This is just getting silly...
It is not getting silly, it is silly.
Why haven't you posted any?
Because I cannot post entire books on a forum.
History:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.
Writings:
The Works of Bahá'u'lláh
There is no objective evidence that the so called 'messengers' have any connection whatsoever to a real, existing god. Every time I ask you, you go on about evidence for their lives and messages. I don't care what they did or said, no possible set of words and (non-miraculous) actions can possibly be evidence for a god.
It is evidence but it is not proof. Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?
Don't ever expect to get proof that God exists, or proof that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, since these can never be proven as
facts.
All we have is the evidence that indicates that this was the case and causes 'some of us' to believe, but evidence is not the same as proof.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information
indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
https://www.google.com/search
Evidence is anything that you see, experience,
read, or are
told that
causes you to believe that something is true or has
really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
Proof: evidence or argument
establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:
https://www.google.com/search
There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.
Fact: something that is
known to have
happened or to
exist,
especially something for which
proof exists, or about which there is
information:
fact
Messengers are the evidence for God. Don't expect to get anything else since God doesn't provide anything else.
It would not inflict unnecessary suffering, would not let people inflict unnecessary suffering on each other (please don't go on about 'free will', I have never heard a coherent definition that would make the slightest sense from the POV of a god), and would make its message clear to all. This is what seems logical and reasonable to me. However, I only have my own mind to use, and if there is a god, that would be its fault too if I'm wrong.
You are correct in saying that what you said is what seems logical and reasonable to you and that you have only your own mind to use.
You are incorrect in saying that if there is a God, it would be God's fault if you are wrong. That is incorrect because God does not
think for you, you think for yourself.
Why this seems logical to you is what you need to explain. I can explain why I think it is illogical.
How could God stop people from inflicting suffering on other people unless God took over their free will to choose?
Why should God do that?
How could make its message 'clear to all' without thinking for them and taking away their free will to think for themselves?
Why should God do that?
Yes. And choosing not to make its message stand out is either dimwitted or playing silly games. I don't care which, I'm not interested either way.
The message stands out to some of us but not to everyone because all people are different, so they think and process the same information differently. No two brains think alike.
Does everyone's brain work the same?
Everyone's body and everyone's brain differs from everyone else's from the moment of birth, and these differences grow as the final shaping of our bodies and brains is done outside the womb and incorporates our individual experiences in the world.May 17, 2022
No. Not the slightest hint of objective evidence for a god. Evidence for people who claim to be 'messengers' and evidence for yet another faith is not evidence for a god. What's so hard? No amount of evidence for humans doing stuff is evidence for god.
There is not and never will be objective evidence for God. There is only objective evidence for the Messengers of God. The Messengers are the only evidence that indicates that God exists and only through them can we ever know anything about God's attributes and God's will for us. .
Begging the question again.
The idea that your faith is the one for this time is just another baseless, unevidenced religious claim.
It is a religious claim but it is neither baseless nor unevidenced.
No matter how hard you stamp your little foot, evidence for yet another religion is not going to magically turn into evidence for a god. You really need to give this up. It's silly.
Wake up and smell the coffee! All the great religions are the evidence for God because they were revealed by God through Messengers.
No matter how hard you stamp your little foot, you can never change that. Why atheists cannot see what is so obvious to almost everyone in the world is beyond my comprehension.
No, it's just more question begging. In order to exclude them, you'd have to assume a god existed, which is the question you're trying to answer.
"I certainly CAN exclude items from such an expectation of 'what God would do' on the basis that they haven't happened, any logical person would understand that."
Now we are shifting the goalposts?
This is hypothetical. This dialogue assumes the existence of God since there can be no expectations of a nonexistent God.
So
if God exists we know that God has never done x becaue we have no evidence for x (where x = direct communication to everyone)
But
if God exists we know God has done y because we have evidence for y (where y = sending Messengers)
See? You assumed the existence of a god.
The question was "What a logical person would expect to see if God existed?", so we should be thinking of expectations regardless of what we actually see, otherwise you're assuming the conclusion.
Whenever we discuss God we are assuming the existence of God, even if we do not 'believe' in God.
If God existed and could do x and we have never seen x that means that
if God exists, God has never chosen to do x. How simple is that?
So why ask the question about expectation? This kind of nonsense just undermines any logic at all. We only have our own expectations to go on, we can't possibly second guess the way in which some god might not meet our expectation because it could be literally any way at all, which makes the question pointless.
That's a good point. Why ask about expectations since what we see is what we get, and there is nothing we can do about it.
And my point is that either no god exists (by far the most likely - it explains what we see perfectly) or it is making stupid choices or playing daft games.
Here we go again. What you just said, that if God exists God is making stupid choices or playing daft games is nothing more than your personal opinion based upon
your expectations of what God would do if God exists. How do you think you can know what God would do if God exists?
Yet you continue to fail to post any. Evidence for people, their actions, and messages, can never be evidence for a god.
All the great religions are evidence for God. The Bible is evidence fro God since it was inspired by God. The Writings of Baha'u'llah are evidence for God because they were revealed by God to Baha'u'llah. You have free will so you can choose to believe
the claim or reject it
“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57
