Atheists: What would you consider credible communication from God?

[Trailblazer]

In theory, because he created each and everyone of us. We are told that he loves each of us (well, most of us). How would a parent not want to talk to his children? Would an artist refuse to look up and admire their own creations? Would a judge refuse to hear a defendant before passing sentence?

The analogy does not work because God is not a human being. God cannot speak to ordinary people such that they would understand that communication. There is too great of a gap between God and humans. That is why God appoints Messengers for the job. They are not like us, they are both human and divine, so they can bridge the gap and act as mediators between God and man.

God does talk to His children, all of them, through His Messengers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Give me one good reason why God should communicate directly to everyone.

I'd rather you gave me one good reason why, if God can and does communicate unambiguously to anyone or some few, and is also capable of communicating unambiguously to everyone, that He would not do so, knowing -- as He must -- that communication to one or a few will inevitably, due to human fallibility, be adulterated in transmission to others.

In other words, give me a single, plausible reason why such a God would communicate with one or a few, and NOT with all. I certainly can't think of one.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have to wonder how come he concluded that a God that he does not believe in would have such a need. Maybe he was picturing the mainstream variety of Abraham's God?

No, it is a god made in his own image, kind of mixed up with the God of Christianity.

Anyway, from what I see of the world, I must assume that if there is a God it does not particularly want to be believed in, certainly not by everyone. One reason might be recognition that such a belief is not always healthy, even.

I can agree with that.

 

[Jollybear]

Those are about the best explanations I have heard as to why God does not communicate directly to everyone.

Well im glad you liked it.

I liked sharing it.

I would like to share this with my atheist friend but I doubt it would make any difference.

I doubt it will make any difference either, lol. But, if you share it and he changes his mind, PLEASE let me know because that will shock me. 5 year debate? Ive done a 2 year one before with an atheist. Hes still an atheist too

I already know what he would say about the hallucination and resisting God... He would say that God is Omnipotent so God could make sure we all know it is really Him and God could make us believe in Him...

Right....id revert back to saying if God made us sure it was him and made us believe, this again takes away our free will, plus it depreciates the intellectual process.

This atheist does not believe that we have free will which is why he does not think humans bear any responsibility for believing in God or causing suffering... It is all on God, God should make us believe and God should end all suffering, just because God is Omnipotent.

Heres a hypothetical story i heard once.

Man dies and appears before God. He asks God "why didnt you help all those sick people? Why didnt you stop suffering? Why didnt you end hunger? Why didnt you end war? Why didnt you clear up confusion?"

God responds "why didnt you help all those sick people? Why didnt you stop suffering? Why didnt you end hunger? Why didnt you end war? Why didnt you clear up confusion?"

Also if free will dont exist, then why does it appear that it does? Lol

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Recently a atheist told me the same thing, that if God existed, he would communicate to everyone and that communication could not be misunderstood.

I told him even if God did communicate to all, someone would likely say its a mass halucination. And others would still resist that God. So, it still would not solve the problem.

So you do not think that God has the ability to communicate unambiguously and absolutely believably? (I do believe that was the point that @Revoltingest was trying to make.)

I can tell you this: when I decide to communicate to my life partner, he knows with absolute certainty that it is me communicating, and he has no doubt about my message about the socks that aren't put in the laundry hamper that I have to go searching for. There is no ambiguity about the message or the giver of the message. If I can manage that spectacular feat, I can't see any reason an omnipotent deity couldn't manage it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is a carryover from a dialogue that has been ongoing between me and an Atheist on another forum for about five years... Yes, five years and we are still going around in the same circles. I posted something about this about six months ago but I am back with a slightly different slant.

Synopsis: The issue at hand is that this Atheist thinks that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world (all 7.4 billion people) because that is “what he considers” the only credible method of communication. In his opinion, if God does not communicate directly to everyone, that is evidence that God does not exist. One of his premises is that a God would want everyone to believe in Him, and direct communication to everyone would be “the only way” to accomplish that.

My position is that God wants everyone to believe in Him but God does not need everyone to believe in Him because an omnipotent/omniscient/fully self-sufficient God does not need anything from anyone. If an omnipotent God needed everyone to believe in Him, He could have communicated directly to everyone. So, since God does not do that, there are only three logical possibilities to choose from:

1. God uses Messengers, knowing that not everyone will believe in them.
2. God does not communicate at all.
3. God does not exist.

There is no option #4, that if God exists, God would communicate directly with everyone, because God has not communicated directly with everyone.

In other words, since there is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone we can assume that is not what God wants to do, if God exists.

Credibility is not the issue here, this issue is the best way to communicate to accomplish what God is trying to accomplish.

Who would know the best way to communicate to humans in order to accomplish what God wants to accomplish, humans or God?

First off you would have to determine what it is that this hypothetical God to accomplish before you could claim to know the best way to communicate it.

That said, IF God has a desire to pass along an intelligible message I know what method He should NOT use. That would be to inform ancient sheepherders of His message that would eventually be written down in languages that would eventually die out and then expect people 2000+ years later to be able to figure out what the massage is.

 

[Trailblazer]

The title of the thread is not consistent with the OP.

As far as the title goes, I'd say that predictability and repeatability. In other words, if god said: "i'll be broadcasting every tuesday at 5pm ET", and then god did that, that would have some cred.

No, it is not consistent. I struggled with a title and finally settled upon one, and then I explained why I wanted an answer to that question.

But how would God do the broadcasting, over the radio?

 

[David T]

"what he considers” the only credible method of communication. In his opinion, if God does not communicate directly to everyone, that is evidence that God does not exist. One of his premises is that a God would want everyone to believe in Him, and direct communication to everyone would be “the only way” to accomplish that.

What a wierd and normal notion this indivudual has about the topic God where could he have gotten such a strange idea?




"My position is that God wants everyone to Believe in Him but God does not need everyone to believe in Him"

What a wierd and normal notion this indivudual has about the topic God where could he have gotten such a strange idea? (See first individual infinitely repeat)

There you go. I cant help you at all. i have no idea what believe in, or not believe in god even means. Seems like some secret inside stuff normal folks understand amongst themselves.....

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it is not consistent. I struggled with a title and finally settled upon one, and then I explained why I wanted an answer to that question.

But how would God do the broadcasting, over the radio?

FM rather than AM.

 

[Trailblazer]

The title of the thread is not consistent with the OP.

As far as the title goes, I'd say that predictability and repeatability. In other words, if god said: "i'll be broadcasting every tuesday at 5pm ET", and then god did that, that would have some cred.

I'd rather you gave me one good reason why, if God can and does communicate unambiguously to anyone or some few, and is also capable of communicating unambiguously to everyone, that He would not do so, knowing -- as He must -- that communication to one or a few will inevitably, due to human fallibility, be adulterated in transmission to others.

In other words, give me a single, plausible reason why such a God would communicate with one or a few, and NOT with all. I certainly can't think of one.

I will give you one although there is more than one. One reason is that ordinary humans could not understand communication from God. The Messengers of God who God chooses to communicate with can understand God. That is why they were chosen.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I would consider any communication in which a deity claimed that belief was important to them to be an hallucination. I cannot imagine a true deity caring at all about whether or nor anyone believes in him or her -- or it.

Its not a matter of telling the truth, it's about believing in life.

 

[Jollybear]

So you do not think that God has the ability to communicate unambiguously and absolutely believably? (I do believe that was the point that @Revoltingest was trying to make.)

Oh, i DO believe God HAS the ability to communicate unambiguously and absolutely believably, yes. But, i also believe he chooses NOT to do it that way.

Heres why. Im gonna paste what i posted on the first page.

even if God did communicate to all, someone would likely say its a mass halucination. And others would still resist that God. So, it still would not solve the problem.

Also i said, the reason God does not comnunicate to everyone (directly) is due to some peoples pride. God loves humility. So, he chooses who he directly talks too.

Also, sometimes its not pride, sometimes its the desensitization to the spirit world (where God dwells). This dont mean God cannot overide that gap, but he has designed this gap so we can respect and apreciate the power of this reality.

Also, theres another. God has instituted the chain of authority. God communicates to angels. Angels communicate to the rulers of earth. The rulers of earth communicate to there societies.

Also, God gives freedom, with freedom comes the choice to either want or not want God to communicate. Theres also the choice to think with ones own mind, hence misunderstand the communication. If God made everyone understand it correctly, hed be indirectly making us all robots with no freedom to think and ponder. That also on top of it, depreciates the process of thought and mental work of intellectualism.

I can tell you this: when I decide to communicate to my life partner, he knows with absolute certainty that it is me communicating, and he has no doubt about my message about the socks that aren't put in the laundry hamper that I have to go searching for. There is no ambiguity about the message or the giver of the message. If I can manage that spectacular feat, I can't see any reason an omnipotent deity couldn't manage it.

He can. And he sometimes does. Its a case by case basis. But when he does, sometimes people reject the message.

 

[Shad]

This is a carryover from a dialogue that has been ongoing between me and an Atheist on another forum for about five years... Yes, five years and we are still going around in the same circles. I posted something about this about six months ago but I am back with a slightly different slant.

Synopsis: The issue at hand is that this Atheist thinks that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world (all 7.4 billion people) because that is “what he considers” the only credible method of communication. In his opinion, if God does not communicate directly to everyone, that is evidence that God does not exist. One of his premises is that a God would want everyone to believe in Him, and direct communication to everyone would be “the only way” to accomplish that.

His argument is invalid as lack of communication does not equate lack of existence. At best the lack of communication weakens argument for messengers be authentic.

My position is that God wants everyone to believe in Him but God does not need everyone to believe in Him because an omnipotent/omniscient/fully self-sufficient God does not need anything from anyone. If an omnipotent God needed everyone to believe in Him, He could have communicated directly to everyone. So, since God does not do that, there are only three logical possibilities to choose from:

1. God uses Messengers, knowing that not everyone will believe in them.
2. God does not communicate at all.
3. God does not exist.

4. All claimed messengers are frauds
5. Records of messengers were lost and/or change thus not authentic. (Your own faith believes, in part, this is not only possible but true.)

Credibility is not the issue here, this issue is the best way to communicate to accomplish what God is trying to accomplish.

Who would know the best way to communicate to humans in order to accomplish what God wants to accomplish, humans or God?

Irrelevant point. The question is about effectiveness. Single "dose" messengers are not effective given your own religion is not even close to be a major one. Results matter.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you do not think that God has the ability to communicate unambiguously and absolutely believably?

God has the ability but God does not want to do that, and since God is Omnipotent, God only does what God wants to do. .

 

[Trailblazer]

First off you would have to determine what it is that this hypothetical God to accomplish before you could claim to know the best way to communicate it.

Only God would know what He is trying to accomplish so only God would know the best way to accomplish it.

That said, IF God has a desire to pass along an intelligible message I know what method He should NOT use. That would be to inform ancient sheepherders of His message that would eventually be written down in languages that would eventually die out and then expect people 2000+ years later to be able to figure out what the massage is.

That worked okay for a while but God's method has been upgraded for the new age.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I will give you one although there is more than one. One reason is that ordinary humans could not understand communication from God. The Messengers of God who God chooses to communicate with can understand God. That is why they were chosen.

Sorry, but there's no reason at all to believe such a thing. You cannot possibly demonstrate that any of those who claim to have had "real communications" from God are anything other than ordinary human beings, and there have been literally thousands of them. This is something, by the way, that a God ought to know, since it is something that I -- and exceedingly ordinary human being -- know.

I get so tired of the continual attempt by believers in God to find excuses for why God can't do pretty much anything that's actually "god-like." The "god" that needs such excuses doesn't seem very "god-like" to me...

 

[icehorse]

No, it is not consistent. I struggled with a title and finally settled upon one, and then I explained why I wanted an answer to that question.

But how would God do the broadcasting, over the radio?

Well, what definition of god are you using. Is your take on god that god is all powerful, and can do anything?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh, i DO believe God HAS the ability to communicate unambiguously and absolutely believably, yes. But, i also believe he chooses NOT to do it that way.

Heres why. Im gonna paste what i posted on the first page.

even if God did communicate to all, someone would likely say its a mass halucination. And others would still resist that God. So, it still would not solve the problem.

Also i said, the reason God does not comnunicate to everyone (directly) is due to some peoples pride. God loves humility. So, he chooses who he directly talks too.

Also, sometimes its not pride, sometimes its the desensitization to the spirit world (where God dwells). This dont mean God cannot overide that gap, but he has designed this gap so we can respect and apreciate the power of this reality.

Also, theres another. God has instituted the chain of authority. God communicates to angels. Angels communicate to the rulers of earth. The rulers of earth communicate to there societies.

Also, God gives freedom, with freedom comes the choice to either want or not want God to communicate. Theres also the choice to think with ones own mind, hence misunderstand the communication. If God made everyone understand it correctly, hed be indirectly making us all robots with no freedom to think and ponder. That also on top of it, depreciates the process of thought and mental work of intellectualism.



He can. And he sometimes does. Its a case by case basis. But when he does, sometimes people reject the message.

Well, you do seem to know an awful lot about God! I find that, given His chosen inscrutability, to be quite surprising. How is it, do you think, that you became privy to so much intimate knowledge about God? Are you one of those few special humans He likes to have chats with?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God has the ability but God does not want to do that, and since God is Omnipotent, God only does what God wants to do. .

And I think we can all infer from that, since you claim to know what God wants to do, that you are omniscient. Congratulations...I suppose....

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

FM rather than AM.

all channels at all the same time...no matter where you tune, you're hearing the message...