As I said, Mooby, I was not looking for an explanation. You cannot possibly have one. I was looking for an admission that your beliefs are demonstrably untrue. All you need to do is say some aspect of your belief is wrong, because it obviously is. It could be god doesn't really want relationships with everyone. It could be that he is not able to communicate effectively. It could be he cannot relate. It could be he does not exist.
But whatever it is, you should admit your model of reality is flawed.
Perhaps you never expressed a true prayer, despite thinking you did? Perhaps God did reply to you, but you were never open to the response or otherwise able to recognize it? Perhaps you did hear Him once, but later became convinced that it was you talking to yourself? Perhaps you were waiting for a big booming voice that never came?
None of this should be a problem for a friendly, omnipotent god.
Whether I expressed a true prayer or not, omnipotent god should know my thoughts and feelings. That I failed to do the ritual the wrong way has overtones of magic to it and implies a god limited by arcane rules, not a friendly, omnipotent
A god that talks to me but cannot do so in a way that unambiguous or remains convincing is not a friendly, omnipotent
And as far as me not being open to friendly, omnipotent god's response, I told you, I was interested in and actively seeking god. Your reply says, maybe I wasn't. I cannot make you accept that I am being honest. But if you are not going to take me at my word - which you said you would - then there is little reason for us to engage.
That borders on a common and higly insulting xian fallacy I have run into before. The variant I see most is the No True Scotsman version. Some xian says "you were never a true xian", and I ask, "how do you know", and they reply, "you're an atheist now, so obviously you could never have been". Wheee! Around we go with the circular logic.
They have a belief - "true xians don't lose faith" or "god answers prayers" - and rather than test whether the belief is a reasonable belief by the results, they assume the belief is valid and judge the results.
For example, the belief that god wants a relationship with everyone could be simply validated by surveying people who wanted and requested relationships with god. If everyone who wanted one got it, it would be a reasonable belief. But, if there was even a single miss, the belief is invalidated. So, here I am, a catholic who invites god to a relationship, but is rebuffed. Does that invalidate the belief? It should. It means:
- god doesn't want relationships with everyone
- god is incapable of having relationships with at least some people (for whatever reason)
- god does not exist
There are probably more possibilities, but those are the obvious ones off the top of my head.
But the believer would rather hold his belief. So he keeps the belief - god wants relationships - and judges the outcome - no relationship with god - and concludes I must have been doing it wrong or I was lying. Hurray for circular logic.
And here is the truly sad part to me - this even affects the non-stupid. Mooby's not a dummy. He's surely misguided. He surely believes bizarre and damaging things. But he is apparently pretty bright. I can only conclude this is the way the brain has evolved to function. It forms a model of the universe and refuses to update it. We former xians are outliers.