Is this logical?

[Heyo]

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.

I have come to the conclusion that whether or not people think the paragraph above is logical or illogical depends upon how they interpret it. I have the advantage of knowing the context in which it was written, so I know what the writer meant.

The question was kind of a trick question, but @ danieldemol got the answer I was looking for in post #37
(When you read that try to think only of what happens before death, not what happens after death. All we can observe is in this life, not the afterlife. Nobody really knows what happens in the afterlife.)

You are right that it only really gets interesting when one look at the details of the claim it self.

Now that Daniel got the answer, I will explain the claim. The claim is that nobody has ever observed God communicating directly to everyone, thus it is known that God has never communicated directly to everyone. He then goes on to say that just because it is known that God has never communicated directly to everyone, that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

Do you consider this logical or illogical?

That is a slightly different statement than the original. Without assuming logic, coherence or consistency in gods (if it exists) behaviour we can't predict futur behaviour from the past.
That is a rational statement.

 

[Trailblazer]

What seems to be said here is: Assuming that God exists, just because we have observed that God does not communicate to everyone does not mean it will remain this way. With an "escape" clause admitting that "God may not exist" via use of the word "if."

Thank you! You totally understood what the OP is trying to say. For those who did not understand what it means, I have translated it now a few times, and here is the latest translation:

There is no evidence that God has ever communicated directly to everyone, thus it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone; but just because it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

So the next question is why God would suddenly change His Method of communication and communicate directly to everyone? Would it make sense that God would suddenly do that when we well know that God has NEVER done that?

This seems logically intact, even if one has not demonstrated that "God exists."

I guess you are right that it is logically intact.. Just because God has never done something that does not mean God could not/would not do it in the future...

However, it makes no sense that God is going to do something God has never done before, because God is known for being consistent.

But the statement itself is not really useful for anything that I can surmise. Which "side" of an argument was this presented in support of? Theism? Atheism? Other?

Oddly enough, this was presented in support of atheism. The writer thinks that there is no reason for anyone to believe that God exists unless God proves that He exists, and the writer of the OP thinks the best way for God to do that is to communicate directly to everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just read my post regarding the OP then.

I would read it if I could find it. As you can see, I am buried in posts.
I might try to go back and look for it later today, if I ever get caught up.

It wasn't really a mistake as it is required for the evaluation. We just got side tracked

That is true. It was required for evaluation because nobody seemed to understand what the OP was saying or what I was asking them to evaluate. However, A Vestigial Mote hit the nail on the head in this post: #52

That was what I was hoping for because I wanted to discuss the implications of the OP statement.

 

[Trailblazer]

What evidence of God and of the claim that he is communicating anything to anybody?

The writer of the OP was not claiming that.
He is an atheist who does not believe that God exists or communicates.

 

[halbhh]

we well know that God has NEVER done that?

We should really take a close look at the assumptions.

Often it's where the breakthrough is available, in returning to look at the assumptions.

Maybe....God likes the introspective (those that notice subtler things) .... or the humble (unassuming).

Well, ok, I'm cheating just a little on this last guess, since it turns out with search engines you can learn it's a repeated message that God strongly prefers (gives Grace to no less!) the humble --



6 For though the LORD is high, he regards the lowly,
but the haughty he knows from afar.

34 Toward the scorners he is scornful,
but to the humble he gives favor.

23 One's pride will bring him low,
but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor.

12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;

6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

...
"Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

Interesting yes?

So, who will God communicate with then? It seems we have some information here.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think God communicates with everyone, subtly, through signs,through the majesty of creation, through judgment, and many other things I'm sure.

I agree that God communicates through signs, but not in words.
But not everyone can HEAR that communication. So what good is it to an atheist?

 

[Trailblazer]

If God existed and if this particular God was omnipotent, He would do whatever he chooses.

So, if God does not choose to communicate directly to everyone, He won't.

 

[ChristineM]

This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.
It is a hypothetical -- if God exists.

I can understand why it would confuse the reader if they did not know the writer, because it starts out sounding like the writer believes that God exists. However, the writer is an atheist, so he does not believe that God exists.

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.

The claim is that nobody has ever observed any God communicating directly to everyone, thus it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone. He then goes on to say that just because it is known that God (if God exists) has never communicated directly to everyone that does not mean that if God existed God would not communicate directly to everyone.

Do you consider this logical or illogical?
What I am asking is if this makes logical sense to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is an interesting proposition though. If I substitute a known entity such as yourself, then it becomes a different ball game. It then depends upon who that entity is and what their track record is.

No, that entity physically exists, it is logical to attribute a physical characteristic (speech) with a physical being. I dont see it as logical to attribute a physical characteristic with a belief

 

[Trailblazer]

We find in Genesis that at first God did communicate directly with Adam.
After Adam broke God's Law, then we can observe No direct communication with God.
The ' sin issue ' is what is the barrier to direct communication.
Once the 'sin issue' is resolved (by the end of Jesus 1,000-year reign over Earth), then once again faithful people (starting as far back as Abel ) will then have a one-on-one direct communication with God.

I agree that God communicated directly with Adam, but I do not think that God will ever communicate directly with everyone. I believe that Adam was a Manifestation of God (Messenger of God) so that is why God communicated directly with Him. For the same reason God communicated directly to Moses and Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

Seems to (accidentally?) suggest, I think likely correct, that generally God (would) (does!) give everyone a chance.

I think that is true but it is complicated why some people see and hear and others do not. Only God knows.

 

[Trailblazer]

Read my post again. I didn't say that the conclusion was logically correct. I said that this statement is logically correct:

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.

Okay, you are right, it is logically correct. God could do something completely different than He has done throughout history and communicate directly to everyone....
I would not hold my breath though, as God is known for consistency.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think God is foolish enough to send me a message through some other human. That would almost certainly go wrong in so many ways.

I fully agree. I do not think God communicates to humans through humans, I believe that God communicates to humans through Manifestations of God (Messengers) who are divine and human.

I think humans presume themselves to be messengers when they think they've received some divine wisdom because their ego loves that idea. But I really don't think that's how 'it' works. I think the message is all around us, all the time. And we either choose to recognize it, or we choose to ignore it.

That would imply that those who do not see a message from God all around us are making a conscious choice to ignore it. I do not buy that because human beings are more complex than that would imply.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why did you omit that from your post #1? Didn't it occur to you that that fact would have made a huge difference?

I did not omit it because I did not write it. It was written by an atheist who apparently is confused as to whether God exists or not. I suppose that is why it reads the way it does.

But I do not see what difference it would have made if it was written with the assumption that God exists or the assumption that God does not exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

As with unicorns, wood sprites, and and pixies ...

You do not believe in God?

 

[Trailblazer]

In our question in the OP, we cannot just assume the assumption used as true. i.e.-- we cannot assume God hasn't communicated to all people, necessarily. It's instead a great question to consider.

That would depend upon what you mean by communication.
Yes, a great question to consider.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is a slightly different statement than the original. Without assuming logic, coherence or consistency in gods (if it exists) behaviour we can't predict future behaviour from the past.
That is a rational statement.

It is rational only if you do not consider any other factors.

 

[Trailblazer]

We should really take a close look at the assumptions.

Often it's where the breakthrough is available, in returning to look at the assumptions.

Maybe....God likes the introspective (those that notice subtler things) .... or the humble (unassuming).

So, who will God communicate with then? It seems we have some information here.

Again, it all depends upon what you mean by communicate.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, that entity physically exists, it is logical to attribute a physical characteristic (speech) with a physical being. I dont see it as logical to attribute a physical characteristic with a belief

You are in the right ball park, but I would restate it as follows:

No, that entity physically exists, it is logical to attribute a physical characteristic (speech) with a physical being. I dont see it as logical to attribute a physical characteristic with a God.

 

[ChristineM]

You are in the right ball park, but I would restate it as follows:

No, that entity physically exists, it is logical to attribute a physical characteristic (speech) with a physical being. I dont see it as logical to attribute a physical characteristic with a God.

I see gods as a belief. No verified or falsifiable evidence has ever been put forward. Therefore no one can know if gods exist making them a belief

 

[Trailblazer]

I see gods as a belief. No verified or falsifiable evidence has ever been put forward. Therefore no one can know if gods exist making them a belief

Oh, okay. Now that makes sense.