• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Exclusivity of Christianity

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The evidence for any god in human loire is woefully inadequate for a rational human to conclude it exists. Your standard is low, as is the case with all believers.
I could just imagine talking about the Gods to some tribal people... "Of course the Gods are real. Last week we did a rain dance and look... today, it's raining. Besides who do you think our shaman priest is communicating to? It doesn't make any sense for him to be able to talk to the Gods, if there were no Gods. That would be illogical.?"
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Fallacies are specific kinds of errors in logical inference, so something cannot be fallacious and logical. Evidence must be analyzed logically in order to draw conclusions from it.

If you are admitting that logic cannot justify your belief, then you are also admitting that there is no evidence for it.
Logical reasoning is the ability to draw a reliable conclusion or make a correct inference based on the facts, assumptions, or arguments.
I inferred that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God based on the facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, which I refer to as evidence.

There is evidence that supports my belief in Baha'u'llah but it cannot be used to prove that God exists or sends Messengers such as Baha'u'llah.

Logic cannot prove that God exists or that God sends Messengers because nobody can prove that God exists or has Messengers, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or have Messengers, since proof is not what makes God exist or send Messengers.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
And anyone can imagine their messengers are genuine.
And there's lots of them.... But not all of them claim to be Christ or Buddha. Here's one that apparently does. At least one follower of his posts here on the forum. And I'm sure he has proof and evidence that supports his believe in his prophet, but I've never known him to push his evidence or his beliefs on the rest of us. So, why do Baha'is?
Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian guru said to have over 100 million followers in 133 countries... To his followers, Sai Baba was a living god; a claim he did nothing to disavow. He would frequently liken himself to such figures as Christ, Krishna, and the Buddha, claiming that he was the avatara of the age – an avatara being a living incarnation of the Divine.​
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And I'm sure he has proof and evidence that supports his believe in his prophet, but I've never known him to push his evidence or his beliefs on the rest of us. So, why do Baha'is?
Push evidence for our beliefs? I am not pushing anything, people are pushing me for evidence... constantly. I barely get a break to live my life.
I wish people would stop asking me to prove Messengers are from God and that God exists so I could have a life of my own.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
And there's lots of them.... But not all of them claim to be Christ or Buddha. Here's one that apparently does. At least one follower of his posts here on the forum. And I'm sure he has proof and evidence that supports his believe in his prophet, but I've never known him to push his evidence or his beliefs on the rest of us. So, why do Baha'is?
Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian guru said to have over 100 million followers in 133 countries... To his followers, Sai Baba was a living god; a claim he did nothing to disavow. He would frequently liken himself to such figures as Christ, Krishna, and the Buddha, claiming that he was the avatara of the age – an avatara being a living incarnation of the Divine.​
Oh dear..

Jyoti Thottam wrote in Time, “Believing in the Baba was easy. Devotees were not required to adhere to any particular set of beliefs or renounce worldly pleasures; non-Hindus did not need to change their religion. "I am God," he would say. "You too are God. The only difference between you and me is that while I am aware of it, you are completely unaware

What nonsense! Anybody who believes that a person is God lacks accurate religious knowledge.
Only Christians would fall for that one. ;)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Oh dear..

Jyoti Thottam wrote in Time, “Believing in the Baba was easy. Devotees were not required to adhere to any particular set of beliefs or renounce worldly pleasures; non-Hindus did not need to change their religion. "I am God," he would say. "You too are God. The only difference between you and me is that while I am aware of it, you are completely unaware

What nonsense! Anybody who believes that a person is God lacks accurate religious knowledge.
Only Christians would fall for that one. ;)
Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian guru said to have over 100 million followers in 133 countries...

So much for the number of followers proving a belief is true.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Logical reasoning is the ability to draw a reliable conclusion or make a correct inference based on the facts, assumptions, or arguments.
I inferred that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God based on the facts surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, which I refer to as evidence.

There is evidence that supports my belief in Baha'u'llah but it cannot be used to prove that God exists or sends Messengers such as Baha'u'llah.

Logic cannot prove that God exists or that God sends Messengers because nobody can prove that God exists or has Messengers, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or have Messengers, since proof is not what makes God exist or send Messengers.

I don't see how any of the facts you mention about Baha'u'llah make him any more likely to have been a genuine messenger of God on their own. I don't understand how, for instance, the fact that he was generally a "good" person (by Baha'i standards) or that he had a lot of followers really leads to the conclusion that he was divine, for instance. There are plenty of people who have had good character and have had even more followers who never claimed to be messengers of God. In fact, that's normally the case.

So without additional argumentation, I don't see the inferential chain that gets you from your evidence to the conclusion that God exists.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Push evidence for our beliefs? I am not pushing anything, people are pushing me for evidence... constantly. I barely get a break to live my life.
I wish people would stop asking me to prove Messengers are from God and that God exists so I could have a life of my own.

Why are you in a debate thread if you don't want to debate? You aren't obligated to respond to everyone who replies to you. If you don't want to argue about the subject, you don't have to. Leave the thread and go do something else.

As long as you're here, it is our responsibility as intellectually honest interlocutors to act out of a respect for truthful investigation, which demands that we attempt to get to the truth of the matter and understand where the evidence leads. If you don't want your position to be held to critical scrutiny, then you shouldn't subject them to critical scrutiny by posting it in a debate thread.

Nobody here is responsible for that except you.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I will keep asking as you keep bringing up your personal belief in these discussions.
Who brought up my belief? If you look back in the thread you will see I was not the one who brought it up. People post to me and I just respond to posts. It is you and others keep bringing up my beliefs.

There is nothing else to respond to in your post that hasn't been covered dozens of times before.
Why keep asking what has already been answered? You aren't going to get a different answer.
Then there is no reason to assume or believe a God exists.
Then don't.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I don't see how any of the facts you mention about Baha'u'llah make him any more likely to have been a genuine messenger of God on their own. I don't understand how, for instance, the fact that he was generally a "good" person (by Baha'i standards) or that he had a lot of followers really leads to the conclusion that he was divine, for instance. There are plenty of people who have had good character and have had even more followers who never claimed to be messengers of God. In fact, that's normally the case.
It is a lot more than His character.
The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah
So without additional argumentation, I don't see the inferential chain that gets you from your evidence to the conclusion that God exists.
This is not only about Baha'u'llah. God existed long before He sent Baha'u'llah. All the great Messengers and the religions that were established by them are evidence that God exists.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Why are you in a debate thread if you don't want to debate?
Did you see the title of my thread and what is in the OP? This thread is about Christianity, not about the Baha'i Faith.

This thread was not intended to be for debating whether my Baha'i beliefs are true or false, but threads I post always end up that way.
This thread was not intended to be for debating whether Messengers are from God or whether God exists, but threads I post always end up that way.
As long as you're here, it is our responsibility as intellectually honest interlocutors to act out of a respect for truthful investigation, which demands that we attempt to get to the truth of the matter and understand where the evidence leads. If you don't want your position to be held to critical scrutiny, then you shouldn't subject them to critical scrutiny by posting it in a debate thread.

Nobody here is responsible for that except you.
This is in the debate thread but the debate was not intended to be about evidence for my beliefs, it was intended to be about Christianity.
Nobody is responsible for getting this thread off track except those who took it off track.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
It is a lot more than His character.
The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

This is not only about Baha'u'llah. God existed long before He sent Baha'u'llah. All the great Messengers and the religions that were established by them are evidence that God exists.
I'm not asking for an infodump. If you cannot provide a specific argument, then I am not going to construct one for you with the resources you've given me.

Aside from that, I've already seen this post, and it has not provided any such evidence, as far as I'm aware. If you cannot provide an argument for your position, then I am forced to dismiss your assertions as obviously false because they are incompatible with naturalism, which I have strong arguments for.

I've heard of the messengers. I've studied the Bible in depth and I've read and researched the Quran. I've seen this post before. Here's my post going over what I would accept as genuine evidence of God, which you have not provided, for reference:


You haven't given me anything along these lines, and your linked thread doesn't, either.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Did you see the title of my thread and what is in the OP? This thread is about Christianity, not about the Baha'i Faith.

This thread was not intended to be for debating whether my Baha'i beliefs are true or false, but threads I post always end up that way.
This thread was not intended to be for debating whether Messengers are from God or whether God exists, but threads I post always end up that way.

This is in the debate thread but the debate was not intended to be about evidence for my beliefs, it was intended to be about Christianity.
Nobody is responsible for getting this thread off track except those who took it off track.
Whether the Abrahamic God exists or not is very pertinent to a topic debating Christianity, and that's a claim you introduced to the discussion.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I'm not asking for an infodump. If you cannot provide a specific argument, then I am not going to construct one for you with the resources you've given me.

Aside from that, I've already seen this post, and it has not provided any such evidence, as far as I'm aware. If you cannot provide an argument for your position, then I am forced to dismiss your assertions as obviously false because they are incompatible with naturalism, which I have strong arguments for.
I have already presented all the evidence and arguments I have so there is no point going over it again.
Obviously that is insufficient so you are free to dismiss what I believe as false.
I've heard of the messengers. I've studied the Bible in depth and I've read and researched the Quran. I've seen this post before. Here's my post going over what I would accept as genuine evidence of God, which you have not provided, for reference:


You haven't given me anything along these lines, and your linked thread doesn't, either.
I haven't and I don't expect I will. I have given you all I have. I cannot give you what I don't have.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Whether the Abrahamic God exists or not is very pertinent to a topic debating Christianity, and that's a claim you introduced to the discussion.
Whether God exists or not was not the subject of this thread. This thread was supposed to be about the claims of Christianity to be exclusive.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Truth" is a trophy for the fools that think they can possess it. What matters is what works best in the circumstance.
You present yourself as too wise by half, but you offer nothing in support your words. You see yourself as a metric for others with too narrow views to strive to achieve, the only one who isn't a fool in a discussion with critical thinkers who reject your empty claims. It's you playing the fool doing so. Why are you arguing a position with insufficient ammunition? You're in the same unenviable position as the creationist arguing against science unarmed, or those arguing for messengers representing gods with only ordinary words.
Everyone has an ego and everyone succumbs to it eventually.
Do you really want to buy into the Abrahamic trope that ego is necessarily an enemy? That's a self-serving doctrine not said in your interest. It's code for one killing freethinking, doubt, and cognitive dissonance, and conforming to somebody else's agenda for you.

My ego has been an asset. It powered self-confidence and ambition, which are attractive to others and lead to desirable outcomes. "I can do this!" It also powers moral righteousness in many as we see in these religious discussions, where people confidently declare the description of a deity immoral, and are then accused of arrogance (runaway ego) for not being meeker.

And yes, meekness, or too little ego, is the opposite of arrogance, not humility.
I don't "dislike" materialism. I just understand that it's a nonsensical, self-eviscerating concept.
Except that you are wrong. The evidence is staring you right in the face - happy "materialist" everywhere. I'm what you call a materialist, and I'm here to tell you that it has provided a solid foundation for what has been a happy life. On the other hand, not so much for my religious counterparts in the family, dutiful, church-going, tithing, Trump-supporting Americans with lots of kids, lots of debt, lots of grievances, and lots of bigotries. What were you saying about nonsensical and self-eviscerating? These people took the blue pill. I was saved from that by my "materialistic" (godless metaphysics, empiricism, and rational ethics) worldview.
It does not matter what would have been impossible before the twentieth century, it is not impossible now, so there would be no reason to believe it came from God.
Baha'u'llah lived in the nineteenth century. And there was insufficient reason to believe the message he presented came from a god by academic standards for evaluating evidence. No other method can generate sound conclusions, just unsupported beliefs (faith).
Whether Messengers are an effective methodd of communication or not has nothing to do with how many people have accepted Baha'u'llah to date.
Of course it does. The number of people who will become Baha'i will be the fraction who see the message multiplied by the fraction believing it. Do you not understand how advertising and marketing work? It's the same. Sales will be the product of the fraction aware of your product or service times the fraction who want to buy it.
I already listed the seven reasons why not more people believe in Baha'u'llah yet, so I am not going to post those again.
Nor need you. I can list the reasons myself, although my list doesn't look like yours. Few people have seen the message, and many or most who did weren't convinced or attracted to the religion. The same is true for all small religions. And all movements of any kind that don't gain traction.
To compare a message from God to the warning about Covid coming and then arriving is illogical since it is the fallacy of false equivalence.
In both cases, the task was to disseminate an important message to as many people as possible.
News that affects people's life and death cannot be compared to a message from a new Messenger of God. Nobody is going to die if they don't get the message.
Irrelevant. Furthermore, you just compared them when you found the absence of the Covid message potentially lethal but not the other.
it is not possible to get a message from a new Messenger of God out and believed by many people. That has nothing to do with the method of delivery being ineffective, it is all about the message being spread by the Baha'is and the receptivity of people to the message.
Which depend on the efficiency of delivery and the quality of the message.
The message itself is not the evidence that the Messenger is from God because that would be circular reasoning.
Disagree. The message is not evidence that the message is from a deity because it is mundane. Evidence of a deity is something evident to the senses that makes the existence of the deity more likely, which does not include flowery, nonspecific exhortation to follow a god, which anybody can write.
The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:
And it includes the message, which you early said you don't consider evidence.
I meant that there are multiple Baha'is posting here who are qualified to look at the evidence and see that it supports and sufficiently justifies the belief.
Yes, and I contend that the opposite is true - there are no Baha'i who are qualified to look at the evidence and see that it supports and sufficiently justifies the belief. Of course, your standards and theirs are not those of critical analysis, or they would have come to the same conclusions as the others who use them as their standard for belief.
Citing atheists as the only ones who are qualified to assess the evidence, because they alone are critical thinkers, does not add to the discussion.
The 'us and them' mentality brings nothing but divisiveness.
I disagree that dialectic adds nothing, and I don't find this activity divisive, although I know many of the faithful take personal offense at being disagreed with. Compare at your posting demeanor and mine. You disagree with me, but I'm not complaining about it or having any kind of an emotional reaction, just correcting errors. I never post anything like what you just did. Regarding divisiveness (division) and "us versus them", that depends on one's reaction to disagreement. Yes, I see a distinction between us, but I don't consider you the enemy or attacking.
There is evidence that supports my belief in Baha'u'llah
Only by your lax standards, which require belief by faith despite what you call sufficient evidence. Too bad you can't embrace that. Too bad that you can't say that you believe because you choose to. Nobody could argue with that. You can have that lane all to yourself. But you cross into the world of reason and claim its concepts for yourself. Critical thinkers then feel a need to correct the logical errors and insufficiently evidenced claims.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
That is your position, not mine. I do not need proof since I have evidence.
That is why your position doesn't use logic. And what you call evidence relies on assumptions, so not really evidence that can be used objectively. I have read the writings you consider evidence and they are no so impressive that a person who doesn't know the story and claims of Baha'u'llah would conclude they are from a divine source.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Who brought up my belief?
You do. Every post is about what you believe. It's all about what you want to believe regardless of the rules that critical thinkers rely on for corect conclusions. You have you own rules, and you come up with your own conclusions. They are not sound conclusions as numerous critical thinkers explain to you. You don;t care about sound conclusions, you care about justifying what you want to believe, as all other theists do.
If you look back in the thread you will see I was not the one who brought it up. People post to me and I just respond to posts. It is you and others keep bringing up my beliefs.
You have a way of making these threads about you and your belief. Then it becomes a cycle of you becoming more defensive, saying more non-rational things, and you must be exhausted with how often you move the goalposts. Your use of the words "proof" and "evidence" are incomprehensible. Even when you try to define these words they are so laden with ambiguity they are meaningless.
There is nothing else to respond to in your post that hasn't been covered dozens of times before.
Why keep asking what has already been answered? You aren't going to get a different answer.

Then don't.
You have your script and sometimes you break from it in subtle ways.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports the claims of Baha’u’llah are in this post:

Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah

I meant that there are multiple Baha'is posting here who are qualified to look at the evidence and see that it supports and sufficiently justifies the belief.
But they aren't. Baha'i are already believers, and as our forum Baha'i show us there is no objective and critical analysis done. Your link above shows many fantastic claims, but no logical foundation as to why a critical thinker could concude it is true or even likely true. These ideas are like other religious claims, they only convince those who have already made certain assumptions. The only people who would join Baha'i are already believers of some type, but are looking for new religious digs to reside. Just got to hope they don't see gays as equal, as thay might cause problems at the Baha'i picnic.
Citing atheists as the only ones who are qualified to assess the evidence, because they alone are critical thinkers, does not add to the discussion.
The 'us and them' mentality brings nothing but divisiveness.
Atheists are THE target audience for theists in debate. If you can convince atheists that your claims are true then you HAVE truth. Only atheists are going to subject claims to the logical level of scrutiny that theists won't. You even admit that "God is off limits from logic", which is the bias theists have to justify for their belief. Theists will bring an assumption that a God exists, and it is "how" that God exists that they look for. Your testimony suggests you were already a believer and were looking for a candidate to fit what you like in a religion. Your evidence only had to satisfy your feelings, not evidence that a God exists, or evidence that people, or a person, can access a God. Atheists don't bring these assumptions, and our standards are very high. Atheists skilled at critical thought are THE qualified group you want to assess your claims and beliefs. Guess what, you have it. But you don't like our results.
 
Last edited:
Top