Communication with a diety of any kind is very possible if you provide a linguistic precondition. 1.) There is a mind capable of sending a message. 2.) There is a mind capable of receiving a message. 3.) There is a common mode of communication, like a language, that both beings share. Think of this very medium. For any disagreement to occur an understanding of messages sent must be present. Though misunderstandings are possible, differences of opinion usually arise from a familiarity with the other persons viewpoint. God (if we grant that he is a omniscient being) is more than capable of sending a message.
Your statement assumes a creator understandable in human terms, and also assumes a personal relationship in that the creator would want to communicate. On what are your assumptions based?
JT
There are certain assumptions in my posting which I readily admit. God must be both omniscient and ominpotent to be able to communicate in human terms. I’ll take your second question first. Deisim postulates a God who created the world ex nihilo, but then left it. The God of deism is an impersonal God who no longer cares for his creation. However, the reason this is incorrect is because the world (universe) is contigent. The universe is depedent on God for its existence. Since the universe had a beginning (i.e. the Big Bang), it must come from an uncaused being, an eternal being. Thus God is continually sustaining his creation. What is implicit in this continual sustaining action is that God is immanent. Since he is a sustainer of beings and the universe his presence is also among beings and in the universe. This paves the way for his personal interaction. C.S. Lewis was a christian philosopher who stated that it was possible for God to speak through people and in places that were in fact very pagan. But to him Christ was the God/man that made communication in human terms possible. The incarnation of the Word (logos) the ultimate human expression of God’s essence, characteristics, attributes, and personality.
Well, I suppose your reasoning would allow your conclusions if your apriori assumptions are accepted. It’s the assumptions you have to make that are uncomfortable. There really isn’t anything there that make’s one scenario any more likely than another.
C.S. Lewis wrote better Sci Fi than Christian philosophy. He was clearly out of his element in philosophical argumentation.
JT