Not quite. You are taking facts and then extrapolating from them to form your beliefs.
Your belief that Baha'ui'llah is the returned Messiah has no factual evidence to support it. There is a factual basis for some of the other things you hold, but there are no facts which directly demonstrate that he was the returned messiah. You have circumstantial evidence at best.
No, I do not have to extrapolate anything because the facts prove my beliefs are true. My belief that Baha'u'llah is the returned Messiah has all kinds of factual evidence to support it, not the least of which are those prophecies in the video you won’t watch.
There are no facts that can
prove anyone was ever sent by God as a Messiah or in any other way because no God claims can ever be proven and that is why they are beliefs.
However, God could stop it if he wanted to. Either he doesn't want to, or he's negligent.
God could stop it if He wanted to but He does not want to, and that does not mean He is negligent because it is not God’s duty to stop it, and one can only be negligent of they don’t do their duty as assigned. That is not even logical that God would be responsible to stop human from sinning because humans have free will to stop themselves, and that is their responsibility.
Circular logic. You are assuming that Baha'u'llah ushered in yet another age in order to show that Baha'u'llah ushered in yet another age.
No, there is nothing circular about it because I have not assumed anything, I looked at the evidence that support my beliefs.
.Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia
My reasoning is
not circular because I did not
begin with what I wanted to
end with. I am not using what Baha’u’llah
claimed to prove who Baha’u’llah was, In other words, I did not say that Baha’u’llah is a Messenger of God because Baha’u’llah
claimed He was a Messenger of God.
The evidence that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger
is not that Baha’u’llah claimed to be a Messenger because that would be circular reasoning.
The
evidence that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be is
everything that surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, including who He was as a Person (His character); His mission on earth; the history of His Cause, from the time He appeared moving forward; the scriptures that He wrote; what His appointed Interpreters wrote; what others have written about the Baha’i Faith; the Bible prophecies that He fulfilled, as well as prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that He established (followers) all over the world and what they have done and are doing now.
Funnily enough, coming and telling people not to be jerks to each other is something that a regular old person could have done. No Messiah needed!
That was not His message and no ordinary man could have written what He wrote, the sheer bulk of it as well as the content, all 15,000 Tablets.
I am fine with that criterion because it is fair. I do not expect people to believe it until it actually happens, but I do expect them to believe all the prophecies that have been fulfilled.
But isn’t that really similar to:
3. Where we have verified that the event that fulfilled it really took place in a way that fulfilled the prophecy.
