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

• 

  redvip2000

  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.

  The claim that God doesn't communicate with humans is based on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever. And no, just because some people think that they hear a voice from God, doesn't mean it's true.

  You know, somehow when God supposedly speaks to humans he never says anything that will blow our minds. Somehow he can never speak to a scientist to give a cure for cancer. Nope, it's all trivial shit, that somehow is rattling around in people's minds already.
  
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  why he never communicates or helps his creation by intervention?

  Didn't God intervene when he took the death penalty in place of others? Then, he walked out of a tomb to show that death was nothing to be feared.
  
  Even if you don't believe the historical data regarding the Resurrection, surely you can agree that (if true) this would constitute the greatest intervention in human history, right?

  I personally can't think of a bigger intervention than the abolishment of death.

  called us...not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, ... is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel - 2 Tim. 1
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Because the fact is that religious experiences are commonplace in this world.

  They are not, that is not a fact, what you mean to say is:

  According to peoples perception they believe they experienced a religious experience and these religious experiences perceptions are commonplace in this world.

  Billions believe in a god with no evidence, you are always then going to have people say they have communicated with god, many people saying this does not constitute evidence god is communicating with anyone.

  As I say it is all to do with circumstantial evidence and beyond reasonable doubt because there is no concrete evidence either way.

  The circumstantial evidence points to no god if you are neutral and free from cognitive dissonance.
  
  
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Good question posed by the OP.

  If God does exist, he does himself no favours.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Notsure what sort of evidence would you accept? When others tell us they feel pain for example, how would they prove it to us? They can’t show us the pain directly. Ultimately we either believe them or we don’t. There are lots of possibilities. The person could be lying about feeling pain. They could experience pain entirely differently than we feel pain, so that the word means different things to different people. We could look at the expression on their face, or their actions, for clues, to try to work out what’s really going on. We could even do a brain scan to see if something is happening, but again even if something is happening, we don’t know what is happening. Ultimately we either accept that other people know their own minds and accurately convey what they mean if they say they are in pain. Or we can choose a kind of solipsism that says we simply don’t believe what others say about what they experience because we just can’t know if they are telling the truth or not. I suppose we could tell the person in pain that they are actually deluding themselves and they are not experiencing pain at all. Most of us don’t adopt that approach, unless we’re a Buddhist monk or something, and even then would probably couch it in qualified language to acknowledge that we don’t know everything there is to know about what others experience.

  You might say that everyone experiences pain so that’s how we can know it’s real. But not everyone experiences migraine, or kidney pain, or other kinds of pain. In fact some people do experience extreme pain that have at times been dismissed as a phantom or in some sense psychological rather than real, whatever that would mean. And besides, religious experiences of various kinds are so common that not to accept them as real does begin to look like denying the everyday experience of people.

  Religious experiences are so common, and people seem every bit as convinced about their experience as they are about pain. You can see it on their face, in their actions, maybe even on a brain scan that something is going on. So who are we to say to such people, who number in the billions, that they are not experiencing what they say, or that our explanation of what is “really happening” is better than theirs?

  One option is to say that we have not had the kind of experience that others report, and that we believe the world doesn’t include experiences that appear to break the laws of physics, so there must be alternative explanations. You can do that, but be aware what a heavy load of ideology this attitude drags around. It assumes that we know how the universe works, we know what’s possible and what’s impossible, and we know when others are experiencing something “real” and when they are just deluding themselves. Well all that could be true, but I think it’s a pretty incredible position to take when you really think about it. And only feasible if you have a prior commitment that all experiences must have a naturalistic explanation and be bound by our own conception of what is possible in our physical universe.

  I remember a conversation with Oma that made an impression on me. I said I didn’t think resurrection was possible and it couldn’t be real. She made the point to me that 150 years ago the idea of talking to someone in Australia would have seemed impossible or like magic. Or the idea that we could carry around a library of all human knowledge on a small device in our pockets would seem impossible. Yet within the space of a few decades humans have managed to do those things that would have seemed magical a few years earlier.

  Are we really saying that the universe which is billions of years old can hold no surprises for us? Just because something doesn’t appear realistic to us doesn’t mean reality is bound by our own lack of imagination.
• 

  truth_b_known

  The claim that God doesn't communicate with humans is based on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever.

  What do we mean by "communicate"?

  Notsure what sort of evidence would you accept?

  Great question. I do not mean to be inflammatory, but are we talking some sort of two witness rule or three witness rule?
• 

  punkofnice

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

  He's 'disfellowshipped(TM)' everyone.
• 

  PaddyTheBaddy

  The claim that God doesn't communicate with humans is based on the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever.

  What do we mean by "communicate"?

  Notsure what sort of evidence would you accept?

  Great question. I do not mean to be inflammatory, but are we talking some sort of two witness rule or three witness rule?

  https://youtu.be/CI41MtiNsls
  
• 

  EverApostate

  If God exists, there cannot be any reason why he never communicates or helps his creation by intervention

  Fair Conclusion. God never exists. At least the Biblical god never exists.
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  @SBF.

  Scientists can measure pain in someone so not a good example. Researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder have found a unique neurologic signature in patients’ brain scans that allows them to predict how much pain a person is feeling with 90 to 100 percent accuracy.

  That is evidence, concrete proof with repeatable observations producing tangible results. As I say people saying they see aliens, there has been a lot of them, doesn't constitute that aliens exists...the fact we have never seen or contacted or been approached by aliens is the "circumstantial evidence" that I keep repeating that leads to you the conclusion, beyond any reasonable doubt, that aliens do not exist or are not in our reach so may as well not exist.

  Thus people saying they have seen god or talked to him etc and no matter how they number is not evidence like the ability to score pain and get over 90% accurate.

  As I keep saying going by demonstrable evidence that can be repeated to produce tangible results the probability of god existing falls into the circumstantial evidence beyond any reasonable doubt he simply doesn't.

  People having a religious experience lends zero weight to evidence a god exists when you factor in the religion itself, its history and the need for those who want an experience suddenly get one.

  My sister passed away recently and two of her three children had unusual activity in the family home that they thought might have been their late mum. The third kid, a late teenager was pondering why he never had any such experience....two days later he did.

  As Simon said the mind is powerful and those that want something have a tendency to see things that back up their wish or belief.

  Rely on evidence and in the case of god where you can only rely on circumstantial the conclusion many come to is beyond reasonable doubt he doesn't exist.

  I've still no answer as to why if he does does he not cut out the bull and just appear before us all, all 7.6 billion of us and communicate directly with us? Just think what he could do and at least reassure everyone we are not alone and he is creator.

  Yet nothing, why? If he does exist he is a dick for leaving his creation to what we see around us....I refuse to believe there could be some sort of grander thinking behind NOT revealing himself to everyone.

  You ask what evidence? Proper evidence but in this subject that is near impossible hence I'll stick to circumstantial evidence and beyond reasonable doubt and the "god doesn't exist" wins there.