In the last two posts we considered how the only difference between believers and non-believers is the issue of experience – or put another way, whether the person can attest to having experienced God in some tangible way that convinces him or her of this reality in terms of what can be physically, spiritually, mentally and/or emotionally comprehended.
Those people who have such an experience (or revelation) are instantly changed in that they are no longer able to defend a position of disbelief but instead make a stalwart defence on which they rationalise God as true, living and active.
Conversely, sceptics who cite themselves as having had no experience of God find themselves occupying the opposite position – their argument being that if God exists, then He would reveal Himself in the same way as he has to others – but He doesn’t reveal Himself and so they do not believe.
Interestingly, in the New Testament (Book of Titus) Paul quotes a paradox about the people of Crete in which he states-
‘as one of their own (Cretan) countrymen states, ‘all cretans are liars!’
Although Paul does not debate the point, there is actually a real problem with this tautological statement – if the man is Cretan and all Cretans are liars, then the truth must be that he (as one of them) must be lying about all Cretans being liars which seems to imply ‘all Cretans tell the truth.’
But if all Cretans tell the truth and the statement informs us that ‘all Cretans are liars,’ what are we to make of this?
Interestingly, the statement ‘all cretans are liars’ is unresolvable. We cannot fathom from it whether what is being said is true or false. The only thing we can be certain of is that within this paradox, there are certain things that do exist – these being: a decision maker who must determine between truth and lie. Something which again relies solely on the individual’s experience of and ability to decide upon something which cannot be seen or easily proved other than by revelation.