Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[joelr]

Yes, I believe that the Bible and the Qur'an are evidence for God, since I believe that God was involved in their writing, more so the Qur'an than the Bible.
The Bible and the Qur'an could be what people made up about God, but how logical is that? I mean why would people go to so much trouble to write about a nonexistent God? What would be their motive? People do not do things without a motive.

You are mis-using logic here, twice.
Why would people go to so much trouble to write about a nonexistent God?
There is more writing about Brahman than the Quran and Bahai put together.
Books about Zeus.
The first known author and writing from ancient humans is hymns about Inana, long hymns.
Every nation had scriptures, revelations from their deity. Canaanites had El, Egypt had many gods, almost all stories involve a. god of the people writing.

When you make a statement like this and you want it to be logical, ask, are there examples of people doing this in the past?
That is basically all people did until Greek philosophy, and even after it.
None of those gods are real. So this is very commonplace. They may have believed in Zeus but it is common to write about fake gods.

Before the enlightenment critical thinking, from Greek thought, was not trusted. The way to sell a message was by divine revelation.
That is one reason everything was framed as from a divine source.
The Gospel writers were schooled writers looking for a story to use their skills on.

Second you are creating a false dilemma -
People don't do things without a motive.
People write about gods.
There is no motive to write about a nonexistent god.
Writings about god must be true.

It isn't an either or, there are many possibilities.

1) People writing might have bought into the story but it's still not real.
2) People writing used a folk tale to create a highly technical story about a god despite it was fictive because some people would believe it
3)Someone knew they could sell a story about revelations if it was well written
4) All laws and wisdom needed to be couched in revelation or it wasn't trusted.

all motives

Dr Carriers Science in the Roman Empire covers this belief and how it was commonplace.

Not only that but we have found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, an unfinished document that had to be hidden in the cave quickly with the rest.
It was a Christian Gospel that comprised of sayings of Jesus, along with this work was a copy of wisdom sayings from someone else (Seneca?) and they were being transferred into the Gospel and used as sayings for Jesus. A straight up lie. As are the unauthentic Epistles which are believed to be written by church fathers way later. There are also 36 other Gospels of Jesus, all considered heretical, like the Thomas Gospel. They are considered fake. So even if the current 4 are "authentic" 90% are not.
So writing about deities as a forgery is the normal practice.
Modern times, Mormon Bible, Conversations With God, Abraham, Seth, and so on. Standard practice.


We have lying as an option that happens, belief in a god that isn't real, needing to sell an idea, having the prestige of being a gospel writer, even just writing a good story like Mark did. It's a masterpiece when you understand all of the sources he pulling together and the allegories he makes with Jewish tradition. Also one could feel that they are on a mission from God and be deluded.

It's very much logical that a writer would write about a god that isn't real for one of many reasons.

 

[muhammad_isa]

,,Yes each religion should be examined, there are people who do it for a living. Historical scholars..

I mistrust anybody who claims something about religion, who's motivation is "to earn a living"

..and that includes priests, bishops, imams etc.

By digging land we can see if the scripture is accurate. It's not..

The OT is not accurate, I would agree..

Moses is a literary figure most likely.

Sorry .. you say "most likely made-up", and I say "most likely a real person".

No one makes assumptions about people from 1000 years ago. They make theories based on evidence.

You cannot provide evidence on whether Moses existed.
The best you can do, is fault the accuracy of the OT.

And when we find Ashera idols in every house and goddess imagery at the temple it's probably Ashera, Yahweh's consort, as all deities had a consort.

All this shows, is that many people of old were ignorant idol worshippers,
It says nothing about the true nature of G-d/YHWH/Allah.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That isn't what it means. Christians believe something completely different about Jesus. Your defense is the NT is corrupted and not true..

No, you are just attempting to 'divide and rule'.
I have never claimed that the NT is "corrupted and not true".
Some groups in Christianity are Unitarian, and emphasise the Oneness of G-d.
They do not think that the Gospels teach that G-d is a trinity.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's very much logical that a writer would write about a god that isn't real for one of many reasons.

One writer might, but it is not logical (meaning it does not make sense) that so many writers would write about a God that does not exist.

Sure, they wrote different things about that God, which resulted in different God beliefs, but that is not the point.

 

[joelr]

I mistrust anybody who claims something about religion, who's motivation is "to earn a living"

..and that includes priests, bishops, imams etc.

Well it's consistent but now you are in a conspiracy theory bubble where you cannot know anything. They didn't have priniting presses so you also cannot trust scribes. The text could be corrupted so you have no position of knowledge at this rate.

Sorry .. you say "most likely made-up", and I say "most likely a real person".

What you say based on what you want to be true has no bearing on what is actually true. A man lived for 700 years, his life is largely Egyptian myths, and the evidence from history suggests he was most likely a fictional character.
But you don't trust scholarship to even see the lines of evidence. You admitted the text is wrong, so you only have a fantasy world. No relation to truth.

You cannot provide evidence on whether Moses existed.
The best you can do, is fault the accuracy of the OT.

You faulted that accuracy. You are all over the map here. If you read Thomas Thompsons work on Moses you will see many reasons. Truth isn't your thing so whatever.
Rabbinical Judaism dates the life of Moses to around the 14th century BCE. Howver, critical scholars of the Bible date the stories of Moses in the Pentateuch to around the 6th century BCE, and there are no known extra-biblical references to Moses until around the 4th century BCE.

It's a big problem that the savior of the Jews is not mentioned until almost a millennium after he supposedly lived. You'd think his name would have been everywhere.
Most of his travels are Egyptian mythology as well.

All this shows, is that many people of old were ignorant idol worshippers,
It says nothing about the true nature of G-d/YHWH/Allah.

So supposedly a real God shows up, does miracles and so on, yet the people are all worshipping Canaanite goddesses.

But the Bible is also corrupt, as is all text because you trust no one.

So nothing can say the true nature of God. But what you do is cherry-pick information and what you like is true and the rest is wrong.

But why would a real god show up many times, get people out of slavery, dwell among people yet they still follow other gods?
Pretty easy explanation. All religions are just stories, there are no gods interecting with people. The modern ideas about God are not even in scripture, they come from Aquinas and other theologians who used Platonic philosophy. More evidence of a god constructed over time that is actually fiction.

Nothing shows anything about any true nature of god because it's all stories. I'm still waiting for evidence.

 

[joelr]

No, you are just attempting to 'divide and rule'.

Once again, you are wrong. "Rule", have you hit your head?
"divide"? You think it's me who is dividing?

You do not believe Jesus is the son of god whom you must believe in to get to the afterlife. So you do not believe the NT, you think it is wrong.

Speaking of divide and rule. You believe this god Yahweh has a religion, then a new sect emerges, Christianity, becomes huge in the 4th century, Bishops and the Pope become huge leaders, even bigger in the 5th century. These people devoted their life to the religion and had huge numbers and the backing of nations. Yet, according to you they had it wrong, the NT was corrupted by Greek thought (it is Greek thought). So what did Yahweh do? Tell the Pope, give him miracle powers so he could convince people? Show up like in the OT and tell his devoted people, people who died as martyrs, that updates were needed?

No, he did not. He sent an angel to the Arab people so they could correct things and start a new religion. No mention to any Christian. Left it for them to just find out. Their scripture says there will be no new prophets, only false prophets so they have to fight and dislike each other. Wars are going to happen because it looks to be man made. Revelations are not good proof. Testimony is not good proof.

Have you ever heard a scientists give a lecture and say " I know it's true because I saw it"?
So that is horrible, leaving things like that and it's still unsolved and hatred exists, thousands of years later.
Of course you will say this group is at fault and they will say you are a fraud .A god would have known that was going to happen, yet clearly doesn't care.
This would be the worst deity, almost sadistic. Thank goodness it's all stories based in fiction.

So if your scribes are getting it wrong, will one day Yahweh go to a different people who you will then think are false and more trouble happens?

But remember, we have palimset versions of the Quran from centuries earlier, so it's not a revelation, it's a work in progress.

I have never claimed that the NT is "corrupted and not true".

You don't believe the basic creed. Son of God, died for sin, savior to get to heaven.

Some groups in Christianity are Unitarian, and emphasise the Oneness of G-d.

Like I said, comes from Platonic philosophy. Plato actually called it "the One".

They do not think that the Gospels teach that G-d is a trinity.

Who cares, the gospels are a fictive story all rewrites of Mark. It's a Jewish version of a Greek mystery religion.

 

[joelr]

One writer might, but it is not logical (meaning it does not make sense) that so many writers would write about a God that does not exist.

Sure, they wrote different things about that God, which resulted in different God beliefs, but that is not the point.

Clearly since there are thousands of religions people have reasons to write about false gods all the time.

One reason is delusion, someone thinks they are special and god is speaking through them.

Another is to promote a movement. To gain power. Or they may believe the religion but fake revelations to forward the movement.

Or they are skilled and use a myth as a chance to write a popular story.

Also, before the enlightenment, people did not trust critical thinking and science. The way to sell an idea is to attach it to divine revelations.
This is a normal way of communicating before modern times. And we still have many examples right up to modern day. Look up how many books Abraham Hicks has sold "channeling" some god-like being.
So money, another reason.

People also love to lie for many reasons. Look at Stanton Friedman and his Roswell books. The ufo, channeling, ghosts, and Jesus communicators are all over. Attention, sales, delusion,.

The church had huge reasons to write the fake Epistles which instead of Paul just seeing a vision, now Paul sees the Gospel Jesus.

Or to start a cult/religion.
Like J Smith may have done.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nothing shows anything about any true nature of god because it's all stories..

Nothing you have said has convinced me that 'the stories' are false.

You follow what you follow, and I follow what I follow.
You follow men, and I follow 'the stories' / Qur'an, which are claimed to be from G-d.

Again, what is it about the guidance / law in the Qur'an that you dislike?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You don't believe the basic creed. Son of God, died for sin, savior to get to heaven.

This 'basic creed' was forcibly established by Roman authority.

Who cares..

I care .. creed should be a matter of conscience, and not laid down by the rich
and powerful.

 

[Trailblazer]

Clearly since there are thousands of religions people have reasons to write about false gods all the time.

That is true, but that does not mean that nobody ever wrote about the One True God.

One reason is delusion, someone thinks they are special and god is speaking through them.

Another is to promote a movement. To gain power. Or they may believe the religion but fake revelations to forward the movement.

Or they are skilled and use a myth as a chance to write a popular story.

That is all true, but that does not mean that nobody ever wrote about the One True God for unselfish reasons, such that God could be known to us.

 

[joelr]

Nothing you have said has convinced me that 'the stories' are false.

That isn't a goal? I don't care about the beliefs of fundamentalists. The stories not only have no good evidence, the evidence exists that they are all reworkings of older myths as well as nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated. As have any gods.

People making up religious stories however is as common as pickpocketing. I have already stated dozens of times stories about beings can not be proven false. You cannot prove Spiderman isn't real. That doesn't mean he is reasonable to believe in.

Fundamentalists will never change beliefs unless they happen to get to a point where what is actually true becomes more important and they look at information without bias. I have no control over that so it does not matter what stories one decided to think are true.

You follow what you follow, and I follow what I follow.

I follow what evidence demonstrates is most likely true. If you get some evidence I am happy to investigate.

You follow men, and I follow 'the stories' / Qur'an, which are claimed to be from G-d.

No, I don't follow "men". First, Fransesca Strakopolou is not a man. But I follow the evidence they present. Literary, archaeological, comparative mythology, and so on.

You follow stories, written by men. We even found an early version from a century prior.

Again, what is it about the guidance / law in the Qur'an that you dislike?

I don't know what you are talking about here? If it's in reference to my rant about Yahweh telling Arabs.

So granting that Yahweh and Islam is real, imagine that the Quran was corrupted and you were worshipping it wrong. So many centuries later Yahweh decides to send an angel to tell someone (just one person) but he sends the angel to someone in...say....China.
And a new religion erupts over the years and they say they have the truth, you think they are full of it (naturally) and wars erupt.
And it never gets settled. Who's fault is that? The God who knew exactly what would happen and that people once emotionally attached to a book will NEVER believe claims from another country that an angel gave updates.
The book also contains zero new science that changes the world or any type of information that seems supernatural (like 100 digits of pi at a digit we cannot yet get to but we could build a supercomputer to do it), nothing like that. Now there are just more religious conflict because he saus the Muslims are liers like the Quran says the Christians and Jews are.

It would be absurd, almost like someone was playing a game with humans. OR, it's all stuff made up by people. Yes, that makes much more sense.

But the law and guidance in the Quran is the same as the Bible and the same things people already knew. We needed a God to give human information? Or was it written by people and that's why?

 

[joelr]

This 'basic creed' was forcibly established by Roman authority.

Uh no Paul claimed Jesus resurrected for the salvation of men. You don't believe that.

I care .. creed should be a matter of conscience, and not laid down by the rich
and powerful.

Yes, Paul told it, Jesus died, rose, for salvation. You need Jesus to get to heaven. If you don't buy it you are not Christian.
But you are Muslim so who cares? The Romans didn't do anything, the Jewish Mystery religion was already formed by the time Rome cared about it. Mystery religions are Hellenistic and Persian stories about theology.

 

[joelr]

That is true, but that does not mean that nobody ever wrote about the One True God.

That is all true, but that does not mean that nobody ever wrote about the One True God for unselfish reasons, such that God could be known to us.

Sure, it could be Zeus. It could be the Mormon Bible. Evidence shows no revelation is likely to be real. Especially Bahai, unless the one true God finds it amusing to give completely incorrect prophecies, no information that establishes it really is anything other than a man and isn't versed in writing styles.
Also there is no evidence for any God never mind one true God.
People wrote about fairies, it doesn't mean that one time someone didn't write about the one true fairy. But probably not.

But this is all a goalpost move. The statement was it isn't logical to write about a false God. As explained, there are many reasons why people write about Gods. Why did you answer with a "true...but.."?

We know it can never be definitively proven that any writing about anything isn't true. Bahai writing would not meet the qualifications for me anyways.
You said "such that the God could be known to us", it may work for you but a God would know that tiresome repetative praises, incorrect prophecies, bad science, no information about reality or the cosmos, just rehashed "be good" will never be accepted by many people.
So even if this were real, this God has no interest in me knowing anything because I completely reject the notion that this is a God. Same as the Mormon Bible, Jesus in AU and
J.W.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Uh no Paul claimed Jesus resurrected for the salvation of men. You don't believe that.

I thought that you were an educated historian?
Cherry-picking some verses from a scroll, and making it a mantra, does not explain how
a belief in Jesus being the Jewish Messiah, evolved into a particular creed that contradicts
the shema i.e. there is no god but G-d

 

[joelr]

I thought that you were an educated historian?
Cherry-picking some verses from a scroll, and making it a mantra, does not explain how
a belief in Jesus being the Jewish Messiah, evolved into a particular creed that contradicts
the shema i.e. there is no god but G-d

Well all this reveals is that you have never read the Epistles. And your made up versions of history are always wrong. But keep avoiding scholarship, planned obselescence is clearly the way to go. Not. Paul and early Christians had been exposed to Hellenism and were creating a Jewish version. Souls that must get back to heaven from this fallen earth and a savior demigod who dies and resurrects and gets the members eternal life in heaven, salvation. Personal salvation. Greek Hellenism. In Paul, the overwhelming message is Jesus died and rose for the sins of people.


Let's let an expert speak on the many many direct examples Paul gives for the new resurrected spirit body Jesus is in after his resurrection.
b

Why Evangelical Christians Ignore the Earliest and only 1st-Person Testimony to Jesus' Resurrection

8:29 Paul’s description of seeing Jesus is similar to many of the Hellenistic accounts we have of seeing resurrected deities, Romulus is similar.


This is sharp contrast to the Gospel stories.

10:25 Paul’s idea of resurrection is not rising up from the grave but a transformation to a glorious immortal body.


The Gospel view has Jesus say he is flesh and bones. Not resurrection as Paul sees it. (14:30)


Luke does say this when he answers the Sadducees question about seven husbands.

25:00 Zombies in Matthew

26:30 Paul is writing in the 50’s, the Gospels are 70s, 80s, 90s and later.


As for Paul, here are some examples, Jesus, died for sins, which means salvation or you get to heaven.


1 Corinthians 15:3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1 Timothy 1:12-17

The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the foremost. But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

"he died for all" to "reconcile us to himself", "not counting our trespasses against us" (2 Corinthians 5:15, 18-19). This act of reconciliation unites us with him in love; "our old self was crucified with him" (Romans 6:6)
4
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me and the like which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8, NIV)

• Romans 6:

(NAB) 2 How can we who died to sin yet live in it? 3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. 5 For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be done away with, that we might no longer be in slavery to sin. 7 For a dead person has been absolved from sin. 8 If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has power over him. 10 As to his death, he died to sin once and for all; as to his life, he lives for God. 11 Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as [being] dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.

Christianity started at the center of Hellenistic thought and Paul even says this?? It first combined with Judaism but that version failed. Christianity was the version that worked.


Hellenistic religion

The apotheosis of rulers also brought the idea of divinity down to earth.

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.

The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century AD, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its traditions, such as the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Antioch on the Orontes

The city was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. Antioch was part of the pentarchy and was called "the cradle of Christianity" as a result of its longevity and the pivotal role that it played in the emergence of early Christianity.[5] The Christian New Testament asserts that the name "Christian" first emerged in Antioch.[6]

[5] "The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church." — "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186

• [6] "Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. So for a full year they met together with the church and taught large numbers of people. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch". biblehub.com.

Christianity[edit]

Antioch was a chief center of early Christianity during Roman times.[26] The city had a large population of Jewish origin in a quarter called the Kerateion, and so attracted the earliest missionaries.[27] Evangelized by, among others, Peter himself, according to the tradition upon which the Patriarchate of Antioch[28] still rests its claim for primacy,[29] and later (according to the Acts of the Apostles) by Barnabas and Paul[30][clarification needed], its converts were the first to be called Christians.

there is no god but G-d

sure, that is what the word means. It's still fiction. If reality started with one substance it doesn't need be a being. That is absurd, all of reality, a being, just there, alone, fully formed, just because. And he hates the letter "o"? Even deism makes no sense. Revelations, theism, no chance.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture...

Surprise, surprise.
It is quite obvious that our environment affects our way of life and beliefs.
.so why are you ignoring my point, about Roman (or Hellenistic) interference,
when it comes down to orthodox Christian creed?

"The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church." — "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186

the church .. or just one of them, that was enforced by the rulers?

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence shows no revelation is likely to be real.

That is what the evidence shows YOU.
The evidence shows me that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is real. I don't know about the other revelations from God.

But this is all a goalpost move. The statement was it isn't logical to write about a false God. As explained, there are many reasons why people write about Gods.

True.

Why did you answer with a "true...but.."?

Because I felt like it.

So even if this were real, this God has no interest in me knowing anything because I completely reject the notion that this is a God.

That statement was not logical. Just because 'you completely reject the notion' that this is a God that doesn't mean it isn't a God. It also does not mean that God has no interest in you knowing anything about Him, because you are assuming that God would do something differently if God had an interest in you knowing about Him.

Fallacies of unwarranted assumption occur when an argument relies on a piece of information or belief that requires further justification. The category gets its name from the fact that a person assumes something unwarranted to draw their conclusion. Jun 15, 2022

5.5 Informal Fallacies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax

 

[CG Didymus]

The way to sell a message was by divine revelation.

How many supposed prophets have said, "The Gods have spoken!" And the people are pretty much forced to believe and obey. I think there is evidence of that in ancient times. Lots of different Gods, lots of rules and rituals that the prophet claimed came from some God.

It worked in the past. But how is Baha'u'llah getting away with it in modern times? Now if he just claimed to be a philosopher or something and said that all people are one and should all work to together for a peaceful and united world, who would have listened or even cared? And I'm sure there's plenty of wise men that laid out plans on what people could do to make the world better. But once a guy claims that his message came from a divine revelation, everything changes.

The prophet of the Ahmaddiya. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, or even Joseph Smith were about the same time as Baha'u'llah and have more members than Baha'u'llah. But Baha'is believe one of them is a fake and the other not even a minor prophet. Yet, people believe them and follow them. It still works. Anybody that claims God sent them, will get a following. I don't believe Joseph Smith claims are for real. And I doubt Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also. But what about Baha'u'llah? I think he's quite a bit more believable, but he still has things I don't believe are true.

So, what am I supposed to do? Ignore those things? I can't do it. But I can see why some people do buy into it. But, just like literal-believing Christians, a true Baha'i has committed themselves to believing everything that Baha'u'llah has said and everything the Baha'i Faith says. And all that does is cause them to have to defend their Baha'i beliefs as true, because they came from some God.... no matter how difficult it might be to defend or how improbable it might be that it is true.

And the number one belief that they can't prove but must defend is that their guy is a true prophet from the one true God. What he said is meaningless if that claim isn't true. Their best defense then becomes... since his teachings are meaningful, then, therefore, he must be from God. Yeah, maybe. But maybe not. Like I said, for me there are some things that I don't believe are true. If it's a "divine" revelation, it has to be and better be all true.

 

[joelr]

Surprise, surprise.
It is quite obvious that our environment affects our way of life and beliefs.

Yes because religion is through syncretism and not divine revelations. Surprise surprise. Hellenistic Judaism didn't survive, another version came about, Christianity.

.so why are you ignoring my point, about Roman (or Hellenistic) interference,
when it comes down to orthodox Christian creed?

I'm not seeing what you think I'm ignoring? The stories being told that Paul picked up on were a Jewish version of Hellenistic savior demigods.
The idea was already in Paul, as I pointed out last post, with many examples from Paul, which you actually have ignored. Only to put it to me and act like I have ignored something.

the church .. or just one of them, that was enforced by the rulers?

The churches were Gnostic and some version of what Christians believe now. The savior thing was there from the start. That is the Hellenistic element. You have a soul, it belongs in heaven, it's here on this fallen earth and must be redeemed by the resurrection of a savior figure who through a passion, often death and resurrection gets you back to heaven. That is a Greek addition to theology that was adopted. It doesn't matter what church leaders did. They forged documents to make Jesus look more real but that has nothing to do with anything.

Paul was already talking about all this stuff in the letters from 50 CE, way before any gospels. Pauline Christianity is what modern Christianity is.
I don't know where else you are going with this or what you expect or want?
I'm getting the feeling something in these very clear and obvious historical facts may not fit with what the Quran says happened so you are fighting against it? I can't imagine what else is bringing this into question?

 

[joelr]

That is what the evidence shows YOU.
The evidence shows me that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is real. I don't know about the other revelations from God.

That isn't how logic, arguments and evidence works. Otherwise I could read a Roswell book or the Mormon Bible and say the evidence shows me both are real, therefore they are.

Saying you believe evidence is just a claim. You then need reasons that support the claim, and evidence that supports the reasons.
One's life does not support the claim of divine revelations. You would not accept evidence about Joseph Smiths life as evidence the Mormon Bible was true.
Nor does any of the other claims support divine revelations. If any of those were used for the Mormon Bible you would not even blink. Rightfully so.
The evidence doesn't show you anything. You bought the story, you may have faith in the story. If the evidence doesn't work for other claims it does not work for yours.

I already gave many statements that a God could tell a person in 1870 that would warrant unusual evidence for the time.
As well as supernatural abilities that ALL OTHER religious stories make use of. Why? Because it's proper evidence that fits the claim.
No knowledge about unknown science, no philosophy that is groundbreaking, no prophecy that is clear, incorrect prophecy about many scientific facts and unusually mundane writing, far below a schooled writer (like Mark for example) adds up to zero evidence. A claim.

There is evidence for atoms. It doesn't convince some scientists and others find it unconvincing. That would be something unproven, without good evidence, like religious stories. And this is one of those religious stories. Buying into a belief doesn't mean it has evidence.

Because I felt like it.

Ok.

That statement was not logical. Just because 'you completely reject the notion' that this is a God that doesn't mean it isn't a God.

Don't take this the wrong way. You should not talk about logic when it comes to other peoples actions. You are always incorrect. Always.

I never said my complete rejection of this being from a God means there is no God. I said the evidence in this religion for him talking to a God/angel is absolutely zero. It's literally just a claim.

It also does not mean that God has no interest in you knowing anything about Him, because you are assuming that God would do something differently if God had an interest in you knowing about Him.

Now, assuming this God was real and he still gave this non-evidence and bad prophecies/writing I would 100% be correct in assuming this God had no interest in me knowing about him.
If Jesus in AU and his small ministry is really Jesus and he rang your doorbell and said "why haven't you flown to AU to talk with me? I wanted to tell you you were wrong about Bahai and do miracles and such". You would say "because you showed up in AU, looked fake, talked fake, didn't give information that baffled scientists, mathematicians, give cures to disease, stop wars, predict the mega-millions every week, go to cancer wards and heal people en mass, grow water and food in Africa where thousands are starving, captivate the world with amazing words we all heard telepathically, you look like just another dude making stuff up".

You would be justified in your statement. Evidence.
Now God and Jesus know everything, they would know 100% that this approach would not work on you, AT ALL. You are not going to AU and you do not plan to. Bahai also does not work AT ALL and I am 100% certain it is a man making false claims.

Fallacies of unwarranted assumption occur when an argument relies on a piece of information or belief that requires further justification. The category gets its name from the fact that a person assumes something unwarranted to draw their conclusion. Jun 15, 2022

5.5 Informal Fallacies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax

And part 3 of this "wrongness response" now goes to the copy/paste of a fallacy you looked up and incorrectly think is being used. I am embarrassed for you. I don't like this feeling, please stop, it's cringe.

Unwarranted assumption are claims or beliefs that have crappy or no supporting evidence, except here the evidence is excellent. So it isn't that.

Just like how you are not booking a flight to AU to see the real Jesus. Your religion also doesn't have evidence that supports the claim and it has evidence that negates the claim such as incorrect prophecies about a missing link, alchemy, cancer, and other terrible predictions that only a man making a hoax would ever commit to paper. Why? Because at the time it was unprovable, now it's a ridiculous joke and very provable.
Every aspect of the religion has excellent evidence there is no deity involved and an infinite God would know I would find this evidence laughable. Including the actual scripture. Nothing is convincing even a little.
And finally, let's say it actually was a God, it would be a deity I don't respect and want nothing to do with for a variety of reasons. Leaving no evidence, ensuring Islam would hate and imprison him, giving him no miracle powers, no persuasion power so there is just more division in the religious world, would never want anything to do with such a thing. But theism is a complete and utter unevidenced claim, revelations are not believable.


Maybe try less hard to sound like you are familiar with rhetoric and just write what comes natural.