Is this logical?

[Trailblazer]

Actually i’m not atheist or Baha’i

Sorry, I thought I heard from someone that you were a Baha'i.

I meant there are already people physically dead, so if all people were going to be spoken to by God it would have to have already happened for all the dead people, which it hasn’t

So I guess what you are saying is that God does not speak to all dead people, people in the spiritual world as we Baha'is refer to them?

I do not believe that God speaks directly to anyone dead or alive except Messengers/Prophets that God chooses, and even then God speaks through the Holy Spirit, not directly. I believe that after we die, we will still have to go through one of those Messengers who will act as an Intermediary between us and God.

Of course, I could be getting this wrong, as nobody really knows what happens after we die as the scriptures are not definitive.

 

[halbhh]

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.)

Seems to (accidentally?) suggest, I think likely correct, that generally God (would) (does!) give everyone a chance. But our own noise, like for instance pride, can block our own perception. The person themselves in a way chooses to ignore, to not hear. If a person thinks they are so much better than all, it could be hard for them to hear anything, even God, because they are so busy listening to themselves. (this is just a manner of speaking. Christ's wording is probably a lot better: He used the wording "ears that do not hear" (i.e. Mark chapter 8: "Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?"), as from the prophets before Him) Put another way, people get so caught up in comparative trivialities, like ideologies for instance (and then feel they are the Truth Teller...), that it just is a self-blinding.

 

[Trailblazer]

Begging the question: why some and not others?

God chooses who God chooses because only some are capable of understanding communication from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

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.

If the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how can it be logically correct?

 

[joe1776]

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.

If the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how can it be logically correct?

Read my post again. I didn't say that the conclusion was logically correct. I said that this statement is logically correct:

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.

 

[ecco]

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known.

It is as illogical as stating: Psychic Snowflakes not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known.

 

[stvdv]

God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known

It needs 2 to communicate. God is willing to communicate, most people are not willing/able to listen anyway

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.

In Silence the voice of God can be heard; it's as simple as that. But it's not easy to silence one's mind.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

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.

I have come to the conclusion that whether or not people think the paragraph above is logical or illogical depends upon how they interpret it. I have the advantage of knowing the context in which it was written, so I know what the writer meant.

The question was kind of a trick question, but @ danieldemol got the answer I was looking for in post #37
(When you read that try to think only of what happens before death, not what happens after death. All we can observe is in this life, not the afterlife. Nobody really knows what happens in the afterlife.)

You are right that it only really gets interesting when one look at the details of the claim it self.

Now that Daniel got the answer, I will explain the claim. The claim is that nobody has ever observed God communicating directly to everyone, thus it is known that God has never communicated directly to everyone. He then goes on to say that just because it is known that God has never communicated directly to everyone, that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

Do you consider this logical or illogical?

 

[PureX]

God chooses who God chooses because only some are capable of understanding communication from God.

I don't think God is foolish enough to send me a message through some other human. That would almost certainly go wrong in so many ways. I think humans presume themselves to be messengers when they think they've received some divine wisdom because their ego loves that idea. But I really don't think that's how 'it' works. I think the message is all around us, all the time. And we either choose to recognize it, or we choose to ignore it.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.
It is a hypothetical -- if God exists.

I can understand why it would confuse the reader if they did not know the writer, because it starts out sounding like the writer believes that God exists. However, the writer is an atheist, so he does not believe that God exists.

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.

The claim is that nobody has ever observed any God communicating directly to everyone, thus it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone. He then goes on to say that just because it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

Do you consider this logical or illogical?
What I am asking is if this makes logical sense to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is an interesting proposition though. If I substitute a known entity such as yourself, then it becomes a different ball game. It then depends upon who that entity is and what their track record is.

 

[Bird123]

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.)

Hmmm? You do not communicate directly with everyone. How can I be getting this communication from you now????

On the other hand, no question can ever be considered silly. There will come a time when everyone will have direct communication with God. You have before whether you realize you have or not and you will again.

One should never try to place rules on what God can or can not do. Free will supersedes other's wish to control.

There are many many variables God will consider when it comes to communication. God does not want to influence anyone's choices. Can you really say you would not be intimidated from a conversation with God?

People are all at different levels. If you were to have a conversation with an ant, how much would the ant get out of it? I think most would just be confused with a real conversation with God. Sometimes the best thing to say is to say nothing at all.

Still, I think it is possible for anyone to have a conversation with God although I find few who actually want to. I think one needs to acquire at least the basic understanding of what God is all about and what God is doing before that conversation happens. Remember, God does not want to just give all the answers. Wisdom is acquired in the struggle to acquire knowledge. God does not want to take that from anyone.

God's system is perfect. Let it run is the best answer. On the other hand, those who are ready will find the way to have that conversation. When one opens a door, it leads to more doors that can be opened. This process leads to new ideas, new ways of thinking, and new possibilities. Each can discover the way. Clearly, everyone is not ready.

Well, that's what I am seeing. It's very clear to me.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've only ever heard it as a term for a portable toilet.

Definition of Johnny-on-the-spot
: a person who is on hand and ready to perform a service or respond to an emergency
Definition of JOHNNY-ON-THE-SPOT

So you're playing a game with us. I feel foolish for having responded to the OP.

It is not a game, it is just a fun exercise. If I gave the answer away then it would not be an exercise, and if I explained what I know (what the writer meant) I would bias the answers of posters. I wanted unbiased answers.

The original intention was more serious though. I wanted to see if anyone thought that the OP statement could make logical sense as stated, and if so why. The problem is that people did not know what the writer meant, so they came up with various interpretations. I should have expected that, but it's all good because it opens up a good discussion with various perspectives.

 

[ecco]

This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.
It is a hypothetical -- if God exists.

Why did you omit that from your post #1? Didn't it occur to you that that fact would have made a huge difference?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Yes, it is confusing as written.

I did not want to explain what I know the writer meant because I did not want to bias the answers, but now the cat is out of the bag because someone on this thread got the answer I was looking for, so I will explain what the writer meant by what he said:

Nobody has ever observed any God communicating directly to everyone, thus it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone, but just because it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

So what is being said is that God, if He exists, would not necessarily NOT talk to everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.)

So are you saying that just because God has never communicated directly to EVERYONE, that does not mean that God will never communicate directly to everyone in the future?

 

[Trailblazer]

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


View attachment 35921

How could we ever know that God did that sky writing?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

This thread is not about the logical way for God to communicate. It was an effort to determine if the statement in the OP logically follows.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So are you saying that just because God has never communicated directly to EVERYONE, that does not mean that God will neverandv communicate directly to everyone in the future?

As with unicorns, wood sprites, and and pixies ...

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

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.

The first sentence of the OP statement is true and it is congruent with what you said.... If 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.

It is after that that the OP derails.

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 ?

It means that it has never been observed by anyone that God has communicated directly to everyone. In other words, there is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone. The important part of that is this: It is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone because there is no evidence of that. Talking about what has been observed just adds confusion.

This is what the writer meant:

There is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone, thus it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone; but just because it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

 

[halbhh]

Yes, it is confusing as written.

I did not want to explain what I know the writer meant because I did not want to bias the answers, but now the cat is out of the bag because someone on this thread got the answer I was looking for, so I will explain what the writer meant by what he said:

Nobody has ever observed any God communicating directly to everyone, thus it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone, but just because it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

So what is being said is that God, if He exists, would not necessarily NOT talk to everyone.

Sort of like a card trick. If God exists He'd communicate to everyone. But we've noticed He has not, therefore....

ummm.....


One thing to always notice is whether an assumption is also the (sometimes direct, sometimes implied) conclusion. ('circular reasoning')

e.g. -- "Babies die, therefore God cannot be good, all-seeing and able simultaneously, thus God does not exist."

Notice in our false reasoning example though that saying the babies actually die the real, final death is exactly the same as assuming that God does not exist.

So the conclusion is built into the assumption used here, and the conclusion is merely the starting assumption restated in a equivalent form.

It's only circular reasoning. God, by definition is the One Who makes 'death' merely..."sleep" to use the exact word Christ Himself used.

Ergo, God existing means that babies that 'die' are in reality only passing through a doorway to what comes next, i.e.-- they didn't really die (not the real, final death).

In our question in the OP, we cannot just assume the assumption used as true. i.e.-- we cannot assume God hasn't communicated to all people, necessarily. It's instead a great question to consider.