Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So God could create humans capable of communication but decided not to, and won't change his mind. That's on God. And since Messengers are not effective, that is on God too.God did not create all humans with the ability to understand communication from God since God never intended to communicate to all humans.
Why? It's not working. Messengers are middlemen.God only intended to communicate to Messengers so they alone had the unique capacity to understand God.
I'll bet the messengers claim this.Messengers became special because their souls were in the spiritual world with God before their souls united with their bodies and they were born into this world.
Baseless claim. The word "soul" is not clear, nor something anyone can refer to as a real thing. It's better as a metaphor.The souls of ordinary humans come into existence at the time of conception, so they are not pre-existent.
Your choices make your idea of God weak. You chose to believe that God can't communicate with people except messengers, and the only reason is that it is what God intended. Why? It's not workling. God made a foolish decision. That he's not fixing it is more bad decison-making.Nothing you recognize as special.
Why would that make God weak?
Don't feel left out, the Baha'i have plenty of drama too.If you are referring to the Bible I agree it is not clear and I join the non-believers watching all the drama and inconsistency.
You have a lot of opinions. I understand the Bible as a book written by many humans, and is significant in history. All the theists who have an axe to grind because they have a claim on the Bible are involved in massive drama that sees no way out.All I can say is that the Bible was written for another age, not the age we are living in now, so it worked for a former age, but it does not work for this age, and that is why we see people leaving Christianity in droves, since rational people can no longer believe in the Bible.
I don't blame God because God knew all along that the confusion would be cleared up in this age.
I believe that God has now provided a clear roadmap to the Bible, through the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha, thus clearing up much of the confusion.
Christians have misinterpreted much of the Bible because they did not have the key to unlock the meaning. Because of the way the Bible was written, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible has been a big problem since the very beginning. Christians disagreed as to what the Bible meant and none of them clearly understood much of what it meant, and that is why there are so many different sects of Christianity.
That is understandable because it was prophesied by Daniel that the Book would be sealed up until the time of the end, meaning nobody would really understand it:
Daniel Chapter 12: 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 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. 11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
The early Church fathers interpreted the Bible the way they did because they could not fully understand it.
Now Christians continue to interpret the Bible the way it has always been interpreted...
The "Book" was intended to be sealed up until the time of the end, until the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days came. 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.
We do not have to run to and fro anymore. Unsealing the Book means we can now understand the true meaning of the Bible. By reading the Baha’i Writings that explain the true meaning of the Bible, we can understand what much of the Bible means that could never be understood before (knowledge shall be increased).
If it is effective for messengers, why not all humans? The "messenger as middleman" is weak, and opens the door for doubt. You admit that God, but choses not to, for reasons you don't reveal. The reason is likley that in your choice of religion offers you no choice.I have not seen anyone here post a more effective way for God to communicate.
LOL. This is the same dilemma your messenger has. At least a sign in the sky could be done in a way that science couldn't explain, that would impress atheists. But, messenger (who we can't discern isn't a fraud)All I have seen is nonsense, such as God writing "I am God and I exist" in the sky. How would anyone know God actually wrote that, and even if there was a way to know it came from God, what would it accomplish?
Well not knowning a God exists means all that follows is nothing more than guessing. That's religion.It doesn't matter if we know that God exists, unless we know something about God and what God's will is for us. That requires a man who is a Messenger, unless you can think of another way to communicate that information from God to man.
Yet you never know. That's gambling.No, we do not assume that the message is from the messenger. We do our due diligence before we come to believe that it did.
Not all of those people that Baha'is claim were manifestations/messengers made that claim of themselves. It's a Baha'i thing. Lots of things are Baha'i things, which shows the inconsistency between the messages between these supposed messengers. They all said different things. And some of those that Baha'is claim are manifestation didn't claim that of themselves, and they weren't claimed to be by the religion from where they came from. It is completely a Baha'i doctrine about progressive revelation that makes them necessarily, to the Baha'is, to be manifestations.I'll bet the messengers claim this.
As I have already demonstrated Messengers have been effective in garnering the belief of almost everyone in the world.So God could create humans capable of communication but decided not to, and won't change his mind. That's on God. And since Messengers are not effective, that is on God too.
As noted above it is working, and it is working because Messengers are middlemen.Why? It's not working. Messengers are middlemen.
Maybe they do, but how else would we know, given they are the only ones who speak for God?I'll bet the messengers claim this.
The soul is real but we cannot know the nature of the soul, as it is a mystery. We can only know the function of the soul.Baseless claim. The word "soul" is not clear, nor something anyone can refer to as a real thing. It's better as a metaphor.
I did not say that God cannot communicate with people except by Messengers, I said that nobody except Messengers could understand communication from God.Your choices make your idea of God weak. You chose to believe that God can't communicate with people except messengers, and the only reason is that it is what God intended. Why? It's not workling. God made a foolish decision. That he's not fixing it is more bad decison-making.
God has no interest in fixing the mess that humans created because it is not His job.Of course you have few potions but to form and believe a God that has to be consistent with reality, and that is that people don't hear from gods. Still, your fellow believers claim they do. So are you wrong, or are they, or both of you? It's more likley that all theists are wrong because if a God exists as believers say it would have an interest is fixing this mess.
I am not involved in the Bible drama, I only watch from the sidelines. It is not much more than entertainment for me.You have a lot of opinions. I understand the Bible as a book written by many humans, and is significant in history. All the theists who have an axe to grind because they have a claim on the Bible are involved in massive drama that sees no way out.
I already explained why God does not communicate to all humans. One reason is because God chooses not to, the other reason is because it would accomplish nothing since only Messengers can understand communication from God.If it is effective for messengers, why not all humans? The "messenger as middleman" is weak, and opens the door for doubt. You admit that God, but choses not to, for reasons you don't reveal. The reason is likley that in your choice of religion offers you no choice.
Even if science could not explain it that would not prove it came from God. There are lots of things science cannot explain.LOL. This is the same dilemma your messenger has. At least a sign in the sky could be done in a way that science couldn't explain, that would impress atheists. But, messenger (who we can't discern isn't a fraud)
What follows from religion is that God exists so there is no guessing.Well not knowning a God exists means all that follows is nothing more than guessing. That's religion.
You are gambling and the stakes are very high if you are wrong.Yet you never know. That's gambling.
Are you saying that God has intentionally chosen not to reveal sufficient evidence for his existence or for the veracity of his messengers because he wants people to believe on faith? How would you define faith?I already explained why God does not communicate to all humans. One reason is because God chooses not to, the other reason is because it would accomplish nothing since only Messengers can understand communication from God.
The "messenger as middleman" requires faith and that is another reason God uses Messengers, God wants our faith.
Once we have faith and it is strong enough we have no doubts.
No, that is not what I am saying.Are you saying that God has intentionally chosen not to reveal sufficient evidence for his existence or for the veracity of his messengers because he wants people to believe on faith? How would you define faith?
What is the sufficient evidence for the veracity of His messengers? If there is such evidence, then I have either not seen it or I am misinformed regarding its reliability.No, that is not what I am saying.
God has not intentionally chosen not to reveal sufficient evidence for His existence, since the messengers are sufficient evidence for the existence of God.
God has not intentionally chosen not to reveal sufficient evidence for the veracity of his messengers, since there is sufficient evidence for the veracity of his messengers.
I define faith as believing what cannot be proven. Although we have sufficient evidence to believe in God and the messengers, it can never be proven that God exists or that God sent messengers.
It doesn't really matter, since we connot experience or understand reality "objectively". It's not possible as we are the subjects experiencing and understanding everything according to ourselves.Yes, many things are part of subjective experience. Even colors, sound and the taste of food... We don't know what is objective reality but there is something.
Of course it is. Were we not consciously aware of it as an idea in our mind it becomes an objective nothingness. The essence of 'moot'.Existence of matter may be just an idea from our common experience but existence itself is certainly not just an idea.
Not one of them thinks that. All theist know that God is an ideal that is being expressed through what we commonly call 'objective reality'.Something existed before we were here and something will exist... Theists are no different from materialists. They think God is objective reality - not an idea in their mind.
The experience of deity is an incredibly common human experience. Every culture in every time has this ideological experience. As do the huge majority of humans alive today.Furthermore there is a problem with experiencing God. Many concepts are based on common experience. No one here debates if there is earth, water, air etc. But God-experience is not so common. Even less direct experience/communication. Most believers only have faith.
I have posted more effective methods as have others, including writing in the sky before that was technically feasible. And your objection fails, since it applies to the method you extol as well. I have no reason to believe that the words that you accept as coming from a god actually do. They look like words that any of us could right, verily I sayeth.I have not seen anyone here post a more effective way for God to communicate. All I have seen is nonsense, such as God writing "I am God and I exist" in the sky. How would anyone know God actually wrote that
Something that has still never been established that this deity presumably wants known. The argument is that what you call knowledge of God is not believed to be that by the overwhelming majority of people that live or have ever lived, and that that defines the medium of messenger to have been ineffective again, and argues against the involvement of a tri-omni deity.even if there was a way to know it came from God, what would it accomplish?
It doesn't matter what it is claimed a god says if we don't know that this god exists.It doesn't matter if we know that God exists, unless we know something about God and what God's will is for us. That requires a man who is a Messenger, unless you can think of another way to communicate that information from God to man.
There is no due diligence that establishes what you accept as true. Writing the phrase isn't convincing. Besides, I know what you call critical thinking. It's however you think.No, we do not assume that the message is from the messenger. We do our due diligence before we come to believe that it did.
And since it isn't the most effective method (it may be the least effective, but your prophets didn't have a lot of options), a god didn't choose it.IF God chose that method, THEN it was the most effective method.
No, the prejudice is the process. The critical thinker won't deviate from the rules of reason applied to evidence, and he won't accept claims that aren't soundly supported. What he expects to see if he is true to the process is a sound conclusion, whatever that might be.The empiricist does it differently, beginning with that same evidence, and evaluating it with the prejudice he brings to the process.
That prejudice is his expectations, what he would expect to see if God existed
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, and say that they don't believe a god exists, which is different. Regarding gods, some believe yes and some believe no, but enlightened people believe neither, since the claim that undetectable gods exist is metaphysical (unfalsifiable), and therefore neither right nor wrong, but rather, "not even wrong"since he does not see what he would expect to see if God existed, he says there can't be a God.
This is defending ego from being absorbed by a religious belief that considers subverting the self to the will of an alleged god a virtue. When the religious complain about ego in others, it's generally in the context of them being unwilling to believe by faith.This is nothing short of ego projection.
It's been done by several. You are uninterested in the answers, just in asking the question, so it must be a rhetorical question for you, which is a statement in question form and not a request for information.You think you know why God should use 'another method' of communication to deliver a message, other than Messengers, yet you cannot even come up with another method that would achieve anything.
I had suggested, " just infusing knowledge directly into memory like a cosmic download? Or better yet, have that message installed at the factory (in the womb)" as one of a few better methods for a tri-omni deity to deliver a message, and now you ask the above. You really don't want an answer. For those who do, it would be because it wants to be known and believed, and apparently the brain and free will aren't enough. Also, so that it can distinguish itself from a fictitious god if it actually exists.Why should God spoon feed humans who have been given a brain and free will?
They could if they could infuse the education that diploma represents into them immediately before.Why don't universities hand out medical degrees at the door, before the student even does any work?
Yes, I know. That's the problem with using them as messengers. They sound like they're deluded or lying.The words of the prophets sound human since humans wrote them.
Yes, but your conclusion shows that you didn't apply the laws of reasoning without fallacy. It's simply a fact that no sound argument concludes, "therefore God," meaning that if one holds such a belief, he must have come to it by faith, not reason (critical analysis). You frequently say such things about your methods, as when you referred to due diligence, but the proof is in the pudding. Others looking at the same evidence as you say it doesn't add up the way you think. You're in the same position as somebody who misadded a column of numbers complaining that their method was sound. If he came up with a wrong sum, he did it wrong, whatever he says about dilligence or critical analysis.My criteria for belief came from my critical analysis of the Baha'i Faith in its entirety
This is pretty weak apologetics. You say that God communicates to man repeatedly and uses the best method available to him, but that he "never intended to communicate to all humans."God did not create all humans with the ability to understand communication from God since God never intended to communicate to all humans.
God only intended to communicate to Messengers so they alone had the unique capacity to understand God.
That's a superfluous concept that explains nothing and lacks evidentiary support. The brain is the source of human drives and ambitions.The soul is real but we cannot know the nature of the soul, as it is a mystery. We can only know the function of the soul.
"God" has no job. There is nothing we need a god to account for, and insufficient reason to believe that one exists or does anything. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that this god is like Sagan's dragon in the garage, which also does nothing and is also undetectable even in principle. When something is indistinguishable from the nonexistent, it should be treated as nonexistent. If it ever manifests in some way, then the matter can be revisited.God has no interest in fixing the mess that humans created because it is not His job.
This isn't a reason. You need to explain WHY God chooses not to. Watever the reason him using only a few messengers isn't effective or reliable. This is a choice an incompetent God would do, or one that wanted chaos.I already explained why God does not communicate to all humans. One reason is because God chooses not to,
Seriously? God communicataing directly with people instead of middlement would accomplish nothing?the other reason is because it would accomplish nothing since only Messengers can understand communication from God.
Faith is unreliable and rational minds know not to rely on it as it is flawed. Look at your posts here, your reasons are terrible and unjustified. We know you are not posting your beliefs via facts, rather what you accept on faith from dubious religious sources. I know you think more highy of your ability than critical thinkers do, but you do not offer good explanations, and faith is notoriously unreliable as a fact.The "messenger as middleman" requires faith and that is another reason God uses Messengers, God wants our faith.
Once we have faith and it is strong enough we have no doubts.
Where science and reason come nto play a God is irrelevant. Why? Because there is not credible evidence for any Gods, which even you admit sometimes.Even if science could not explain it that would not prove it came from God. There are lots of things science cannot explain.
Why not? As long as the message is something that science cannot explain and defies the laws of phsyics. That would be massively more credible than middlemen claiming they talked to a God.So, what would the sign say besides "I'm God and I exist?" What good would it to know that God exists, if that is all you know?
That's self-serving. And that would violate that version of God's rules of only using a messenger, so why suggest it? And what if the message said he wasn't authentic? Oooops. Don't want to even consider that, do you?A better sign would say ""I'm God and Baha'u'llah is my Messenger." At least then you would then be able to read what Baha'u'llah wrote and know it came from God.
Religions are not fact based, so the guessing is inevitable. That;s why you need faith instead of reasoning.What follows from religion is that God exists so there is no guessing.
No I'm not, as I opt out of the whole religion game. Why should I feel anxiety because religious traditions claim things that they can't show are true in reality? They can't even demonstrate any Gods exist, so what basis do they have to claim anything?You are gambling and the stakes are very high if you are wrong.
Yeah, you have wasted a lot of time and mental devotion to implausible ideas that you think is truth. If you find belief and devotion meaningful, then knock yourself out. To my way of thinking it is a category of hobby. The difference of religion as an activity humans do is that there is not much that is tangible, like collecting stamps has.If I am wrong, I have on only lost the time I put into the forum, but if I am right.....
How does that indicate that messengers have the truth versus humans seeking meaning can be gullible?As I have already demonstrated Messengers have been effective in garnering the belief of almost everyone in the world.
You should know this is a fallacy. And science explains how the human brian evolved to believe as an advantage to survival. And also how the impulse to conform to social norms is a strong formitive pattern of human behavior. Most humans believe in their tradition of religious belief because that is how they learn to behave.84 percent of the world population has a faith and because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. It does not matter if you call them a Messenger; they are holy men who founded the religions, so they are intermediaries between God and man. Sure, there are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm.
To use your fallacy above, the vast majority of religious believers choose not to believe in your messenger. What does that tell you?The point is that with no men who act as "intermediaries" (middlemen) between God and man very few people would believe in God.
Atheists choose not to believe in the Messengers that is on them, not on God.
The same result as if there is no actual Gods.As noted above it is working, and it is working because Messengers are middlemen.
With no middlemen, very few people in the world would believe in God.
Because I defer to th logical default which is to not accept claims UNTIL they are shown to be true, or at least likely true. Religious claims are notoriously weak in the the evidence department. You believers insist it is good enough, but if that is the case why are there so many different religions and beliefs? It appears to be a lot of bias on the part of any given believer.Maybe they do, but how else would we know, given they are the only ones who speak for God?
If it is real why hasn't science described it? Until they do your claim above is untrue.The soul is real but we cannot know the nature of the soul, as it is a mystery. We can only know the function of the soul.
And you also said that God chose not to communicate with all humans. You have yet to explain why. What you claim is exactly what a fraudulent middleman would say. Humans are by default left to either accept the middleman or demand a very high level of evidence. You admit that you use faith, not reason. Of course you will respond to this by claiming you do use reason, but you will fail to prove this in any way. You are proud and stubborn. Mr. Hyde cometh.I did not say that God cannot communicate with people except by Messengers, I said that nobody except Messengers could understand communication from God.
More claims without evidence. Believers all over the world have their own beliefs based on faith, and you offer them nothing more credible. Why should they switch one implausible framework for another implausible framework?It IS working for all but a small percentage of the population who reject the Messengers, so it is good decision-making.
And there are what, 5 million Baha'i globally? So there are vastly more atheists than Baha'i, yet you will cite how some 84% of the world are believers as if that majority means something? You can't have it both ways.According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia
If God is the creator, then God is responsible for what it created. It's in your interest to hold your idea of God blameless. This is the only way what we observe can go one without intervention from any God. Notice there being no God at all would have the same result.God has no interest in fixing the mess that humans created because it is not His job.
You have decided to align with a fringe religion, but it has its own type of drama that you are caught up in. You play Jeckl and Hyde when it suits your mood. Sometimes you are exceptionally rational and correct, and other times you go full on faith-based believer making one irrational claim after another. It's obvious you get more defensive and theistic when your beliefs are discussed, but when the discussion is more broad you are more objective.I am not involved in the Bible drama, I only watch from the sidelines. It is not much more than entertainment for me.
Then we had better get used to the drama. Why? Because theists tend to believe due to tradition of belief and confomrity to their social norms. And baha'i offers very little for anyone to convert. In my assessment the Baha'i on RF are rebels looking for a fringe theological home, and this is not a common trait among most believers. I suggest more people accept Humanism, because it is objective and non-religious, so won't compete with what theists already believe. Baha'i doesn't offer anything better than Humanism does.This drama will never end till people accept Baha'u'llah. It is only then that people will put the Bible on the shelf where it belongs, since it no longer applies to the age we are living in.
You have posted what you believe would be more effective, but you have never explained why people would have ever believed that writing in the sky was from God, since it could never be verified to have come from God, not any more than Messengers can be verified to have come from God.I have posted more effective methods as have others, including writing in the sky before that was technically feasible. And your objection fails, since it applies to the method you extol as well. I have no reason to believe that the words that you accept as coming from a god actually do. They look like words that any of us could right, verily I sayeth.
It is a moot point since it could never be verified that any writing in the sky came from God. Some people might believe it did, but some people would not believe it did, so it is no different than Messenger communication!Something that has still never been established that this deity presumably wants known.
The fact that most people either don't know about or have thus far rejected the Messenger that God sent doesn't mean that God was ineffective.The argument is that what you call knowledge of God is not believed to be that by the overwhelming majority of people that live or have ever lived, and that that defines the medium of messenger to have been ineffective again, and argues against the involvement of a tri-omni deity.
That's true, but the only way you are going to know that God exists is via the Messenger God sent.It doesn't matter what it is claimed a god says if we don't know that this god exists.
It is the most effective method, because by this method most people believe in God.And since it isn't the most effective method (it may be the least effective, but your prophets didn't have a lot of options), a god didn't choose it.
No, it has not been done and defended with any kind of reasoning. You just say God could do x or y.It's been done by several. You are uninterested in the answers, just in asking the question, so it must be a rhetorical question for you, which is a statement in question form and not a request for information.
I cannot explain why God chooses to do anything since I do not know the mind of God.This isn't a reason. You need to explain WHY God chooses not to. Watever the reason him using only a few messengers isn't effective or reliable. This is a choice an incompetent God would do, or one that wanted chaos.
It would accomplish absolutely nothing since nobody could ever understand direct communication from God.Seriously? God communicataing directly with people instead of middlement would accomplish nothing?
Any rational mind would deduce that faith is necessary when proof is impossible. God does not prove He exists so proof is impossible.Faith is unreliable and rational minds know not to rely on it as it is flawed.
It might be more credible to you and some others, but the middlemen are credible to most people, and that is one reason God uses them.Why not? As long as the message is something that science cannot explain and defies the laws of phsyics. That would be massively more credible than middlemen claiming they talked to a God.
I was only joking, but if there was going to be writing in the sky and all it said was "I am God and I exist" that would not accomplish anything.That's self-serving. And that would violate that version of God's rules of only using a messenger, so why suggest it? And what if the message said he wasn't authentic? Oooops. Don't want to even consider that, do you?
And you and some other atheists have wasted a lot of your time telling believers that we are wrong and why. If I was an athesist I would be out enjoying the one life you believe we have, not on a religious forum talking to believers. It is different for me since I have something I actually believe is the truth, and even if people don't believe me it is my job to share it, although I'd much rather be doing something else with my time.Yeah, you have wasted a lot of time and mental devotion to implausible ideas that you think is truth.
I never said that the fact that most people believe in messengers means they have the truth.How does that indicate that messengers have the truth versus humans seeking meaning can be gullible?
I know it only too well. I never said that the fact that most people believe in messengers means they have the truth because that would be fallacious.You should know this is a fallacy.
I am not using that fallacy to say that God exists or that a religion is true just because many or most people believe it.To use your fallacy above, the vast majority of religious believers choose not to believe in your messenger. What does that tell you?
I need no messenger to tell me that God chooses not to communicate with all humans, all I need is empirical observation.And you also said that God chose not to communicate with all humans. You have yet to explain why. What you claim is exactly what a fraudulent middleman would say.
No, I never said I believe on faith, I always say I believe on evidence and faith. I have to have faith in what can never be proven to exist, and God can never be proven to exist. That means that Messengers can never be proven to have received messages from God, so I have to believe in them on the evidence and faith.Humans are by default left to either accept the middleman or demand a very high level of evidence. You admit that you use faith, not reason.
Indeed, why should they switch religions when they already have a religion. Most people have a religion and that is why the Baha'i Faith is not believed by most people who know about it.More claims without evidence. Believers all over the world have their own beliefs based on faith, and you offer them nothing more credible. Why should they switch one implausible framework for another implausible framework?
I already explained above that the number of people who believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.And there are what, 5 million Baha'i globally? So there are vastly more atheists than Baha'i, yet you will cite how some 84% of the world are believers as if that majority means something? You can't have it both ways.
He could if He wanted to, but God chooses for us to become spiritually enlightened partly on our own efforts. If He communicated with us directly too much of that would be taken away from us. There has to be the risk that we will be "evil", so to speak, for us to earn our place in Paradise, which is nearness to the Holy Spirit. I suppose if He communicaed directly with us, we could turn from Him, but it would be much less, in my opinion. Let us let God determine what the level of risk of being "evil" would be.Seriously? God communicataing directly with people instead of middlement would accomplish nothing?
See #317 above for my answer to this, which differs. I believe that God could "whisper in our ear" or something like that. I recall I story now where Thomas Breakwell heard a voice say "Christ has returned. Christ has returned".It would accomplish absolutely nothing since nobody could ever understand direct communication from God.
I described a more effective way of communicating than what was used. People might listen to a prophet if he could tell them in advance that his source would be writing something in the sky to validate his claim.You have posted what you believe would be more effective, but you have never explained why people would have ever believed that writing in the sky was from God, since it could never be verified to have come from God, not any more than Messengers can be verified to have come from God.
Why do you keep posting this kind of thing to unbelievers? I asked you before about your not seeming to be able to assimilate that I am an atheist. You say you know that, but then you present me with words that only another Baha'i would find meaningful. I don't read these passages, and I doubt that any other skeptics do, either, since they also don't consider it authentic (I'm referring to the deity now and not the messenger, who I don't doubt is the author of the words).The reason that God does not prove He exists is noted below.
“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71
Yes it does. Since I'm on an etymology roll, effective is related to efficient. The more of the intended audience reached, the more effective the means of communicating, and vice versa.The fact that most people either don't know about or have thus far rejected the Messenger that God sent doesn't mean that God was ineffective.
That doesn't work.the only way you are going to know that God exists is via the Messenger God sent.
But that's the question being decided - whether this god exists. If it doesn't, then logically, it didn't use any method.It cannot be defended on an logical basis because if God exists we know that God did not use any of these methods you and others have suggested, so logically, that means that if God exists God would not use any of those methods.
What has the Messenger method achieved? Only half of the believers are monotheist. And only half of the the monotheists have the same concept of God, his will, salvation...By contrast, the Messenger method has achieved belief in God for most everyone in the world, since 84 percent of the world population has a faith, and those faiths were all established by a Messenger. It doesn't matter if you call him a Messenger or a prophet or a holy man, he was a man who was an intermediary between God and man.