were once deemed to be objective have been labeled subjective. For instance, the simple statement “God exists” was, in the past, recognized as an objective statement. People might agree or disagree, but everyone considered it an objective statement regarding external reality. Most people agreed with the statement, but even atheists who disagreed treated it objectively—the statement was either true or false.

Within the past thirty years or so, a new response has become popular. Instead of treating the statement “God exists” as an objective statement, many began to treat it as subjective. Instead of agreeing or disagreeing, the response might be something like “That is your truth. God may exist for you, but He doesn’t exist for me.” The focus has changed from objectivity (which seeks correspondence to objects in the real world) to subjectivity (which depends upon the subject who is making the statement). Today it is popular to view all statements regarding religion or theology as simply subjective statements of opinion—and, of course, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

In more recent years, we have seen subjective opinion elevated to the level of objective truth. If a person embraces “his truth” or “her truth,” then everyone else is supposed to embrace that as “truth” as well—at least in certain “politically correct” matters. We see this in recent developments in transgender issues. For millennia, gender was considered an objective issue—a person was male or female based on a set of external, objective, and verifiable criteria. Now, certain cultural forces are attempting to make gender subjective. A male who decides to be female is simply embracing “his truth” or as the cultural forces would have us say, “her truth.” And even though the transgender person’s gender is “subjective,” his or her subjective truth must be treated as objective, as if it fully conformed to reality. If a person hints that the chosen gender of a transgender person is merely “their truth,” then he has committed an almost unforgiveable sin. The subjective has been elevated to the level of the objective, and the objective has been denigrated to the level of the subjective. The world has been flipped upside down.

But reality has a way of encroaching on people’s opinions. Try as they might, it is impossible for people to get away from the concept of objective truth. A person who says that a person can choose his own gender is, in fact, making an objective statement. That statement is either true or false. The person who makes the statement will not be satisfied if you agree that this is only “their truth.” They will insist that this is an objective statement that is true for everyone. Even the statement “objective truth does not exist” is an objective statement. Those who make it will often try to argue that it corresponds to reality and is therefore objectively true, thus defeating their own argument.

Postmodernism is a philosophical movement that does not deny the existence of objective truth, but it denies that we can ever know it for sure, because we are all swayed by various cultural forces that cloud our judgment. In postmodern thinking, it is only ignorance and pride that allows one to say, “I know this is true.” However, when postmodernists say, “It is impossible to know anything for sure,” they are making an objective statement. If it is impossible to know anything for sure, then it is impossible for them to know that it is impossible.

In short, facts and opinions are different. Objective truth is the opposite of (subjective) opinion. People may argue over whether a particular statement is objective or subjective. If it is objective, they may argue over whether or not it is true. But no matter what, it is impossible to escape the fact that objective truth does exist. At one time, the job of the Christian was to demonstrate the truthfulness of the biblical claims. Now, his job has been made more difficult because, before talking about the truth of the Bible, the Christian must often convince the listener that truth actually exists, especially touching religious claims.

What is objective truth? | GotQuestions.org

Please note that the article does not say anything about proof.
If something is objective, it has correspondence with reality. Objective truth is something that is true for everyone, whether they agree with it or not. At one time this was simply called “truth.”

So I believe that God exists and Baha'ullah was a Messenger of God are objective truths because they have correspondence with reality and they are true for everyone, whether they agree with these statements or not.

"I was not having a dialogue with you," she says AS SHE QUOTES MY POST TO RESPOND TO ME.

You most certainly were engaged in dialogue with me.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I never said there was no evidence for my religion, I said there is evidence. I only ever said that there can never be any proof that God communicated to Baha’u’llah (or any other Messenger of God).

And there's evidence that Star Trek is real too, by that logic.

It can be an objective truth without it being an objective fact (see my previous post)

Please show me something that is objectively true without being objectively factual.

No, it is not argument from popularity if they have verifiable evidence that it is true, in which case it is not a belief, it is a fact. Is there any verifiable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

No, there is not. And I never claimed there was such evidence, and I have never claimed that Jesus ever rose from the dead at all. In fact, I hold serious doubts that he ever even existed.

Now tell me, is there any verifiable evidence that Mr B was sent by God?

No, it gives you the results that are based upon the facts about that religion, if you look at those facts in an unbiased manner. Nobody should expect anything until they have completed their due diligence.

Ah, then of course, all people should get the same conclusion about each religion, yes?

In many posts I you gave a reasonable explanation for why testable evidence isn't a method whereby you can find religious truth because religions cannot be tested the way you want to test them, as one tests scientific theories. Religion is different from science because religion is not the same as science. It seems to me that everyone knows that except you, including most of the atheists I have ever posted to.

I know religion is different from science.

One is based on reality, the other is not.

My point is that if something claims to be real, then it must correspond with reality. Religion completely abandons any attempt to show that it does so.

I do not care if people point out things that are unfavorable to my religious point of view and I do not handwave them away because I do not need to, since I am firm in my beliefs..

Yes, you do handwave them away.

There can never be any verifiable evidence for God or religion that is universally accepted as true, but that does not men that individuals cannot verify for themselves that the religion is true and God exists.

A lack of verifiable evidence that is accepted as true is not something we see in anything that is actually objectively true. The fact that you can't get agreement about religion is strong evidence that it is not objectively true.

 

[Tiberius]

By doing your own research and investigation.

And what if I make a mistake without realising it?

They are methods to finding out the truth, but they are looking for very different KINDS of truths. Scientific truth pertains to the physical world and all that is therein; religious truth pertains to God and spiritual things such as the soul and the afterlife, although it also applies to moral behavior. When looking for different kinds of truths we have to use different methods.

God, afterlife, morality...

You can't show that there's any objective truth to those at all.

So, you are on a mission to convince people that religion is not necessary for society? How do you think you are going to accomplish that?

I don't need to.

There's a huge amount of evidence that the happiest places to live are the least religious. https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...orld-are-among-the-least-religious/127465.htm

I don’t think you will ever have to worry about living in a theocracy, any possibility of that came to an end when Baha’u’llah came and ushered in a completely new religious dispensation.

So there are no theocracies left anywhere in the world, is that what you are saying?

You sure do not talk as if you understand that they are not the same.

They are not the same, as one is based in reality and the other is not.

But if they both claim to be accurate descriptors of reality, then they both need to be judged by the same merits. Yet every time I do so, you cry foul and demand that I hold religion to a different standard.

The best way of checking your results is by doing more research and checking those results against other results you have come up with and if you want to check your results with other people who have done similar research you can do that too because Baha’is are more than happy to explain what they have determined and why. You can also read the arguments against the Baha’i Faith and see how much sense they make to you. I was doing that just last night because I wanted to determine if a certain Bible prophecy referred to the return of Christ.

So let's try it.

I determine what the speed of light is. I check my results against other results reached by other people and... Look! All our results agree!

I determine what the average distance to the moon is. I check my results against other results reached by other people and... Look! All our results agree!

I determine what the mass of my car is. I check my results against other results reached by other people and... Look! All our results agree!

I determine what the true religion is. I check my results against other results reached by other people and... Look! Absolute chaos! Widespread disagreement! Oh no!

 

[Tiberius]

No, I do not speak for God, Baha'u'llah speaks for God. I am just the messenger for the Messenger.

“Attract the hearts of men, through the call of Him, the one alone Beloved. Say: This is the Voice of God, if ye do but hearken. This is the Day Spring of the Revelation of God, did ye but know it. This is the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God, were ye to recognize it. This is the Source of the commandment of God, did ye but judge it fairly. This is the manifest and hidden Secret; would that ye might perceive it.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 34

"I'm not here to speak on behalf of God," says the woman who just said what God does and does not want to do.

 

[Tiberius]

For me to believe in your deity would require the same evidence that it would take for me to believe in Thor.

I have some comic books and some movies that clearly show him.

There also might have been an actual religion or something ages ago, I dunno.