The real religion?

[SteveII]

That does not follow. Why would personal testimony of a relationship with a supernatural being (by definition beyond nature) land you on a naturalistic examination table?

I think you are the one not following...  Answer:  Because you are making an objective truth claim about the experience, Steve.  I don't know how else to explain it to you.  Personal testimony sucks.  I mentioned the Mandela Effect earlier.  What have you to say to that?  Lots of people believe it's true that a parallel universe slipped into ours and changed "Sex in the City" to "Sex AND the City."  

So...because a lot of people believe that it happened; that they experienced it personally, then it must be objectively true, right?  

You did not address how you can examine a supernatural claim with natural science--nevermind, just be definition, it cannot be done. You are equating 'truth' with 'scientific truth'. That is scientism and is a very tenuous (at best) worldview that does not hold up to scrutiny. There are many other truths that science cannot and does not comment one. 

I am asking why a person's (or a billion people's) testimony isn't evidence of something being true? If I end up in court, my testimony is evidence of things I witnessed. If someone else testifies they witnessed the same thing, we start to work toward "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". No science involved.

Again...eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and by itself, NEVER indisputable evidence for anything.  You know why?  Because the human mind is fallible and incredibly vulnerable to subconscious influences, making "personal experience" a terribly unreliable source of objective truth.  Not to mention, people LIE.  Eye witness testimony alone is usually not enough for any type of conviction in a court of law these days.  Just look at any rape case EVER.  Most prosecutors feel much more confident if they've got scientific, forensic evidence to corroborate a person's testimony.

So, you say we cannot know anything for sure if it is comes from the human mind. I don't think you live that way, you just want to use that in your argument because you don't like the conclusion. This version of the "eyewitnesses aren't reliable" argument against the existence of God has all the same flaws as the original. 

There are other ways to arrive at knowledge than just science. There are metaphysical truths, there are moral truths, there are mathematical truths. In fact science rests on many philosophical assumptions that it cannot operate without.

*bold mine*

Sure, but philosophy without science is literally just day dreaming. [emoji6]

Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

=a poor worldview that is self-refuting. 

I am saying that a person can have a properly basic belief (having good internal reasons without requiring outside proof) about a relationship with God and therefore is rational/justified in that belief.

I disagree.  Such a belief without evidence is neither rational nor justified.  But your personal, private requirements of evidence for your belief are not even the issue here.  It's when you start trying to convince others to believe that same extraordinary thing for the same crappy reasons that you get the kick-back, man.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are thousands (if not more) cases where people become Christians based on reading the NT alone. No convincing there. No outside pressure. No ulterior motives. How do you account for those conversions? And who said anything about no evidence. There is plenty of evidence contained in the NT alone. You might not find it convincing or have beliefs about it's truth claims, but it will always be evidence.