No, what i say is "I think it is reasonable to expect God to communicate directly to everyone, because it's a duty for God to do so."
If it's not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone, i can still think of some other reasons which are not base on the reason of duty that make God communicate directly to everyone. E.g. God is bored, God think it's fun to communicate directly to everyone; God is very talkative and likes to make friends with everyone; so God communicate directly to everyone.
The above hypothetical scenarios show that God communicate directly to everyone not because of duty but other reasons.
So now you are saying that even if it is not a
duty for God to communicate directly to everyone, God might communicate directly to everyone for other reasons. But it is not the
reasons God might do that I am interested in, it is whether or not God has an
obligation/duty to communicate directly to everyone. So do you think it is *reasonable* to
expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone? That was my question and it is based upon the fact that some atheists think that God would/should communicate directly to everyone if God existed because
God owes everyone a direct message rather than a message that comes indirectly through Messengers/Prophets.
Is it reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone if he is bored or he wants to make friends?
I'm not sure.
Do i think that it would only be reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone only if it was a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone?
Maybe it can be reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone base on other non-duty reasons; or maybe it's only reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone only if it was a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone. I don't know which scenario is true. I haven't been convince to believe in either way.
What you imply to ask is that: It would only be reasonable for someone to do something only if it's a duty to do so?
It would only be reasonable for someone to eat food only if it's a duty to eat food?
It would only be reasonable for someone to enjoy swimming if it's a duty to enjoy swimming?
Other similar example...etc.
Weird questions, i don't have the answers now.
I understand your point. It might be reasonable for God communicate directly to everyone for any number of reasons. I was trying to hone in on the obligation aspect. Would it be reasonable for God communicate directly to everyone
just because some atheists want God to do so, even if God does not choose to do so (obviously, since that is not what we have ever seen)?
Do i think it would be a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone?
How do i suppose to know?
Just like if anyone ask me:
If Flying Spaghetti Monster/Blue Unicorn exists, do i think it would be a duty for them to communicate directly to everyone?
How do i suppose to know whether or not it's a duty for Blue Unicorn to communicate directly to everyone in a hypothetical imaginary world?
By making bold empty claims about that imaginary world? By writing story about whatever that will happen in that imaginary world as i wish? By believing whatever book which make the bold empty claim that whatever that will happen in that imaginary world? That would be silly.
You just made a very good point. From an atheist viewpoint, god does not exist so god is an imaginary being like a Blue Unicorn. Moreover, atheists have no conception of what god would be like if god did exist, so they know no more about God than they know about Blue Unicorns. So do you think it is
rational for an atheist to say that “as a matter of reason, the expectation would be that an omnipotent/omniscient god would communicate directly to everyone” or do you think that is a bold and empty claim?
No, what i say is "I think that rational people would expect God to communicate directly to everyone, because it's a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone."
In that hypothetical scenario where if God exists and if it's a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone, it would logically follows that rational people (who believe in those two hypothetical premise) would expect God to communicate directly to everyone.
No where do i say "rational people would only expect God to communicate directly to everyone if it was God’s duty to communicate directly to everyone". You have some weird misunderstanding.
Here is what you said:
Q: (If God exists and if it's not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone) Do you think it is reasonable to expect God to communicate directly to everyone?
A: No. I think it is not reasonable to expect God to communicate directly to everyone, because it's not a duty for God to do so.
Q: (If God exists and if it's not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone) Do you think that rational people would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?
A: No. I think that rational people wouldn't expect God to communicate directly to everyone, because it's not a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone.
So to summarize that,
if it is not God’s duty to communicate directly to everyone, then it is not reasonable to expect God to communicate directly to everyone.
If it is not God’s duty to communicate directly to everyone, then rational people wouldn't expect God to communicate directly to everyone.
If you want to withdraw what you said before and say you think that rational people would expect God to communicate directly to everyone because it's a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone please explain why you think it is a duty.
Definition of duty: a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.
Anyone or any self-appointed true messenger can write a story about whatever duty should be done by any invisible God. Anyone can pick any book and believe whatever it says is God's duty.
Who determines what God’s duties are, God or humans?
Some humans: (write/believe whatever story and whatever duty attribute to any God. Then says whatever God's duty is or is not.)
God: (Invisible and silence)
Are you trying to make a point that God should come on down to earth and talk and explain what His duties are, instead of sending Messengers who explain that, because IF you are making that point I have to tell you it is silly because God cannot come to earth and that is one reason why God sends Messengers to represent Him.
Really weird question.
Just like if someone ask me:
Who determines what Flying Spaghetti Monster’s duties are, Flying Spaghetti Monster or humans?
Who determines what Blue Unicorn’s duties are, Blue Unicorn or humans?
You people first prove that those invisible beings exist as real being, after that maybe i'll take the question that "who determines those invisible beings' duty" seriously.
I understand your point, but the existence of God cannot be proven in any objective way so belief in God has to be based upon faith and knowledge that comes through the Messengers of God.
How do isuppose to know why it's or it's not a God's duty (in a hypotetical imaginary scenario or imaginary story)?
How do i suppose to know why it's or it's not a Flying Spagetti Monster's duty (in a hypotetical imaginary scenario)?
How do i suppose to know why it's or it's not a Blue Unicorn's duty (in a hypotetical imaginary scenario)?
It's or it's not a duty because that's the plot in those imaginary stories?
You are proving the point I want to make. For an atheist to say that God SHOULD/WOULD communicate directly to everyone if god existed is absurd on its face, yet I have been listening to an atheist say this over and over and over again for over five years... “If god were real god would/should communicate directly to everyone, because then
everyone in the world would believe in God” as if he even knows that God would want everyone to believe in Him. What he believes in is an imaginary god he has made in his own image and he seems to think he knows exactly what this god’s goals are and how god should accomplish them. He might as well take over for God since he is setting God’s agenda for God.
Yes, just like if Flying Spaghetti Monster or Blue Unicorn exists, and if they had wanted to do that they would have done it already.
Agreed.
Yes, (if God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Blue Unicorn exist), should every single person on earth get their own full book of scriptures whispered into their ear? Is that a reasonable thing for God/Flying Spagetti Monster/Blue Unicorn to do? Could everyone understand God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Blue Unicorn and write all that down? Then what would happen? Would that make the world a better place? Is there a good reason why they cannot just all refer to the scriptures that God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Blue Unicorn has made available?
So are you saying that since we do not have proof that god exists my questions are moot?