Just another claim.
I just read about a dude who claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus in Russia. He has plenty of followers. All of them would say exactly what you just said, only they would say it about him and call yours an imposter.
And both your arguments have the same merrit: none.
No, they do not have the same merit.
How could you know that unless you know about Baha'u'llah and the merit of His claims?
Evidence would make it so. Or at least, it would make it likely. But you don't have such evidence.
No, evidence would not make it so. Evidence is just what people want in order to believe it is so. It could be so even if there was no evidence but if it is so then there would be evidence somewhere even if you could not find it.
For example, if a man murdered his wife, he murdered her, even if the evidence cannot be found and he cannot be found guilty. There would be evidence of that crime somewhere, but it might never be found. That is what happens to atheists... There is evidence for God but they never find it.
I do have evidence but you will say "that's not evidence" so why would I waste time posting it?
I say that he wasn't, just like that Jesus incarnation fellow in Russia, is infinitly more likely.
You are free to believe what you want to, but what is your evidence?
I would, but it's not like I can phone him up or something.
I'ld also go and search for the pots of gold that the leprechauns have stashed away at the base of the rainbow, but you know.... it's kind of hard.
No, it is impossible.
Neither are leprechauns.
Something you like to hide behind, as if it gives you a free pass to not care about evidence and being rationally justified in your claims.
Another atheist ploy that is illogical. Just because leprechauns would not be answerable to humans if they existed, that does not mean that God would not be answerable to humans if God existed.
Who leprechauns would be answerable to has nothing to do with who God would be answerable to.
That is
the fallacy of false equivalence since leprechauns are not equivalent to God.
Off course it is convenient for you. It's yet another excuse for you to use to avoid meeting your burden of proof.
I have no burden to meet since I made no claim. Baha'u'llah made the claim and He met His burden of proof.
WOOSH, that's the sound of the point flying over your head.
No, it didn't, because God can be reasonable without being logical. God is not subject to logic because God transcends logic.
The evidence that you conveniently refuse to share?
No, the evidence I have shared with atheists umpteen million times only to hear them say "that's not evidence." Live and learn.
Capital T. lol.
I love theists sometimes. It's like the lesser evidence they have, the more certain they are.
Some theists, but not all theists. It is
the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization to generalize about theists.
Link to one of those umpteen million posts where you share this evidence?
That would take a while to find, and it is faster just to re-post it because I have it all saved in a Word document.
Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence. More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
His own Self is who He was, His character (His qualities). That can be determined by reading about Him on books such as the following:
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4
His Revelation is what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
That can be determined by reading about His mission on books such as the following:
God Passes By (1844-1944)
The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volumes 1-4, which cover the 40 years of His Mission, from 1853-1892.
The words He hath revealed is what He wrote an be found in books that are posted online:
The Works of Bahá'u'lláh
The fact that
Baha'u'llah fulfilled all the Bible prophecies is like icing on the cake. That proves to me he was the Messiah and the return of Christ. Those prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the following book:
William Sears, Thief in the Night
The fact that
Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake. That proves to me that he could see into the future, so he had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book:
The Challenge of Baha'u'llah
Are you? I still haven't seen any evidence.
You just saw it because it is posted above.
Now you can say "that's not evidence" just like all the other atheists.
