No, it is not my guess, it is my belief.
It's both. You believe your guess. And why is it called a guess? Because it's not demonstrably correct.
Men who wrote the Bible wrote that God talked to people. What reason do I have to believe that? I have no reason.
As a Baha'i who believes that messengers are the best method available to a deity to communicate with man, you are pretty much forced to reject it. If God can speak to man directly, then messengers are not necessary nor a good idea.
To compare God to human communication to human to human communication is the fallacy of false equivalence. Since God is not a human, God does not reach humans the same way a human would reach a human.
Disagree. You just wave away such thinking by declaring it off limits. Your argument is to declare that messengers are the best way a tri-omni deity could choose to communicate, I disagree, you say, "Put your money where your mouth is," I give better ways to communicate, and your reply is to declare that I compare how humans communicate to how a god could is off limits.
Your fallacy is special pleading. The rules change for gods whenever reasoning corners your argument. This is analogous to the creationist who claims that life is too complex to have arisen naturalistically, then when asked how a god, which presumably is orders of magnitude more complicated, could exist, the rules change.
I do not plan to try to prove that Baha'u'llah had a divine mind because that cannot ever be proven
It can't even be evidenced, just claimed. And, pointing to whatever you like and calling that your evidence is meaningless if there is no evidence of a god in what you point to. I could point to the vase I'm looking at and call it evidence that vampires exist, but it isn't that if it doesn't increase the likelihood that vampires exist.
To me, nothing could be more ridiculous than a God who needs excuses just because He does not do things the way you expect Him to do them. What that amounts to is a human who thinks they know more than God about how things should be done, which is not only arrogant but also logically impossible since no human is all-knowing, only God is all-knowing. That really puts atheists in a bind if they acknowledge it but since they refuse to look at it and that side-skirt it whenever I mention it in a post, they think they are still sitting pretty, saying what God should be doing, as if they could ever know more than God.
But it's you making the excuses - excuses for why this god can't do better than mundane messengers with mundane messages. And it's more of your special pleading. You attempt to defend your beliefs about your god from any criticism of the claims made for it disqualifying human judgment - except your own. You go on and on telling us about this god. And your argument depends on this god actually existing, which you assume to make these hand waiving arguments about what can and cannot be known about it. It's your arguments being judged, not any god, just as you judge those arguments with hand waves.
Your own arguments can be used against you. How with your finite human mind would you know what a message from a god looked like to judge the one you have believed? [Here comes my hand waiving:] Anything said about a god is ridiculous and arrogant such as that he sends messengers. It's logically impossible, since no human is all-knowing. That puts you in a bind (defeats your argument), but since you refuse to look at the arguments made, you think you're on the catbird seat saying what God did, as if you could know that.
So because Baha'u'llah wrote that religions come from the same God, that means that He was trying to deceive and trick people? What would be His motive?
The same as Pauls' affixing Christianity to Judaism and the Mormons piggy-backing onto that.
It seems a bit odd to me that the evidence for God's existence, most of which comes by way of religion, is compelling to 93% of the world population, yet it is not compelling for atheists. The atheist claim that atheists are just more intelligent than believers, critical thinkers, etc, just does not cut the mustard, and it is very arrogant. It makes no logical sense that all those people who have recognized the evidence for God are stupid idiots who cannot think their way out of a paper bag.
Critical thinkers process information more accurately than all but a few of the 93%. These are the people who improve the human condition with the results of such thinking. There is nothing arrogant about that. It very believable that those people don't know how to evaluate evidence properly. Most people can't do it beyond the simplest examples such as interpreting what a red traffic light or a ringing doorbell signifies. Correlating and interpreting larger amounts of data is an acquired skill uncommon among those without a good liberal arts education, so no surprise that most of the world can't do it
You are 'assuming' believers are irrational and arrived at irrational conclusions that a God exists with no reasoning.
Faulty reasoning. And you seem to think that it's not possible to declare somebody's argument fallacious. Yes, every theist holds an irrational belief, since none can justify it with reason. Every one. And that is a fact just as 6+7=13. And if you can't see that, and want to bring your own rules to addition, then your sums will be wrong in the eyes of anybody trained in addition. Protesting that those are just opinions and they cannot be asserted as fact without that being arrogant is merely demonstrating one's inability to add or to even recognize that it is a method that generates correct sums every time it is applied without error. Every time.
All you have is a personal opinion but you state it as if it is a fact. That is nothing more than your biased personal opinion, a way to knock believers down so you can feel superior.
This is what you do. He is correct. You are not, and your inability to see or understand that is your limitation, not his.
that's how it works when you have a huge bias against religion and an absurd standard for evidence, expecting evidence for God that is not logically possible to ever obtain.
The critical thinker has a bias against unjustified belief. He won't hold such beliefs, and he is uninterested in them in others. The standard for evidence is only absurd to those who don't understand it's importance, and who choose to believe whatever they like and say that they have evidence despite what they present being rejected as supporting that belief. This is a world you neither inhabit nor understand, and which it seems you don't know exists. That is why you object to your thinking being rejected, which you consider equally valid.
