Default position

[Trailblazer]

So, as far as I'm concerned, I can't honestly determine whether there is only one God, if there are other deities, or if there aren't any deities at all. Therefore, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I consider that a very respectable position to take.

 

[Audie]

I never stated my opinion as a fact so you are making a straw man.

View attachment 79228

Of course you did.
Positive assertion of what "God" did.

Why try to deny it? Lack of " faith "?

 

[Audie]

That is a big fat straw man.
I only ever say that I believe Messengers of God are the evidence (not proof) that there is a God.
If it sounds like I think it is a fact, that is not my problem. I have stated over and over again that it is not a fact, since it can never be proven.

Is it a fact that they are "messengers"?
I missed where you said you guess, think maybe,
it's just a opinion or the like.

You positively asser here that they are Messengers.

And that there even is such a thing, both of
which I deny.
Good and sufficient evidence is non existent.
Like with Bigfoot or flying saucers.

"I saw Bigfoot in a flying saucer"
is making a statement of fact. So is " God did...".
Not stating opinion.

But try such in court, if your ooinion diifers.
You could learn about perjury.

 

[lukethethird]

Evidence is not the same as proof. Only verifiable evidence is proof, and there is no verifiable evidence of God.
I have probably said that dozens of times and posted the definitions of evidence and proof. Here it is again:

There is nothing wrong with wanting proof to base your beliefs on, just 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 to 'some of us' 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

You ought to read these definitions yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

You ought to read these definitions yourself.

I've read them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
I'm not the one who needs to read them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you did.
Positive assertion of what "God" did.

A positive belief of what "God" did is not a positive assertion of what "God" did.
Get a dictionary.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is it a fact that they are "messengers"?
I missed where you said you guess, think maybe,
it's just a opinion or the like.

Did you also miss the part where I said "I believe?"
Did you also miss all the times where I said it is not a fact that they are Messengers since it can never be proven.

You positively assert here that they are Messenger

I positively believe here that they are Messengers.
It is none of your business what I believe. This is a religious forum and I am free to state what I believe.
The question you should ask yourself is why it bothers you so much.

 

[Audie]

A positive belief of what "God" did is not a positive assertion of what "God" did.
Get a dictionary.

A positive belief of what "God" did is not a positive assertion of what "God" did.
Get a dictionary.

You made a written statement of something that
"God" did.
Even your dictionary cannot turn " written statement" into
" belief".
Your attempt at verbal,sleight of hand could, as
I mentioned, by tried out in court. You will be sorry.

 

[Audie]

Did you also miss the part where I said "I believe?"
Did you also miss all the times where I said it is not a fact that they are Messengers since it can never be proven.

I positively believe here that they are Messengers.
It is none of your business what I believe. This is a religious forum and I am free to state what I believe.
The question you should ask yourself is why it bothers you so much.

You are making what your beliefs are very public
for someone who thinks its nobody's biz.

Like Harry and Megan's privacy tour.

And again, you did there are messengers, not
that you believe there are.
But hey, say it both ways, what's a little contradiction.

The mental contortions you go through attempting
to avoid the black and white obvious says volumes about
what it takes to believe in these " messengers".

So does the huffiness and attempts to redirect when
questioned too closely.
Amusing sport for a bit.
I've seen enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

You made a written statement of something that
"God" did.

something that I believe God did.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are making what your beliefs are very public
for someone who thinks its nobody's biz.

Like Harry and Megan's privacy tour.

And again, you did there are messengers, not
that you believe there are.
But hey, say it both ways, what's a little contradiction.

The mental contortions you go through attempting
to avoid the black and white obvious says volumes about
what it takes to believe in these " messengers".

So does the huffiness and attempts to redirect when
questioned too closely.
Amusing sport for a bit.
I've seen enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

Far be it from me to defend the consistency of the gospels but it's easy to see how some passages could easily be read as saying that Jesus was God, so they don't really help.

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible has been a big problem since the very beginning. Christians disagreed as to what the Bible meant and that is why there are so many different sects of Christianity. Christians have misinterpreted much of the Bible because they did not have the key to unlock the meaning, and that is understandable because it was prophesied in Daniel 12 that the Book would be sealed up until the time of the end, meaning nobody would really understand it.

Note that Dan 12:13 says "at the end of the days.” This chapter is about what will happen at the time of the end, when Christ returns.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Baha’is believe that the 2,300 years came in 1844 and the book was unsealed by Baha’u’llah. That math is explained in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL

Unsealing the Book means we can now understand what much of the Bible means that could never be understood before by reading the Baha’i Writings.

The method of creation doesn't really matter. An omni type God would know the outcome from the moment it kicked off the process. It could have done so in a different way, so my point remains.

You are correct in saying that God knew the outcome from the very beginning. I was just reading about that in a Baha'i book I am reading called The Heart of the Gospel, a book that was written by a Christian clergyman who resigned his orders after 40 years to become a Baha’i. It explains the spiritual evolution of humanity and how the Bible fits into history.

Your objections were that my suggestions might not convince everybody. Since the method you believe God is using isn't doing that either, it hardly matters. My methods are better because they would at least convince people that there was something with far greater power and knowledge than any human and that wanted to send us a message. An omni God could no doubt do better than my suggestions, but either doesn't exist, doesn't want to do very well, or is stupid and/or incompetent.

If God was out to convince more people perhaps your methods would be better, so I guess God is not out to convince more people since He has not employed any of your methods.

Most people believe that God exists, as 84 percent of the world population has a faith. That means that most people are already convinced.
There is no reason to think that 100% of people need to be convinced.

Why is any of that inconsistent with him being just another sincere but mistaken religious leader, delusional, or lying?

If you read all of what there is to read then you could make your own judgment.

This is just a flawed view of evidence. People may put more weight on different evidence but if it doesn't consist of facts that support one hypothesis and go against the alternatives, then it can't be called evidence.

No, it is a realistic view of how people evaluate evidence differently, given people all think and process information differently, according to what is in their minds.

Thus the facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah are going to be viewed differently by different people. There is no way around that.

Then why keep on bringing up circular deductions?

I am not the one who keeps bring it up, except to point out it cannot be used to prove anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible has been a big problem since the very beginning.

Yes. Assuming a God, that's incompetent message delivery. Alternative assumption: there is no God, or it had nothing to do with the bible or Christianity.

You are correct in saying that God knew the outcome from the very beginning.

So my point stands. If there is a God, then it determined human abilities and their capacity to distort and misunderstand the 'messengers', so we arrive yet again at what a stupid idea sending 'messengers' as a way of communicating is.

If God was out to convince more people perhaps your methods would be better, so I guess God is not out to convince more people since He has not employed any of your methods.

Or your God doesn't exist.

Most people believe that God exists, as 84 percent of the world population has a faith. That means that most people are already convinced.

Quite apart from the fact that those figures include faiths that are not even monotheistic, if your faith is true and it is your version of God that is real, then most of them are also following not only the wrong message for this time but a distorted version of an old message. According to Baháʼí sources, there were only about 8 million Baháʼís worldwide in 2020. That's about 0.1% of the world's population following the 'correct' message for the time. That really isn't great communication, is it?

If you read all of what there is to read then you could make your own judgment.

So you can't answer the question.

No, it is a realistic view of how people evaluate evidence differently, given people all think and process information differently, according to what is in their minds.

Many people are not very rational and nobody is totally rational about everything, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to approach things rationally. There really is only one way to rationally approach things presented as evidence. We should as the question: are these facts consistent with the proposed hypothesis and are they inconsistent with alternatives?

I am not the one who keeps bring it up, except to point out it cannot be used to prove anything.

You use them all the time, not least in your claim that messengers are evidence for God, and you have frequently explained how they can be valid despite its total irrelevance.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. Assuming a God, that's incompetent message delivery. Alternative assumption: there is no God, or it had nothing to do with the bible or Christianity.

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible by humans has been a big problem since the very beginning.
How could this possibly be related to the message delivery? Is it the postman's fault if he delivers a letter in the mail and the recipient opens the mail and misinterprets what is written in the letter?

Alternative assumption: Humans could not understand what the Bible meant because the Bible was intended to be 'sealed up' until the time of the end.

Daniel Chapter 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. 13 But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.​

The 2,300 years came in 1844 and the book was unsealed by Baha’u’llah. That math is explained in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL

Unsealing the Book means we can now understand what much of the Bible means that could never be understood before by reading the Baha’i Writings.

So my point stands. If there is a God, then it determined human abilities and their capacity to distort and misunderstand the 'messengers', so we arrive yet again at what a stupid idea sending 'messengers' as a way of communicating is.

You said: The method of creation doesn't really matter. An omni type God would know the outcome from the moment it kicked off the process. It could have done so in a different way, so my point remains.

I said: You are correct in saying that God knew the outcome from the very beginning.

"human abilities and their capacity to distort and misunderstand the 'messengers'"

So what? Humans have the capacity to distort and misunderstand many things, not just Messengers. That proves that the problem is not the Messenger method of communication, the problem is the human receipt of the communication.

"what a stupid idea sending 'messengers' as a way of communicating is."

What reason is there to believe that humans would not 'distort and misunderstand' a message from God which was received in some other way?

Or your God doesn't exist.

Why would a totally self-sustaining and totally self-sufficient God care if humans were convinced of His existence?
Answer: It does not matter one iota to God is humans are convinced that He exists. It only matters to 'some' humans that they are convinced.
And that is the logical reason why God is not out to convince more people.

Quite apart from the fact that those figures include faiths that are not even monotheistic, if your faith is true and it is your version of God that is real, then most of them are also following not only the wrong message for this time but a distorted version of an old message. According to Baháʼí sources, there were only about 8 million Baháʼís worldwide in 2020. That's about 0.1% of the world's population following the 'correct' message for the time. That really isn't great communication, is it?

The communication was fine. The receipt of and belief in the communication is what accounts for the fact that there are only there were only about 8 million Baháʼís worldwide in 2020.

Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet.
None of them have anything to do with God or Baha'u'llah. All of them are related to human behavior.

1. Many people have never heard of Baha’u’llah, so they do not know there is something to look for. It is the responsibility of the Baha’is to get the message out, so if that is not happening, the Baha’is are to blame. However, once the message has been delivered the Baha’is are not to blame if people reject the message.

2. But even after people know about Baha’u’llah, most people are not even willing to look the evidence in order to determine if He was a Messenger of God or not.

3. Even if they are willing to look at the evidence, there is a lot of prejudice before even getting out the door to look at the evidence.

4. 84% of people in the world already have a religion and they are happy with their religion so they have no interest in a “new religion” or a new Messenger of God.

5. The rest of the world’s population is agnostics or atheists or believers who are prejudiced against all religion.

6. Agnostics or atheists and atheists and believers who have no religion either do not believe that God communicates via Messengers or they find fault with the Messenger, Baha’u’llah.

7. Baha’u’llah brought new teachings and laws that are very different from the older religions so many people are suspicious of those teachings and/or don’t like the laws because some laws require them to give things up that they like doing.

Added to that is the fact that all religions grow slowly over time.

“Most scholars of Christian origins tend to exaggerate the size and importance of the early Christian church. This is understandable in the light of the discipline’s intense concentration on the New Testament texts. By confining ourselves in particular to the letters of Paul, the Gospels and Acts, it is all too easy to create a limited and false impression of the ancient world and the place of the Christians within it. Yet the reality is that for all of the first century the Christians were a tiny and insignificant socio-religious movement within the Graeco-Roman world (Hopkins 1998:195-196). Christianity did of course grow considerably in later centuries and it eventually became the religion of the Roman empire, but we should take care not to retroject its later size and importance into the initial decades of its existence.

Just how small was the Christian movement in the first century is clear from the calculations of the sociologist R Stark (1996:5-7; so too Hopkins 1998:192-193).Stark begins his analysis with a rough estimation of six million Christians in the Roman Empire (or about ten percent of the total population) at the start of the fourth century... There were 1,000 Christians in the year 40, 1,400 Christians in 50, 1,960 Christians in 60, 2,744 Christians in 70, 3,842 Christians in 80, 5,378 Christians in 90 and 7,530 Christians at the end of the first century.

These figures are very suggestive, and reinforce the point that in its initial decades the Christian movement represented a tiny fraction of the ancient world.”

How many Jews became Christians in the first century?

So you can't answer the question.

You said: Why is any of that inconsistent with him being just another sincere but mistaken religious leader, delusional, or lying?
I said: If you read all of what there is to read then you could make your own judgment.

I did answer it. You just did not 'like' my answer.
I can only tell you why 'I believe' it is inconsistent with Baha'u'llah being delusional or lying. I cannot think for you.

Would you believe me if I told you why 'I believe' it is inconsistent with Baha'u'llah being delusional or lying? No, you would not.
What this amounts to is that people have to investigate the religion for themselves, nobody else can do it for them.

Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.

"The first Baha’i principle is the independent investigation of reality. Not found in any sacred Book of the past, it abolishes the need for clergy and sets us free from imitation and blind adherence to unexamined, dogmatic beliefs. Baha’is believe that no soul should follow ancestral or traditional beliefs without first questioning and examining their own inner landscape. Instead, the first Baha’i principle gives each individual the right and the duty to investigate and decide what they believe on their own."

Independent Investigation of Truth

How to Investigate Things For Yourself—and Not Rely on Hearsay

Science PART 3 IN SERIES: The What Why and How of Independent Investigation

Clearly, the Baha’i teachings ask all people to independently investigate the truth—but many will still be left with the question: How do I actually do robust independent investigation for myself?

One of the most straightforward ways to learn how to investigate reality involves learning the processes of science—which dovetails with the Baha’i principle of the essential harmony of science and religion:

Perhaps the most important gift that science has to offer us is the knowledge of its methods. The scientific method forms an excellent model for investigating many truths. The scientific method involves five basic steps:

• careful observation
• applying rigorous, questioning skepticism to those observations
• formulating hypotheses based on the observations, and on inductive reasoning
• experimental and measurement-based testing of all deductions drawn from the hypotheses
• and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

https://bahaiteachings.org/how-to-investigate-things-for-yourself-not-rely-on-hearsay

IN SERIES: The What Why and How of Independent Investigation

Many people are not very rational and nobody is totally rational about everything, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to approach things rationally. There really is only one way to rationally approach things presented as evidence. We should as the question: are these facts consistent with the proposed hypothesis and are they inconsistent with alternatives?

Yes, we should aspire to approach things rationally and that is essentially what you would be doing if you used the method I cited above.

 

[ratiocinator]

Misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible by humans has been a big problem since the very beginning.

Have you not been keeping up? Both the method of delivery and human abilities to (mis)understand it are down to your god, if it exists.

So what? Humans have the capacity to distort and misunderstand many things, not just Messengers. That proves that the problem is not the Messenger method of communication, the problem is the human receipt of the communication.

See above. Your god gets 0/10 for human design and message delivery. Combined, they spell incompetence in big neon letters. It is quite clear that a god such as you suggest could have either made humans less prone to misunderstanding or taken account of their tendency to misunderstand in the way it delivered messages. This really isn't rocket science.

Below are the seven reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet.

Seven reasons why the Baha'i god is incompetent or doesn't exist.

I did answer it. You just did not 'like' my answer.
I can only tell you why 'I believe' it is inconsistent with Baha'u'llah being delusional or lying.

Well you haven't provided any facts at all about Baha'u'llah to date that would be inconsistent with him being sincere but mistaken, deluded, or lying. I've also explained why I'm not prepared to trawl through all the writing of any religion on the off chance that there is something convincing in amongst it all. Apart from anything else, if there was, why aren't the followers of the relevant faith publicising it more? Just saying "oh, you've got to read it all and make your own mind up" is pretty much guaranteed to mean there is nothing particularly special about it.

There is also all the above about the bizarre idea of sending messengers as a way communicating with flawed humans who are prone to misunderstanding, because that's how this god has made them. This alone is highly indicative that there is nothing to find. The whole thing seems based on an absurdity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you not been keeping up? Both the method of delivery and human abilities to (mis)understand it are down to your god, if it exists.

Have you not been keeping up? Only the method of delivery is down to God, if God exists.
Human abilities to (mis)understand God's Messengers cannot be pinned on God, since humans misunderstand lots of things. Are you going to blame God for the fact that humans are fallible creatures?

See above.

Humans have the capacity to distort and misunderstand many things, not just Messengers. That proves that the problem is not the Messenger method of communication, the problem is the human receipt of the communication. Logic 101.

Your god gets 0/10 for human design and message delivery. Combined, they spell incompetence in big neon letters. It is quite clear that a god such as you suggest could have either made humans less prone to misunderstanding or taken account of their tendency to misunderstand in the way it delivered messages. This really isn't rocket science.

Do you really think God cares what ratings you give Him? Do you think I care? I am just laughing ear to ear at the fact that anyone would rate God, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, on a scale of 1-10, but since I need something to laugh about right now, you are doing me a great service.

God did not 'make humans' prone to misunderstanding. God is All-Knowing so God knew that some people, namely atheists, would rebel against the way God 'chose' to deliver His messages, but that is not God's problem, since God does not need anyone's belief. It is only a problem for those who rebel against God if they want to believe in God and can't.

No, this is not rocket science. God created people with the capacity to understand so it is not God's fault that they do not understand. Speaking as the Voice of God, Baha’u’llah wrote that we all have the capacity to recognize the Messengers of God, because otherwise we could not be held accountable for our failure to believe in God. Logic 101.

“.... I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143​

​

“He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106​

Seven reasons why the Baha'i god is incompetent or doesn't exist.

No, they are the seven logical reasons why more people have not recognized Baha’u’llah yet.
None of them have anything to do with God or Baha'u'llah. All of them are related to human behavior.

Well you haven't provided any facts at all about Baha'u'llah to date that would be inconsistent with him being sincere but mistaken, deluded, or lying.

And you haven't provided any facts at all about Baha'u'llah to date that would be consistent with him being sincere but mistaken, deluded, or lying.

It is not by job to provide those facts to you as other Baha'is have already done all that work and it is plastered all over the internet for anyone who wants to read it. Everryone has to use their own judgement rather than relying upon others' opinions.

I've also explained why I'm not prepared to trawl through all the writing of any religion on the off chance that there is something convincing in amongst it all.

That is the choice that God gave you to make when He endowed you with free will to choose whether you want to investigate a religion or now.

Apart from anything else, if there was, why aren't the followers of the relevant faith publicising it more? Just saying "oh, you've got to read it all and make your own mind up" is pretty much guaranteed to mean there is nothing particularly special about it.

As I just said above, information about the Baha'i Faith is plastered all over the internet. Google 'any question' and you will get answers.

There is also all the above about the bizarre idea of sending messengers as a way communicating with flawed humans who are prone to misunderstanding, because that's how this god has made them. This alone is highly indicative that there is nothing to find. The whole thing seems based on an absurdity.

I cannot change the way you think, not any more than you can change the way I think. All I can do is try to reason with you, but if you don't even try to understand I cannot do anything about that.

Messengers/Prophets of God have been sent by God since the beginning of human history, log before the Bible was ever recorded. As a result, most people in the world believe that God exists. People of different religions believe differently about God and what His message is simply because God has revealed different messages at different times throughout the ages, according to the needs of the times and according to the capacities of the people living in those times.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. “Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213​

This all makes logical sense if you understand that there needs to be an intermediary between God and humans, a Messenger who is both divine and human, in order to bridge the gap between God and humans. There really is no *better way* for God to communicate with humans because if there was a better way the All-knowing God would have known about it and employed it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Are you going to blame God for the fact that humans are fallible creatures?

Yes - obviously. God (if it exists) is the designer. How good or bad humans are at understanding messages is entirely down to them being humans, and a creator god would have decided on those capabilities.

Humans have the capacity to distort and misunderstand many things, not just Messengers. That proves that the problem is not the Messenger method of communication, the problem is the human receipt of the communication. Logic 101.

The fact that humans misunderstand in general is the reason why using messengers is such a stupid idea. If they misunderstand and distort things, then absolute clarity is important. The last thing you would do is send some humans that just leave some words that can later be distorted and misinterpreted, not to mention being mistaken for all the other religious leaders and peddlers of superstitions in general.

Do you really think God cares what ratings you give Him?

Do you think I care? I don't think there is such a being and if it has done as you suggest, then it's being incompetant, as far as I can see. All I'm doing is applying what would be my god-given abilities (if such a being existed) to assess the situation as I see it.

God did not 'make humans' prone to misunderstanding.

So how come we are? You can't really have it both ways. If god is an omni-type creator, how can it not be responsible for human nature?

God is All-Knowing so God knew that some people, namely atheists, would rebel against the way God 'chose' to deliver His messages...

Hang on, what about all the theists that don't accept the idea of messengers? Also one settles on atheism because one is not convinced by any of the supposed versions of god(s) and their supposed reasons. To describe it as a rebellion is absurd. I don't see a reason to believe in any god(s). I cannot rebel against something that doesn't exist.

It is only a problem for those who rebel against God if they want to believe in God and can't.

I'm only interested in the truth of the matter. I don't want to believe or not want to.

No, this is not rocket science. God created people with the capacity to understand so it is not God's fault that they do not understand.

Of course it is. Clearly (if what you claim is true) the "capacity to understand" is terribly unreliable.

Speaking as the Voice of God, Baha’u’llah wrote...

Why would I care? I never understand why religious types think that quoting their books and leaders is going to be at all convincing to people who don't accept their authority.

None of them have anything to do with God or Baha'u'llah. All of them are related to human behavior.

Human behaviour is down to god (if one exists).

And you haven't provided any facts at all about Baha'u'llah to date that would be consistent with him being sincere but mistaken, deluded, or lying.

Your the one claiming that there is evidence in the facts. Your burden of proof.

It is not by job to provide those facts to you as other Baha'is have already done all that work and it is plastered all over the internet for anyone who wants to read it. Everryone has to use their own judgement rather than relying upon others' opinions.

From which we can assume that there is nothing at all that is inconsistent with being mistaken, deluded, or lying. Otherwise it would be headline news and not just another religion.

Messengers/Prophets of God have been sent by God since the beginning of human history, log before the Bible was ever recorded. As a result, most people in the world believe that God exists.

Not only is this an a argumentum ad populum fallacy, but they don't believe in a single god. Even the monotheists believe in very, very different versions of 'God'.

This all makes logical sense if you understand that there needs to be an intermediary between God and humans, a Messenger who is both divine and human, in order to bridge the gap between God and humans. There really is no *better way* for God to communicate with humans because if there was a better way the All-knowing God would have known about it and employed it.

Two more instances of worthless circular arguments.

 

[PureX]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

Unless you can define what proof would entail, and you have a way of ascertaining it, "no proof" is completely meaningless.

 

[ppp]

Unless you can define what proof would entail, and you have a way of ascertaining it, "no proof" is completely meaningless.

That's silly. People learn things every day that they could not have explained how to demonstrate prior to the demonstration.

 

[PureX]

That's silly. People learn things every day that they could not have explained how to demonstrate prior to the demonstration.

That's not the question at hand. Nor the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is the assertion that "no evidence of "X" defults to "X" does not exist". And this is patently false. It's defaults to "unknown". Period.

For "no evidence" to imply non-existence the evidence not found would have to have been explicitly defined and sought out. Then, found to be lacking.