DIVINE REVELATION IS A TRICK IF YOU WANT YOUR OPINIONS TO GET PRIVILEGED TREATMENT

Some people say they work out there is a God from the evidence.

Now we look at physical laws and tendencies to work out what the evidence is and what it is saying.  To say there is a God who is a being of pure spirit and who is non-physical then cannot be evidence based.

So a God has to find a way for you to take the notion of spirit seriously that is beyond all that.

Additionally where did they get the idea of their version of God from?  You don't look for a tooth fairy unless you have decided or been told what a tooth fairy would be like.  A God cannot simply tell you he is there. He just becomes a name in a phonebook so you need more than that.  He wants to be more than that so he being almighty will be able to be more than that.

We see then that people are depending on revelation in some form even if they think they are not.  Or what they think is revelation.

Atheists say the God idea comes from men.  Believers say that God himself gives you the idea.  Some warn that man can come up with the right version of God so a religion having the right view or the view God would sanction does not mean that God gives the idea.  It's still man's revelation ideas not God's.

Religion says that as God seeks a relationship with you and you need a relationship with him that he inspires you to see glimpses of him.  So evidence alone is no good so what is God to do?    Religion says that is where personal divine revelation comes in.

Special revelation is direct revelation as in visions, dreams and so on.   Some faiths say God controls your hand to write holy books.  It is like Santa coming down the chimney in front of you at Christmas to give you toys.

General revelation means how God plants conscience in you and guides your reason.  He puts a moral sense in you.  The idea is that he is behind this though it may not be obvious.  It is like Santa leaving your toys when you are asleep.

Is the difference between the two important?  It is easy to think of general revelation as not being clear enough.  When you look at how people of faith think and disagree on fundamentals it is clear it speaks more of what people want to think than about them getting real inspirations from above.  The fact that God is not speaking audibly or sending apparitions does not mean he cannot be clear.  General revelation is used as an excuse for saying everybody knows the foundations.  It is then argued that there is enough there for guidelines to be sure that you know it is God if he choses to commune more directly.  This is clearly not true.  General revelation then would be more important than direct specific revelation for without it there is no framework for testing.  Yet specific revelation is what excites and interests people.  Why God makes people like that shows that general revelation is just fantasy.

Now is the difference between the two valid?  Yes.  It is possible for God to fuse the two.  For example, if general revelation through conscience and other things were clearer and more unmistakeable it would amount to special revelation in a less ostentatious format.

Revelation from God according to many is a trick and lie by men so that you will take their words for God's, their notions for God's, their feelings for God's.  But if you hold that is the wrong way to look at it, you still have to admit that there is no way of telling man-word from God-word.  They are indistinguishable.  That is why you need good evidence. You need the men to be very spiritual and good.

No revelation can get through to you unless you decide to assume that despite evil and suffering, whatever is connecting to you is truthful.  God cannot put this trust in you for whatever has you, "I don't trust God.  I mean that its not my trust.  He gives me the trust in him therefore he should be trusted."  So God then is so inept he is no better than a teacher telling you that "Atlantis is real for I say so and I say it is real for it is real".  If the trust is your own then it means you are projecting onto God.  Your God talk is about you.  You are talking about what you have decided what God should be like and is like.  You are playing God and you are not God.

Many say that because of that if the evidence shows there is a God then that turns them not into a worshipper but a believer.

Many say that as it is not our place to say God is right to allow pain and suffering and that evil refutes the love of God they would end up as believers but not worshippers.  It becomes belief as in intellectual but it is not belief as in "I believe in you and I commit it to you in love."  It is not worshipper belief.