Debate: God Exists

[Jehanne]

Can you give an example of non-empirical evidence that has been established as a foundation for a conclusion that is generally accepted as well-supported? How do you evaluate non-empirical evidence without appealing to empirical methods?

For example, my personal observations of a unknown animal are empirical, but to be established as a foundation for a conclusion, more is needed: other people observing the same creature and taking pictures of it helps, but without a specimen to study and confirm that it is, in fact, a heretofore un-catalogued species, it's not going to be generally accepted as well-supported. The evidence that has been gathered is not conclusive if it doesn't include a specimen or equivalent evidence (maybe if I videoed it close up with someone else videoing me videoing it, and we also got a DNA sample).

For an example, you seem to want to establish a foundation for a conclusion here, and haven't offered any empirical evidence for said conclusion (really no arguments either unless I missed something).    Jehanne recently posted in the William Lane Craig, stating that a singularity contains actual infinities (Perhaps I am making an assumption, but I don't believe this was from any direct observation).  

See here

---

I would hope that you take the time to read the RationalWiki article.  Craig is just woefully ignorant and he appears that he wants to remain that way, no doubt to continue the stream of income that he is receiving from his "ministry".  Let's take just one example of Craig's foolishness.  Craig claims that "actual infinities" are an absurdity in Nature, and yet, he will cite singularity theorems to bolster his first cause argument, not telling his ignorant evangelical audiences that a singularity, in physics, is an actual infinite, where the equations go to an infinite space-time curvature.

Craig can't have it both ways; either actual infinities exist, or the singularity theorems/results are telling physicists something (that, by the way, they already know!), namely, that General Relativity, as a theory, is incomplete at extreme energies and/or distances.

Maybe Alex can fill us in with more details?!

---

Now a certain blogger observed this argument for actual infinities mostly comes from Atheist YouTuber experts (which he charitably described as "vibrant to say the least). And as I mentioned before, evidence of absence, is a logical claim.  While it does require some observation, it's foundation is logic.  As to how to handle non-emperical evidence.  I would say that according to the respective category.  For the subject in question, that would be the rules of logic. 

As to your last paragraph I don't see how that is on topic, I'm not nearly so strict.  I think that the evidence only needs to be sufficient, and would normally look for some type of corroborating evidence.

Professor Wes Morriston has taken Craig to task on his very erroneous views on transfinite arithmetic:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/selected-papers.html

Note that the above link was in the external links section of the RationalWiki page on Craig.

[SuperSentient]

Simple fallacy.

Simple trolling at this point.

Speaking to Allah is not necessarily elevating above Muhammed in Islam,

Actually it does as Muhammad got his directives fro the arch angel Michael, as he was too 'impure' to Speak to Allah Himself. If a muslim says they speak with Allah, then that means their spiritual pueity is greater than the PROPHET Muhammad.

many Muslims believe they do, just like many Christians.

Second time I've asked for a citation.

You are trying to define Christianity into objective truth, which you can't do.

All I've done here is point out by the very rules of religion only Christianity puts it's believers in direct contact with God.

Citations please. I think you 'feel' that you are right but never researched it. What you fail to understand is to claim contact with God in other religions is a death sentence in most cases.

Again as only prophets can make this claim. As I exampled above To make this claim in most if not all other religions even Judaism is blaspheme and a death sentence follows.

I gave you one source, but I will give another source for individual experience. I have met muslims that claim to speak to Allah, it isn't something new.

What a douche bag! You didn't even read the source material you left did you?
The question in ght e google search header that you did read described a muslim asking spiritual leaders about his supposed muslim uncle who claims to talk to Allah. Not that He does, he just wanted to see what the Qur'an had to say about it.

The part you missed:


Did you ask him what Allah (swt) has been telling him? Ask him questions, ask him about the environment of the supposed direct communication, ask him about the medium of communication, is it verbal? Symbols? Visions? These questions will not only help you get to the truth, but also help him/her get a clear picture of what is going on. – Allah knows best Jul 23 '15 at 12:05
add a comment
4 Answers
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted


See Quran sura 42:51. Allah does not talk to a human being by direct means. It is however possible to see aspiring dreams etc.

Allah has also made family a responsibility. Providing family with sustenance and good education/training and not turning them away from religion is also a responsibility from Allah see Quran 66:6.

Tell you relative that if his change is from Allah, it must be balanced (Quran 2:143). If he is escaping from his family responsibilities in the name of excessive worship, it must be from Shaitan because the Prophet (pbuh) prohibited his companion Abdullah bin Amr bin Aas from ignoring his wife for the sake of excessive worship.



We believe the chain of communication between Allah and his creation is as follows:

Allah -> Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) -> Prophet -> people

Now Allah honored Musa(Moses) by speaking to him directly, but once again he was still a Prophet.

After Prophet Muhammad(saw) passed away, there is no new revelation to come.

The only thing that is left that resembles prophethood are dreams. Prophet Muhammad said that dreams a 1/46th revelation. Meaning someone may experience or see something that is from Allah, but the scholars say it has limits. Meaning no new revelation comes through dreams. So if someone says that Allah spoke to them in a dream and that they don't have to pray anymore, that was not a true dream. And Allah knows best.

I have studied Islam for some time, and can tell you have no idea what it is about or how it supposed to work. Here's an idea why dn't you ask questions about what you don't know rather than looking for way to demonstrate how deep your ignorance on world religion really is. Seriously, why do you who knows nothing of religion need to try and fool me into thinking you do? I have spent over a decade studying religions of the world, and here you come nearly cluless but pretending to know what it is your talking about. Why?

This is what prayer has been about (talking to God), and it is a major pillar of Christianity. 

You don't even understand the role of prayer in the christian church.
Glob...
Prayer is not about talking to God nor is it about Changing God's will or asking God for stuff. Prayer is about changing who we are to follow in the pattern from which God asks us to fit.
Look at the model prayer Jesus left us. How much of it was concerned about our daily wants or desires? how much of it was about shootng the bull?How much was dedicated in asking God for personal stuff?

Then note how much was of it was about asking God to change us make us and mold usinto something different.

But you certainly assume God exists, this has been demonstrated by what I said to you earlier.

Not in the beginning. after 18years of hell on earth I was convinced that (my version) of a loving God was not possible. So no. I did not start out that God existed. I mocked this God by beating his believers and doubble dog daring him to show his face, and continued to beat and mock his followers in my high school class till he showed up.

If you are positing that something exists, shouldn't a burden of proof be on you rather than the person denying it?

Are you stupid or something?
If I told you I saw the grand canyon and described the best I could it's full Majesty, then gave you directions on how to see it for yourself. Then you come back without lifting a finger's worth an effort with a "nut-huh, it don't exist" then isn't the burden of proof on you to disprove my claim? That's kinda how things work in court. why would this be any different? Oh, that's right your not smart enough to understand you are not arguing the typical metaphysical argument, based on intangible fact. Or rather you are trying to make my argument fit the intangible argument you are so use to defending.

I actually do have "proofs" of God's non-existence, I have manually constructed them (many from other ideas) and are still working to have a complete set. 

drag them ut sport don't be shy!
Let's see what you got!!!

However, by what you say, it seems it doesn't interest you to be open minded.

where would you ever get such an idea???

I will wait until you relevantly respond to me. Calling me a troll because I point out your fallacy hardly gives the appeal that you are open minded about this. 
I will leave a few notes here:

What a douche bag! You didn't even read the source material you left did you?

Did you read the what the first person said? He said a Muslim claims to speak to Allah, that automatically proves my point. 
Sura 42:51-
And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.
This verse was a response to Jews that were hostile towards Muhammed, claiming that he never saw Allah nor spoke to him literally face to face. However, it is possible to speak to Allah through 'wahy' (Infusion of the heart). This is very similar to what Christians claim about speaking to God.
Commentary here: http://www.islamicstudies.info/quran/maa...2&verse=51
But what really appalls me is your assumption that because Christians hold a specific unique belief, that they therefore have truth in their religion. Are you really serious about that position? I highly doubt you are using you are using your rationality here (or else I am mistaken).

Prayer is not about talking to God nor is it about Changing God's will or asking God for stuff.

That is the common understanding of it, and the symbol of it. 
You are making bizarre claims out of the mainstream.

If I told you I saw the grand canyon and described the best I could it's full Majesty, then gave you directions on how to see it for yourself. Then you come back without lifting a finger's worth an effort with a "nut-huh, it don't exist" then isn't the burden of proof on you to disprove my claim?

False analogy. If I tell someone that something outside of our current experience exists, I am the one postulating it, and therefore need to justify it. This example here has someone providing some form of evidence for this person and they refused to acknowledge it. If the person still denied it (after positive justification), I would say they should have a reason to deny it. If someone postulates something, they should justify and not call on someone to assume it and justify its negation. 

That's kinda how things work in court.

In court, you are innocent until proven guilty. Same logic applies here with theism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Other minds - There is no empirical evidence to suggest anyone else has consciousness

Except for all the other people acting as though they have consciousness, you mean.

Then with respect to other minds, you allowing a liberal level of inference while with respect to apprehension of the divine using strict foundationalism. Neither belief is based on a self-evident proposition. Neither belief is based on incorrigible experience (in the classical foundationalist sense). Neither belief is based on direct observation of another's first-person experience. If you applied your foundationalist demands consistently then you could not justify belief in other minds. Nevertheless it is a properly basic belief.

[The Industrial Atheist]

Except for all the other people acting as though they have consciousness, you mean.

Then with respect to other minds, you allowing a liberal level of inference while with respect to apprehension of the divine using strict foundationalism. Neither belief is based on a self-evident proposition. Neither belief is based on incorrigible experience (in the classical foundationalist sense). Neither belief is based on direct observation of another's first-person experience. If you applied your foundationalist demands consistently then you could not justify belief in other minds. Nevertheless it is a properly basic belief.

There is the field of psychology.

Can you give an example of non-empirical evidence that has been established as a foundation for a conclusion that is generally accepted as well-supported? How do you evaluate non-empirical evidence without appealing to empirical methods?

For example, my personal observations of a unknown animal are empirical, but to be established as a foundation for a conclusion, more is needed: other people observing the same creature and taking pictures of it helps, but without a specimen to study and confirm that it is, in fact, a heretofore un-catalogued species, it's not going to be generally accepted as well-supported. The evidence that has been gathered is not conclusive if it doesn't include a specimen or equivalent evidence (maybe if I videoed it close up with someone else videoing me videoing it, and we also got a DNA sample).

For an example, you seem to want to establish a foundation for a conclusion here, and haven't offered any empirical evidence for said conclusion (really no arguments either unless I missed something).    Jehanne recently posted in the William Lane Craig, stating that a singularity contains actual infinities (Perhaps I am making an assumption, but I don't believe this was from any direct observation).  

See here

---

I would hope that you take the time to read the RationalWiki article.  Craig is just woefully ignorant and he appears that he wants to remain that way, no doubt to continue the stream of income that he is receiving from his "ministry".  Let's take just one example of Craig's foolishness.  Craig claims that "actual infinities" are an absurdity in Nature, and yet, he will cite singularity theorems to bolster his first cause argument, not telling his ignorant evangelical audiences that a singularity, in physics, is an actual infinite, where the equations go to an infinite space-time curvature.

Craig can't have it both ways; either actual infinities exist, or the singularity theorems/results are telling physicists something (that, by the way, they already know!), namely, that General Relativity, as a theory, is incomplete at extreme energies and/or distances.

Maybe Alex can fill us in with more details?!

---

Now a certain blogger observed this argument for actual infinities mostly comes from Atheist YouTuber experts (which he charitably described as "vibrant to say the least). And as I mentioned before, evidence of absence, is a logical claim.  While it does require some observation, it's foundation is logic.  As to how to handle non-emperical evidence.  I would say that according to the respective category.  For the subject in question, that would be the rules of logic. 

As to your last paragraph I don't see how that is on topic, I'm not nearly so strict.  I think that the evidence only needs to be sufficient, and would normally look for some type of corroborating evidence.

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

[Nonpareil]

Except for all the other people acting as though they have consciousness, you mean.

Then with respect to other minds, you allowing a liberal level of inference while with respect to apprehension of the divine using strict foundationalism.

No.

With respect to other minds, we have evidence. There is observable behavior that supports the conclusion of other minds existing.

With respect to gods, we have none. There is no observable behavior that supports the conclusion of gods existing.

Nevertheless it is a properly basic belief.

Repeating that will not make it any less of a useless non-phrase.

[Drich]

I will wait until you relevantly respond to me. Calling me a troll because I point out your fallacy hardly gives the appeal that you are open minded about this. 
I will leave a few notes here:

What a douche bag! You didn't even read the source material you left did you?

Did you read the what the first person said? He said a Muslim claims to speak to Allah, that automatically proves my point. 
Sura 42:51-
[b]And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.
This verse was a response to Jews that were hostile towards Muhammed, claiming that he never saw Allah nor spoke to him literally face to face.

Because no one in that religion ever did.
Speaking to an angel and speaking to God is two very different things.

However, it is possible to speak to Allah through 'wahy' (Infusion of the heart). This is very similar to what Christians claim about speaking to God.

It's not what I am talking about, It's not what is offered by Christ in Luke 11..

Commentary here: http://www.islamicstudies.info/quran/maa...2&verse=51
But what really appalls me is your assumption that because Christians hold a specific unique belief, that they therefore have truth in their religion.

Swing and another miss 'smart guy.'
What I am saying is because Christianity hangs on a testable/falsifiable "unique view," Christian can and has been vetted over and over for two thousand years. It's not the claim that makes Christianity true it is that claim can be tested.Again when doubting thomas said he would not believe until He put his hand in the side of Jesus or his finger in the holes where the nails had been, is it your contention that Thomas did so from his "heart?"

Christ promises that the Father will pour out the Holy Spirit onto you. The Father will immerse you in "God." Granted this does manifest different ways, and at first it does start out 'with through the heart' business. However it does not end there. I, a no body in the grand scheme got to stand before Christ, (on my face with much fear and trembling.) And then daily interaction with the Holy Spirit. Not just a feeling or notion. I can literally be listening to the radio Ask a topical question and get it answered through the program. Or ask another and another show will have the answer. Sometimes as with Creation verse evolution. I get to see/watch how thing could have played out in a waking dream. Or another I was in over my head working on a car putting a new timming belt on and when I slacked the belt all four cams turned a different way. Prayed over that then physically watch each cam click one tooth at a time back into position. I locked them down and the car fired right up. (on a interference motor/Really big deal) Not to mention my contacts with 'messengers.' Again which is a completely different experience. Then in prayer/petition I know there is nothing I can't truly ask for and not receive. How ever I am fully aware of consequence, and the price to be paid for foolish things. But more often than not I seek His will over mine.

And I'm no one special. God did not offer me anything He does not offer anyone else. He did not make me a prophet, He did not make me Apostle, a pope or even a priest. Yet my experience in my mind's eye I like all other bible based Christians have greater/stronger relationship with God than most head prophets did of other religions.

That sport is why I know Christianity to be true. I've experienced what has been promised. The 'other religions' you mention do not promise what Christ does. if so then pleae provide book chapter and verse. or concede the point.

Are you really serious about that position? I highly doubt you are using you are using your rationality here (or else I am mistaken).

why would I need to rationally plot a line of thought when I can draw on direct personal experience?

That is the difference between what you are doing and what I am. You are trying to rationalize the bible/Christian with a life experience that does not include God and presupposes that the rest of the world is so unfortunate.

What I am trying to do is broach the same subject with life experience that includes God's direct intervention.

That is why you rely so heavily on rational, logic, thought, science, because you can not see the map or directions that take you to God. Again what good are those honorable disciplines if your use of them do not allow you to see, you do not need them to simply follow to vet the instructions on the map for yourself.

Seriously if someone you trusted said meet me at the wal-mart closest to your house at 8:30 tonight and I'll give you 100K to spend how you like. Do you show up at 9:00 3 days later wanting your money? do you sit home and rationalize away all the reasons this offer could not be valid? Do you 'science' away the offer or the location.

Or do you honestly and simply show up to see if your friend will deliver?

Weigh the personal cost against potential benefit.

If potential benefit is greater than personal cost show up. if not then stay home.

If you choose to stay home, then know you do not have the moral right to then challenge your friend's offer, nor the right to demand he meet you on your terms.

That is the common understanding of it, and the symbol of it. 
You are making bizarre claims out of the mainstream.

My claims simply match the direction Christ left. Luke 11:1 Jesus teaches us how to pray. What He teaches is what I summarized (what you identified as not being mainstream)
So what if I were to ask you what if your idea of "Mainstream Christianity" is wrong? Is God then obligated to honor it, Honor/answer your prayers?

If I told you I saw the grand canyon and described the best I could it's full Majesty, then gave you directions on how to see it for yourself. Then you come back without lifting a finger's worth an effort with a "nut-huh, it don't exist" then isn't the burden of proof on you to disprove my claim?

False analogy.

Actually it is not. here is why:

If I tell someone that something outside of our current experience exists,

The experience of God is not outside what we can experience.

I am the one postulating it, and therefore need to justify it.

Again not a postulation. I am describing an experience of going to a place or more like meeting a person. The experience is a static one meaning it requires the same humility from us all. If we can humble ourselves to ask Seek and knock as outlined by luke 11 We have the opportunity to physically be set before God.

This example here has someone providing some form of evidence for this person and they refused to acknowledge it. If the person still denied it (after positive justification), I would say they should have a reason to deny it. If someone postulates something, they should justify and not call on someone to assume it and justify its negation.

 

Now re imagine my roll if I had been there. I saw the depth and beauty of it all. I can only describe what I saw. this is not some theory nor some guessing together patch work cobbobble. It is an experience. a very finite one at that. one that moves at a quick pace, even though you've been set on your heels by the whole thing and have a hard time taking it all in.

Your problem is you are arguing principles and ideologies when I am trying to get you to a physical place.

That's kinda how things work in court.

In court, you are innocent until proven guilty. Same logic applies here with theism.
[/quote]

Indeed

[Harry Nevis]

I will wait until you relevantly respond to me. Calling me a troll because I point out your fallacy hardly gives the appeal that you are open minded about this. 
I will leave a few notes here:
Did you read the what the first person said? He said a Muslim claims to speak to Allah, that automatically proves my point. 
Sura 42:51-
[b]And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.
This verse was a response to Jews that were hostile towards Muhammed, claiming that he never saw Allah nor spoke to him literally face to face.

Because no one in that religion ever did.
Speaking to an angel and speaking to God is two very different things.

However, it is possible to speak to Allah through 'wahy' (Infusion of the heart). This is very similar to what Christians claim about speaking to God.

It's not what I am talking about, It's not what is offered by Christ in Luke 11..

Commentary here: http://www.islamicstudies.info/quran/maa...2&verse=51
But what really appalls me is your assumption that because Christians hold a specific unique belief, that they therefore have truth in their religion.

Swing and another miss 'smart guy.'
What I am saying is because Christianity hangs on a testable/falsifiable "unique view," Christian can and has been vetted over and over for two thousand years. It's not the claim that makes Christianity true it is that claim can be tested.Again when doubting thomas said he would not believe until He put his hand in the side of Jesus or his finger in the holes where the nails had been, is it your contention that Thomas did so from his "heart?"

Christ promises that the Father will pour out the Holy Spirit onto you. The Father will immerse you in "God." Granted this does manifest different ways, and at first it does start out 'with through the heart' business. However it does not end there. I, a no body in the grand scheme got to stand before Christ, (on my face with much fear and trembling.) And then daily interaction with the Holy Spirit. Not just a feeling or notion. I can literally be listening to the radio Ask a topical question and get it answered through the program. Or ask another and another show will have the answer. Sometimes as with Creation verse evolution. I get to see/watch how thing could have played out in a waking dream. Or another I was in over my head working on a car putting a new timming belt on and when I slacked the belt all four cams turned a different way. Prayed over that then physically watch each cam click one tooth at a time back into position. I locked them down and the car fired right up. (on a interference motor/Really big deal) Not to mention my contacts with 'messengers.' Again which is a completely different experience. Then in prayer/petition I know there is nothing I can't truly ask for and not receive. How ever I am fully aware of consequence, and the price to be paid for foolish things.  But more often than not I seek His will over mine.

And I'm no one special. God did not offer me anything He does not offer anyone else. He did not make me a prophet, He did not make me Apostle, a pope or even a priest. Yet my experience in my mind's eye I like all other bible based Christians have greater/stronger relationship with God than most head prophets did of other religions.

That sport is why I know Christianity to be true. I've experienced what has been promised. The 'other religions' you mention do not promise what Christ does. if so then pleae provide book chapter and verse. or concede the point.

Are you really serious about that position? I highly doubt you are using you are using your rationality here (or else I am mistaken).

why would I need to rationally plot a line of thought when I can draw on direct personal experience?

That is the difference between what you are doing and what I am. You are trying to rationalize the bible/Christian with a life experience that does not include God and presupposes that the rest of the world is so unfortunate.

What I am trying to do is broach the same subject with life experience that includes God's direct intervention.

That is why you rely so heavily on rational, logic, thought, science, because you can not see the map or directions that take you to God. Again what good are those honorable disciplines if your use of them do not allow you to see, you do not need them to simply follow to vet the instructions on the map for yourself.

Seriously if someone you trusted said meet me at the wal-mart closest to your house at 8:30 tonight and I'll give you 100K to spend how you like. Do you show up at 9:00 3 days later wanting your money? do you sit home and rationalize away all the reasons this offer could not be valid? Do you 'science' away the offer or the location.

Or do you honestly and simply show up to see if your friend will deliver?

Weigh the personal cost against potential benefit.

If potential benefit is greater than personal cost show up. if not then stay home.

If you choose to stay home, then know you do not have the moral right to then challenge your friend's offer, nor the right to demand he meet you on your terms.

That is the common understanding of it, and the symbol of it. 
You are making bizarre claims out of the mainstream.

My claims simply match the direction Christ left. Luke 11:1 Jesus teaches us how to pray. What He teaches is what I summarized (what you identified as not being mainstream)
So what if I were to ask you what if your idea of "Mainstream Christianity" is wrong? Is God then obligated to honor it, Honor/answer your prayers?

If I told you I saw the grand canyon and described the best I could it's full Majesty, then gave you directions on how to see it for yourself. Then you come back without lifting a finger's worth an effort with a "nut-huh, it don't exist" then isn't the burden of proof on you to disprove my claim?

False analogy.

Actually it is not. here is why:

If I tell someone that something outside of our current experience exists,

The experience of God is not outside what we can experience.

I am the one postulating it, and therefore need to justify it.

Again not a postulation. I am describing an experience of going to a place or more like meeting a person. The experience is a static one meaning it requires the same humility from us all. If we can humble ourselves to ask Seek and knock as outlined by luke 11 We have the opportunity to physically be set before God.

This example here has someone providing some form of evidence for this person and they refused to acknowledge it. If the person still denied it (after positive justification), I would say they should have a reason to deny it. If someone postulates something, they should justify and not call on someone to assume it and justify its negation.

 

Now re imagine my roll if I had been there. I saw the depth and beauty of it all. I can only describe what I saw. this is not some theory nor some guessing together patch work cobbobble. It is an experience. a very finite one at that. one that moves at a quick pace, even though you've been set on your heels by the whole thing and have a hard time taking it all in.

Your problem is you are arguing principles and ideologies when I am trying to get you to a physical place.

That's kinda how things work in court.

In court, you are innocent until proven guilty. Same logic applies here with theism.

Testable/falsifiable? How so?

[Drich]

God in Luke 11 set conditions to have the Holy Spirit poured out or joined with us. If you do ABC God will do XYZ

To falsify any ABC/XYZ claim is to full fill your ABC end.

[Harry Nevis]

God in Luke 11 set conditions to have the Holy Spirit poured out or joined with us. If you do ABC God will do XYZ

To falsify any ABC/XYZ claim is to full fill your ABC end.

You're absurd.

[SuperSentient]

I will wait until you relevantly respond to me. Calling me a troll because I point out your fallacy hardly gives the appeal that you are open minded about this. 
I will leave a few notes here:
Did you read the what the first person said? He said a Muslim claims to speak to Allah, that automatically proves my point. 
Sura 42:51-
[b]And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.
This verse was a response to Jews that were hostile towards Muhammed, claiming that he never saw Allah nor spoke to him literally face to face.

Because no one in that religion ever did.
Speaking to an angel and speaking to God is two very different things.

Muslims believe they can speak to God, as I have demonstrated.

Swing and another miss 'smart guy.'

What I am saying is because Christianity hangs on a testable/falsifiable "unique view," Christian can and has been vetted over and over for two thousand years. It's not the claim that makes Christianity true it is that claim can be tested.Again when doubting thomas said he would not believe until He put his hand in the side of Jesus or his finger in the holes where the nails had been, is it your contention that Thomas did so from his "heart?"

Historically, Christianity can not be tested since it relies on untestable claims, and it is funny that you try to bring some rational method into here since you don't seem to be interested in whether your religion is actually correct but that as long as you have some religious experience than you are satisfied with it.
If you are talking about the historicity of biblical texts and Jesus, then I recommend you push past what just Christian theologians and apologists tell you.

I get to see/watch how thing could have played out in a waking dream. Or another I was in over my head working on a car putting a new timming belt on and when I slacked the belt all four cams turned a different way. Prayed over that then physically watch each cam click one tooth at a time back into position. I locked them down and the car fired right up. (on a interference motor/Really big deal) Not to mention my contacts with 'messengers.' Again which is a completely different experience. Then in prayer/petition I know there is nothing I can't truly ask for and not receive. How ever I am fully aware of consequence, and the price to be paid for foolish things.  But more often than not I seek His will over mine.

This is typical religion. 

That sport is why I know Christianity to be true. I've experienced what has been promised. The 'other religions' you mention do not promise what Christ does. if so then pleae provide book chapter and verse. or concede the point.

I know they don't, but they do claim divine revelation and experiences of their own. Christianity doesn't have enlightenment from meditation and reincarnation, why should I accept it if it doesn't contain these specific eastern views?

why would I need to rationally plot a line of thought when I can draw on direct personal experience?

That is the difference between what you are doing and what I am. You are trying to rationalize the bible/Christian with a life experience that does not include God and presupposes that the rest of the world is so unfortunate.

What I am trying to do is broach the same subject with life experience that includes God's direct intervention.

That is why you rely so heavily on rational, logic, thought, science, because you can not see the map or directions that take you to God. Again what good are those honorable disciplines if your use of them do not allow you to see, you do not need them to simply follow to vet the instructions on the map for yourself.

Well said, and you are right. Religion tends to look up to supernatural revelation, experience, and interaction with some god. Rational based thinking looks for reasons to accept these beliefs and independent ways to confirm truths. You assume the truths of what you already currently believe and see unbelievers as denying a truth that could be confirmed by supernatural experience. Rational thinking doesn't assume this but tries to examine it skeptically and find ways that could confirm truths.
The latter is based on scientific thinking. It is the most accurate way to determine truths, and needs to be used for any belief, or else it is meaningless to believe, since accepting an untrue faith destroys the purpose of it.

My claims simply match the direction Christ left. Luke 11:1 Jesus teaches us how to pray. What He teaches is what I summarized (what you identified as not being mainstream)

So what if I were to ask you what if your idea of "Mainstream Christianity" is wrong? Is God then obligated to honor it, Honor/answer your prayers?

My point was that prayer is commonly believed to be a means of talking to God or get to know God. I wouldn't say God would be obligated to give you anything.

The experience of God is not outside what we can experience.

I mean that God is a supernatural being, so it is outside what we empirically determine. 

Again not a postulation. I am describing an experience of going to a place or more like meeting a person. The experience is a static one meaning it requires the same humility from us all. If we can humble ourselves to ask Seek and knock as outlined by luke 11 We have the opportunity to physically be set before God.

I am talking about the existence of God here, atheism is the absence of a belief in any god. When I ask, Does God exist?, it is up to the person postulating his existence to justify it, which is the theist. Also, you are presuming God exists here, but you can't presume something exists to justify its existence. That is like asking me to prove Sasquatch exists and I tell you that if you refuse to accept it exists, you won't find it, since it only appears to those that accept its existence.

Now re imagine my roll if I had been there. I saw the depth and beauty of it all. I can only describe what I saw. this is not some theory nor some guessing together patch work cobbobble. It is an experience. a very finite one at that. one that moves at a quick pace, even though you've been set on your heels by the whole thing and have a hard time taking it all in.

Your problem is you are arguing principles and ideologies when I am trying to get you to a physical place.

It is also something you would have the burden to prove, since you would be postulating its existence. If you want to get me to god, then fine, demonstrate that he exists, if you can't, then why should I accept it? 
In the end, it doesn't matter how many ways you reword it, the theist will always be the one that has the need to demonstrate the existence of their god.