You make my point for me! I have stated again and again, I require independently verifiable evidence. You have not offered it and here you have admitted it. I can only accept such a claim of a supernatural being under the scientific method.
To choose a more secular example, a court of law will accept evidence as to a person's character, by the testimony of another person. This is not verifiable, except by the judge and jury's determination of the truthfulness and ability to judge of a witness.
Poor analogy. No judge in this nation will accept this evidence of a person unverified to exist. As an example, try to testify in a court of law as to the character of Frodo Baggins. You'll be laughed out of court. The same applies to this question. Verify the existance of the one you wish to offer your character testimony. Once you can verify that one's existance, I'll be happy to listen to your character testimony.
By your logic, if someone said to you, "I love you," you'd demand independently verifiable evidence, rather than trusting your own judgement.
Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the pleasure receptors of the brain, not unlike the reaction caused by consuming large quantities of chocolate. These types of reactions are verifiable. There is also reproducable and falsifiable evidence to point to the truth of somebody's claim for love. I would look for these reactions through signals given in the mannerisms of the claimant, such as a smile on the face, the way they carry themselves.
Show me the smile of your alleged god.
And that's my point. To change the emphasis, you write, "I require independently verifiable evidence.
Poor analogy. No judge in this nation will accept this evidence of a person unverified to exist. As an example, try to testify in a court of law as to the character of Frodo Baggins. You'll be laughed out of court. The same applies to this question. Verify the existance of the one you wish to offer your character testimony. Once you can verify that one's existance, I'll be happy to listen to your character testimony.
Wrong understanding of the analogy. I'm not talking about the person in the court taking on a persona of another person. I'm talking about them testifying as to whether an even occurred or a person exists.
Take the questions of the JFK assassination. Many people claim to have seen someone on the grassy knoll. There is a running debate as to whether or not there was or was not someone -- a second assassin -- there. We haven't yet verified whether such a person exists, but we are willing to consider evidence, based on eyewitness accounts.
Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the pleasure receptors of the brain, not unlike the reaction caused by consuming large quantities of chocolate. These types of reactions are verifiable. There is also reproducable and falsifiable evidence to point to the truth of somebody's claim for love.
And I assume you go about checking these, in such a case.
I would look for these reactions through signals given in the mannerisms of the claimant, such as a smile on the face, the way they carry themselves.
And I do the same with regard to those who tell me about God.
Show me the smile of your alleged god.
Take the person whose judgement, besides your own, you trust the most. Imagine that person tells you some day, "You're not going to believe this, but God revealed Himself to me. I'm a changed person. I've seen God; I've spoken directly with Him; I know He exists." Would you believe them? I'm sure we can come up with a thousand different explanations, but would you at least consider the possibility? Or would you reject the person, whose judgement you trust most, without further consideration, because it doesn't fit in with what you presently believe.
What you are expecting believers is exactly that: To reject the evidence of belief in their relationships. In some cases, you expect them to reject the evidence of their senses. Yes, for you, based on your relationships and experience, it is most likely the rational thing to not believe God exists. I accept that. But accept that other people with different sets of relationships and experiences, find it most rational to believe in God and/or Jesus and/or even "The Great Sky Fairy."
You are expecting people to abandon their judgement in favor of yours -- and yes, there are people in this debate, who are requesting the same of you, in the other direction. But in demanding they accept your judgement over others' you ask them to accept what is, far less verifiable evidence to them, than what they have now.
Pardon me, I think I understand what you are saying, but may I ask if circumstantial evidence would be enough to convince you? Science seems to confirm much more often the presence of the Creator's hands than it discounts Him.
The example of our universe, in its laws, order, form, and seemingly timeless (even eluded to by the brilliant mind of Steven Hawkin) consistantly testify to the NATURE of this Creator. I wish I could prove beyond all doubt - for you - that this Creator we call God, is available to "manifest" Himself to you, but it is not my calling to be a defense attorney for His Most High. I guess this is why each of us are responsible for our own relationship to Him. If I or anyone else could "prove" God outside of faith - faith would become abjunct, and the need to seek God from a desire grounded in love would be discounted.
Personally, I hope you find the spiritual peace and comfort this God has freely offered and reserved just for you....
Az