• 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!

Atheists, if God existed….

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Sorry, it’s just me again with my series of silly questions, courtesy of an atheist poster on my forum. :rolleyes:

If God existed, COULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?

If God existed, WOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?

If God existed, SHOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?
By everyone, I mean every one of the 7.53 billion people in the world.

Please answer yes or no and give me the reasons for your answer.

Note: One of these is a trick question and I want to see if any of you figure it out. :D

Thanks, Trailblazer
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If God existed, COULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?
Depends on the God. Some versions: sure.

If God existed, WOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?
First: would God communicate with humans at all? Almost certainly not, IMO.

If this God did decide to communicate with humans, I can't see how it would be reasonable at all for him/her/it/them to use messengers or prophets.

If God existed, SHOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?
Depends:

- if this God is a trickster-god trying to mess with people, sure.

- if this God is interested in communicating clearly and effectively, certainly not.

Note: One of these is a trick question and I want to see if any of you figure it out. :D
All three are trick questions, IMO.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Depends on the God. Some versions: sure.
Let’s say it is the omnipotent/omniscient God.
First: would God communicate with humans at all? Almost certainly not, IMO.
I guess that is a “no.” I agree God would not communicate to humans unless He had a good reason because God is not much of a conversationalist. He prefers being alone in His Own High Place.
If this God did decide to communicate with humans, I can't see how it would be reasonable at all for him/her/it/them to use messengers or prophets.
Why not? Would it be MORE reasonable for God to communicate to every one of the 7.53 billion people in earth?
Depends:

- if this God is a trickster-god trying to mess with people, sure.
- if this God is interested in communicating clearly and effectively, certainly not.
Do you mean God would be a trickster messing with people if He used Messengers to communicate?

So, if God was interested in communicating clearly and effectively, would God communicate directly to everyone in the world? How do you know that anyone/everyone could understand God communicating to them and how do you know that communication would be clear and effective?
All three are trick questions, IMO.
No, only one of them is a trick question and you have to decide which one and why.
The first atheist who figures it out gets a free ride to heaven…. Just kidding. ;)
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
If God existed, COULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?

If God existed, WOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?

If God existed, SHOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?

If god existed, we would find out. Making assumptions without any substance isn't helping.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Nature's creation would reveal the attributes of God. No Messengers needed.:cool:
Creation does reveal the attributes of God, but what about people who do not believe in God, how would they know that? And what if God had a message for humans, how would He convey that?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
So that means if God exists, we would know the answers to those questions?

Thinking a bit more, we already know one answer for sure:

"If God existed, WOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?"

If god existed, it had every chance to do that (if it could).
Therefore either
- god is not able to communicate without a messenger
- god is not willing to communicate without a messenger, or
- god doesn't exist.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Let’s say it is the omnipotent/omniscient God.
I guess that is a “no.”
A god that can do anything could communicate with humans directly or via a messenger. Neither possibility creates any sort of logical contradiction.

I agree God would not communicate to humans unless He had a good reason because God is not much of a conversationalist. He prefers being alone in His Own High Place.
So what's the "good reason?" That really dictates what actions would be reasonable on the part of God.

Different forms of communication would be more or less effective at achiving a given goal, so the specifics of what God's goal is would determine which forms of communication would be reasonable.

Why not? Would it be MORE reasonable for God to communicate to every one of the 7.53 billion people in earth?
Yes (to the extent that "reasonable" is the right term to describe a scenario with some very unreasonable assumptions, e.g.an omnipotent and omniscient god).

Do you mean God would be a trickster messing with people if He used Messengers to communicate?
More likely he'd be a false, poorly-thought-out god-concept, but if we're operating from the assumption that God is real and uses messengers to communicate with humanity, then yes: we'd need to explain the apparent flaws in his communication scheme in a way that makes those flaws deliberate. Since the method lends itself to miscommunication and confusion, miscommunication and confusion must be part of God's goal.

I think "trickster-god" is a fair description of a God who sets out to achieve these goals.

So, if God was interested in communicating clearly and effectively, would God communicate directly to everyone in the world?
If God was interested in communicating clearly and effectively, he wouldn't do it through intermediaries.

You set up the hypothetical scenario with only two options. I picked the most reasonable option of the two. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's the most reasonable option possible.

How do you know that anyone/everyone could understand God communicating to them and how do you know that communication would be clear and effective?
I know because you told me. You made it a given in the scenario.

You said that this God is omnipotent and omniscient. This means that God is capable of communicating directly from humanity and knows how to do it clearly and effectively.

No, only one of them is a trick question and you have to decide which one and why.
The first atheist who figures it out gets a free ride to heaven…. Just kidding. ;)
All of them are leading questions with built-in unsupported assumptions, so all of them qualify as trick questions, IMO.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Meh. If I were god and I wanted to get a message out, the messenger I'd use would be an indestructible pillar going through the entire planet, with all languages written on it from all times used to convey that message. Harder to kill eachother over discrepancies in the message if there are no hiccups or misunderstandings in translations, and it'd be impossible to refute my existence when there's a giant thing that sticks out of the planet that defies everything else in nature, and couldn't be replicated by man.

Then again, I don't even know what it'd be to be like an infinite being, so my thoughts on what such a being would be thinking or what it's goals might be doesn't really amount to much.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member

If God existed, SHOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?
Note: One of these is a trick question and I want to see if any of you figure it out. :D

Thanks, Trailblazer

The last one is, of course, the trick question. There is no answer to a "should" question without an intended goal. The question only makes sense if the goal is stated in the question like:
"If god existed and wanted to be known or wanted to be worshipped or wanted to prevent humans from bashing each others heads in over the correct form of worship ...".
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Thinking a bit more, we already know one answer for sure:

"If God existed, WOULD God communicate directly with everyone instead of using Messengers?"

If god existed, it had every chance to do that (if it could).
Therefore either
- god is not able to communicate without a messenger
- god is not willing to communicate without a messenger, or
- god doesn't exist.
Wow, you get the door prize because you just answered my trick question! :D

In short, we know that God has never communicated directly to everyone, so if God exists we know that God would not communicate directly to everyone. This is logic 101 stuff.

You are correct about your three possibilities, but there is another possibility which is related to your first two possibilities. God cannot communicate without a messenger and be understood because nobody could ever understand God communicating to them directly. That could be why God is not willing to communicate without a messenger, or it could be part of the reason.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Meh. If I were god and I wanted to get a message out, the messenger I'd use would be an indestructible pillar going through the entire planet, with all languages written on it from all times used to convey that message. Harder to kill each other over discrepancies in the message if there are no hiccups or misunderstandings in translations, and it'd be impossible to refute my existence when there's a giant thing that sticks out of the planet that defies everything else in nature, and couldn't be replicated by man.
If you were god and I wanted to get a message out you might do that, but there is no reason to think that God cares if His message gets out to everyone or cares about how many people believe it. I do not think God carries a calculator. :rolleyes:
Then again, I don't even know what it'd be to be like an infinite being, so my thoughts on what such a being would be thinking or what it's goals might be doesn't really amount to much.
Very good point. :D
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The last one is, of course, the trick question. There is no answer to a "should" question without an intended goal. The question only makes sense if the goal is stated in the question like:
"If god existed and wanted to be known or wanted to be worshipped or wanted to prevent humans from bashing each others heads in over the correct form of worship ...".
In that case, God would be expected to do certain things, but I do not think we should tell God what He should do.

What I meant by a trick question is a question that was meant to trick you. :D
I mean the answer is so obvious but 'some atheists' do not understand why. :rolleyes:
The answer to my second question is really obvious IF you think about it.

The SHOULD question is also kind of a trick question because humans cannot put 'shoulds' upon an omnipotent/omniscient God.

Think about it.
A mere human telling an omnipotent God who created the entire Universe what He should do.
A mere human being telling an omniscient God what He should do is like saying "I know more than you God."
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
A mere human telling an omnipotent God who created the entire Universe what He should do.
A mere human being telling an omniscient God what He should do is like saying "I know more than you God."
I also had that answer in mind, but you wanted the answer from an atheists view (which I'm not, or only secondary, I'm an Agnostic.)
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
If you were god and I wanted to get a message out you might do that, but there is no reason to think that God cares if His message gets out to everyone or cares about how many people believe it. I do not think God carries a calculator. :rolleyes:

Very good point. :D

I suppose. Can't comment too much on what Bahai beliefs are, since my only frame of reference is limited to a handful of Christian denominations from a small corner of the U.S., but what I was raised with was that god loved people so much that he sent his son to pay the price for every single human being that lived, lives, and has yet to live. That seems like someone who would carry a calculator, IMO.

I'm not sure a god who doesn't really give that much of a damn for folks really interests me. Then again, an all perfect god who does care but just chooses not to stick around doesn't either. I guess I just need more to go on than the words of a "prophet" telling me that he totally has connections to the guy up stairs. Not sure why god would use a method of conveying a message that is also popular with conmen who try to sell bridges to total freedom, as well.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
A god that can do anything could communicate with humans directly or via a messenger. Neither possibility creates any sort of logical contradiction.
True.
So what's the "good reason?" That really dictates what actions would be reasonable on the part of God.
The good reason is that God cares about humans and has information it wants to convey that are beneficial to humans.
Different forms of communication would be more or less effective at achieving a given goal, so the specifics of what God's goal is would determine which forms of communication would be reasonable.
Absolutely, it would depend upon the goal, what and how much God was trying to communicate.
Yes (to the extent that "reasonable" is the right term to describe a scenario with some very unreasonable assumptions, e.g.an omnipotent and omniscient god).
That is kind of an oxymoron.
What is unreasonable about an omnipotent and omniscient God?
More likely he'd be a false, poorly-thought-out god-concept, but if we're operating from the assumption that God is real and uses messengers to communicate with humanity, then yes: we'd need to explain the apparent flaws in his communication scheme in a way that makes those flaws deliberate. Since the method lends itself to miscommunication and confusion, miscommunication and confusion must be part of God's goal.
It is not necessarily a flaw in God’s communication method, it is just inherent in that kind of communication because of flaws in humans. It is not that God deliberately miscommunicated; it is that humans failed to understand the communication and humans got confused. That does not mean this was God’s goal, only that it was unavoidable.

Why would it be any different if God whispered in the ears of every human being on earth? They could still misunderstand and get confused, and they would not be able to go and read what was written down as is the case with scriptures that can be studied in order to understand them.
I think "trickster-god" is a fair description of a God who sets out to achieve these goals.
Why do you think those are God’s goals, to miscommunicate and confuse people? That does not make any sense unless the God is malicious.
If God was interested in communicating clearly and effectively, he wouldn't do it through intermediaries.

You set up the hypothetical scenario with only two options. I picked the most reasonable option of the two. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's the most reasonable option possible.
So you are saying that direct communication to everyone is more reasonable than messengers?

I want to know what would work better than intermediaries and I want to know why it would work better.
“How do you know that anyone/everyone could understand God communicating to them and how do you know that communication would be clear and effective?”

I know because you told me. You made it a given in the scenario.

You said that this God is omnipotent and omniscient. This means that God is capable of communicating directly from humanity and knows how to do it clearly and effectively.
No, it does not mean that, you just assume it means that. Just because God is omnipotent and omniscient that does not mean humans are capable of understanding direct communication from God.
All of them are leading questions with built-in unsupported assumptions, so all of them qualify as trick questions, IMO.
The questions make no assumptions; they are just questions, silly ones as I said. I was in the mood for some more silly questions.

Which ones are trick questions depends upon what I meant by “trick questions.”
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I suppose. Can't comment too much on what Bahai beliefs are, since my only frame of reference is limited to a handful of Christian denominations from a small corner of the U.S., but what I was raised with was that god loved people so much that he sent his son to pay the price for every single human being that lived, lives, and has yet to live. That seems like someone who would carry a calculator, IMO.
Yes, the Christian God probably carries a calculator, but the Baha'i God doesn't. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure a god who doesn't really give that much of a damn for folks really interests me. Then again, an all perfect god who does care but just chooses not to stick around doesn't either.
God does care, and He cares about everyone, whether they are believers or nonbelievers.
What do you mean He did not choose to stick around, when was God here?
I guess I just need more to go on than the words of a "prophet" telling me that he totally has connections to the guy up stairs. Not sure why god would use a method of conveying a message that is also popular with conmen who try to sell bridges to total freedom, as well.
God does not care what conmen do. God just uses the best method available to communicate to humans, and God expects us to figure out which prophets are true and which are false. that is why God endowed us with innate intelligence. As Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Yes, the Christian God probably carries a calculator, but the Baha'i God doesn't. :rolleyes:

Alright.

God does care, and He cares about everyone, whether they are believers or nonbelievers.
What do you mean He did not choose to stick around, when was God here?

Alright. Well, I guess that's kind of the point. Gods seem to have an awfully hands off approach to dealing with mankind, and they are content in letting us murder eachother in their name - to what end? How does this show care? When I care about something, I take an active role to correct things when they don't go the way I want - especially when my name is on the line.

I can't help but to think that if a god does exist, he's probably happy just the way things are now. I guess that's why the concept of an all good god as portrayed in Abrahamic texts or other such religions doesn't make much sense to me. Seems to go against the natural way things work.

God does not care what conmen do. God just uses the best method available to communicate to humans, and God expects us to figure out which prophets are true and which are false. that is why God endowed us with innate intelligence. As Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: FRUIT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

That's not really my point. I guess what I'm wondering is why god would use such an imperfect and sketchy method to promote his message. false prophets and cult leaders abound and have existed since the dawn of man. Why then come along and promote the real message using the same method that these conmen used since long before then? The real message would have to compete with a plethora of other similar messages, and all this would do is muddy and confuse the reception of the true message.

It'd seem comparable to winning the lotto, wanting to share that money with people, then sending out automated emails to random people online offering them $1,000,000 of that lotto money if they just click on a link in the email. There are a plethora of other emails out there trying to scam people using similar methods, too. If I wanted to give that $1,000,000 to people, it seems there would be more effective and beneficial ways for me to do it.

I guess the same goes for scripture as far as accuracy goes. Over time languages change, and people then have to either rely on modern interpretations for ancient contexts, use translations where then words lose their original meanings, or just trust that an "expert" has it right. I guess one could learn the language of the original text used to write the scriptures, but even then one didn't live during those times and only guesses can be made by what they meant based on what we know of the times back then. How can a message be timeless if it's references and contexts apply to a time long since gone? Even updates via new prophets coming along in later times will eventually succumb to the same issues, as well.

These methods don't seem very practical to me.
 
Top