Would/Should God communicate directly to everyone in the world?

[osgart]

Omnipotent God would make a morally lawful nature. Especially for the purpose of redemption for God's creatures. That kind of nature would be sufficient presence for me. However nature is far from moral.

Assuming there is a God, nature reveals a vicious character to it. Therefore, no God to speak of.

So I gave up on that notion.

 

[SomeRandom]

I don’t even like communicating with people most of the time. Why would a God?

Besides what is faith with solid material evidence?
That takes out all the philosophy and the test as it were. Let science deal with what we can perceive.

 

[Salvador]

If God exists and God is omnipotent, hypothetically speaking God could communicate directly to everyone rather than communicating through Messengers/Prophets. By everyone I mean every one of the 7.53 billion people in the world.

1. Do you think God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that God would do this, please explain why you think so.
• If you think that God would not do this, please explain why you think so.

2. Do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that is a reasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.
• If you think it is an unreasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.

3. Do you think that *rational people* would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think rational people would expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.
• If you think rational people would not expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.

Oh no, please don't get me started about how our genetic code's Creator has embedded a message into our genetic code; this message being 37, which happens to be the smallest prime that is not also a super singular prime, this also happens to be a centered hexagonal number and a star number.

 

[Phaedrus]

Oh no, please don't get me started about how our genetic code's Creator has embedded a message into our genetic code; this message being 37, which happens to be the smallest prime that is not also a super singular prime, this also happens to be a centered hexagonal number and a star number.

When theists want to believe despite the lack of evidence, they tend to create the evidence from observing the mundane aspects of life as though god is some sort of trickster deity who has hidden proof of his existence as a sort of twisted game.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If God exists and God is omnipotent, hypothetically speaking God could communicate directly to everyone rather than communicating through Messengers/Prophets. By everyone I mean every one of the 7.53 billion people in the world.

1. Do you think God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that God would do this, please explain why you think so.
• If you think that God would not do this, please explain why you think so.

I think its possible for God to communicate with everyone if He wanted. However for reasons of wisdom God chooses not to. Other than inspiration that is accessible to us all, I don't believe God communicates directly with everyone. Instead He sends His Messengers who leave a record of what He communicates. I believe this because when I examine the Gospels, Quran or Writings from my own Faith, I see a Message that is sufficient for my guidance and education. It seems egocentric and vain to imagine God would communicate with me in the same manner He has with Krishna, Buddha, Jesus or Muhammad.

2. Do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that is a reasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.
• If you think it is an unreasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.

Another problem with God communicating directly with each one of us, would be undermining our essential purpose. In having God communicate with Messengers, we have free will in regards the extent we heed that Message and apply it to our lives.

3. Do you think that *rational people* would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think rational people would expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.
• If you think rational people would not expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.

I don't see it as being rational to expect God to communicate with each of us personally in the same manner as the Messengers as discussed. I see it as being naïve and contrary to the way the world works. However I believe through His Messengers we can each attain a personal relationship with God, albeit not to the same extent as with the Messengers of God.

 

[Salvador]

When theists want to believe despite the lack of evidence, they tend to create the evidence from observing the mundane aspects of life as though god is some sort of trickster deity who has hidden proof of his existence as a sort of twisted game.

"There is evidence for a mark of extraterrestrial intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 37 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 37 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth." --- Salvador ( December, 2018 )

"It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales. Thus, it represents a reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong signal in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes. The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible way of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to store non-biological information."

The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code
Vladimir I. shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov
(Submitted on 27 Mar 2013 (v1), last revised 12 Jun 2017 (this version, v4))

Journal reference: Icarus, 2013, 224(1), 228-242
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.017
Cite as: arXiv:1303.6739

 

[LuisDantas]

1. Do you think God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that God would do this, please explain why you think so.
• If you think that God would not do this, please explain why you think so.

Probably. Whether that would be discernible by humans or instead mesh seamlessly with natural phenomena is a coin toss.

Why? Because your god-conception, being Abrahamic in style, implies supreme wisdom and supreme compassion. Entities with such attributes would necessarily have both the means and the clear duty to reach everyone in some way or another.

And no, I do not think that traditional Abrahamic revelations, prophets and scriptures count as ways of reaching everyone. Much too indirect and arcane to be considered.

2. Do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think that is a reasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.
• If you think it is an unreasonable expectation, please explain why you think so.

Definitely. If he is supposed to be a God Creator of Existence, as well as one capable of relating to words in some way, it is entirely absurd to expect him not to.

But, again, it is dubious (and probably all-out unlikely) that it would be recognizable as a deity-entity while it did communicate. It would instead be some form of artistic inspiration, perhaps of a particularly predictable or dramatic nature. Or even a clearly miraculous nature, who knows?

3. Do you think that *rational people* would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?

• If you think rational people would expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.
• If you think rational people would not expect God to do that, please explain why you think so.

I don't think that rational people would expect any deity to "exist" as such. But if they did, then sure, they would probably take it as a given that it would be an "equal opportunity communicator" God.

 

[Trailblazer]

If I have a message for a certain person or group of people, I'll generally give it directly to them. The only time I'd tell someone to pass along a message from me to someone else is if I'm incapable of doing it myself for some reason.

I did not ask how you would deliver your message to people. I asked who you would communicate to, everyone in the world, or just certain people?

What is this hypothetical God incapable of?

Why would you think God is incapable, just because He does not communicate directly to every one of 7.53 billion people in the world? What if they do not want to hear from God directly, should God speak to them anyway? Do you assume that every single human being on earth wants to hear from God? I know I would never want God speaking to me directly.

Give me one good reason why God should communicate directly to every single human being on earth. Just 'because God is omnipotent so God can do anything' is not a good reason. God could also wipe out every human being on earth this very second... Should God do this just because He can?

You're made in the image of God? Interesting. Tell me: in which ways are you like an all-wise, all-powerful space alien, born in darkness and solitude, as ancient as the universe?

I never said I was like God in my nature. Being made in the image of God means I have the potential to reflect God's attributes such as Goodness, Loving, Gracious, Merciful, Just, Righteous, Forgiving, and Patient, so I have the potential to be like God in the way I behave towards others. That does not mean I will live up to my potential, only that I have the capacity.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't believe God communicates directly with everyone. Instead He sends His Messengers who leave a record of what He communicates. I believe this because when I examine the Gospels, Quran or Writings from my own Faith, I see a Message that is sufficient for my guidance and education. It seems egocentric and vain to imagine God would communicate with me in the same manner He has with Krishna, Buddha, Jesus or Muhammad.

Yes, it seems egocentric and vain to think that God owes us all a personal message as if God was a short order cook at Burger King.

Another problem with God communicating directly with each one of us, would be undermining our essential purpose. In having God communicate with Messengers, we have free will in regards the extent we heed that Message and apply it to our lives.

That is another good reason not to communicate directly to everyone. By communicating to only the Messengers that gives humans a choice as to whether they want to search for, look at and follow the Messenger or not.

I don't see it as being rational to expect God to communicate with each of us personally in the same manner as the Messengers as discussed. I see it as being naïve and contrary to the way the world works.

No, you did not get a medical degree just because you wanted one. You had to work hard for it. Why should knowledge of God be any different?

However I believe through His Messengers we can each attain a personal relationship with God, albeit not to the same extent as with the Messengers of God.

And why should we ALL have the same kind of relationship with God? God chose those Messengers to get His Messages because they had special qualities. We should be grateful to have access to what they revealed instead of complaining that we did not get our own Message.

 

[Phaedrus]

And why should we ALL have the same kind of relationship with God? God chose those Messengers to get His Messages because they had special qualities. We should be grateful to have access to what they revealed instead of complaining that we did not get our own Message.

Except that there is zero evidence that the message is from a deity at all. The message could very well simply be a mental symptom of the individual's over active imagination. There is no logic in believing the message based on a fallible conception of divine authority.

 

[Trailblazer]

Probably. Whether that would be discernible by humans or instead mesh seamlessly with natural phenomena is a coin toss.

Direct communication from God would not be discernible so it would be a waste of God's time.

Why? Because your god-conception, being Abrahamic in style, implies supreme wisdom and supreme compassion. Entities with such attributes would necessarily have both the means and the clear duty to reach everyone in some way or another.

What if everyone did not want to be reached by God directly, shouldn't they have a choice? Besides, why is it God's duty to ensure everyone is reached? If God puts a message out there through a Messenger that everyone can read, why isn't that good enough?

And no, I do not think that traditional Abrahamic revelations, prophets and scriptures count as ways of reaching everyone. Much too indirect and arcane to be considered.

But why does everyone need to be reached? Some people will get the message and others won't. That is the way the world works. Everything is not equally distributed because all people have different advantages and capacities. It does not always seem fair but there really is no way around it. Everyone cannot be the same.

Definitely. If he is supposed to be a God Creator of Existence, as well as one capable of relating to words in some way, it is entirely absurd to expect him not to.

I think it is entirely absurd to have any expectations of a God who is so much greater than we are. How can we know more or be wiser than an All-Knowing and All-Wise God? Since we cannot, who are we to question how God communicates, to expect something different?

God is also capable of wiping out the entire human race at the drop of a hat. Should God do that just because he is capable?

But, again, it is dubious (and probably all-out unlikely) that it would be recognizable as a deity-entity while it did communicate.

That is absolutely true, so why would God communicate if we could not even recognize the communication?

It would instead be some form of artistic inspiration, perhaps of a particularly predictable or dramatic nature. Or even a clearly miraculous nature, who knows?

I think that can happen, but not everyone sees it when it does.

I don't think that rational people would expect any deity to "exist" as such. But if they did, then sure, they would probably take it as a given that it would be an "equal opportunity communicator" God.

I consider that irrational to expect that since all people are not equally worthy to receive communication, and that is really the crux of the issue. We all have an equal opportunity to get the message God puts out but we have to get it through a Messenger because we have to work to determine who that Messenger is and get the message, just like we have to work for everything we get in life. There are no free rides.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except that there is zero evidence that the message is from a deity at all. The message could very well simply be a mental symptom of the individual's over active imagination. There is no logic in believing the message based on a fallible conception of divine authority.

You are right, we cannot prove that those messages came from God, but if we got our own message we would not know it came from God either. It could just be a mental symptom of our overactive imagination. How would we know?

This idea that we would know it was from God because it came to us directly is just so illogical and childish. It is also the most arrogant thing in the entire world, to think that God owes it to them to send them their our own personal message just because they want one.

 

[HonestJoe]

1. Do you think God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone?

That would depend entirely on the true nature and purpose of that god. I’d suggest our scope and scale of imagination in this area is woefully limited in our ability to consider all of the infinite possibilities.

2. Do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone?

If the context of the gods people have imagined, who are really just extremely powerful people, I expect some form of information transfer, thought it wouldn’t necessarily need to be direct communication. I think that if such a being wanted us (individually or as a group) to know something, we would know it. They could just make it so. If anything, the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient being lowering themselves to vibrating atoms against our ears or bouncing different wavelengths off our eyes is ridiculous.

3. Do you think that *rational people* would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?

The moment we identify an actual rational person we’ll let you know.

 

[wizanda]

Do you think God (if God exists) would communicate directly to everyone?

In the time to come everyone shall know God (Jeremiah 31:34), and hear God (Isaiah 30:21); in this current age, it is a test to see who is ungodly, and follows man more.

Do you think it is *reasonable* to expect God (if God exists) to communicate directly to everyone?

Since the Source of reality clearly exists, yet people are too stupid down here to connect to it, and instead seek their own ways; I thus find it logical for it to have systematically set the world up through religious texts, as many people are evil, and don't even try to quantify it.

We can show how it used to communicate with us directly at mount Sinai (Exodus 20), where it said everyone heard the voice of the Divine, and then it says it will turn its face away from us, for murdering its prophets, and then test us to see who listens to them.

Do you think that *rational people* would expect God to communicate directly to everyone?

There are mainly not 'rational people' here, as we're down near Hell awaiting Judgement Day according to the religious texts; where many people are blatantly evil, and don't even see their own wickedness (Zechariah 5, Isaiah 8)...
[GALLERY=media, 7191][/GALLERY]
Then when the people here have refused to acknowledge the religious text, they murder the prophets, and ignore God in their own conscious; the idea they're down here as they don't listen in the first place, and to then ask this question isn't a rational question according to the world's religious texts.

If people heard the prophets properly, they'd realize who the Divine Beings (Elohim) are, where then they could hear God (EL) again.

When God is the Source of our reality right now; where to even assume it isn't interacting with us in all action, is that religion has become devoid of meaning, it is simply words that people follow without sentiment.... Of course the Source communicates, we're breathing, reality exists, we just need to pay attention, and watch the signs.

Would recommend reading the Celestine Prophecy - adventure version by James Redfield, as it teaches us to see coincidences in life, as a sequences of 'Conversations with God'.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

It seems egocentric and vain to imagine God would communicate with me in the same manner He has with Krishna, Buddha, Jesus or Muhammad.

it seems egocentric and vain to think that God owes us all a personal message as if God was a short order cook at Burger King.

If we study what each of the avatars listed stated, they all taught that we can connect to the Source.
[GALLERY=media, 7679]Vegan Burger King counter[/GALLERY]
Krishna, Buddha, Yeshua specifically stated that through selfless mindfulness we can come to a state of One with the Divine, and then hear the Source; if we're not like religious hypocrites being seen outwardly to be religious, yet not actually learning the process of Oneness within.

Muhammad was taught by the Divine, which made him the Imam Mahdi (Rightly Guided)...

His teachings of Salat (connection) were originally like Yoga (connection), and have become religious repetition like most religion becomes, instead of direct connection to the Divine.

Thus it isn't egocentric to be One with the Source, it is ultimate selflessness; to have assumed that the messengers did so from ego, proves idolatry is being observed in some way.

Like the Source of our reality makes everyone's lives unique, and then to question if it communicates with us, makes God optional, instead of central to our existences.

In having God communicate with Messengers, we have free will in regards the extent we heed that Message and apply it to our lives.

By communicating to only the Messengers that gives humans a choice as to whether they want to search for, look at and follow the Messenger or not.

Thank you for this correlation of Baha'i thinking, can see why they miss the contexts of the previous religions more; the idea you both think God can be optional, in a reality continually manifest by the Source for the evolution of all beings...

Shows why the Source has manifest Baha'u'llah to divide yet another religious group, who are not listening to the whole.

The Source according to the Curse of Moses (Deuteronomy 28-32), Zoroastrian, Hindu, text, etc, is going to wipe reality, and keep those who listened - this isn't optional.

So the idea you're answering as if religion is a way to get on with life down near Hell before Judgement day, shows where as a whole Baha'i are not listening properly.

you did not get a medical degree just because you wanted one. You had to work hard for it. Why should knowledge of God be any different?

Because the Source of reality doesn't require examinations for us to communicate with it; it just wants us to listen, and people are arrogantly full of their own self, so they don't realize when they truly meditate, and listen it isn't only their own voice in their heads.

The finger print is a proof of God, that the Fibonacci sequence is interwoven into all of reality, so we don't forget we are all connected to the Source directly.

Thus the idea of complexities before reaching God, is simply because people have forgotten to be like a child; who are automatically shown how to have imaginary angelic friends, until they forget.

In my opinion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Except that there is zero evidence that the message is from a deity at all. The message could very well simply be a mental symptom of the individual's over active imagination. There is no logic in believing the message based on a fallible conception of divine authority.

What do you mean by mental symptom or imagination? Clearly religious works have been a product of the human mind. The question then becomes whether or not the works such as the Gospels or the Quran are mere works of fiction like the lord of the rings or there’s more to it? The Bible and the Quran are the two most studied books in the last 1000 years. Their influence on the course of history and civilisation is difficult to dismiss. This forum or even our discussion would not be happening if this were not so.

 

[JJ50]

Surely if god exists and wants people to believe in it, the sensible thing to do would be to make its presence clear to all in a way that is irrefutable.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm quite miffed that S/He hasn't done so yet - I haven't been bad all my life.

 

[LuisDantas]

Direct communication from God would not be discernible so it would be a waste of God's time.

Interesting that you think so. That is not a given, but it does hint of several implicity expectations from you.

What if everyone did not want to be reached by God directly, shouldn't they have a choice? Besides, why is it God's duty to ensure everyone is reached?

I can't help but wonder what exotic conception of God you use. It is clearly miles apart from mine, and I do not even believe in the existence of mine.

I don't think I can help you with your fairly self-contradictory expectations about a Creator God.

If God puts a message out there through a Messenger that everyone can read, why isn't that good enough?

Good enough for the Messenger to pursue influence, clearly.

Good enough to establish a functional religion? Perhaps ideally. In practice, I think that the facts are clear enough: you can build _something_ that way, but "religion" is probably not a very good descriptor for the results, particularly when emphasis is put in the presumed importance and legitimacy of the God, its Truth, Unicity, and the exceptional virtue of the scripture and messenger. People are much better off with none of that.

Good enough to present a credible case for the existence of that God? Clearly not, if the real world's history is any indication.

But why does everyone need to be reached? Some people will get the message and others won't. That is the way the world works. Everything is not equally distributed because all people have different advantages and capacities. It does not always seem fair but there really is no way around it. Everyone cannot be the same.

You have just described one of the main reasons why I do not find the Abrahamic model of religious doctrine functional.

It can't work, because it is not realistic. Yet it imposes self-sabotaging, unrealistic expectations on itself anyway, and insists that they are indispensable.

I think it is entirely absurd to have any expectations of a God who is so much greater than we are. How can we know more or be wiser than an All-Knowing and All-Wise God? Since we cannot, who are we to question how God communicates, to expect something different?

We may presume (and presume is indeed the proper verb to use) the existence of such a God. If we also believe that there are true Messengers and Scriptures proposing genuine doctrines to learn of His will, than we are necessarily also expecting quite a lot about It, and presuming not only how It communicates, but also that it is the proper, best way.

Again, it seems to me that you are just pointing out the fragility of one of the main features of the Abrahamic model.

God is also capable of wiping out the entire human race at the drop of a hat. Should God do that just because he is capable?

See? Despite your own claim just a few sentences prior, you have very specific expectations of this God that you claim to be beyond human understanding.

And that is quite proper. You should not bother to use concepts (such as "God") which you have no idea of how to use or handle.

That is absolutely true, so why would God communicate if we could not even recognize the communication?

It would not. Vanity is the only reason why a God would want to be recognized and point out that there are Bad Things Ahead for those who "fail to".

I think that can happen, but not everyone sees it when it does.

People do vary on their interest in inspiration (both artistic and more properly religious). A part of that variation is their need and even their ability for using some or any form of God-conception.

Is that important, though? Important enough that we should attempt to change it, specifically by attempting to spread the supposed word of God? I don't think so.

I consider that irrational to expect that since all people are not equally worthy to receive communication,

For the record, I do not think that this specific premise can be reconciled with that of an all-powerful, benign Creator of Existence God.

If such a God existed, it would necessarily follow that all people are indeed equally deserving. The alternative would be that God is a sinner and it is for humans to pay for Its mistakes... somehow.

The theology necessary to sustain such a claim would probably not be workable, let alone convincing.

and that is really the crux of the issue. We all have an equal opportunity to get the message God puts out but we have to get it through a Messenger because we have to work to determine who that Messenger is and get the message, just like we have to work for everything we get in life. There are no free rides.

I honestly have no idea of why you believe that such a way is necessary... or even believable.

 

[night912]

1. God would only communicate with people only if he wants people to know and/or believe that he exist and have a relationship with each other.

2. It's reasonable if both want to have a relationship with each other.

3. It's only rational for people to expect god to communicate with everyone if god wants people to know and believe that he exist and have a relationship with each other.