This would be another one of those points where the theistic doublethink becomes apparent.
When asked of a theist "Why god doesn't reveal himself to each and every person in the world?", the answer usually is "because it would violate their free-will". If god presents himself, the person would have no choice but to believe.
However, when turned around and asked if multitude of apparent personal revelations, both in real world and in scripture, don't amount to the same thing, apparently free-will is preserved in that scenario because either a) That person was already a believer, i.e. the choice was already made, or b) That person could still have practiced self-deception (as many do in the real world) and chosen not to believe. A) fails because belief does not preclude doubt, possibility of future doubt or future disbelief - therefore, free-will is still being violated. Further, if the person was a believer before the said revelation, it undermines the role of the big reveal in the belief system and leads to the question of whether the belief itself was the cause of revelation. B) fails because the same standard can be applied to the previous argument and removed any excuse for god to not have shown himself.
Either way, there is no rational way to hold both propositions as true at the same time. But then, theists are rarely known for their rationality.
When asked of a theist "Why god doesn't reveal himself to each and every person in the world?", the answer usually is "because it would violate their free-will". If god presents himself, the person would have no choice but to believe.
However, when turned around and asked if multitude of apparent personal revelations, both in real world and in scripture, don't amount to the same thing, apparently free-will is preserved in that scenario because either a) That person was already a believer, i.e. the choice was already made, or b) That person could still have practiced self-deception (as many do in the real world) and chosen not to believe. A) fails because belief does not preclude doubt, possibility of future doubt or future disbelief - therefore, free-will is still being violated. Further, if the person was a believer before the said revelation, it undermines the role of the big reveal in the belief system and leads to the question of whether the belief itself was the cause of revelation. B) fails because the same standard can be applied to the previous argument and removed any excuse for god to not have shown himself.
Either way, there is no rational way to hold both propositions as true at the same time. But then, theists are rarely known for their rationality.
