It is pretty hard to think of a more effective way to send a message to humans than to use a human who has both a divine nature and a human nature and thus can understand communication from God and can relay the message to humans in a way that can be understood.
Not for me, and apparently not for others posting here. The difference is our thinking and yours is that yours begins with the assumption that the message from the messenger is authentic. If so, everything else follows. This must have been the most effective way for a tri-omni deity to communicate because that's the way it chose. The empiricist does it differently, beginning with that same evidence, and evaluating it without the prejudice (faith) the believer brings to the process, and sees exactly what one would expect in godless universe with sentient creatures that invent gods and religions and speak for them.
What is God going to write in the sky? "I am God and I exist." What reason would anyone have to believe God wrote that? How would they know that God wrote it rather than a space alien or a government out to deceive people?
Why would people who believe a man is channeling a god believe that something that human beings could not do came from a god? This is another example of how this way of thinking leads your thinking. You say that you can't think of a single better way to deliver a message to man than through a man using methods available to men in words like those that men write, and then just bat off better ideas with, "Why should God do that?" - a question no skeptic would to ask, the answer being obvious to him.
Deliver a verbal message that contains the equivalent of the 15,000 Tablets that Baha'u'llah wrote to the mind of every human being on earth?
Is that beyond this deity? How about just infusing knowledge directly into memory like a cosmic download? Or better yet, have that message installed at the factory (in the womb).
Why should God do that when God can deliver the message to one man who can make that message available to everyone in the world?
To communicate more effectively? These are the kinds of ideas that can't get past a faith-based confirmation bias that assumes that communicating more effectively would not have been impossible, and so rejects the suggestion out of hand. But this is the kind of answer you'll get from people who go from evidence to conclusion (seeing is believing) rather than from assumption to evidence (believing is seeing).
Why do you think you, or anyone else, would be able to recognize a superhuman message that is too excellent to have come from men?
Here are a couple opinions on that:
[1] From R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a such a book of divine origin would be like:
"It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.
It should contain the perfection of philosophy.
It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.
There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.
Its morality should be the highest, the purest.
Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly
adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.
It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.
It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.
It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.
It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.
It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest."
[2] "Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon
God would not choose any of the options you suggested, so that means that if God exists God would not choose them. This is simple logic.
Yes, assuming you change would to didn't, since you've written it as a conditional statement (if). But it doesn't mean that a god like that exists or that the message is authentic. This message and all of the words of prophets in all of the holy books are very human, which as you know is an argument against them originating with a superhuman intelligence that lead skeptics everywhere to reject their claims of divine provenance.
The only evidence we have of God ever communicating to humans is through men that I call Messengers.
It is because of these men that most people in the world believe in God.
That's not evidence for a god existing. That's evidence that people have a proclivity for a god belief. I did too, once, but I don't think I could do that again unless I lost my critical thinking skills, which make returning to that place impossible without much better evidence for gods.
I'd say that Jesus did pretty good, since one third of the world population believes in Jesus.
Jesus didn't do that. Marketing after his death did. I already explained that to you in
post 202:
"Paul and Constantine put Jesus on the map, and the crusaders, missionaries, and conquistadores spread it further at the point of a sword or an inquisition or a witch hanging. They've put a Bible in every hotel room, and they ran ads during the Superbowl. You've got pastors trying to grow their congregations and collection plates promoting the religion from the pulpit. Our resident Protestant Pastor on RF just commented that he led about a half dozen to Jesus last Sunday. And then there's his Sunday school in the basement marketing this religion to children."
I do know because I have sufficient evidence and thus the merry-go-round continues to go round and round.
Your criteria for belief are not those of critical analysis. You've been convinced by messengers with mundane messages. This other way of knowing what's true about the world requires more than that. The world is full of such messages from people claiming to speak for a deity, and they contradict one another.
That you can't see it demonstrates it quite adequately. The "demonstration" that you demand is based on and defined entirely by your own materialist bias. It's no different than a theist that demands that all truth and reality claims must comport with their literal interpretation of their sacred scripture because they deem their sacred scripture to be the definer of all reality and truth. It's circular reasoning in defense of an intractable bias.
So nothing to show then, huh? Just more evasive language with vague warnings. I had written, "The failure is in this post, which is yet another post claiming failure (not just you, most theists) without being able to demonstrate any actual failure." All you needed to do to falsify that was to give a specific, concrete answer that represented a failure of materialism (empiricism) rescued by this other way of knowing you prefer.
If you were a true skeptic, you would be skeptical of such a proclamation.
You don't seem to know what skepticism is. His claim was, "By all accounts [materialism] is the most reliable for we fallible humans to understand what is true versus false." Can you rebut it or only dismiss it without counterargument?
there are a number of effective ways of determining the accuracy of our concepts of reality
Nope. Just one, empiricism, or as you call it, materialism.