• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is this logical?

PureX

Veteran Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)
Begging the question: why some and not others?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)

p1) God does not communicate with everyone

C1) If God existed, God would not communicate directly to everyone.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise therefore the statement "..it does not follow...." is logically correct.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)
This is logical.

It follows the same reasoning as any other observation.

Most people have probably tried something similar at some point or another in their life:

Person A: Did you see that frog over there?
Person B: No, I didn't see it.


It doesn't mean that person A is lying or is wrong about there being a frog.

What is important, is what Person A claims. In the above example claiming to have seen a frog, is neither extraordinary or unlikely as we know that frogs exists. Also Person B doesn't really loose anything for simply trusting Person A in the situation either.

But if Person A had claimed to have seen an "Alien" or a "Ghost", it is far more likely that Person A is mistaken or simply lying, just as it is much less likely for Person B to believe the claim.

So looking purely on the statement you posted, from a logical point of view, it is correct. But it only really gets interesting when one look at the details of the claim it self.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)

Use any existing entity (me for example) then if makes logical sense.

But without proof of a gods existence then you can substitute god with nothing or a mythical entity or belief then its a different ball game
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
No, that is a figure of speech, Johnny-on-the-spot is a person who is at hand whenever needed.
I've only ever heard it as a term for a portable toilet.

Okay. The statement is a stand-alone. It is either logical as it stands or not. I did not explain the context because I did not want to introduce any bias in my direction or his direction. I have my own opinion I did not give because wanted to find out what other people think without my bias.
So you're playing a game with us. I feel foolish for having responded to the OP.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)

Wouldn't the last one be "God would communicate...?" Confusing double negatives.

I think what is being said is that God if he exists, would not necessarily talk to everyone.
This is a reasonable assumption, whether or not it's logical.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
If this God has a message for the whole humanity, then he should be talking to all people. Many a times it happens that his messengers are not able to reach all people, the message is delayed, deformed by the intermediaries, and then there are conflicts about it. But has this God ever done anything right?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Not my word salad but you unscrambled it correctly.

Why do you think it makes logical sense?

Not eating pizza today does not serve as evidence about tomorrow's dinner.

Put differently, if today's options are A or not-A, all things being equal the same will be true tomorrow. (The caveat is important.)
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
If this God has a message for the whole humanity, then he should be talking to all people. Many a times it happens that his messengers are not able to reach all people, the message is delayed, deformed by the intermediaries, and then there are conflicts about it. But has this God ever done anything right?

Yes, one would think that said God could at least use sky writing in the various languages around the planet.


upload_2019-12-30_14-15-42.jpeg
u-plus-god-skywriting-1073436.jpg
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)

For it to be logical you need to define the way God needs to communicate with everyone. For example could the communication be written in your DNA or your Mind and not directly through words.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
it does not follow from that failure to observe God communicating directly to everyone that God would not communicate directly to everyone, if God existed.

But it does follow.
If God exists, and there is even one example of God not communicating directly to someone, then the point is made that God does not communicate directly to everyone.

However, the phrase ‘failure to observe’ is ambiguous.
Does it mean that it wasn’t observed, and it is called failure to signify its absence, or does it mean that although the direct communication did occur, the observer failed to perceive it ?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.
What seems to be said here is: Assuming that God exists, just because we have observed that God does not communicate to everyone does not mean it will remain this way. With an "escape" clause admitting that "God may not exist" via use of the word "if."

This seems logically intact, even if one has not demonstrated that "God exists." But the statement itself is not really useful for anything that I can surmise. Which "side" of an argument was this presented in support of? Theism? Atheism? Other?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I do not care what I said or what you said before.
I cannot remember all that.
In order to sort it out you would have to start over.

Just read my post regarding the OP then.

The only thing I was interested in getting opinions about was the OP statement, and whether it was logical as stated.
You can forget I ever interpreted it, my mistake.

It wasn't really a mistake as it is required for the evaluation. We just got side tracked
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?
No, it is illogical. I'll explain.

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known.
This is an unsportable assumption, and therefore all the logic that follows based upon it is unworthy of consideration. This is reason #1 why this is illogical.

How do you know God doesn't communicate directly with everyone, and that it really is more a matter of not everyone having ears to hear that communication? Think of it like rays of the sun which shines upon everyone equally, but those that never come outside will never feel it. It's there for them, regardless of their problems that deny themselves the sunlight.

However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.
Again, it is not observable that God doesn't communicate with them. On the contrary, it appears he does, and that only "those with ears to hear and eyes to see," is aware of what's there for everyone equally at all times. It's not God "not communicating". It's us, "not listening". Big difference.

Saying it's God not communicating, takes the responsibility off yourself for not hearing what is being revealed clearly. "It must be God, not me!", is weak, to say the least.

(Note: I did not write this.)
Who did, and why do you consider it worthy of consideration?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)

Depends on which particular god...good definitions are important. Obviously a god that neither communicates nor has any detectable effect on our universe is pretty much the same as a non-existent god in terms of usefulness.

The issue here is that the statement begins with an "if"...a very big, unresolved "if", so it is pure speculation. Until we know if said god (so far undefined) actually exists, we cannot speculate on what that god may or may not do. It's like speculating on what fairies may or may not do.
"If fairies existed they would do X". How do you know???

As to the logic part, for an argument, maybe this will help:

Validity and Soundness. A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. ... A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true.
 
Last edited:

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)
I think God communicates with everyone, subtly, through signs,through the majesty of creation, through judgment, and many other things I'm sure.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

(Note: I did not write this.)
If God existed and if this particular God was omnipotent, He would do whatever he chooses.
What He chooses could vary widely based on the attributes and essence of your particular god.

Too little information is given in your statements.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Is this logical? Why or why not?
God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known. However, it does not follow that, since it is observable that God does not communicate directly to everyone, that this means that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.
(Note: I did not write this.)
We find in Genesis that at first God did communicate directly with Adam.
After Adam broke God's Law, then we can observe No direct communication with God.
The ' sin issue ' is what is the barrier to direct communication.
Once the 'sin issue' is resolved (by the end of Jesus 1,000-year reign over Earth), then once again faithful people (starting as far back as Abel ) will then have a one-on-one direct communication with God.
 
Top