If one starts with the impersonal everything,

then the question (1) naturally has nothing to do with
even the possibility of an uncreated Personal
communicating to a created Personal ;
that - from the premise -- is nonsense.

Yet if one does begin with a non-personal everything,
there is a question that now really shouts:

Is not man-to-man communication equally nonsense ?

With this presupposition no one has discovered a way
to find meaning either in man's speaking to man

or in man's hearing, except through
an act of faith against his whole basic
presuppositional structure.

Worse yet, for those who hold this ..
the little men (I and the others) are not content to think
that they do not speak meaningfully;
and everything in experience convinces us that the others
hear truly, though not exhaustively.

By this time, is this not something like a Francis Bacon
painting?
One must scream -- but the whole situation is
a lostness and a damnation, including the scream.

Well now, in the light of this total confusion to which
the other presupposition
( the impersonal + time + chance ) leads us,
our presupposition of a personal beginning is worth
another very careful look.
If everything did begin with that uncreated Personal beginning,
then neither communication from created personal
to created personal, nor from the non-created Personal to the
created personal is unthinkable.
Nor is it even intrinsically unlikely.

The importance of all this is that most people today,
(including some who still call themselves evangelical,
who have given up the historical and biblical concept of
true revelation -- have not done so because of consideration
of detailed problems objectively approached, but because they
have accepted,
either in some analyzed fashion or blindly, the 'other set' of
presuppositions.
Often they have done this by means of injection, without
realizing what has happened to them.

..what would make them listen?
It is strange to communicate truly the concept
that one rejects the concept of a non-created Personal "being there"
when there is no way then
to know the how, why or what of communication
with my own kind.

The strangeness continues then to say that it is unreasonable
per se to consider the fact of the non-created Personal
being there, when that would explain
the how, why and what of the communication I do have with
my own kind!

_

( at Museo del Prado )