Some theists (not all), have asserted that a human judging God is like an ant judging a human. However, this analogy completely fails because humans can communicate in a meaningful way (under theism) with God, whereas ants cannot communicate with us in a meaningful way at all.
The only way this analogy would possibly hold is if humans learned to "speak ant," or ants learned to "speak human." To me, that sounds absurd.
Furthermore, if "meaningful communication" is possible, and God wishes all to come to him, then what stops him from meaningfully communicating with an atheist about the deep reservations the atheist has about believing in a benevolent dictator? Why must we simply believe, "Well, God could have morally sufficient reasons we don't understand and he is under no obligation to tell us those reasons?"
The basis of your entire argument is inextricably hinged on the presumption of Human Speech, whether written or spoken, as the mode of communication between God and man and Man and Ant..
Without which your entire falls apart.
Can you consider that man are versatile enough to communicate without the need of a cumbersome spoken or written language?
Are you able to imagine and envision a language so pure so perfect, that its integrity of meaning is maintain throughout any and all communication whether is God/God, God/Man, God/Ant, Man/Man, Man/Ant?
If you are able then you would see that God has communicated but man has trapped himself in his dilemma created by his very own words.
And this has negated everything God had Said.
And how would this nonphysical language work?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.