If God exists, what would be a good reason why he never communicates or helps his creation by intervention?

by pistolpete 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • PaddyTheBaddy
    Since gods were inherently imagined by man, the answer to why those gods don't answer or intervene in are lives is because the gods are really us.
    You are an Enlightened person. Well said!

    Truth be said, all Harvey has stated is that in his opinion we have become the very figment of our imagination. It is another way of claiming we are made in the image of the gods we imagined existed. If this is true then every time we intervene to help someone out it is similar to God intervening through us.

  • slimboyfat

    The point I am making is that often people who ask “why doesn’t God communicate with us?” simply don’t appreciate just how common it is for God to communicate with people. For some people this takes the form of guidance or intuition of a helping hand, but for around 20% of people this is in the form of a direct verbal communication or conversation.

    So if we’re going to ask, “why doesn’t God communicate with us”, you first need to explain why you claim that God doesn’t communicate with humans when a significant number of people do experience communication with God.

    This is of course different from people claiming the earth is flat. Because people who experience communication from God are not arguing for an intellectual position on the basis of evidence. They are simply reporting what they have directly seen and heard.

    Alister Hardy was a scientist and biologist who had a long and respectable career. In his retirement he explored his “side interest” of religious experiences. What interested Hardy was the apparent disconnect between the scientific community that ignored religious experiences as a phenomenon worth investigating, and the everyday lives of people that include religious experiences of one kind or another as a matter of course. It’s worth noting that Hardy was a mainstream scientist, professor at Oxford, he of course accepted evolution, and was not a Christian. But his own religious experiences, and those of others, did lead him to conclude that God communicates with humans.

    He founded the Religious Experiences Research Centre to gather reports of religious experiences in a systematic way and try to make sense of them.




  • Harvey

    There have been many throughout human history that have said they've had a spiritual experience, which still continues on to this day, kind of a created self suggestion from drafted emotions and occurring from many different religious practices. .

    Some even derived from drugs or a physical chemical imbalance.

    Just because people create these emotions in a state of consciousness, still doesn't prove they are having a real spiritual experience or actually connecting to these gods.

    Pentecostal denominations move toward racial reconciliation - CSMonitor.com

  • WTWizard

    To "hear" god, you need to be one of its "chosen". After all, why would you blab your purpose to enslave the whole earth to everyone, who might have refused to go along with it and exterminated its "chosen" for trying to enslave them all?

  • PaddyTheBaddy
    Just because people create these emotions in a state of consciousness, still doesn't prove they are having a real spiritual experience or actually connecting to these gods.
    It doesn't disprove it either. You just don't believe them, which is fine. Thomas communicated directly with someone who claimed a divine connection and also didn't believe it, until he received more evidence.
    The christian claim is that God communicated to mankind through his word "Jesus". The validity of this claim was to be tested either through belief or disbelief in the resurrection. Christianity continues to the present day because people continue to believe in the resurrection of Jesus.Paul claimed that if Christ had not been raised then christianity is in vain and so concluded,"Let us eat and let us drink, for tomorrow we die."

  • notsurewheretogo


    you first need to explain why you claim that God doesn’t communicate with humans when a significant number of people do experience communication with God.

    Because they are interpreting god is communicating with them that is something else...it really is that simple...people want or wish something then something happens that then makes them think god is communicating with them...and of course you cannot prove otherwise...convenient.

    But again that is not my point, where is the bigger picture? IF a god did exist why not, logically speaking, make yourself manifest to all in a tangible way...why "communicate" with few people in weird ways when mass amounts of suffering is occurring on the planet.

    Wouldn't many or all humans be relieved that a powerful deity exists and there is hope etc?

    Would a parent not respond to ALL of its children if they needed help.

    Fact remains when you consider circumstantial evidence and "beyond reasonable doubt" god simply does not exist.

  • Simon

    Just because people have experience that they ascribe as being "religious" doesn't mean it's god communicating with them.

    It seems to me that the people who seek and contrive to have these experiences have them, and people who don't, don't.

    It's a one-sided interpretation of "evidence" which is entirely in someone's head.

    I think the reality is that people have emotional experiences (and they can be manufactured) but just because some interpret those through a religious lens doesn't make for any compelling evidence that there is proof of god.

    Why doesn't god convince a sceptic for once? Why does he only manifest himself to "true believers"? The clue is in the "believers" part.

  • PaddyTheBaddy
    Why doesn't god convince a sceptic for once? Why does he only manifest himself to "true believers"? The clue is in the "believers" part.

    To be fair he did have a chat with Paul on his way to Damascus.

  • PaddyTheBaddy

    Anthony Flew has an interesting conversion account. It was the discovery of DNA's double helix which led him to believe in an intelligence behind the creation of life. The creator communicated to him through his creation.

    Anthony Flew

    His name may not be familiar, but Flew was one of the most significant atheist thinkers of the pre-Dawkins era. He was a prominent critic of religion, suggesting that atheism should be the default position until evidence for God could be produced; that the burden of proof should be on the faiths, not on the faithless. He carried these beliefs late into life, even signing 2003's Third Humanist Manifesto. However, just a year later, he announced that he had dramatically changed his philosophical allegiance.

    Flew hadn't converted to the Christian faith, but he had embraced deism – the belief in God. So convinced was he, that in 2007 he published his final book, There is a God: How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind. It has been discredited by atheists ever since who claim that Flew's change of position was due to his declining mental health, and that the book was mainly the work of his co-writer. However, before his death in 2010, Flew lucidly and specifically addressed this in one of his final articles, itself a rebuttal of Dawkin's references to him in The God Delusion.


  • slimboyfat

    There are plenty of skeptics who have had religious experiences and changed their conception of the world as a result. Examples are commonplace and easy to find.

    It is irrational, and biased, to invoke the lack of communication from God as evidence against his existence, when in fact many people do experience communication with God. Religious experiences are less common an experience than snowfall, for example, but far more common than volcanoes. Many of us see snow every year. Yet others can go a whole lifetime without seeing any snow. At the other end of the spectrum we are all aware that volcanoes are real, but most humans probably won’t see a volcano directly in the course of their lives. My exploration of the topic leads me to suspect that religious experiences are less common than snow showers but far more common than witnessing a volcano. And an experience that is as commonplace as religious experiences are, should be taken seriously. To pretend they don’t exist is irrational.

    I can understand the point of view that does not assign credibility to religious experiences—because I used to think that way myself. For some reason I had the impression that not many people have had truly compelling religious experiences and that those who have are not credible. I have come to realise that was my own bias that was colouring my perception of reality. Because I was committed to a world where “miraculous” things don’t happen, and because I’ve not had any striking “religious experiences” myself, I just assumed they were not terribly common and not compelling.

    A bit of humility is in order here. Exploring the topic further, I found that religious experiences are much more common than I assumed, and that they occur to all sorts of people, including skeptics, and some who would not have invited them at all. I’ve also come to realise that the world is a much more mysterious and poorly understood place than I appreciated. Who am I, with my limited time on earth, my very little experience, and very little knowledge, to declare what is possible or impossible? And who am I to tell other people who are very definite about what they have seen, heard, and experienced, that they must be mistaken because I don’t happen to have shared that experience?

    For me the question “if God exists then why doesn’t he communicate with us” betrays either a lack of knowledge or lack of care about the actual evidence on this subject. Because the fact is that religious experiences are commonplace in this world, and if you are just going to dismiss the direct experience of such a large section of humanity as not reliable, then you are shaping your perception of the world to match your preconceptions rather than following the evidence.

    I have also become increasingly convinced, on other grounds, that a materialist conception of the world is inadequate and internally inconsistent. This, among other things, forces me to conclusion that there is a deeper mystery to world than the currently dominant materialist worldview allows. This being the case, I’m less inclined to rule anything out when it comes to understanding the nature of reality.

Share this