Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Etritonakin]

This is an excellent example of how you can't force a God into existence with words.

Notice your first sentence was to just assert that God is everything. That's not a factual statement. So it doesn't make sense.

God (or an extremely intelligent and capable self-awareness, if you will) MUST have existed -or have developed -before the universe -or the processing ability and forethought necessary for the extreme purposeful complexity of the universe could not exist.
(Why there was originally one may be as simple as the fact that there can only be one all-inclusive thing -or everything = 1 - and that it developed from greatest possible simplicity)
Self-awareness, memory, processing, etc. are necessary intermediate steps.

God MUST be everything in order to have the qualities attributed to God -which would also be the logical result of the position of original.

In order to determine that something was created by man, etc., we reference the present state of nature. That of which nature is not capable must have been created.
The same principle applies at any level.
In order to determine whether the universe was created, we would need to reference the prior state of nature -before atoms and such existed -or even greatest possible simplicity.
Self-awareness, memory, processing, etc. are necessary intermediate steps between greatest possible simplicity and the present state of the universe -just as they are intermediate steps between present nature and man's creations.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The first question is what do you mean by a true prophecy?
The second question is who set these criteria for true prophecies and why should we follow these criteria?
The third question is fail to do what? None of the predictions that Baha'u'llah made were intended to be used as proof that He was a Prophet/Messenger of God. They were either things He knew were going to happen that He told other people or they were warnings to the kings and rulers and religious leaders if His time.

That said, some Baha'is have considered the predictions that Baha'u'llah made as part of the evidence of who He was and the reason why is explained in the following chapter.

* * * * * * *

Chapter 4

BAHA'I PROPHECIES: HISTORICAL EVENTS

A tempest, unprecedented in its violence, unpredictable in its course, catastrophic in its immediate effects, unimaginably glorious in its ultimate consequences, is at present sweeping the face of the earth... The powerful operations of this titanic upheaval are comprehensible to none except such as have recognized the claims of both Baha'u'llah and the Bab.

- Shoghi Effendi

The word 'prediction' means one thing in science, another in religion. When we study religion scientifically, it is important to distinguish between these meanings. In science, a prediction is any testable inference we draw from a hypothesis or theory. It may equally well describe a future event, a past observation or an ongoing process. In religion, a prediction generally is a prophecy - a glimpse of the future disclosed through the words of a prophet. Although the scientific and religious meanings may sometimes overlap, they are not identical.

Bearing this distinction in mind, let us consider a scientific prediction (testable inference from a hypothesis) involving religious predictions (prophecies): if Baha'u'llah truly was a Manifestation of God, then He should have been, able to foretell coming events. To someone omniscient at will and free from all error, the future must be an open book.

This practical consequence of the revelation-claim of Baha'u'llah is something we can test on the basis of observation, reason, intuition and credible authority. As with any good scientific deduction, we can search for evidence to disprove it. 'When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, ' says the Old Testament, 'if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken... '53 Note how completely this approach agrees with modern scientific method: the Bible does not suggest that a single correct prophecy (or even several such) would constitute 'proof of a Manifestation's claim. All it says is that a demonstrable inability to make such prophecies would discredit that claim. The obvious corollary, however, is that if someone claiming divine inspiration makes a great many specific, seemingly improbable, testable prophecies - prophecies whose non-fulfilment would undermine our confidence - and they invariably come true, then we can hardly fail to be impressed. Two equally reasonable people may differ as to how much any given prophecy bolsters such a claim or how many 'hits' should be required to sustain a positive verdict. At some point, however, We might well find it more reasonable to accept that claim than to go on reserving judgement.

Baha'u'llah Himself writes:

We have laid bare the divine mysteries and in most explicit language foretold future events, that neither the doubts of the faithless, nor the denials of the froward, nor the whisperings of the heedless may keep back the seekers after truth from the Source of the light of the One true God. 54

... most of the things which have come to pass on this earth have been announced and prophesied by the Most Sublime Pen... All that hath been sent down hath and will come to pass, word for word, upon earth. No possibility is left for anyone either to turn aside or protest. 55

An impartial examination of such prophecies, in the light of subsequent events, will either confirm or falsify these assertions. This, then, is a good place to begin our investigation.

In considering Baha'u'llah's prophecies I shall, in a few instances, refer also to statements by the Bab and 'Abdu'l-Baha The Bab claimed to be not only the Herald of Baha'u'llah but a Manifestation in His own right - a claim fully endorsed by Baha'u'llah. Although 'Abdu'l-Baha is not considered a Manifestation, He was designated by Baha'u'llah as the unerring, divinely-guided Interpreter of the Faith, and beyond that as one whose words are as authoritative and as binding upon believers as Baha'u'llah's own. All authenticated statements of these three Central Figures therefore constitute Baha'i scripture, and their prophecies all are invested with Baha'u'llah's authority. *

*To put it another way, Baha'u'llah predicted (at least by implication) that the prophecies of the Bab and 'Abdu'l-Baha would prove as reliable as His own.

What are the developments that have, in the words of Baha'u'llah, 'come to pass on this earth' after being 'announced and prophesied by the Most Sublime Pen'? Those of which I am aware, and which I discuss in the following pages, include:

1. The fall from power of the French Emperor Napoleon III and the consequent loss of his empire.
2. The defeat of Germany in two bloody wars, resulting in the 'lamentations of Berlin'.
3. The success and stability of Queen Victoria's reign.
4. The dismissal of 'All Pasha as prime minister of Turkey.
5. The overthrow and murder of Sultan 'Abdu'l-'Aziz of Turkey.
6. The breakup of the Ottoman Empire, leading to the extinction of the 'outward splendour' of its capital, Constantinople.
7. The downfall of Nasiri'd-Din Shah, the Persian monarch.
8. The advent of constitutional government in Persia.
9. A massive (albeit temporary) decline in the fortunes of monarchy throughout the world.
10. A worldwide erosion of ecclesiastical authority.
11. The collapse of the Muslim Caliphate.
12. The spread of communism, the 'Movement of the Left', and its rise to world power.
13. The catastrophic decline of that same movement, triggered by the collapse of its egalitarian economy.
14. The rise of Israel as a Jewish homeland.
15. The persecution of Jews on the European continent (the Nazi holocaust).
16. America's violent racial struggles.
17. Baha'u'llah's release from the prison of 'Akka and the pitching of His tent on Mount Carmel.
18. The seizure and desecration of Baha'u'llah's House in Baghdad.
19. The failure of all attempts to create schism within the Baha'i Faith.
20. The explosive acceleration of scientific and technological progress.
21. The development of nuclear weapons.
22. The achievement of transmutation of elements, the age-old alchemist's dream.
23. Dire peril for all humanity as a result of that achievement.
24. The discovery that complex elements evolve in nature from simpler ones.
25. The recognition of planets as a necessary byproduct of star formation.
26. Space travel.
27. The realization that some forms of cancer are communicable.
28. Failure to find evidence for a 'missing link' between man and ape.
29. The non-existence of a mechanical ether (the supposed light-carrying substance posited by classical physics), and its redefinition as an abstract reality.
30. The breakdown of mechanical models (literal images) as a basis for understanding the physical world.

I will review each of these prophecies, describing when and how each was made and fulfilled. First, however, let us briefly consider their common historical setting.

The Challenge of Baha'u'llah, PROOFS OF THE BAHA'I REVELATION, pp. 35-40

 

[F1fan]

God MUST have existed -or have developed -before the universe -or the processing ability and forethought necessary for the extreme purposeful complexity of the universe could not exist.

Who says?

Self-awareness, memory, processing, etc. are necessary intermediate steps.

As long as there's a working material brain. Where is this brain in a God?

God MUST be everything in order to have the qualities attributed to God -which would also be the logical result of the position of original.

But it's fallible humans attributing these qualities to a God not known to exist. How do you test that these are actual attributes of a God that exists?

In order to determine that something was created by man, etc., we reference the present state of nature. That of which nature is not capable must have been created.
The same principle applies at any level.

So flesh eating bacteria and genetic diseases must have been created by God.

In order to determine whether the universe was created, we would need to reference the prior state of nature -before atoms and such existed -or even greatest possible simplicity.
Self-awareness, memory, processing, etc. are necessary intermediate steps between greatest possible simplicity and the present state of the universe -just as they are intermediate steps between present nature and man's creations.

OK, produce the God and show us it has a brain. Then prove it created anything.

Many see the fact that things developed from the big bang with no apparent creative input as proof that God is not necessary, but do not consider how the singularity which became our specific universe was packaged and executed.

What exists in nature can be explained as elements behaving according to the laws of physics.

It was not the simplicity we should expect to find in the very early stages of everything, but must have contained enough information to transform/arrange that which previously existed into the universe specifically -atoms, various forces and energies, planets, life forms, etc. -space -then environments -then inhabitants -then inhabitants increasingly mastering environments -increasingly approaching Godlike ability....
The fact that it is essentially an automated system actually indicates greater intelligence and capability than if everything required micromanagement at every stage.

You're still just assuming a God is behind nature without providing any actual necessity for a divine force.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first question is what do you mean by a true prophecy?
The second question is who set these criteria for true prophecies and why should we follow these criteria?
The third question is fail to do what? None of the predictions that Baha'u'llah made were intended to be used as proof that He was a Prophet/Messenger of God. They were either things He knew were going to happen that He told other people or they were warnings to the kings and rulers and religious leaders if His time.

That said, some Baha'is have considered the predictions that Baha'u'llah made as part of the evidence of who He was and the reason why is explained in the following chapter.

* * * * * * *

Chapter 4

BAHA'I PROPHECIES: HISTORICAL EVENTS

A tempest, unprecedented in its violence, unpredictable in its course, catastrophic in its immediate effects, unimaginably glorious in its ultimate consequences, is at present sweeping the face of the earth... The powerful operations of this titanic upheaval are comprehensible to none except such as have recognized the claims of both Baha'u'llah and the Bab.

- Shoghi Effendi

The word 'prediction' means one thing in science, another in religion. When we study religion scientifically, it is important to distinguish between these meanings. In science, a prediction is any testable inference we draw from a hypothesis or theory. It may equally well describe a future event, a past observation or an ongoing process. In religion, a prediction generally is a prophecy - a glimpse of the future disclosed through the words of a prophet. Although the scientific and religious meanings may sometimes overlap, they are not identical.

Bearing this distinction in mind, let us consider a scientific prediction (testable inference from a hypothesis) involving religious predictions (prophecies): if Baha'u'llah truly was a Manifestation of God, then He should have been, able to foretell coming events. To someone omniscient at will and free from all error, the future must be an open book.

This practical consequence of the revelation-claim of Baha'u'llah is something we can test on the basis of observation, reason, intuition and credible authority. As with any good scientific deduction, we can search for evidence to disprove it. 'When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, ' says the Old Testament, 'if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken... '53 Note how completely this approach agrees with modern scientific method: the Bible does not suggest that a single correct prophecy (or even several such) would constitute 'proof of a Manifestation's claim. All it says is that a demonstrable inability to make such prophecies would discredit that claim. The obvious corollary, however, is that if someone claiming divine inspiration makes a great many specific, seemingly improbable, testable prophecies - prophecies whose non-fulfilment would undermine our confidence - and they invariably come true, then we can hardly fail to be impressed. Two equally reasonable people may differ as to how much any given prophecy bolsters such a claim or how many 'hits' should be required to sustain a positive verdict. At some point, however, We might well find it more reasonable to accept that claim than to go on reserving judgement.

Baha'u'llah Himself writes:

We have laid bare the divine mysteries and in most explicit language foretold future events, that neither the doubts of the faithless, nor the denials of the froward, nor the whisperings of the heedless may keep back the seekers after truth from the Source of the light of the One true God. 54

... most of the things which have come to pass on this earth have been announced and prophesied by the Most Sublime Pen... All that hath been sent down hath and will come to pass, word for word, upon earth. No possibility is left for anyone either to turn aside or protest. 55

An impartial examination of such prophecies, in the light of subsequent events, will either confirm or falsify these assertions. This, then, is a good place to begin our investigation.

In considering Baha'u'llah's prophecies I shall, in a few instances, refer also to statements by the Bab and 'Abdu'l-Baha The Bab claimed to be not only the Herald of Baha'u'llah but a Manifestation in His own right - a claim fully endorsed by Baha'u'llah. Although 'Abdu'l-Baha is not considered a Manifestation, He was designated by Baha'u'llah as the unerring, divinely-guided Interpreter of the Faith, and beyond that as one whose words are as authoritative and as binding upon believers as Baha'u'llah's own. All authenticated statements of these three Central Figures therefore constitute Baha'i scripture, and their prophecies all are invested with Baha'u'llah's authority. *

*To put it another way, Baha'u'llah predicted (at least by implication) that the prophecies of the Bab and 'Abdu'l-Baha would prove as reliable as His own.

What are the developments that have, in the words of Baha'u'llah, 'come to pass on this earth' after being 'announced and prophesied by the Most Sublime Pen'? Those of which I am aware, and which I discuss in the following pages, include:

1. The fall from power of the French Emperor Napoleon III and the consequent loss of his empire.
2. The defeat of Germany in two bloody wars, resulting in the 'lamentations of Berlin'.
3. The success and stability of Queen Victoria's reign.
4. The dismissal of 'All Pasha as prime minister of Turkey.
5. The overthrow and murder of Sultan 'Abdu'l-'Aziz of Turkey.
6. The breakup of the Ottoman Empire, leading to the extinction of the 'outward splendour' of its capital, Constantinople.
7. The downfall of Nasiri'd-Din Shah, the Persian monarch.
8. The advent of constitutional government in Persia.
9. A massive (albeit temporary) decline in the fortunes of monarchy throughout the world.
10. A worldwide erosion of ecclesiastical authority.
11. The collapse of the Muslim Caliphate.
12. The spread of communism, the 'Movement of the Left', and its rise to world power.
13. The catastrophic decline of that same movement, triggered by the collapse of its egalitarian economy.
14. The rise of Israel as a Jewish homeland.
15. The persecution of Jews on the European continent (the Nazi holocaust).
16. America's violent racial struggles.
17. Baha'u'llah's release from the prison of 'Akka and the pitching of His tent on Mount Carmel.
18. The seizure and desecration of Baha'u'llah's House in Baghdad.
19. The failure of all attempts to create schism within the Baha'i Faith.
20. The explosive acceleration of scientific and technological progress.
21. The development of nuclear weapons.
22. The achievement of transmutation of elements, the age-old alchemist's dream.
23. Dire peril for all humanity as a result of that achievement.
24. The discovery that complex elements evolve in nature from simpler ones.
25. The recognition of planets as a necessary byproduct of star formation.
26. Space travel.
27. The realization that some forms of cancer are communicable.
28. Failure to find evidence for a 'missing link' between man and ape.
29. The non-existence of a mechanical ether (the supposed light-carrying substance posited by classical physics), and its redefinition as an abstract reality.
30. The breakdown of mechanical models (literal images) as a basis for understanding the physical world.

I will review each of these prophecies, describing when and how each was made and fulfilled. First, however, let us briefly consider their common historical setting.

The Challenge of Baha'u'llah, PROOFS OF THE BAHA'I REVELATION, pp. 35-40

Please do not use such dishonest methods to reply.

There is no excuse for such nonsense.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please do not use such dishonest methods to reply.

There is no excuse for such nonsense.

Methods for what?
Please explain what was dishonest. I just asked some questions.

The first question is what do you mean by a true prophecy?
The second question is who set these criteria for true prophecies and why should we follow these criteria?
The third question is fail to do what?

Do you think that you can just post Criteria for a true prophecy and not expect anyone to question it or have questions about it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Methods for what?
Please explain what was dishonest. I just asked some questions.

The first question is what do you mean by a true prophecy?
The second question is who set these criteria for true prophecies and why should we follow these criteria?
The third question is fail to do what?

You copied and pasted a wall of text. That is dishonest. You asked a foolish (and that is being generous) question about the standards for a true prophecy.

You can do better than that.

 

[Trailblazer]

You copied and pasted a wall of text. That is dishonest.

Please explain WHY that is dishonest. What is dishonest about it?

You asked a foolish (and that is being generous) question about the standards for a true prophecy.

I repeat my question:
Do you think that you can just post Criteria for a true prophecy and not expect anyone to question it or have questions about it?

I asked legitimate questions. Apparently you have no answers to my questions that would not call your criteria into question. Is a true prophecy a prophecy that was fulfilled as it was written? If so, many of prophecies are true that do not meet all these criteria.

Who set these criteria for true prophecies and why should anyone follow these criteria?

The reason why most of these criteria are worthless is because all but one of the criteria is a subjective call.
To put it rather bluntly, whether or not they meet the criteria is based upon someone's big fat ego.

It must be accurate. Who determines whether it is accurate?

It must be in the Bible. That is a valid criteria.

It must be precise and unambiguous. Who determines whether it is precise and unambiguous?

It must be improbable. Who determines whether it was improbable?

It must have been unknown. Who determines whether it could have been known?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain WHY that is dishonest. What is dishonest about it?

I did not ask for all of that BS. There was no excuse to post it. Acting as if you made a point by copying and pasting someone else's nonsense is not honest.

No, I asked legitimate questions. Apparently you have no answers to my questions that would not call your criteria into question. Is a true prophecy a prophecy that was fulfilled as it was written? If so, many of prophecies are true that do not meet all these criteria.

No you asked a foolish question. It does not matter who wrote it. Such a question is an admission that you were wrong. You could have challenged those rules, but you couldn't.

Who set these criteria for true prophecies and why should anyone follow these criteria?

The reason why most of these criteria are worthless is because all but one of the criteria is a subjective call.
To put it rather bluntly, whether or not they meet the criteria is based upon someone's big fat ego.

It must be accurate. Who determines whether it is accurate?

It must be in the Bible. That is a valid criteria.

It must be precise and unambiguous. Who determines whether it is precise and unambiguous?

It must be improbable. Who determines whether it is improbable?

It must have been unknown. Who determines whether it could have been known?

There you go.admitting that you are wrong again.

 

[Trailblazer]

You could have challenged those rules, but you couldn't.

I could and did challenge the rules and I told you why I think they are are worthless criteria.

The reason why most of these criteria are worthless is because all but one of the criteria is a subjective call.
To put it rather bluntly, whether or not they meet the criteria is based upon someone's big fat ego.

It must be accurate. Who determines whether it is accurate?

It must be in the Bible. That is a valid criteria.

It must be precise and unambiguous. Who determines whether it is precise and unambiguous?

It must be improbable. Who determines whether it is improbable?

It must have been unknown. Who determines whether it could have been known?

When posted why I believe four of the criteria are worthless you said:

"There you go.admitting that you are wrong again."

I was not admitting I was wrong, but if you thought I was wrong the honest thing to do would have been to explain why you thought I was wrong and defend the criteria.

 

[McBell]

No you asked a foolish question. It does not matter who wrote it. Such a question is an admission that you were wrong. You could have challenged those rules, but you couldn't.

A rather interesting high horse you got yourself there.
As A non-theist, perhaps you can satisfy my curiosity concerning some things you were flat out asked to explain but epically failed to?

For starters:

1. what do you mean by a true prophecy?
2. who set these criteria for true prophecies and why should we follow these criteria?
3. fail to do what?

Three straight forward questions being flat out asked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could and did challenge the rules and I told you why I think they are are worthless criteria.

The reason why most of these criteria are worthless is because all but one of the criteria is a subjective call.
To put it rather bluntly, whether or not they meet the criteria is based upon someone's big fat ego.

It must be accurate. Who determines whether it is accurate?

It must be in the Bible. That is a valid criteria.

It must be precise and unambiguous. Who determines whether it is precise and unambiguous?

It must be improbable. Who determines whether it is improbable?

It must have been unknown. Who determines whether it could have been known?

When posted why I believe four of the criteria are worthless you said:

"There you go.admitting that you are wrong again."

I was not admitting I was wrong, but if you thought I was wrong the honest thing to do would have been to explain why you thought I was wrong and defend the criteria.

Hardly. They only require a person to be honest. An honest approach to the prophecies of your religion show that they fail. Let's look at one clear failure. And I will explain to you why it fails. Your list claimed that he predicted nuclear weapons. Give the prophecy where he does that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A rather interesting high horse you got yourself there.
As A non-theist, perhaps you can satisfy my curiosity concerning some things you were flat out asked to explain but epically failed to?

For starters:

​

Three straight forward questions being flat out asked.

Sorry but no. She lost with the first question. It told us that she could not discuss this honestly. Her first question was "Who wrote that list" as if that made any difference at all. There was a poster here that made up a similar list. Would it have made any difference if I quoted him? When I get a clear acknowledgement that she screwed up then she should have asked her other questions.


By the way, I have been through some of these so called prophecies. They all fail by being too vague and open ended.

In the Bible there are some prophecies that are not overly vague, etc.. They fail in amazing fashion.

 

[McBell]

Sorry but no. She lost with the first question. It told us that she could not discuss this honestly. Her first question was "Who wrote that list" as if that made any difference at all. There was a poster here that made up a similar list. Would it have made any difference if I quoted him? When I get a clear acknowledgement that she screwed up then she should have asked her other questions.


By the way, I have been through some of these so called prophecies. They all fail by being too vague and open ended.

In the Bible there are some prophecies that are not overly vague, etc.. They fail in amazing fashion.

So, you are not going to answer any of them at all?
For any reason?
Now it most definitely looks like you are avoiding the answers to those questions.

Remember now, I am not a theist and I was flat out asking those questions because am curious what the answers are.

And now I am curious why you go to such great lengths to avoid answering them.

Perhaps this time you can pretend that it is Me who is asking them and that she was not the least bit involved...?

1. what do you mean by a true prophecy?
2. who set these criteria for true prophecies and why should we follow these criteria?
3. fail to do what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I

So, you are not going to answer any of them at all?
For any reason?
Now it most definitely looks like you are avoiding the answers to those questions.

Remember now, I am not a theist and I was flat out asking those questions because am curious what the answers are.

And now I am curious why you go to such great lengths to avoid answering them.

Perhaps this time you can pretend that it is Me who is asking them and that she was not the least bit involved...?

​

If you had looked I already started to answer them in the post before my previous answer to you.

I don't think that she was trying to be dishonest. Religion does that to people. Lately I have seen too many theists post something on the order of "who wrote that rule" as if that were a valid response.

And as I said those rules are rather reasonable and well thought out. Give a twist to it, replace "Bible" with "Quran" and a Christian will say that those are reasonable demands made of Muslim prophecy.

 

[McBell]

If you had looked I already started to answer them in the post before my previous answer to you.

So, no answers for them then?

A simple "no" would suffice.
Or you could, you know, actually answer them....

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, no answers for them then?

A simple "no" would suffice.
Or you could, you know, actually answer them....

Oh my. You too huh? The clear answer was yes.

 

[F1fan]

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

This is your problem, this is NOT a true premise. That some people claim to be messengers of a god is NOT evidence itself that they are being truthful. You're assuming they are telling the truth.

Now if you had a high standard test to determine that these messengers most certainly were sent by a God, then you would have an argument. You haven't, so we throw it out.

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

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

This is a different way of what you are claiming.

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.

Yet you have not demonstrated either premise true. You assume a God exists, and you assume messengers are from a god. These are both assumptions that you are treating as fact. They aren't fact. Your claims fail as a result.

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.

Then your claims fail.

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.

You know WHAT you believe. But you don't know that what you believe is factual. You've decided it is for your own personal meaning, not because there is a rational conclusion.

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.

Then you open the door for more critique because this part of the Bible is certainly not shown to be true.

One cannot prove any religion is true, except to themselves.

This is why religion isn't knowledge, but a framework of meaning that any arbitrary person can decide is true for them. This means it's not true objectively, and thanks for admitting it.

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.

So you are assuming atheists have the same needs as you do? Why?

 

[McBell]

Oh my. You too huh? The clear answer was yes.

If you have already answered, please provide the post number.
Cause if you have answered them, I missed it amongst all of your sermons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you have already answered, please provide the post number.
Cause if you have answered them, I missed it amongst all of your sermons.

i said that I had started to answer her questions. Didn't you see it? Attempting to distort answers is not honest either. Let's not have any false accusations here either.


A wall of text that one posts as if it was one's own is always dishonest. That was one technique that she used. I picked a particular prophecy out of it to discuss. One would have to apply those rules individually to prophecies to see if they apply. It is really not that difficult to understand.

 

[McBell]

i said that I had started to answer her questions. Didn't you see it? Attempting to distort answers is not honest either. Let's not have any false accusations here either.

And what false accusation is it you claim that I have made?

A wall of text that one posts as if it was one's own is always dishonest. That was one technique that she used. I picked a particular prophecy out of it to discuss. One would have to apply those rules individually to prophecies to see if they apply. It is really not that difficult to understand.

again with avoiding the questions by complaining about her....