Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[ElishaElijah]

What makes you think that is a fact? There is no evidence for that claim. There is endless scientific evidence that we are the product of evolution.

Go ahead and share your “endless amount of evidence”. I will wait

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't offer facts or data, you offer your beliefs that you assume are true. That's not sufficient for open debate.

That 'facts and data' that support Bahaullah's claims, and thus my beliefs, can be found in the sources cited in b) below.

There are (a) claims and there is (b) evidence that supports those claims.

a) Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

1. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions.

2. Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest of the major world religions.

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End. His mission is nothing less than the establishment of this glorious kingdom – the unification of the entire human race into an all-embracing, spiritually mature world civilization based upon divine principles of justice and love, and whose watchword will be unity in diversity.

With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah.

b) Evidence that supports His claims

His own Self -- who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation -- what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

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.

His Writings -- what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah -- proves that He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

Predictions that Baha'u'llah made that later came to pass -- proves that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

 

[F1fan]

No, it is not circular reasoning because I am not starting with what I am trying to end with.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

It's totally circular reasoning. Your quote is "Oh here we go, I have heard this before. There is no way to show that God exists without the Messenger because He is the proof that God exists. It is illogical to say the Messenger is a fraud because God cannot be proven to exist first, since God cannot be proven to exist without the Messenger."

You're claiming a God exists and it sends messengers. You're asserting messengers prove God exists, and God exists because he sends messengers. We know there are people claiming to be messengers, but they can;'t prove they are sent by God, and nor can they prove a God exists. Those are the facts. We can't assume a God exists to make your claims work.

I did not assume God exists before I believed in Baha’u’llah; Baha’u’llah was the proof I needed to believe that God exists. I did not take anything on faith; I believed that God existed because I determined that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. Obviously if Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, God exists.

You're assuming a God exists now. You've not presenting any compelling evidence that any god exists outside of what anyone imagines.

It was never my intention to convince you, you are the one asking me to convince you.

I find it odd you are debating atheists without any intent to convince them you are correct.

I cannot show you anything because your mind is as closed as a steel trap. No matter what I say you say it is wrong so what’s the point? I have been down this road with atheists many times so I know the drill.

No, I have a normal, high standard that is typical for courts and science. Your faith is useless against they high standard of evidence and argument.

No believer thinks a God exists because of facts and a coherent argument? That is a fallacy of hasty generalization is I have ever seen one. So all of the 93% of people in the world who believe in God are incoherent? Give me a break.[/quote
No theist, including yourself, has ever presented a fact-based argument that any god exists. There are many reasons why so many humans believe in god and religion. We humans evolved to believe because early on those who aligned with the tribal norms and rituals had an advantage to trust, and that means an advantage to survival. These traits to cooperate and align to tribal norms helped establish every step towards developing language, ritual, rules, and more complex forms of organization and being civilized. People also learn to adopt the tribal/group norms to help feel like they belong. Much of this behavior is subconscious. Theists become religious as part of their social development are are not making deliberate decisions these ideas are true. Children adopt the ideas of Santa and the Easter Bunny in a similar way. these ideas are just part of the social experience and are learned. Later they are taught these are false and the child drops them. But religious ideas take over. Children learn that religious ideas are true much like Santa was. A few question this. I did. There is approximately 15% of people who are not what is called "wired for God" which is a trait prevalent in most people to adopt and accept religion from their community.

Some theists do reject their learned religion and convert to another. They may be trying to escape something but they believe the answer is with some other religion.

The reasons are not excellent at all. The reason atheists do not believe in God is because they DEMAND evidence that does not exist and many atheists expect God to provide some kind of special evidence just for them, as if God was a God is not a short order cook. The great religions are not good enough, I cannot imagine anything more arrogant.

Do you think atheists are obligated to believe in a God? You're saying the lack of evidence that a god exists is not an excellent reason. It's absurd. Even you said not to accept the elephant friend's claim on faith, you you don't give that advice for belief in a God. You can't have it both ways.

Atheists are not rational at all because if they were rational they would accept the only evidence that God has EVER provided, which is religion. What is so obvious to almost all the people in the world completely eludes atheists.

That religions exist is not proof that a god exists. It only tells us religions exist. You don't understand logic. Nor what rational means.

No, they accepted all the great religions in the world as evidence, which is rational.

No, it's biological and learned behavior. It's only rations to accept religion if they will kill you if you don't.

Some faith is necessary to believe in an unseen God, and that s logic 101, but the faith can be a reason-based faith and that is what it should be.

There's no reason to believe in non-factual ideas.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're claiming a God exists and it sends messengers. You're asserting messengers prove God exists, and God exists because he sends messengers.

No, I never claimed that. I claimed that God exists and God sends Messengers. I claimed that the Messengers are the evidence that God exists, but I never claimed that God exists because God sends Messengers.

We know there are people claiming to be messengers, but they can't prove they are sent by God, and nor can they prove a God exists. Those are the facts. We can't assume a God exists to make your claims work.

We know there are people claiming to be Messengers, but they can't prove they are sent by God, nor can they prove a God exists, but the Messengers are nevertheless the only evidence that God exists. We can't assume a God exists but we can believe that a God exists because a God has to exist if there are Messengers of God.

You're assuming a God exists now. You've not presenting any compelling evidence that any god exists outside of what anyone imagines.

I do not assume that God exists, I know that God exists because I know that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger/Manifestation/Representative of God.

I find it odd you are debating atheists without any intent to convince them you are correct.

What’s odd about it? I know I am not going to convince any atheists but it is my job to carry the message anyway. If perchance someday just one atheist came to believe in Baha’u’llah and God it would have been worth all the effort, given what the Bab wrote:

“Wert thou to open the heart of a single soul by helping him to embrace the Cause of Him Whom God shall make manifest, thine inmost being would be filled with the inspirations of that august Name. It devolveth upon you, therefore, to perform this task in the Days of Resurrection, inasmuch as most people are helpless, and wert thou to open their hearts and dispel their doubts, they would gain admittance into the Faith of God. Therefore, manifest thou this attribute to the utmost of thine ability in the days of Him Whom God shall make manifest. For indeed if thou dost open the heart of a person for His sake, better will it be for thee than every virtuous deed; since deeds are secondary to faith in Him and certitude in His Reality. XVII, 15.”
Selections From the Writings of the Báb, p. 133

No, I have a normal, high standard that is typical for courts and science. Your faith is useless against they high standard of evidence and argument.

The same standards as are used in courts and science cannot be used in religion because religion is not law or science so God can never be proven as a matter of law or a fact of science. To expect that kind of proof of an unseen God is highly illogical. The only evidence of God are His Manifestations.

No theist, including yourself, has ever presented a fact-based argument that any god exists.

That is because God is not a matter of fact.

Do you think atheists are obligated to believe in a God? You're saying the lack of evidence that a god exists is not an excellent reason.

I do not believe that atheists are obligated to believe in God. Nobody is obligated to believe in God. It is a choice some people make.

There is no lack of evidence, there is just a lack of the kind of evidence that atheists require.

That religions exist is not proof that a god exists. It only tells us religions exist. You don't understand logic. Nor what rational means.

That God sent Messengers who established religions is evidence that God exists. That is perfectly rational to everyone except atheists.

There's no reason to believe in non-factual ideas.

Then don’t. Nobody is twisting your arm to believe in God.

 

[F1fan]

Your avoidance is duly noted.

Irony.

It is interesting how you ignore the fact that there is more than your prefered type of evidence.
Even more interesting is how you cling to it like some sort of ace in the hole.

I've acknowledged different types of evidence. Where it comes to extraordinary claims like gods existing then the required evidence must also be extraordinary.

Fact of the matter is, when you ask for evidence asn are presented evidence, you flat out deny that evidence was presented.
That is you indirectly calling them a liar.

'
When the claims are extraordinary and the evidence presented is just believer's opinions then it's not sufficient.

That you refuse to accept that is on you.

Because I have intellectual integrity.

I understand you are only looking for the argument.
You have made that pefectly clear in that you seldom even acknowledge things beyond your PoV...

This isn't accurate. Theists make claims and I ask them to prove their claims are true with sufficient evidence and a coherent argument. Look how you are advocating for low quality, inadequate evidence and then blame me for having a high standard. If you theists are so damned certain you would have exceptional evidence. Even you know you don't have it.

Every single time you claim a theists presented evidence is not evidence you are indirectly calling them a liar.

You really seem aggravated by this "liar" issue. Are you feeling guilty? How about presenting exceptional evidence and showing us all how right your religious beliefs are.

 

[McBell]

This isn't accurate. Theists make claims and I ask them to prove their claims are true with sufficient evidence and a coherent argument. Look how you are advocating for low quality, inadequate evidence and then blame me for having a high standard. If you theists are so damned certain you would have exceptional evidence. Even you know you don't have it.

Interesting that you think I am theist...

You really seem aggravated by this "liar" issue. Are you feeling guilty? How about presenting exceptional evidence and showing us all how right your religious beliefs are.

How about you get your head out of your backside and start paying attention to who is posting what?
Now if you are not going to present where I allegedly lied, then I expect an apology.

 

[Willamena]

So if we don't know then it doesn't exist or didn't happen? ....
Or does it simply mean we aren't aware of it yet? If we aren't aware of something does that mean it isn't possible?

You are demanding an ontological, rather than an epistemological, question.

You ought to demand the epistemological.

 

[F1fan]

No, I never claimed that. I claimed that God exists and God sends Messengers. I claimed that the Messengers are the evidence that God exists, but I never claimed that God exists because God sends Messengers.

That is the same meaning. God proves messengers, and messengers prove God. That's circular.

We know there are people claiming to be Messengers, but they can't prove they are sent by God, nor can they prove a God exists, but the Messengers are nevertheless the only evidence that God exists. We can't assume a God exists but we can believe that a God exists because a God has to exist if there are Messengers of God.

You admit that messengers DON"T prove a God exists, so how do you arrive at the conclusion that they ARE evidence of a God existing? You can't have it both ways. That you admit you believe messengers prove God exists means you could be mistaken about it. That you offer no supporting evidence of any god existing means your belief is weak.

I do not assume that God exists, I know that God exists because I know that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger/Manifestation/Representative of God.

OH, now you KNOW a God exists? Just above you said you believe it exists. Which is it. Belief is not knowledge.

What’s odd about it? I know I am not going to convince any atheists but it is my job to carry the message anyway. If perchance someday just one atheist came to believe in Baha’u’llah and God it would have been worth all the effort, ...

What if you are mistaken in your belief, and you are just spreading a mistake to others? Could it be you arne't all that confident in your belief and you're looking to convince atheists to bolster your confidence? Once crucial element of tribal thinking is getting the group to agree on a framework. Possible?

The same standards as are used in courts and science cannot be used in religion because religion is not law or science so God can never be proven as a matter of law or a fact of science. To expect that kind of proof of an unseen God is highly illogical. The only evidence of God are His Manifestations.

That's why it is nearly impossible to argue for the truth of any religion.

That is because God is not a matter of fact.

And that is why theists fail to argue their beliefs are true.

I do not believe that atheists are obligated to believe in God. Nobody is obligated to believe in God. It is a choice some people make.

Great, so atheists have the freedom and intellectual authority to assess the claims made by theists and NOT have to feel obligated to the God you "know" exists. So in no way should atheists feel fear or shame for thinking objectively.

There is no lack of evidence, there is just a lack of the kind of evidence that atheists require.

Above you wrote "We know there are people claiming to be Messengers, but they can't prove they are sent by God, nor can they prove a God exists" Evidence is what can prove a claim is true. So if you were telling the truth and there actually is adequate evidence that a God exists then you then you'd be presenting it. But you admit you don't have good quality evidence, and that is what is required.

As an analogy it's like you insisting you have plenty of food for the kids, but it's boxes and boxes or Funions and Ding Dongs. Yes it is "food" but it has no nutrition, so a rational parent would require and demand nutritious food like fruits and vegetables and quality protein. Your evidence is junk. It's not adequate or sufficient. You follow me here?

That God sent Messengers who established religions is evidence that God exists. That is perfectly rational to everyone except atheists.

To be accurate many theists reject the messengers of other religions. We don't see Christians acknowledging Mohammed, or who wrote the Vedas.

Atheists go one step further and don't assume any messengers relay something from gods. What's notable is that atheists are approaching this subject objectively and require facts.

Then don’t. Nobody is twisting your arm to believe in God.

Well, there is a great deal of condemnation, shaming, condescension, arrogance, and tribalism that aims to convince atheists they need to believe in a God. The Christian threat of damnation is a good example of "arm twisting".

 

[F1fan]

Interesting that you think I am theist...

Notice I never said you were a theist as I replied to your comment.

How about you get your head out of your backside and start paying attention to who is posting what?
Now if you are not going to present where I allegedly lied, then I expect an apology.

I'm sure your mother will comfort you as you wait.

 

[F1fan]

That 'facts and data' that support Bahaullah's claims, and thus my beliefs, can be found in the sources cited in b) below.

There are (a) claims and there is (b) evidence that supports those claims.

a) Baha’u’llah’s Two Bold Claims

1. First, he declared he was God’s messenger for the next one thousand years, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the major world religions.

2. Baha’u’llah made a second and even more challenging claim. He declared he was the promised world messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the holy books, of all the religions of the world – the one promised to come on the Day of Judgment, the Day of God, the Time of the End, the End of the World, to establish the kingdom of God on Earth.

This station, by itself, makes the Baha’i Faith the youngest of the major world religions.

Baha’u’llah declared this period in history as the Day of God, the Time of the End. His mission is nothing less than the establishment of this glorious kingdom – the unification of the entire human race into an all-embracing, spiritually mature world civilization based upon divine principles of justice and love, and whose watchword will be unity in diversity.

With this second claim, Baha’is believe that all of the religions of the world have been consummated and fulfilled with the coming of Baha’u’llah.

b) Evidence that supports His claims

His own Self -- who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following: The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4

His Revelation -- what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:

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.

His Writings -- what He wrote can be found in books that are posted online: The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah -- proves that He was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book: William Sears, Thief in the Night

Predictions that Baha'u'llah made that later came to pass -- proves that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah

The "evidence" is circular. His own self? His claims (revelations)? His writings? By this weak standard anybody can write anything and claim that what he is writing proves what he is writing is true.

 

[McBell]

I'm sure your mother will comfort you as you wait.

All your whining about evidence and you flat refuse to prove I lied?

There goes what credibility you had left.

Have a nice day.

 

[night912]

This is a logical fallacy, circular reasoning. You still have to assume a God exists. So you aren't taking your own advice to not take things on faith.

No, it is not circular reasoning because I am not starting with what I am trying to end with.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

It's totally circular reasoning. Your quote is "Oh here we go, I have heard this before. There is no way to show that God exists without the Messenger because He is the proof that God exists. It is illogical to say the Messenger is a fraud because God cannot be proven to exist first, since God cannot be proven to exist without the Messenger."

You're claiming a God exists and it sends messengers. You're asserting messengers prove God exists, and God exists because he sends messengers. We know there are people claiming to be messengers, but they can;'t prove they are sent by God, and nor can they prove a God exists. Those are the facts. We can't assume a God exists to make your claims work.

No, I never claimed that. I claimed that God exists and God sends Messengers. I claimed that the Messengers are the evidence that God exists, but I never claimed that God exists because God sends Messengers.

The important thing about circular reasoning, is identifying the claim. Both of you are wrong about what the claim is. The claim is not, "God exist." The claim is, "messengers of God exist." So, using what was written and/or said by the messengers, regardless if it's coming from different messengers, it's circular.

"God exist" is a different claim. If you use "messengers of God exist" which is circular reasoning, to support that claim, it would be illogical to accept that that claim is true.

 

[F1fan]

The important thing about circular reasoning, is identifying the claim. Both of you are wrong about what the claim is. The claim is not, "God exist." The claim is, "messengers of God exist." So, using what was written and/or said by the messengers, regardless if it's coming from different messengers, it's circular.

"God exist" is a different claim. If you use "messengers of God exist" which is circular reasoning, to support that claim, it would be illogical to accept that that claim is true.

That's one way to look at it. His claims are scattered and murky. The two claims are related and are supposed to prove the other. The bottom line is he is assuming a God exists, and that is his operating premise. Its not valid because it is an assumption and not a true premise.

 

[rational experiences]

Evil is relative and only in relation to something else, but is not an actual reality only imagined and perceived. For example a snake is not evil but in relation to man is deadly. Terms such as satan were just symbolic language for the ego or lower nature of man but man is not evil but can acquire behaviour which is evil such as terrorism.

Suffering. Let’s take physical pain. The nervous system uses pain to alert us that something needs to be attended to such as a stomach pain may be a result of food poisoning and requires urgent treatment. If there were no early warning pain we might just die without being able to prevent it. So a lot of physical pain is really an early warning system to get us to take some remedial action.

Suffering such as wars, oppression, poverty, murder and these sorts of things are due to our own choices but based on lack of harmony with the laws and teachings of God. A spiritual person will never injure, kill or harm another person in obedience to God’s laws and ensure all people have food and the basic necessities. When our hearts turn away from God, we become lower than the animals and stop caring for one other which we see universally today.

Phenomena is manifested.

Consciousness what all humans living whether evil minded or not uses the same info states phenomena does not exist

Reason using reasoning.

Because it is physical made manifest by conversion.

Sion the statements of science change causes in word description.

Fusion.
Fission.
Coercion first Phi sophism thought. Phi used to reason change. Sion the outcome.

Fusion natural. Holy state.

God the spirit was made manifest in the image of man when the soul movement G O D on face heavens gas in great deep space on water was changing its flowing spirit movement.

Exactly why a pre living man said God was making my image form by soul movement spiral rotation. In the heavens.

Speaking voice owned by humans.
Speaking voice recorded father in heavens.
Father a human who had sex to own babies.

God science sex a planet was not a father in reality nor a man. It was themed erection mountain volcano. Stone penis theme. Fake. Sent gas spirit into womb space.

Knew as he observed as he was changed. Man scientist.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is the same meaning. God proves messengers, and messengers prove God. That's circular.

I did not say that. I said: God exists and God sends Messengers. The Messengers are the evidence that God exists.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

So if the premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists is true, the conclusion God exists must be true

Let’s start a bad example of a circular argument:

God exists because Messengers says so, and Messengers say so because God exists.

It is clear that this is circular, as each statement depends on the other to be true. Let’s see what happens when we rephrase the above argument to the following:

If what Messengers say is true then God exists, and if God exists what Messengers say is true.

The circularity does not reduce the validity of the argument in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid.

You admit that messengers DON’T prove a God exists, so how do you arrive at the conclusion that they ARE evidence of a God existing? You can't have it both ways.

Proof is not the same as evidence. Proof establishes something as a fact; evidence indicates that something is the truth.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. https://www.google.com/search

That you admit you believe messengers prove God exists means you could be mistaken about it. That you offer no supporting evidence of any god existing means your belief is weak. [/quote]
The only supporting evidence of God existing is the Messengers because the only way to know anything about God is from what the Messengers of God reveal about God.

Anyone can be mistaken about anything, as there is not absolute proof of anything, even in science. For example, a scientist could end up being wrong about what he thought was proven to be true and then he would have to go back to the drawing board.

OH, now you KNOW a God exists? Just above you said you believe it exists. Which is it. Belief is not knowledge.

I know that what I believe (God exists) is true because of my awareness of the facts that surround the Revelation of Baha’u’llah.

knowledge;

1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

knowledge means - Google Search

What if you are mistaken in your belief, and you are just spreading a mistake to others? Could it be you arne't all that confident in your belief and you're looking to convince atheists to bolster your confidence? Once crucial element of tribal thinking is getting the group to agree on a framework. Possible?

As I told you before I am not looking to convince atheists or anyone else. It is my duty to deliver the message of Baha’u’llah and answer any questions people might have, but I have no responsibility for what people do with the message.

The more I am asked about the Baha’i Faith and Baha’u’llah and the more I have to do additional research the more confident I have become that my beliefs are true. Eight years ago I was 80% certain but now I am 100% certain they are true. Thanks atheists and Christians for asking me so many questions and engaging me in dialogues1

No, I could not be mistaken unless the Bible is wrong because all the Bible prophecies for the return of Christ and the coming of the Messiah were fulfilled by the coming of Baha’u’llah. That is not subjective evidence, it is objective evidence.

That's why it is nearly impossible to argue for the truth of any religion.

One cannot prove any religion is true, except to themselves. The usual response I get from atheists is that all religious people say they have proven their religion is true, so they say that means that I am just like all the rest of the religionists, and there is no reason to believe me over any of the other religionists. From the atheist perspective I can see why they think that way, but from a logical point of view the fact that we all believe our religions are true does not prove that none of our religions are true.

Four logical possibilities exist:

1. None of the religions are true
2. Some of the religions are true, but others are false
3. All the religions are true
4. Only one religion is true, all others are false

And that is why theists fail to argue their beliefs are true.

If God exists that is a reality, even though it cannot be proven as a fact.

Great, so atheists have the freedom and intellectual authority to assess the claims made by theists and NOT have to feel obligated to the God you "know" exists. So in no way should atheists feel fear or shame for thinking objectively.

That’s right. Nobody should believe that God exists just because I do, and I do not suggest doing so.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

Above you wrote "We know there are people claiming to be Messengers, but they can't prove they are sent by God, nor can they prove a God exists" Evidence is what can prove a claim is true. So if you were telling the truth and there actually is adequate evidence that a God exists then you then you'd be presenting it. But you admit you don't have good quality evidence, and that is what is required.

I said that the evidence that God exists are the Messengers of God and I have presented the evidence that indicates that the claims of Baha’u’llah are true on another post. As I said before, nobody can prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God or that God exists as a fact; they can only prove that to themselves.

As an analogy it's like you insisting you have plenty of food for the kids, but it's boxes and boxes or Funions and Ding Dongs. Yes it is "food" but it has no nutrition, so a rational parent would require and demand nutritious food like fruits and vegetables and quality protein. Your evidence is junk. It's not adequate or sufficient. You follow me here?

I follow your line of reasoning but I do not agree that I do not have good evidence.

To be accurate many theists reject the messengers of other religions. We don't see Christians acknowledging Mohammed, or who wrote the Vedas.

Atheists go one step further and don't assume any messengers relay something from gods. What's notable is that atheists are approaching this subject objectively and require facts.

You should not assume any Messengers relay something from God, but rather you should look at the facts that surround those religions in order to determine if they might be true religions.

Well, there is a great deal of condemnation, shaming, condescension, arrogance, and tribalism that aims to convince atheists they need to believe in a God. The Christian threat of damnation is a good example of "arm twisting".

Whereas what you say is true, none of that arm twisting is coming from me. I do not look down upon atheists and I certainly don’t condemn them or shame them. I only talk to them if they are interested in hearing what I have to say.

Sure, I believe that atheists would be better off if they believed in God, because of what I believe about God and the benefits of believing, but I would never judge anyone for not believing in God because a person cannot believe what they do not believe. Baha’is believe that we are all one people, and we are all loved by God, no matter what we believe or disbelieve.

"How ignorant therefore the thought that God who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness, and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs even though he be an atheist or materialist nevertheless God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)

 

[Trailblazer]

The "evidence" is circular. His own self? His claims (revelations)? His writings? By this weak standard anybody can write anything and claim that what he is writing proves what he is writing is true.

The claim is not the evidence. The evidence supports the claims. The argument is not circular because it I am not beginning with what I am trying to end with.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1]
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

In other words, I did not assume in the beginning that Baha’u’llah was who he claimed to be and try to end with Baha’u’llah, without looking at the evidence.

In order to determine if Baha’u’llah was telling the truth we have to look at His own Self which means who He was and what His character was like. Before voting for a presidential candidate, shouldn’t we look at his character? We can see the disaster that ensued when people voted for Trump without looking at his character.

In order to determine if Baha’u’llah did what He claimed to have done we have to look at His Revelation, which means what He accomplished during His Mission on earth. We would do the same thing if we wanted to know if a presidential candidate did all the things he claimed to have done during his or her campaign.

Obviously, what Baha’u’llah wrote does not prove that what He wrote is true, but in order to determine what Baha’u’llah claimed we have to read His Writings. What He claimed in His Writings is not proof of His claim but what He actually wrote is part of the proof. We have to read the Writings to determine what He taught and assess its value and usefulness, as well as whether we can believe it is worthy of having been revealed by God.

In order to determine if Baha’u’llah was the Messiah and the return of Christ, we have to read the Bible prophecies, and then we have to read the history of the Baha’i Faith in order to determine what Baha’u’llah actually did that fulfilled those prophecies.

The predictions that Baha'u'llah made that later came to pass are further supporting evidence, and they show that he had knowledge of the future, although as a standalone they do not prove that He was a Messenger of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

The important thing about circular reasoning, is identifying the claim. Both of you are wrong about what the claim is. The claim is not, "God exist." The claim is, "messengers of God exist." So, using what was written and/or said by the messengers, regardless if it's coming from different messengers, it's circular.

I am not claiming that Messengers of God exist; I believe that Messengers of God exist because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and I believe that there were other Messengers of God.

Baha’u’llah made the claim that He was a Messenger of God, which implies that God exists.

If all we had from the Messengers was what was written and/or said by the Messengers, regardless of it coming from different Messengers, that would be circular, but that is not all we have from the Messengers, so it is not circular.

"God exist" is a different claim. If you use "messengers of God exist" which is circular reasoning, to support that claim, it would be illogical to accept that that claim is true.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

If the premise Messengers are the evidence that God exists is true, the conclusion God exists must be true.

But the premise can never be proven to be true so the conclusion can never be proven to be true

If what Messengers write or say about God is true then the conclusion God exists must be true.

But the premise can never be proven to be true so the conclusion can never be proven to be true.

Nevertheless, the circularity does not reduce the validity of the argument in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim is not the evidence. The evidence supports the claims. The argument is not circular because it I am not beginning with what I am trying to end with.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1]
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

In other words, I did not assume in the beginning that Baha’u’llah was who he claimed to be and try to end with Baha’u’llah, without looking at the evidence.

In order to determine if Baha’u’llah was telling the truth we have to look at His own Self which means who He was and what His character was like. Before voting for a presidential candidate, shouldn’t we look at his character? We can see the disaster that ensued when people voted for Trump without looking at his character.

In order to determine if Baha’u’llah did what He claimed to have done we have to look at His Revelation, which means what He accomplished during His Mission on earth. We would do the same thing if we wanted to know if a presidential candidate did all the things he claimed to have done during his or her campaign.

Obviously, what Baha’u’llah wrote does not prove that what He wrote is true, but in order to determine what Baha’u’llah claimed we have to read His Writings. What He claimed in His Writings is not proof of His claim but what He actually wrote is part of the proof. We have to read the Writings to determine what He taught and assess its value and usefulness, as well as whether we can believe it is worthy of having been revealed by God.

In order to determine if Baha’u’llah was the Messiah and the return of Christ, we have to read the Bible prophecies, and then we have to read the history of the Baha’i Faith in order to determine what Baha’u’llah actually did that fulfilled those prophecies.

The predictions that Baha'u'llah made that later came to pass are further supporting evidence, and they show that he had knowledge of the future, although as a standalone they do not prove that He was a Messenger of God.

That is not very reliable evidence. There are many people that find a "higher cause" and clean up their lives. Seriously I have no idea what his character was before he began to write. Spending a lot of time in prison can give a man a lot to think about. And the prediction of Baha'u'llah fail due to being far too vague and far too open ended. They were fairly reasonable "predictions" that could have applied to all sorts of events. If anything the predictions are evidence against him.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not very reliable evidence. There are many people that find a "higher cause" and clean up their lives. Seriously I have no idea what his character was before he began to write. Spending a lot of time in prison can give a man a lot to think about. And the prediction of Baha'u'llah fail due to being far too vague and far too open ended. They were fairly reasonable "predictions" that could have applied to all sorts of events. If anything the predictions are evidence against him.

Baha'u'llah did not spend a lot of time in prison. Most of the 40 years of His mission were spent in exile and banishment from place to place. That is delineated on this photographic narrative if His life.

The Life of Baha’u’llah, a photographic narrative

Unless you have actually looked at the evidence to assume it is not reliable evidence would be committing the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

How do you know that His predictions were fairly reasonable "predictions" that could have applied to all sorts of events? Do you know what He predicted that later came to pass?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baha'u'llah did not spend a lot of time in prison. Most of the 40 years of His mission were spent in exile and banishment from place to place. That is delineated on this photographic narrative if His life.

The Life of Baha’u’llah, a photographic narrative

Unless you have actually looked at the evidence to assume it is not reliable evidence would be committing the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions.

How do you know that His predictions were fairly reasonable "predictions" that could have applied to all sorts of events? Do you know what He predicted that later came to pass?

I have seen the prophecies. Other Bahai' brought those up. With a slight tweak these rules for Biblical prophesies can be applied the Bahai' prophecies. For the same reason that Biblical prophecies fail so do that of the Bahai' faith:

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.