Is this logical?

[Trailblazer]

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.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 correct to me.

You would need to establish that God exists in order to use the lack of communication from God as evidence of what God would or wouldn't do.

 

[SigurdReginson]

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.)

Very confusing language with compounding negatives and unnecessary reiterations. Reads like legalese.

I suppose it makes logical sense. What I got from it was "Assuming god exists, it's apperent he doesn't communicate directly with everyone; this fact doesn't mean that he wouldn't communicate directly with everyone." Was that the correct way to unscramble that word salad?

 

[Trailblazer]

Seems correct to me.

You would need to establish that God exists in order to use the lack of communication from God as evidence of what God would or wouldn't do.

You are Johnny-on-the-spot again.

The purpose of this statement is not to use the lack of communication from God as evidence of what God would or wouldn't do.

The purpose is to determine whether this statement is logical.

You say it seems correct. If you think it is logical why do you think it is logical?

 

[Trailblazer]

Very confusing language with compounding negatives and unnecessary reiterations. Reads like legalese.

I suppose it makes logical sense. What I got from it was "Assuming god exists, it's apperent he doesn't communicate directly with everyone; this fact doesn't mean that he wouldn't communicate directly with everyone." Was that the correct way to unscramble that word salad?

Not my word salad but you unscrambled it correctly.

Why do you think it makes logical sense?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are Johnny-on-the-spot again.

Did you mean to call me a toilet?

Porta Potty Rental Company | Johnny on the Spot, LLC

The purpose of this statement is not to use the lack of communication from God as evidence of what God would or wouldn't do.

The purpose is to determine whether this statement is logical.

You say it seems correct. If you think it is logical why do you think it is logical?

I explained that in the last paragraph of my post. I'm not really inclined to put any more effort into another one of your "quote an atheist from some out of forum without context and without him to explain himself" things, which is what I assume this is.

 

[Shad]

Is this logical? Why or why not?

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

This is an assertion. We have zero evidence of God communicating with anyone. We have people claiming God did, nothing more. The rest of the point collapses after this as the premise is unsound.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you mean to call me a toilet?

Porta Potty Rental Company | Johnny on the Spot, LLC

No, that is a figure of speech, Johnny-on-the-spot is a person who is at hand whenever needed.

I explained that in the last paragraph of my post. I'm not really inclined to put any more effort into another one of your "quote an atheist from some out of forum without context and without him to explain himself" things, which is what I assume this is.

Okay. The statement is a stand-alone. It is either logical as it stands or not. I did not explain the context because I did not want to introduce any bias in my direction or his direction. I have my own opinion I did not give because wanted to find out what other people think without my bias.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Not my word salad but you unscrambled it correctly.

Why do you think it makes logical sense?

Well, it depends on which god you use. The reason it makes sense for me initially is because I use the Christian god as the default definition of who god is. With that assumption, this is a god who has created major aspects of nature with nothing but his words. He is omnipotent.

Now that I think about it, I don't think it's logical anymore. It's a statement based on incomplete information. If we were talking about Odin, for instance, he is the exact opposite of Yahweh, and it wouldn't apply to him. The statement needs to define who exactly "god" is first, and what his capabilities are. Can he even communicate with people in that way?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.)

It makes more sense that god (given he is god) communicates with people directly.
One's status, wisdom, followers, and relationship with god doesn't change this.

It may help to know god through other people "and" it's not needed.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is an assertion. We have zero evidence of God communicating with anyone. We have people claiming God did, nothing more. The rest of the point collapses after this as the premise is unsound.

There is no premise that God has communicated with anyone, since this was written by an atheist.
This is hypothetical - if God existed, what would God do or not do.

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.

What that means is that it is known that if God exists God does not communicate directly to everyone, since it has never been observed that God communicates directly to everyone.
Then it states that it does not follow from that failure to observe God communicating directly to everyone that God would not communicate directly to everyone, if God existed.

I asked people if that is logical or illogical and why they think so.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, it depends on which god you use. The reason it makes sense for me initially is because I use the Christian god as the default definition of who god is. With that assumption, this is a god who has created major aspects of nature with nothing but his words. He is omnipotent.

Now that I think about it, I don't think it's logical anymore. It's a statement based on incomplete information. If we were talking about Odin, for instance, he is the exact opposite of Yahweh, and it wouldn't apply to him. The statement needs to define who exactly "god" is first, and what his capabilities are. Can he even communicate with people in that way?

I should have known that people would make more out of this than there was.

I love logic more than I love religion. If a religion is not logical you have take it where the sun don't shine anymore. It drives me insane when people are illogical so then I go looking for logical people to restore my faith in humanity.
Usually if I wait long enough a logical person will happen along, and it is usually an atheist.

Hint: This is a logic problem and you do not have to know if God exists or anything about which God in order to determine if the statement is logical or illogical. You also do not need the context of the conversation.

This is kind of a trick question, I am known for posting these.
I am dying to give the answer but I want to see if anyone gets the answer without me giving it away.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.)

Interesting game but I’d rewrite it to make it clearer.

Statement: Its widely agreed from personal observation that God does not communicate with everyone.

Question: Does this observation alone provide reasonable justification for the denial of God?

Answer: No

Rationale:
If God existed He might communicate with some people and not others. That would allow for the existence of God and account for the observation that some claim communication with God whereas others do not.

That appears logical to me.

However it may appear profoundly illogical to another. Logic can be very subjective.

 

[Shad]

There is no premise that God has communicated with anyone, since this was written by an atheist.
This is hypothetical - if God existed, what would God do or not do.

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.

What that means is that it is known that if God exists God does not communicate directly to everyone, since it has never been observed that God communicates directly to everyone.
Then it states that it does not follow from that failure to observe God communicating directly to everyone that God would not communicate directly to everyone, if God existed.

I asked people if that is logical or illogical and why they think so.

Doesn't matter. The point is not sound nor logic. It is an axiom pretending to be a logic based argument. Even internally it isn't logical it is just an assertion within an axiom. An axiom is not a logical argument in itself.

"if God exists God does not communicate directly to everyone,"

This is an assertion thus a conclusion not a premise.

"since it has never been observed that God communicates directly to everyone."

Ibn and should be at least before the above using sloppy logic

"it does not follow from that failure to observe God communicating directly to everyone that God would not communicate directly to everyone, if God existed."

This is the only thing that is close to logic. However by use of "would" it shift the point to a time reference thus everything before the quote above is moot. It is also in the wrong order completely too. Adrian's post is closer to a real argument. However as he uses an agreement based premise it is unsound

 

[sun rise]

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.)

If someone holds an umbrella up on a sunny day, can we say that the sun is not shining because the person does not experience the sunshine?

When someone is totally focused on their mental chatter that they even don't hear someone talking to them, can we say that the speaker does not exist?

 

[Trailblazer]

Interesting game but I’d rewrite it to make it clearer.

Statement: Its widely agreed from personal observation that God does not communicate with everyone.

Question: Does this observation alone provide reasonable justification for the denial of God?

Answer: No

Rationale:
If God existed He might communicate with some people and not others. That would allow for the existence of God and account for the observation that some claim communication with God whereas others do not.

That appears logical to me.

However it may appear profoundly illogical to another. Logic can be very subjective.

With all due respect, rewriting it completely changes the meaning. Justification of God’s existence is not what this thread is about.

To understand what the purpose of this thread is, please read what I said to @ SigurdReginson in #12.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is my concerted opinion that logic is not subjective. Something is either logical or not. If it is logical and does not seem logical to someone that is because they lack logical abilities.

I consider your Rationale logical. If God is omnipotent God can choose who to communicate to, so if an omnipotent God existed He might communicate with some people and not others. That would allow for the existence of God and account for the observation that some claim communication with God whereas others do not. Whether anyone can actually prove those who made such claims really received communication from God is another discussion.

 

[Trailblazer]

"it does not follow from that failure to observe God communicating directly to everyone that God would not communicate directly to everyone, if God existed."

This is the only thing that is close to logic. However by use of "would" it shift the point to a time reference thus everything before the quote above is moot. It is also in the wrong order completely too. Adrian's post is closer to a real argument

I asked if the statement in the OP was logical or illogical as it stands. I did not say it was a logical argument containing a premise and a conclusion. It isn’t.

So, do you think that statement below is logical? If so why?

"it does not follow from that failure to observe God communicating directly to everyone that God would not communicate directly to everyone, if God existed."

 

[Trailblazer]

If someone holds an umbrella up on a sunny day, can we say that the sun is not shining because the person does not experience the sunshine?

When someone is totally focused on their mental chatter that they even don't hear someone talking to them, can we say that the speaker does not exist?

No and no, but that is not what this thread is asking about.

 

[Shad]

I asked if the statement in the OP was logical or illogical as it stands.

It is illogical as per my post like I said. If you remove the part I objected to you will see I agree with the logic of it.

[I did not say it was a logical argument containing a premise and a conclusion. It isn’t.

That how logic actually works. There must be premises and conclusions regardless of informal or formal presentation. There are both. I am pointing out one premise is an assertion. You reformatted the argument thus either conceded the point or wanted to create your own version.

So, do you think that statement below is logical? If so why?

"it does not follow from that failure to observe God communicating directly to everyone that God would not communicate directly to everyone, "#1 if God existed."

This a counter argument to a fault in the logic. It is a point of logic. It is a rebuttal to argument claiming lack of communication to everyone means God does not exist. However this is now your argument not the one I addressed previously nor even the one before that. Keep in mind every time you reformat an argument I am addressing the new argument which is of your own creation. After all you are not the person that made the argument in the OP thus you have no authority to represent them here so can not modify what they said.

 

[Trailblazer]

That how logic actually works. There must be premises and conclusions regardless of informal or formal presentation.

That is true for formal logic, but a statement can be logical or illogical without a premise or a conclusion.
Logical describes something that comes from clear reasoning. A person who is logical is capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion.

This a counter argument to a fault in the logic of an argument against the existence of God. It is a logical refutable. It is not an argument for nor against the existence of God.

It was never intended to be an argument for nor against the existence of God.
I do not know why people are reading into the OP, adding their own thoughts that are unrelated to the OP.
It says what it says. It needs to be read and understood for exactly what it says; nothing more nothing less.

I will wait.