All the below discussions when i talk about God, it's base on a hypothetical imaginary scenario that "if God exists".
So what you are basing your answer upon are what God would want to do. God would only communicate to everyone if God wanted to but God would not communicate to everyone if God did not want to. That sounds reasonable since God is the one who is doing the communicating so God should choose the method. Also, if God is Omnipotent humans have nothing to say about what God chooses to do and if God is Omniscient God has to know the best way to communicate to humans, so if that way was direct communication to everyone, God would have chosen that method.
Yes, correct.
Similarly, if Blue Unicorn (or Flying Spaghetti Monster) is Omnipotent humans have nothing to say about what Blue Unicorn chooses to do and if Blue Unicorn is Omniscient Blue Unicorn has to know the best way to communicate to humans, so if that way was direct communication to everyone, Blue Unicorn would have chosen that method.
(*In the hypothetical scenario that if Blue Unicorn exist, plus if he is the creator of universe and humanity)
So you are saying that it would only be reasonable for God to communicate directly to everyone if it was a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone.
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.
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.
So my question to you is if you think it would be a duty for God to communicate directly to everyone? If so why, and if not why not?
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 scenario?
By making bold empty claims about that imaginary scenario? By writing story about whatever that will happen in that imaginary story as i wish? By believing whatever book which made the bold empty claim that whatever that will happen in that imaginary story? That would be absurb and irrational.
So you are saying that rational people would only expect God to communicate directly to everyone if it was God’s duty to communicate directly to everyone.
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.
So my first question to you is who determines what God’s duties are, God or humans?
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 (if he exists): (silence and invisible)
God (if he doesn't exist): (also silence and invisible)
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 what duty should attribute to those invisible beings" seriously.
My second questions are as follows: If you think it is God’s duty, why would God have such a duty? If you do not think it is God’s duty, why don’t you think it would be God’s duty?
How do i suppose to know why
it's or
it's not a God's duty (in a hypotetical imaginary scenario/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/story)?
How do i suppose to know why
it's or
it's not a Blue Unicorn's duty (in a hypotetical imaginary scenario/story)?
It's or
it's not a duty because that's the plot in those imaginary stories?
I agree that these are the three logical possibilities. It is not a logical possibility that (iv) If God exists God would communicate directly to everyone, because God has never communicated directly to everyone. I suppose that an omnipotent could suddenly have a change of mind and heart and decide to communicate directly to everyone in the world but since that has never happened since the dawn of human history, there is no reason to believe that God would do that. Don’t you think that if God had wanted to do that He would have done it already?
Yes, just like if Flying Spagetti Monster or Blue Unicorn exists, and if they had wanted to do that they would have done it already.
*** Please note that what I mean by communicate is not just that God makes Himself known to everyone, because we could argue that God has done so (ii) and some people are spiritually blind so they just do not see.
That's totally understandable.
Just like we could argue that Flying Spagetti Monster or Blue Unicorn has done so but some people are spiritually blind so they just do not see.
What I mean by communication is sending everyone a message, the equivalent of a revelation such as the Bible. Should every single person on earth get their own full book of scriptures whispered into their ear? Is that a reasonable thing for God to do? Could everyone understand God 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 has made available?
Yes, (if God/Flying Spagetti 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 Spagetti 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 Spagetti Monster/Blue Unicorn has made available?
