• 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?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said: God not communicating directly to everyone is an observation, something known.

This is an unsupportable 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?
Conversely, how do you know that God does communicate directly to everyone, and it is just a matter of everyone not having ears to hear that communication.

We also have to define what you mean by communication. If you mean an audible voice, that is different from some kind of sign from God.
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.
Are you saying that some people make a conscious choice not to go outside, so they never get communication from God?
Again, it is not observable that God doesn't communicate with them.
No, it is not observable, so that was the wrong choice of words.
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.
It “appears” that way to you, but it is not observable that God communicates to anyone, let alone everyone. It does not appear to me that God communicates to anyone except those He chooses to communicate to, the Prophets/Messengers. God might communicate to the minds of some people who are open to hearing, but that is not something that could ever be proven to have come from God and it does not come by way of audible speech.

Likewise, we cannot prove that God ever communicated to Messengers, but there is evidence of that in scriptures. Other people only have their personal testimonies that God communicated to them, but they have no evidence to support such a claim. That is the hundred-dollar 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.
I see that as a judgment but I believe only God can judge. For whatever reasons that only God knows, not all people are able to believe in God, let alone discern communication from God.
Trailblazer said: (Note: I did not write this.)

Who did, and why do you consider it worthy of consideration?
An atheist on my forum wrote it. It is worthy of my consideration since it was posted to me.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
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.)
No, it's not logical. It proposes a dichotomy that is not supportable ("does not" versus "would not"), because it leaves out other possibilities ("could not," or "doesn't communicate with anybody"). Just another version of special pleading trying to explain away the obvious failure of revealed religion.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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.
I am not a deist, but I do not agree with that. A God that exists but does not communicate with humans and cannot be discerned by humans could still be holding down the fort so to speak. Just because humans cannot prove that does not mean it is not happening. That said, I believe that God communicates through Messengers/Prophets, even if people do not recognize them as such.
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.
Why do you think we have to know that God exists in order to speculate on what God might do IF God existed? I understand why God would need some definition, so for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that God is the Bible God.
It's like speculating on what fairies may or may not do.
"If fairies existed they would do X". How do you know???
It is not quite the same as fairies because there is evidence for the existence of God whereas there is no evidence for the existence of fairies. God and God’s actions have been described in scriptures. As an atheist you might rebut that by saying that fairies and fairies’ actions have been described in fairy tales, since scriptures are no more than fairy tales to an atheist, right?
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.
Thanks, and this explains why we cannot use logic to prove the existence of God or to prove anything about God. We can never base any argument upon the premise that God exists because we can never prove that is true.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
No, it's not logical. It proposes a dichotomy that is not supportable ("does not" versus "would not"), because it leaves out other possibilities ("could not," or "doesn't communicate with anybody"). Just another version of special pleading trying to explain away the obvious failure of revealed religion.
Very good points, all those are possibilities.
The OP was written by an atheist.
I do not know why you consider it special pleading and an attempt to explain away the obvious failure of revealed religion. o_O
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Hmmm? You do not communicate directly with everyone. How can I be getting this communication from you now????
I am communicating directly with you on the forum. It is in written words rather than verbally in person.
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.
That depends upon what you mean by direct communication. I do not believe that there will ever come a time when God will speak in words to any human because God is not a human.
One should never try to place rules on what God can or can not do. Free will supersedes other's wish to control.
By the same token, people should never make up rules for what God can or cannot do because nobody can ever know that, except God, Imo.
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?
I agree that God does not want to influence anyone’s choices and that is ‘one reason’ God does not communicate directly to anyone. Of course I would be intimidated from a conversation with God, but I consider that ludicrous because God does not converse with humans, Imo.
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.
And that is what God does, God says nothing at all, because there is no way any human could ever understand God communication, Imo.
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.
Anyone can speak to God, but if they think they are getting an answer back from God in discernible speech then they need to get down to the psychiatrist pronto, Imo.
God's system is perfect. Let it run is the best answer.
I fully agree, but I do not think it runs the same way you think it runs.
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.
Imo, nobody is every going to have a back-and-forth with the Almighty God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, because God never brings Himself down to such a mundane level. They can speak to God and be assured that God hears everything they say, but God won’t be answering. God turns His cell on to receive messages but then He turns His cell off.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You asked a question about logic. I was simply pretending that it was an honest question. My bad.
I said: 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?

You said: As with unicorns, wood sprites, and and pixies ...

It was an honest question but I did not understand your answer and how it applied to logic.
 

amorphous_constellation

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.

god might be communicating with everyone, but maybe hardly anyone is perceiving that to be happening, because it could be subtle and hard to perceive. I'm sure someone already said that in this long, long thread
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Conversely, how do you know that God does communicate directly to everyone, and it is just a matter of everyone not having ears to hear that communication.
I'll always draw on personal experience first. In personal experience, which matches what countless others who have experienced "God" or the Absolute firsthand, we all say the same thing. That we see for the first time, what has always fully been there the whole time, but we just couldn't see. That's my personal experience, and that of others.

You also have scripture. Jesus taught to consider the lilies of the field, for in them you could see God. The psalmist clearly says that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that is speaks words to the whole world. Jesus teaches that those who have eyes to see and ear to hear, meaning those who are spiritually awake and aware, will see God right there in what is said. He taught the kingdom of heaven was already here among us, and so on and so forth. Paul always speaks of creation as revealing God.

We also have to define what you mean by communication. If you mean an audible voice, that is different from some kind of sign from God.
One does not need to use audible words to communicate. In fact, that is probably the least effective way possible to communicate, comparatively speaking. Creation itself, shows infinite love, without words and letters and teachings, and doctrines, and theories, and models, and blah, and blah, and blah blah. Words can get in the way of seeing and hearing Truth.

The communication is something that arises of its own out of all that is created, speaking of the being of God that gives rise to all of it. But if we are busy trying to hear words from some person or another, we fail to hear God right in front of us, and inside us.

Are you saying that some people make a conscious choice not to go outside, so they never get communication from God?
It was a metaphor, of course. I mean that people become comfortable with the houses they erect around themselves, and they live inside of them, even if they are outside. They live inside a world in their heads, not in touch with the world that is right there in front of them. Anyone who has had an awakening experience, will say the same thing. What is seen, is Radiance itself, in all things. But with our eyes closed, that is turned inward to our "thought worlds", you don't see it. How can you, when you're staring the whole time at your feet instead of the mountain range in front of you?

It “appears” that way to you, but it is not observable that God communicates to anyone, let alone everyone.
It appears that way to me because of being in both the position of being asleep, and then being awake. It's the same thing for anyone else who has experience both. For those without the latter, the rest is just made up from that lack of experience to explain something they don't have personal reference for. Therefore, it comes out all weird, imaging unlike the sun whose rays light the way for everyone, God is selective. Jesus doesn't teach that, BTW. He taught that God causes the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. Meaning, God radiates to everyone, regardless of their "station". This is what the Bible teaches.

It does not appear to me that God communicates to anyone except those He chooses to communicate to, the Prophets/Messengers.
So God is not the Light of the World then, since he has to hire some salespeople to tell them about the sun in the sky above them, as if they can't feel it's rays?

Psalm 19.

God might communicate to the minds of some people who are open to hearing, but that is not something that could ever be proven to have come from God and it does not come by way of audible speech.
This fixation on audible hallucinations, is just error. God doesn't need words. God communicates directly to our minds and hearts, without words. And it's not things like "Go ye therefore and make converts of other religions," or some such thing. It's more powerful, and simple than that. God is Love, is more to the point. All the rest flows of its own accord starting from that point.

Likewise, we cannot prove that God ever communicated to Messengers, but there is evidence of that in scriptures. Other people only have their personal testimonies that God communicated to them, but they have no evidence to support such a claim. That is the hundred-dollar difference.
I personally don't take any scripture to be a dictation from God. I see God in them, but that is not the same thing as saying God dictated them. I find that an error of a youthful understanding. Music can be inspired of God as well, without God writing the orchestral score.

I see that as a judgment but I believe only God can judge.
It's not a judgement. It's an observation of what we all do. Without understanding that it is us who either sees or does not see, puts the onus on us. To say God chooses, irrationally so, to withhold knowledge from us, to "hide" himself, as it were, does in fact make God responsible and us not. That is just logic.

For whatever reasons that only God knows, not all people are able to believe in God, let alone discern communication from God.
It's not just God that knows why, it's a lot of people who know why. You should listen to them. :)
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Very good points, all those are possibilities.
The OP was written by an atheist.
I do not know why you consider it special pleading and an attempt to explain away the obvious failure of revealed religion. o_O
Isn't that odd...I didn't check the belief of the OP poster...probably because it looked so much like the beginning of a special-pleading argument.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
god might be communicating with everyone, but maybe hardly anyone is perceiving that to be happening, because it could be subtle and hard to perceive. I'm sure someone already said that in this long, long thread
Yes, more than one person already said that.
The problem is, how could anyone ever know it is God communicating and not their imagination.
Just because they say they know does not mean they actually know.

I consider that a serious problem because people can imagine all kinds of things and I think that a lot of religious people do just that. Based upon what people have learned in their religion, and based upon what people WANT to believe, they can imagine most anything, even if it makes no sense at all.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I said: 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?

You said: As with unicorns, wood sprites, and and pixies ...

It was an honest question but I did not understand your answer and how it applied to logic.
If it is a question regarding logic, you should be able to pose it without reference to God. So, for example, if you've never eaten ikura sushi with quail egg, does that in and of itself mean that you will never do so in the future? Clearly the answer is "no."
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Isn't that odd...I didn't check the belief of the OP poster...probably because it looked so much like the beginning of a special-pleading argument.
It was a special pleading argument...
That atheist does a lot of that.

Special pleading: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=special+pleading+means

What this atheist deliberately ignores is that God has NEVER communicated directly with everyone. He ignores that because that is unfavorable to his point of view that God should hop to and do that. :rolleyes:
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I am communicating directly with you on the forum. It is in written words rather than verbally in person.

That depends upon what you mean by direct communication. I do not believe that there will ever come a time when God will speak in words to any human because God is not a human.

By the same token, people should never make up rules for what God can or cannot do because nobody can ever know that, except God, Imo.

I agree that God does not want to influence anyone’s choices and that is ‘one reason’ God does not communicate directly to anyone. Of course I would be intimidated from a conversation with God, but I consider that ludicrous because God does not converse with humans, Imo.

And that is what God does, God says nothing at all, because there is no way any human could ever understand God communication, Imo.

Anyone can speak to God, but if they think they are getting an answer back from God in discernible speech then they need to get down to the psychiatrist pronto, Imo.

I fully agree, but I do not think it runs the same way you think it runs.

Imo, nobody is every going to have a back-and-forth with the Almighty God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, because God never brings Himself down to such a mundane level. They can speak to God and be assured that God hears everything they say, but God won’t be answering. God turns His cell on to receive messages but then He turns His cell off.
I'm glad you like using the acronym "IMO," because everything that you wrote is nothing more than you saying what you suppose God does, doesn't and so forth -- without the benefit of a single reason, that you could present to the rest of us, why you suppose as you do. As you say, it's just "your opinion."

So here's another one: "The earth sucks, gravity is a myth" --- imo. Strike you as reasonable?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It was a special pleading argument...
That atheist does a lot of that.

Special pleading: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=special+pleading+means

What this atheist deliberately ignores is that God has NEVER communicated directly with everyone. He ignores that because that is unfavorable to his point of view that God should hop to and do that. :rolleyes:
BUT...BUT...BUT -- there are tons of scriptural assertions that say God does and has communicated directly to any number of people. Are you ignoring those? Or are you calling them false?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If it is a question regarding logic, you should be able to pose it without reference to God. So, for example, if you've never eaten ikura sushi with quail egg, does that in and of itself mean that you will never do so in the future? Clearly the answer is "no."
Okay I get it now. From a purely logical point of view it is logical....

The All-Knowing and All-Wise God might suddenly decide He has been wrong all along to communicate only through Prophets and start communicating directly to everyone.
Bad God! :rolleyes:
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Okay I get it now. From a purely logical point of view it is logical....

The All-Knowing and All-Wise God might suddenly decide He has been wrong all along to communicate only through Prophets and start communicating directly to everyone.
Bad God! :rolleyes:
Why not stop playing games and simply make your point?
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I consider that a serious problem because people can imagine all kinds of things and I think that a lot of religious people do just that. Based upon what people have learned in their religion, and based upon what people WANT to believe, they can imagine most anything, even if it makes no sense at all.

Well, our western spirituality is based on books, buildings, and beliefs. It all seems to have a thick layer of dust on it. If I wanted religion, I probably would talk to paleolithic people, who invented this whole thing. And they'd say, go climb that holy mountain, visit this incredible waterfall, dance by the bonfire, explore this cave. Then you see, I would be far more involved in the mystery of the world and universe, to the point where you just might take the imagination seriously, that would develop out of it. But here I am, the western man. I look for god in my bookshelf. In the uniform font of people grumbling around on internet forums. In the big buildings where everyone is stationary and silent while they listen to one person pontificate what they think. What kind of imagination could I possibly have, am I even encouraged to develop one in this situation. Basically we're spiritual deadbeats
 
Last edited:
Top