What CAN make you believe in the existence of God ?

[Trailblazer]

I agree about his optimism. He also made some assumptions that are not true:

• That there is a god.
• That once one is convinced that they have found the truth that they should feel completely confident in that belief.
• That one religion would be the result of universal consensus on what is factually true.

The video was on how to investigate religious beliefs so naturally the assumption is that there is a God; whether that is true or not is another matter.

I see no reason why one should not feel completely confident in a belief once one is convinced that they have found the truth, but that does not mean they are not open to looking outside their belief. Truth can be found in all religious beliefs.

Universal consensus does not determine what is factually true. That would be committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

However, if one religion came from God and it is the religion God wants everyone to adhere to in this age that religion would be true, even though it could not be proven as a fact.

Sure. Those are fair things to consider, but he is missing the most important component in any investigation. A method by which to reliably determine whether or not the belief that one holds is rationally justified by reason and evidence. I have yet to see such a method applied non-fallaciously by any adherents from any system of belief involving what we colloquially refer to as the supernatural.

Everyone has to use their own method to investigate because what people consider important thus what they want to investigate will vary. A religious belief cannot be proven true except to oneself so everyone has to rationally justify the belief by the use of their own reason and investigate what they consider to be evidence.

The problem with "pray until something happens" is that "something" is always going to happen. And when there are no end criteria, and no falsifiability, the criteria is self-selected by the person praying. They can literally choose anything that they feel meets the criteria of "something."

That is true, and that is why I would never suggest praying because one can always interpret something as an answer to a prayer that was not that at all, since nobody ever can know what God did or is doing at any time, in spite of the faith-based beliefs some people have to the contrary.

And while some religions do practice a more rigorous application of logic, I have yet to see such an application be applied all the way to any of the given religion's cores. .

You need to apply your own system of logic and determine what makes sense to you. That is what I did, as I have never been one to go by what others do or what they tell me I should do, I am a Trailblazer.

 

[Trailblazer]

It would be if that was why I was making it, however, the real justification was that pretty much every major religion has multiple variants and the other points I made:

Not every religion. The Baha’i Faith has no variants.

You missed the point. First, why should I assume that any religion has "the truth"? What reason is there to think there is a god at all?

I never suggested that you assume that any religion has the truth or that there is a God. That is what “independent investigation” is all about – investigating, not assuming anything is true.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

Second, even if one faith has an entirely unambiguous (self-consistent) and clear (in that sense) message, it doesn't mean that it is clearly from a god. A just and fair god, with an important message for humans, would make it obvious to all humans (otherwise it would not be just and fair), not have them playing silly games of hide and seek.

No, a just and fair God would NEVER do that because it would not ne just and fair for everyone to get the message without having to make an effort. The reason God has never done what you propose is because it is not just and fair.

In short, only those who are worthy will get the message because only the worthy are willing to make the effort.

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen….”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

In that passage, “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people” means that God could have revealed Himself in some way such that everyone would know He exists. In that passage, “ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean” means using your reason (innate powers) to determine if God exists. God wants everyone to search for Him and determine that He exists by using their own reason.

There is no hide and seek. God has revealed Himself through Baha’u’llah for all to discover, but only if they are willing to put forth that effort. There are no free rides in any other life pursuits so why should belief in God be an exception?

 

[ppp]

The video was on how to investigate religious beliefs so naturally the assumption is that there is a God; whether that is true or not is another matter.

Not all religions have gods. Some forms of paganism. Jain. Several forms of buddhism. Etc.

I see no reason why one should not feel completely confident in a belief once one is convinced that they have found the truth, but that does not mean they are not open to looking outside their belief. Truth can be found in all religious beliefs.

That is the position that one can come to a point where one cannot be wrong. It is the arrogance of fallen emperors, tyrants and prophets. One should always remember that one may be full of crap.

Universal consensus does not determine what is factually true. That would be committing the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

I agree. But that isnt what I was saying. But what I was saying is that even if every agrees upon the facts of what is true, that doesn't mean that everyone will agree on what should be done about it.

However, if one religion came from God and it is the religion God wants everyone to adhere to in this age that religion would be true, even though it could not be proven as a fact.

Why should I care about what God wants? This isn't a flippant question. Seriously.

Everyone has to use their own method to investigate because what people consider important thus what they want to investigate will vary.

I don't really care if everyone has their own method. What I care about is whether the method they use can be demonstrated to be reliable. And how reliable.

A religious belief cannot be proven true except to oneself so everyone has to rationally justify the belief by the use of their own reason and investigate what they consider to be evidence.

That is just a variation on "pray until something happens." Which makes it as useless as rolling an 8 billion sided die to come of with a belief. I don't care what is "true for you". I care whether a given belief is in accord with reality.

You need to apply your own system of logic and determine what makes sense to you.

Yo u don't have your own logic. You may have your own way of thinking that you call logic, but it isn't. Logic is a well defined system that means something specific. Saying that you have own logic is like saying that you have your own version of water. It's a declaration anyone can make, but it doesnt mean anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not all religions have gods. Some forms of paganism. Jain. Several forms of buddhism. Etc.

That true, but the man who made the video was coming from an Abrahamic religious viewpoint.

That is the position that one can come to a point where one cannot be wrong. It is the arrogance of fallen emperors, tyrants and prophets. One should always remember that one may be full of crap.

No, I do not agree with that analogy. Some of us are sure of our beliefs and it is not as if we accepted them blindly, without investigating them. If after almost 50 years I am not sure the Baha’i Faith is true, I should drop out.

I agree. But that isnt what I was saying. But what I was saying is that even if every agrees upon the facts of what is true, that doesn't mean that everyone will agree on what should be done about it.

I agree.

Why should I care about what God wants? This isn't a flippant question. Seriously.

You would know the answer to that question if you believed in God. In short, you would care because you would know that what God wants for you is in your best interest because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

I don't really care if everyone has their own method. What I care about is whether the method they use can be demonstrated to be reliable. And how reliable.

I think my method is reliable but you probably don’t.

That is just a variation on "pray until something happens." Which makes it as useless as rolling an 8 billion sided die to come of with a belief. I don't care what is "true for you". I care whether a given belief is in accord with reality.

Reality is all I care about too, but how do you think that can be determined? I think I have determined it by my own investigation, but I cannot prove it to you because you have to do your own investigation in order for it to mean something to you.

You don't have your own logic. You may have your own way of thinking that you call logic, but it isn't. Logic is a well defined system that means something specific. Saying that you have own logic is like saying that you have your own version of water. It's a declaration anyone can make, but it doesnt mean anything.

I meant you will only believe what seems logical to you, what makes sense. But you cannot prove a belief is true or false using logic since nobody can even prove God exists.

 

[ppp]

No, I do not agree with that analogy. Some of us are sure of our beliefs and it is not as if we accepted them blindly, without investigating them. If after almost 50 years I am not sure the Baha’i Faith is true, I should drop out.

I am unmoved. People are sure of their beliefs all the time. Sometime for generations. People were sure that the sun went around the Earth for freaking millennia. That slavery was moral. That demons, gods or their analogs were the cause of disease. That the Exodus happened. That it is scientifically impossible for bumblebees to fly. Go to snopes and you will find a passel of false beliefs that people have held since well before your Messenger was ever born.The Inquisition was absolutely confident. There is nothing wrong with being confident if you have good reasons, but absolute confidence if the food of fanatics and fools. Overweaning is not too strong a word.

You would know the answer to that question if you believed in God. In short, you would care because you would know that what God wants for you is in your best interest because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise.

I see no reason to believe that you would or could know what a god would want for me. But even if I grant you that god wants what he thinks is best for me, I may want something different. And since I am a thinking moral agent, my purpose for me is the only version of my purpose in existence.

I meant you will only believe what seems logical to you, what makes sense.

In logic, sound arguments have premises that are demonstrable. What you are describing is merely what feels good.

But you cannot prove a belief is true or false using logic since nobody can even prove God exists.

Then one is not rationally justified in believing it. Rational justification is non-fallacious reasoning supported by demonstrable evidence yielding a sound argument. Not being able to prove a claim wrong is not adequate justification to believe the claim to be true. If it were, then we would be forced to believe every single claim that we cannot demonstrate to be false.

I was born at sunrise.
I was born at noon.
I was born at sunset.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am unmoved. People are sure of their beliefs all the time.

That is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God or a false prophet. It is a or b, there is no c… I have been saying this on forums for the seven years I have posted on forums. All this folderol about circular arguments and lack of evidence is just a smokescreen. Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger of God or not. If you don’t want to know I don’t care, because I already know.

It is illogical to say that just because people are sure of their beliefs all the time that no beliefs are true. A belief is either true or false.

I see no reason to believe that you would or could know what a god would want for me.

I know because it is in the Writings of Baha’u’llah. You do not believe it because you do not believe in Baha’u’llah.

But even if I grant you that god wants what he thinks is best for me, I may want something different. And since I am a thinking moral agent, my purpose for me is the only version of my purpose in existence.

Logically speaking, you cannot know more than God about what is best for you because God is All-Knowing, so whatever you want that is different is not what best for you. Case closed.

You are not a candidate for believing in God if your purpose for you is the only version of your purpose in existence….. so the question is, why even bother talking about God? I don’t understand why atheists come to a religious forum and talk about God when (a) they do not accept the only evidence for God and (b) they would not do God’s will even if they believed in God.

In logic, sound arguments have premises that are demonstrable. What you are describing is merely what feels good.

God is not subject to logic so God cannot be proven with a logical argument.

Then one is not rationally justified in believing it.

You do not need to justify what you believe except to yourself.

Nobody gives a darn whether you believe in God, including God. You will be the loser, not me and not God. Atheists do not deserve to believe in God because they put demands on God and God is not subject to human demands. Yet atheists cannot see just how arrogant that is to make demands in God such as for proof of His existence. God is not going to provide any proof except His Messengers… take it or leave it, God doesn’t care because God needs nobody’s belief.

Rational justification is non-fallacious reasoning supported by demonstrable evidence yielding a sound argument. Not being able to prove a claim wrong is not adequate justification to believe the claim to be true. If it were, then we would be forced to believe every single claim that we cannot demonstrate to be false.

I never suggested that you should believe a claim just because you cannot prove it is false. I only ever said that you would believe it if you could prove it true.

 

[ppp]

All this folderol about circular arguments and lack of evidence is just a smokescreen.

It is illogical to say that just because people are sure of their beliefs all the time that no beliefs are true.

At no time did I say that just because people are sure of their beliefs all the time that no beliefs are true. I did not say or imply or even hint at that. Ever.
This is your smoke screen. You cannot deal with my actual point, so you misrepresent me and fabricate something that is easier for you to deal with. If you are that frustrated then just stop.

 

[Trailblazer]

At no time did I say that just because people are sure of their beliefs all the time that no beliefs are true. I did not say or imply or even hint at that. Ever.
This is your smoke screen. You cannot deal with my actual point, so you misrepresent me and fabricate something that is easier for you to deal with.

No, you did not say it in those words, but you implied it... When I said I was sure that my beliefs are true you said:

I am unmoved. People are sure of their beliefs all the time. Sometime for generations. People were sure that the sun went around the Earth for freaking millennia. That slavery was moral. That demons, gods or their analogs were the cause of disease. That the Exodus happened. That it is scientifically impossible for bumblebees to fly. Go to snopes and you will find a passel of false beliefs that people have held since well before your Messenger was ever born.The Inquisition was absolutely confident. There is nothing wrong with being confident if you have good reasons, but absolute confidence if the food of fanatics and fools. Overweaning is not too strong a word.

If you are that frustrated then just stop.

Don't you worry, that is coming soon to a theater near you. See if you can find any other believers who will post to you. You might find a Christian, but I can guarantee you won't find a Baha'i, because I am the only Baha'i who is foolish enough to spend their time on people who could not really care less about whether God exists, not unless God does exactly what they want Him to do.

 

[ppp]

Joe said earlier, "I am unmoved. People are sure of their beliefs all the time. Sometime for generations. People were sure that the sun went around the Earth for freaking millennia. That slavery was moral. That demons, gods or their analogs were the cause of disease. That the Exodus happened. That it is scientifically impossible for bumblebees to fly. Go to snopes and you will find a passel of false beliefs that people have held since well before your Messenger was ever born.The Inquisition was absolutely confident. There is nothing wrong with being confident if you have good reasons, but absolute confidence if the food of fanatics and fools. Overweaning is not too strong a word."

At no time did I say that just because people are sure of their beliefs all the time that no beliefs are true. I did not say or imply or even hint at that. Ever.
This is your smoke screen. You cannot deal with my actual point, so you misrepresent me and fabricate something that is easier for you to deal with.

No, you did not say it in those words, but you implied it... When I said I was sure that my beliefs are true you said:

You inferred it. Incorrectly.

Maybe when you cool down and start thinking clearly, you will realize that I could not possibly have implied "that just because people are sure of their beliefs all the time that no beliefs are true." Think about it. If that were I actually meant then I would have to believe that no beliefs are true. That grass us not green. That my cats are not cats. That the Earth is not an oblate spheroid. Clearly, I think none of those things. Therefore I could not have implied it.

What I said actually implies is that without evidence and sound reasoning that the truth of a belief is indistinguishable from its falsity. And therefore, we are not rationally justified in accepting claims for which there is no evidence, or in adequate evidence.

Don't you worry, that is coming soon to a theater near you. See if you can find any other believers who will post to you. You might find a Christian, but I can guarantee you won't find a Baha'i, because I am the only Baha'i who is foolish enough to spend their time on people who could not really care less about whether God exists, not unless God does exactly what they want Him to do.

Oh no. Not that.

 

[Trailblazer]

You inferred it. Incorrectly.

So I did, and did the world end. I made a mistake and I will make plenty more mistakes in my life, but the important thing is that when it is explained to me I admit my mistake and it does not hurt one bit. By contrast, there are some people I have been posting to (not you) who think they know all about what I am doing ans they will NEVER admit they are wrong, they just keep throwing what I say back on my face. I am done with those people. They can play alone. They only show who they are by the arrogant way they behave, and I am sorry if you got caught in the crossfire today.

Maybe when you cool down and start thinking clearly, you will realize that I could not possibly have implied "that just because people are sure of their beliefs all the time that no beliefs are true."

We were talking about religious beliefs. So if you did not imply that no religious beliefs are true that means you are open to the possibility that a religious belief could be true.

What I said actually implies is that without evidence and sound reasoning that the truth of a belief is indistinguishable from its falsity. And therefore, we are not rationally justified in accepting claims for which there is no evidence, or in adequate evidence.

I am not going around the 'evidence block' again, not on my life. I am DONE talking about evidence. I know the evidence I have for Baha'u'llah is not adequate for you, so there is no reason to discuss it any further.

I believe it is evidence for Baha'u'llah and I don't care if you believe it is evidence. Case closed.

Oh no. Not that.

Oh no, not what? Please let's not have any more misunderstandings.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, a just and fair God would NEVER do that because it would not ne just and fair for everyone to get the message without having to make an effort. The reason God has never done what you propose is because it is not just and fair.

In short, only those who are worthy will get the message because only the worthy are willing to make the effort.

That's totally nonsensical (so by the criteria of your video I should reject the Baha'i faith). If you have a message that is important for people to see for their own well-being (which is actually the scenario I outlined) then it is immoral not to make sure everybody gets it and understands its source.

What you've outlined is a god who seems to want to make it a test of some kind - which is a totally different god to a just and fair one with an important message for our well-being.

What's more, if this god considers 'worthiness' to consist of looking through apparent superstitions in the hope of finding one that at least isn't obviously contradictory and hasn't (yet) broken into different sects, rather than (say) seeking the well-being of others for themselves, then it doesn't strike me as a very pleasant being at all.

There is no hide and seek. God has revealed Himself through Baha’u’llah for all to discover, but only if they are willing to put forth that effort.

I'm willing to bet that there's a fair proportion of the world's population who've never even heard of Baha’u’llah (I hadn't a few years ago), so it's obviously not there for all to discover.

There are no free rides in any other life pursuits so why should belief in God be an exception?

Again, delivering an important message for people's well being is totally different from testing them (especially in a rather silly and arbitrary way). What would you think of a government who didn't make every possible effort to make the proper information about how to protect yourself and others from COVID available to everybody, but instead just put it out in the same way as the baseless rumours and misinformation from anonymous sources on the internet, and then said that those that didn't seek it out weren't worthy?

So, if your god is one with an important message for everybody's well-being, then it is not being just a fair by setting a test instead.

If it's a god who's trying to test people for "worthiness" then the test seems cruel and arbitrary (and doesn't it already know who's "worthy" anyway, is it not omniscient?)

In both cases I conclude that your god does not fit the description of being just and fair and having an important message for the well-being of humans.

 

[ppp]

So I did, and did the world end. I made a mistake and I will make plenty more mistakes in my life, but the important thing is that when it is explained to me I admit my mistake and it does not hurt one bit. By contrast, there are some people I have been posting to (not you) who think they know all about what I am doing ans they will NEVER admit they are wrong, they just keep throwing what I say back on my face. I am done with those people. They can play alone. They only show who they are by the arrogant way they behave, and I am sorry if you got caught in the crossfire today.

We were talking about religious beliefs. So if you did not imply that no religious beliefs are true that means you are open to the possibility that a religious belief could be true.

I am open to any claim that is adequately supported by reason and evidence.

I am not going around the 'evidence block' again, not on my life. I am DONE talking about evidence. I know the evidence I have for Baha'u'llah is not adequate for you, so there is no reason to discuss it any further.

Evidence is what matters.

I believe it is evidence for Baha'u'llah and I don't care if you believe it is evidence. Case closed.

Beliefs are a dime a dozen. If you cannot support it with evidence it is not worthy of belief. Case closed.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am open to any claim that is adequately supported by reason and evidence.

Evidence is what matters.

Beliefs are a dime a dozen. If you cannot support it with evidence it is not worthy of belief. Case closed.

You will say "that's not evidence" so what is the point of me telling you what evidence there is?

I have been around this block so many times with atheists and they all say the same thing -- "that's not evidence."

 

[ppp]

You will say "that's not evidence" so what is the point of me telling you what evidence there is?

I have been around this block so many times with atheists and they all say the same thing -- "that's not evidence."

It probably isn't. In which case there is no point.

 

[Trailblazer]

It probably isn't. In which case there is no point.

Okay.

 

[Hawkins]

What CAN make you believe in the existence of God ?

Testimonies from the supposed eyewitnesses accounts. That's how humans get to facts.

Science, though repeatedly available for verification no one bothers to do so, is the testimonies from an extremely small amount of eyewitnesses professed in a certain scientific field. We know/believe that black holes exist not because any evidence ever presented to us. We know/believe because we trust that the testimonies from scientists are reliable. Moreover, not every kind of truth is as verifiable as a science. Science is verifiable because it is about what governs a repeatable phenomenon. In a more scientifically technical term, a phenomenon is repeatable thus a theory is falsifiable if it's not true. A history however is never falsifiable as it happened only once in the past.

 

[ppp]

A history however is never falsifiable as it happened only once in the past.

The city of Troy was leveled by a nuclear bomb is a falsifiable claim. Even though it is a claim about something happening only once in the past.

 

[Hawkins]

The city of Troy was leveled by a nuclear bomb is a falsifiable claim. Even though it is a claim about something happening only once in the past.

How about 1000 years later. That's what history is.

In a nutshell, only mass activities (possibly include a large scale blast) may leave a trail for humans to trace. However as time goes by, you may have to cross your finger that the site can be conserved. As for individual activities, there's almost no hope that they can be traced.

That said. You can't actually consider that falsifiable in a scientific sense. It it's not repeatable, you need to go back to the spot repeatedly trigger the same blast in order to falsify a false claim (say, it's caused by a mixture of TNT and nuclear instead of purely nuclear).

 

[ppp]

How about 1000 years later. That's what history is.

Well, duh. The Troy in the Iliad fell over 2500 years ago. So, yes. I am talking about history.

In a nutshell, only mass activities (possibly include a large scale blast) may leave a trail for humans to trace.

That's ridiculous. We have farm reports and personal letters from ancient Egypt. Scientific evidence that individuals wrote farm reports and personal letters.

That said. You can't actually consider that falsifiable in a scientific sense. It it's not repeatable, you need to go back to the spot repeatedly trigger the same blast in order to falsify a false claim (say, it's caused by a mixture of TNT and nuclear instead of purely nuclear).

Are you writing from a script? Because that isn't even close to being true. The effects of radiation, heat and force are predictable. If the characteristics of the area don't match then the claim is falsified.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's totally nonsensical (so by the criteria of your video I should reject the Baha'i faith). If you have a message that is important for people to see for their own well-being (which is actually the scenario I outlined) then it is immoral not to make sure everybody gets it and understands its source.

If anybody is responsible for you getting the Message of Baha’u’llah, it is the Baha’is. God certainly is not responsible because Baha’u’llah entrusted the Baha’is with the duty to carry the message to other people. God is not “coming on down” to earth to make sure you get the message.

AFTER you have received the message, nobody is responsible for you investigating and believing the message except yourself.

What you've outlined is a god who seems to want to make it a test of some kind - which is a totally different god to a just and fair one with an important message for our well-being.

Again, God is not responsible for you getting and believing the message of Baha’u’llah. The Baha’is are the ones who are responsible for you getting the message but after you get the message you are responsible for what you do with it.

What's more, if this god considers 'worthiness' to consist of looking through apparent superstitions in the hope of finding one that at least isn't obviously contradictory and hasn't (yet) broken into different sects, rather than (say) seeking the well-being of others for themselves, then it doesn't strike me as a very pleasant being at all.

God does not want you to look at the older religions. Bahaullah made that patently clear, so you do not have to look at those superstitious religions.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

I'm willing to bet that there's a fair proportion of the world's population who've never even heard of Baha’u’llah (I hadn't a few years ago), so it's obviously not there for all to discover.

It is all there on the internet for all to discover, and in books, but if people do not know about it then they are not going to go looking for it, at least not most people, although there are a numbered few people who have found it on their own.

If more people have not heard of the Baha’i Faith that is the fault of the Baha’is, not God. Just look at when that letter was written. Hmmmm...

"There is so much suffering, such a great and desperate need for a true remedy and the Bahá’ís should realize their sacred obligation is to deliver the Message to their fellowmen at once, and on as large a scale as possible. If they fail to do so, they are really partly responsible for prolonging the agony of humanity."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 18, 1943)

Again, delivering an important message for people's well being is totally different from testing them (especially in a rather silly and arbitrary way). What would you think of a government who didn't make every possible effort to make the proper information about how to protect yourself and others from COVID available to everybody, but instead just put it out in the same way as the baseless rumours and misinformation from anonymous sources on the internet, and then said that those that didn't seek it out weren't worthy?

You are putting the blame where it does not belong. God has already delivered the message to Baha’u’llah. Now that ball is in the court of the Baha’is to get that message out to everyone in the world. God was completely out of the game as soon as He delivered His message to Baha’u’llah.

So, if your god is one with an important message for everybody's well-being, then it is not being just a fair by setting a test instead.

If it's a god who's trying to test people for "worthiness" then the test seems cruel and arbitrary (and doesn't it already know who's "worthy" anyway, is it not omniscient?)

In both cases I conclude that your god does not fit the description of being just and fair and having an important message for the well-being of humans.

You can conclude whatever you want, but God has been just and fair because He delivered the message that humanity needs to Baha’u’llah. It is there on the internet for all to read.

Baha’i Reference Library online older version

Baha’i Reference Library online new version

The caveat is that God is in no way responsible anyone’s decision whether to research and believe in Baha’u’llah because everyone has free will to set their own priorities and make their own choices.

Of course God already knows who will prove themselves worthy, but that is irrelevant. The point is that people have to prove they are worthy in order to become worthy. That is true in any walk of life. Doesn’t the Presidential candidate have to prove he or she is worthy before getting nominated?