Why logical arguments for Messengers don't work.

[Mystic]

The arguments for God sending Messengers would be legitimate unless there was a better reason as to why God would not send Messengers.

Now one of these reasons potentially can be that after the Messenger passes away, the miracles over time cease to be proofs, and that people will no longer have proofs to believe in. It also can be that the religion can be corrupted by humans, so that the message, is no longer the message of God.

Now the Quran argument that it's unique form proves it to be divine and the arguments that it's been protected by numerous transmission, would counter argue those arguments, but it would make the arguments for Messengers irrelevant. This no human can bring the like of it argument would have to be true of revelations of the past as well.

But essentially, the independent arguments for Messengers would not be true. The same can be said about Christianity. If there is no way to know the Bible is true via the holy spirit, all arguments of why God would send Messengers, do the sacrifice, etc, would be irrelevant.

[CapnAwesome]

Messengers don't make sense to me. If an all powerful God wanted to say something to the world the least effective way would be to send a messenger to a small area of the world, to tell people something in a language few understand, waiting hundreds or thousands of years for the information to disperse worldwide. Is that really the most effective way for an omnipotent being to get his message across? Of course not. Even if I believed in God, I would believe Muhammad, Jesus and Joseph Smith to be con-men. If God existed and wanted to tell the world something, you would think he would do it directly.

[Simon Moon]

If God existed and wanted to tell the world something, you would think he would do it directly.

And he did so all through the Old Testament.

Mysteriously, he stopped. Then he supposedly talked to 'special people' to relay his messages.

If anyone claims to be one of these messengers these days, he or she is considered to be mentally ill. So the question is, how is one to tell the difference between a 'legitimate' messenger of god, and a mentally ill person having delusions?

[Chas]

If God existed and wanted to tell the world something, you would think he would do it directly.

And he did so all through the Old Testament.

Mysteriously, he stopped. Then he supposedly talked to 'special people' to relay his messages.

If anyone claims to be one of these messengers these days, he or she is considered to be mentally ill. So the question is, how is one to tell the difference between a 'legitimate' messenger of god, and a mentally ill person having delusions?

Easy-peasy. There are no messengers from any gods.

[Rampant.A.I.]

If God existed and wanted to tell the world something, you would think he would do it directly.

And he did so all through the Old Testament.

Mysteriously, he stopped. Then he supposedly talked to 'special people' to relay his messages.

If anyone claims to be one of these messengers these days, he or she is considered to be mentally ill. So the question is, how is one to tell the difference between a 'legitimate' messenger of god, and a mentally ill person having delusions?

Nowadays, he only manifests/communicates inside believers heads, yet only to those who have already been exposed or indoctrinated into Christianity.

Isn't that odd? If everyone else on the planet is damned to hell for having false beliefs, why use prophets? Why not just take a little time out every day to go "psst, wrong God. Worship me."

[Mudhammam]

Messages used to come from gods. Now they come from aliens. I wonder why? I received a message yesterday that I should go to bed. I'm pretty sure the voice was my own. Fortunately, I don't suffer hallucinations or fantasies. Unfortunately, when others do they sometimes think their Ego is actually more important than it is.

[Zidneya]

If god would want to spread a message, that message would need to have the next qualities.

God would make sure that the message reach all humanity. And no people spreading their own religion doesn't count. Because those are people(not God) that spread a message. And let's be honest that opens a hole can of worms. What if they decide they don't spread the message?(either because they don't want to, because they can get to that place, because they can't know the language or can't communicate) What if they distort the message? What if they die and the message didn't got delivered? When people transmit a message they transmit a system of beliefs.

That message would have to be destined for a multicultural view of life that promotes respect to other people. While in reality the core of all the nonsenses it's always the same: God(or Gods in some cases) choose this tribe, region or culture to be his children an convert everyone else to be the same as them, to think the same as them and to worship him the same as they.

I't would be a message of knowledge and understanding. While let's be realistic every stablished religious system worries too much and dedicate time of their lives to make it very clear the horrible things that what will happen to you if you question or disobey their dogmas.

It's main focus will be the message not the messenger. Tell me if this sounds familiar: The message is god and he is unique and powerful and…… what you want to know what his goals are? How the hell should I know he's motives are a mystery, what do you mean that you wan't to know? you worry too much don't think about what to do, think how to worship him.

This message will encourage the to grow. While many religious systems encourage you to conform with what you have and don't try anything new.

The main focus of the message will be the individual not the system. How many religious systems stables their objectives the same as the civilization where they live. The message wouldn't care about abortion, adultery, homosexuality, interracial nor cruelty.

The message will have to promote equality not superiority trough faith, race, gender, species or age.

It will leave some kind of scientific evidence that proofs that this message comes from god.

That message would explain our existence. While every religion claims the same. The explanation from our origins comes from this inexplicable holy form of creation.

I don't know if theres a god BUT I SURE AS HELL KNOW THAT THE MESSAGE THAT EVERY OTHER RELIGION PROMOTES AIN'T COME FROM GOD.

[Mystic]

The argument above can be paraphrased that for all we know it's perhaps true that a writing cannot be known to be God's miracle in that no other being human or otherwise, can create that literature and quality. Given that is true, then arguments for religion and it's reasoning, as to why God would send Messengers are negated by that, by the issue that there would no everlasting proof of these Prophets. Since that reason being taken account would negate all arguments for Messengers being sent independently of the issue, all arguments not addressing this issue would be irrelevant to the issue of revelation and Prophethood and religion.

The following argument seems true to me:

1. There are good reasons to assume God exists and he would send Messengers or appoint Guides if and only if he can prove their divine authority. (undisputed assumption by the anti-religion argument)

2. God could send continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age. (undisputed assumption).

3. God has not sent continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age (observation).

4. Since God could of sent that continuance proofs in form of supernatural miracles performed by a Guide in each age but didn't, it's safe to assume there are is alternative way to prove his religion and guidance.

5. The only present and through out for quite some time claim to prove religion is true a book who's literary quality is claimed to be sufficient as proof for it, and that humans and Jinn cannot bring the like of it. The book would be the best in guidance and contain the best sayings.

6. It's safe to assume given there is no alternative proofs to religion right now, that God somehow proved his religion through the best book, in which no human can replicate or be the like of.

7. It's safe to assume humans can then recognize a book is revealed by God if God makes it of a certain quality beyond creation capabilities.

8. It's logical the book would emphasize on it's higher quality nature and challenge humanity to do their best to bring the like of it, confident that people would fail.

9. There is only one religion with such a book (ie. with claims it's highest quality, best in guidance, best sayings, and that humans cannot bring the like of it's chapters).

10. Therefore that religion (ie. Islam) is true and that book is proven to be true given we assume God exists and there is good reasons for him to send guidance to humanity.

[Minimalist]

And he did so all through the Old Testament.

Mysteriously, he stopped. Then he supposedly talked to 'special people' to relay his messages.

If anyone claims to be one of these messengers these days, he or she is considered to be mentally ill. So the question is, how is one to tell the difference between a 'legitimate' messenger of god, and a mentally ill person having delusions?

Easy-peasy.  There are no messengers from any gods.

Even easier..... there are no gods to send messengers.

[Mystic]

I essentially refuted the argument I posed in the OP.