The Christian Perspective
In the words of the late Greg Bahnsen, the most basic proof of Christianity is that if it were not true, it would be impossible to prove anything at all.
If the non-Christian worldview is true, the laws of logic are not valid. Therefore, even though non-Christians use logic to interpret evidence, they have no real justification for doing so. In the non-Christian worldview, logic is not something that can be trusted.
Christians alone do have a basis for recognizing that the law of non-contradiction applies everywhere and at every time, past, present and future. Our basis is the character of our God.
According to the Bible, the Creator of all things is consistently logical. He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2) and He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).
Further, all truth and knowledge is in Christ (Colossians 2:3), who is God (John 1:1), and who created all things (John 1:3).
As Christians we know that all things have been created by One who is consistently logical, and therefore the laws of logic are both universal and invariant. Because He holds the keys to all knowledge, we also know that logical knowledge is possible.
Christianity, as we see, has grounds for trusting logic -- for claiming that the laws of logic are always true, a claim that other worldviews have no basis for making.
An easy way to demonstrate this latter point, that non-Christian worldviews deny the validity of the laws of logic, is to begin at the beginning.
We see that time past has ended. To avoid infinite regress, we must acknowledge that it also began.
Infinite regress is logically incoherent. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past moments is to suggest that we have come to the end of an infinite series. An infinite series, however, is by definition a series with no end. So this would mean that we have come to the end of a series with no end, which is logically incoherent.
Infinite regress would mean that we have iterated, one-by-one, through every single item of an infinite series. But an infinite series always has more items than those that have been iterated through. We would have iterated through something that cannot be iterated through, which is logically incoherent.
If we were to go backwards through each previous moment in past time, and there were an infinite number of past moments, there would necessarily be some moment in the set of previous moments that we would never, ever get to. If that were not the case, it would not be infinite. If there is some supposed prior moment in the set of previous moments that we could never get to while iterating backwards through all previous moments, then, iterating forward from that moment to the present moment, we would never arrive at the present moment for the same reason that going backwards we could never arrive at the previous moment -- namely, the infinite (or unending) number of moments in between the two.
Infinite regress would mean that we have completed something that cannot be completed. We have traversed something that cannot be traversed. We have itemized what cannot be itemized, counted what cannot be counted, spanned what cannot be spanned.
Infinite regress violates the logical law of non-contradiction.
So we quickly see that Time Past is not infinite, and must therefore have been finite.
THE BEGINNING WAS CAUSED
To suggest that time began uncaused, or anything beginning uncaused for that matter, is absurd... it is the same as suggesting that having nothing and adding nothing to it, something results, or in other words:
0 + 0 > 0
I like to refer to this kind of thinking as "Atheist Math". In Atheist Math, zero is not equal to zero, violating the logical law of Identity.
Ultimately, there is some kind of cause of time, and to again avoid infinite regress, there must be an ultimate First Cause of time.
THE CAUSE IS ETERNAL
If the cause of time were somehow temporal, it would require the passing of time to exist, making what's known as a circular dependency, another type of infinite regress, which violates the logical law of non-contradiction.
Therefore, being not bound by time, it is, by definition, eternal (Deuteronomy 33:27).
Since it is outside of time, it does not inherently change over time, which means its inherent qualities are unchanging (Malachi 3:6).
THE CAUSE IS PERSONAL AND RATIONAL
Since it is the First Cause, it must be uncaused.
Since it is the uncaused first cause, it is self-directed and self-motivated and acted volitionally, which, simply by definition, makes it personal (Job 13:8). If it were not personal, it would not be capable of self-directed, self-motivated, volitional action, preventing it from being the First Cause. It would be the First Cause and not be the First Cause, violating the logical law of non-contradiction.
Further, if the cause of our beliefs and conclusions were not rational, there would be no reason for claiming that our own beliefs or conclusions are rationally determined. Every thought we have would be irrational without a rational God!
ATHEISM THUS INCOHERENT
Thus, a personal, unchanging and eternal uncaused First Cause clearly exists because of the logical impossibility of the contrary. This rules out all possibility of Atheism, Agnosticism, Ignosticism, and any worldview that claims that past time has been infinite, or that the Divine Initiator is temporal.
Every temporal action or activity has to have a personal, uncaused First Cause ultimately behind it, from the movement of light away from the sun, to the decision to share your last chocolatey caramel Rollo with the person you love, to our very recognition of right and wrong. Any event that takes time had to begin, since time itself began, and if that event began, then it must have been caused, and if it was caused, then there must ultimately be a personal uncaused First Cause behind it.
What's more, if there are multiple personal uncaused First Causes, multiple ultimate authorities, there would be no single source of authority. This means that no one could actually justifiably guarantee how things will operate in the created realm. One god may contradict another god, and then things that truly are... may not be! There would be no way for either god to guarantee that this will never happen, making non-contradiction an unreasonable test of truth. This would again render knowledge of any kind absolutely impossible.
Further, regarding this one God that must exist, since He alone is the source of all things in order for rational thought to be possible, it follows that He alone is also the reason for all things. For us to think rationally, our programmer must also be rational (and eternally so), meaning that He Himself must eternally conceive of Himself as His own ultimate reason for everything that occurs. This conception of Himself will eternally be the exact representation of Himself, sharing divine sovereignty, since this conception is the reason for everything that occurs. This demands that deity be shared between the conceiver and that which is conceived, between God and God's image. Unitarianism denies that deity is shared in any sense, making any imagined unitarian god irrational.
WE DON'T DO WHAT WE OUGHT
We are each keenly aware that this unified personal ultimate authority, or "God", has caused us to have a guiding sense of moral justice which we call our conscience, and we are also aware that we are unable to perfectly obey it.
Man's disobedience to the ultimate authority serves as a foundational problem resulting in the establishment of essentially every religion.
However, non-Christian religions tell us that the solution is that we must do better -- that we must be perfect -- that we must fix the problem of sin.
WE ARE IN DEBT
God has provided us with time in this life during which we ought to obey the moral code He gave us. If any amount of time is spent in disobedience, we have spent that time in a way other than we should have. Since the time was provided to us by the God that also informed us of how we should use it, and since we have not used it all as we ought, to right this wrong, additional time must now be spent the way the wasted time ought to have been spent.
Among other things, we owe God time.
WE CAN'T FIX THE PROBLEM
We cannot create additional time for ourselves. Any time we have was provided to us by God to be used in obedience to Him. Any more time that God gives us will only increase our debt to Him, and, since the ultimate authority is absolutely united, there is no other way for us to get extra time.
Suggesting that we can pay back our debt of time in submission to our Creator "on our own" is really no different than suggesting that we should borrow from our lender to pay him back for money we borrowed from him earlier. The debt would never get paid that way.
ALL REMAINING WORLDVIEWS INCOHERENT
To claim that we can pay off a debt to our Creator is to claim that we own something that He has no authority over. But we have already established, via the necessary perfect unity of all Personal First Causes, that absolutely everything we own comes from Him, and that He has authority over all of it.
Thus, to suggest we can pay Him back for what we have misused is to suggest that the One in authority over everything is not in authority over everything. This again violates the logical law of non-contradiction, disqualifying all remaining worldviews.
Christianity, by contrast, tells us the only possible truth -- that we aren't in charge, and we can't be perfect: we can't fix the problem of sin.
GOD CAN FIX THE PROBLEM
However, self-evidently, the unified One in ultimate authority can fix the problem. (Mark 10:26-27)
In fact, He has.
Only Christianity tells us about the God who loves us so much that He took our penalty on His shoulders -- it tells us that, in addition to the Son's eternal and perfect obedience to the Father in our place, He also shed His own blood on the cross to pay the debt of our sin, provided we accept His free gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:16; Acts 20:28; Revelation 1:5; Romans 10:9).
Only Christianity fully recognizes the reality of sin, the inability of man to fix the problem, and the graciousness of a perfect God to solve it for us.
Ultimately, all the clear and unquestionable proofs in the world cannot and will not convince a rebellious person to trust his Creator, because he intentionally suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).
Some claim that God's existence cannot be proven, since, if we could prove His existence, we would not need to have faith. However, this is simply not the case. God tells us that everyone knows He exists (Romans 1:20). Trusting the God that we all know exists is what the Bible calls "faith". Without this faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).
So we see that the Christian has every justification to assert his worldview as absolute truth, while the non-Christian, were his views true, would be incapable of asserting anything at all. If Christianity were not true, the laws of logic would be invalid, and every assertion would be meaningless.
The most basic proof of Christianity is that if it were not true, it would be impossible to prove anything at all.
How Can We Know the Bible is Valid?
What?! You are an idiot. You have made an unsupported claim (but look who I'm talking to) that " Non-Christian worldviews have no basis for believing that the logical law of non-contradiction is valid in every place and at every time." How do you determine that they do not posses this? Again, your narrow and self serving opinion have strengthened my Atheism and especially, my rejection of Christianity.
I think, with the issue you raised to Timothy, we are dealing with a classic case of an argument from ignorance fallacy combined with a god of the gaps fallacy (on Timothy's part, that is.)
On multiple threads, Timothy neglects responding to requests that he support his claim that the non-Christian has no justification for using Logic to interpret evidence. His claim seems to stem from his own lack of knowledge of reasons to accept the laws of logic as true (Argument from Ignorance fallacy.) He then seems to turn around and, in attempt to fill his epistemological gap of knowledge, invoke God as his reason. Not because he has evidence for it, but because it is the only "answer" he knows of (classic god of the gaps fallacy.) Needless to say, I don't really find Timothy's rhetoric to be persuasive in the slightest.
The claptrap of drivel Bahnsen clones constantly babble on about examined critically on this blog: http://tinyurl.com/4m4gwv7
The title of the page is "Does Logic Presuppose the Christian God?"
On multiple threads, like in my answer above on this very page, I have supported the claim you dispute.
Further, my personal reasoning does not come from a God of the Gaps theory, but from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If Christ is true (and I know that He is because I know Him), then it is absolutely certain that every negating worldview is false. If they are false, then their claims contradict reality, making them unquestionably incoherent, whether I can prove it or not!
Since I know for a fact they are incoherent, I can feel perfectly at ease saying so, with or without proof.
Of course, as I said, I think I do make an argument for my case perfectly clear on this very page. It doesn't seem as though either of you have read it.
You also go on to present many red herrings in your post: a flawed first cause argument, straw manning polytheism, flawed moral notions, straw manning non-Christian moral philosophies, preaching from a presupposed notion of God, etc. All red herrings. None of these, nor anything in your entire long winded and tiresome post, support your claim that non-Christians have no real justification for accepting the laws of logic as true.
Presuppositionalism fails on every level. It's a dishonest trick that tends to confuse the average layman ignorant of philosophy. Pure, unadulterated sophistry.
P1. Logic presupposes the Christian God.
P2. Non-Christian worldviews use logic but deny the Christian God.
C1. Thus, non-Christian worldviews are false.
C2. Thus, Christianity is true.
Apart from its plethora of groundless assumptions, assumptions that (to its credit) it often very clearly states it is making, the 2nd article you linked to seems to be arguing, primarily, that P1 is never defended. Likewise with the 1st article you linked to.
Of course, almost my entire answer above is a defense of P1, so your links are not only next-to-irrelevant to this thread, they are also inaccurate.
To demonstrate that P1 is valid, simply find a contradiction that necessarily exists if the Christian God does not. There's nothing more complicated or confusing about TAG than that.
In my answer above I have pointed out logical contradictions inherent in non-Christian worldviews.
In response, you have hurled disassociated terminology at my arguments and linked to inaccurate material.
If you truly believe your complaints are legitimate, please explain how they apply to my arguments.
Then there is the problem of God's apparent inability to reveal himself to nonbelievers. Surely Christians believe that God wants people to know he exists. Some Christians would even have us believe that it is possible to logically deduce that God must exist, without any faith required.
The Christian might see this as childish complaining about something that we atheists aren't smart enough to figure out for ourselves without tangible evidence, but it is a legitimate problem. It shows that God's nature is logically incoherent. A God cannot be both (a) wanting that humans know his existence and (b) invisible to humans, and indeed impossible to prove without arrogant and dishonest arguments like the one proposed on this page.
Don't Christians believe that angels have both full knowledge of God's existence and the ability to reject him if they choose? Why aren't humans given this privilege?
You basically make two arguments. First:
P1. If anyone is omniscient, they have determined the future.
P2. If anyone has free-will, then their future is not determined.
C. Omniscience and free-will are logically contradictory.
I agree with the argument, but not your resolution of it. You resolve this by saying the Christian God does not exist, but Christianity resolves it by saying that no one (not even God) has this type of free-will.
Certainly, God is not capable of doing other than what He knows He is going to do.
P1. God wants us to know He exists.
P2. God does whatever He wants.
C. God has therefore proven His existence.
However, you say, God has not proven His existence; thus, either P1 or P2 (or both) are false.
According to Christianity, though, God has clearly demonstrated His existence, but we humans convince ourselves that He has not because we want to be in authority ourselves. It isn't an issue of information or facts or evidence -- it is an issue of will (Romans 1:18-20).
Keeping this in mind, even if my arguments above are horrendously awful, unconvincing and fatally flawed, the claim of scripture is not that Timothy McCabe has perfect arguments, rather, the claim of scripture is that all of us already know the truth even without my arguments -- we just don't like it.
The kind of free-will you are suggesting is utterly incoherent:
Every choice we make is caused by a prior cause, extending necessarily beyond our temporal beginnings, ultimately ending in a necessarily personal, eternal, omnipotent God.
Your alternative, slightly reworded, that God does not want everyone to trust in Him before they die, is indeed borne out by the scriptures (ie. Proverbs 16:4; 1 Samuel 2:25; John 12:40):
He is certainly benevolent toward His elect, but all others will be condemned. This is why you should repent and join the forgiven.
As a final note, to suggest that those who reject Him don't believe that He exists is certainly false, as He has made Himself more plain than day (Romans 1:18-20).
Thanks for the comments. God bless.
The problem here is that this begs the question. We’re trying to figure out whether Christianity is true—that’s what’s at issue—so we have no idea what the world would be like if it were true or false, since we don’t know whether it’s true or false yet. Once we establish that it’s true or false, THEN we can create conditional statements like the one above.
So, Timothy, how can you establish that Christianity is true, since that’s what’s at issue in this question? What evidence do you have?
Admittedly, all the rest of your argument is valid and, possibly, sound and flows from the first premise encapsulated in the above quote. However, the first premise is not sound and begs the question for the reasons I stated above.
According to the Bible, no one is unbiased (Mark 9:40; Luke 11:23). Since the Bible is true, this makes it impossible to reason from "middle ground", since "middle ground" doesn't exist. This means instead of making one argument from neutrality, we ultimately have to make two arguments: one presupposing Christianity, and one presupposing not-Christianity. The first will be successfully circular (if Christianity, then Christianity), while the second will inevitably fail to be circular (if not-Christianity, then Christianity).
In my answer above, I first demonstrated, briefly, that the problems that assail other worldviews do not assail Christianity. Specifically, if Christianity is true, reality is coherent; knowledge is possible, etc.
I then proceeded to demonstrate that if Atheism is true, reality is not coherent; if polytheism is true, reality is not coherent; if monotheism sans-Christ is true, reality is not coherent.
Since Christianity is coherent, and not-Christianity isn't, Christianity is therefore true.
If you think this is not what I did in my answer, please explain where I digressed from this outline.
We are justified in presupposing certain propositions are true if there is some evidence or reason to think they might be true. Quantum theory, for instance, might not be true, but scientists are perfectly justified in presupposing it’s true in their arguments because, at the least, there is a mathematical basis that may or may not represent reality.
I intended to provide two arguments, one with the premise that Christianity is true, and one with the premise that it is not the case that Christianity is true. Surely one of these two premises is correct.
In my first argument, I attempted to demonstrate (essentially) that if (P1) Christianity is true, then (C1) Christianity is true.
In my second argument, I attempted to demonstrate that if (P2) it is not the case that Christianity is true, then (C2) Christianity is true.
Surely you can accept that one of these two premises is undoubtedly accurate, and if as you say my logic is valid, then the dual argument seems to be fully satisfactory to make the case.
The question is about evidence, not metaphysics. Maybe we have different ideas of what counts as evidence, but maybe you intend this to be evidence for Christianity when you say that, if Christianity is true, “knowledge is possible, reality is coherent.” Let’s grant that this counts as a sort of evidence. Sure, we might find this if Christianity were true. The problem is that on the assumption that Zoroastrianism, Islam, Taoism, many forms of polytheism (to name a few) are true, we might also expect to find this.
Nope, still not convinced I should assume that Christianity is either true or false, because in the absence of evidence that suggests its truth specifically, there’s no reason to assume it has any bearing on reality that distinguishes it from other belief systems.
"The problem is that on the assumption that Zoroastrianism, Islam, Taoism, many forms of polytheism (to name a few) are true, we might also expect to find this."
I'm not sure I follow you. In my argument above I explained that if polytheism were true, things would be and not be at the same time and in the same way by definition. This is to say that if something is, it may not be. This is not coherent. So we would not expect to find coherence in reality if polytheism is true. That was my argument: if polytheism, then incoherence.
Likewise for any form of monotheism that suggests we can pay our own debt to our creator.
Simply take any religionX and place it into its proper category (atheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic), and you have an argument above that demonstrates its incoherence... unless it is Christianity.
But the greater issue is that you’re still begging the question. In order to clear this up, consider the following argument:
1) In order to be rationally justified in assuming a sophisticated belief system (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc.) to be true one must first have reasonable evidence to suggest its truth.
2) No reasonable evidence exists to suggest the truth of Christianity.
Therefore, we are not rationally justified in assuming Christianity to be true.
Here’s an example of what your answer could be: Christianity says that the souls of those who don’t believe in the Christian God will go to hell…
Unfortunately you can’t continue because none of this is observed, neither souls, hell, or people’s souls going there.
But, given your knowledge of Christianity, I’m sure you can come up with an example that can pass the test, thereby throwing my argument’s soundness into question.
Either it is true or it isn't. So assume either/or, then progress down the path. If you find a deductive contradiction, you know you were wrong and the contrary is true.
Have I not done this? If not, how not? If so, what's the concern?
There is no need for one. Christ Himself is our Greek "Logos", our Chinese "Tao" who became flesh and dwelt among us. These abstract concepts find their resolution and correction and perfection in Him. He is the Justification for all created things. The cause, the Uniting Reality behind it all. He makes sense of unity and diversity. He holds all things together. He is eternally consistent. Why develop a "theory" of everything when the Reason for everything has identified Himself clearly and personally to us?
(John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17; Acts 17:28; Exodus 3:14)
No, it could be meaningless as I've already pointed out. Again, this is not how science works and the question is about evidence.
"If you find a deductive contradiction, you know you were wrong."
No, because the world is not entirely deductive, and most of science is in fact inductive, so deduction alone cannot be a guide to the truth.
"There is no need for one (a theory of everything)." I really don't want to be harsh here, but the ignorance involved in this statement is remarkable. So where in the Bible, then, is the theory of everything written, the one that unites gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces? Do you deny that these forces are observed, even as you use a machine that is predicated on understanding those forces (i.e. a computer)? Saying that God is the justification begs the question again.
If you completely disregard scientific understanding, we shouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place.
"No, it could be meaningless as I've already pointed out."
If it is meaningless, then it isn't true.
"(C) No, because (P) the world is not entirely deductive, and most of science is in fact inductive, so deduction alone cannot be a guide to the truth"
Even if I grant (P), it is still the case that deductive contradictions conclusively demonstrate untruth, which is what you denied. In other words, (C) does not follow from (P).
"where in the Bible, then, is the theory of everything written"?
As I said, there is no need for a "theory"; we have the personal God who "unites gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces". You can find it explained in scripture right where I said: John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17; Acts 17:28; Exodus 3:14, as well as in a plethora of other places, including the very first verses of Genesis.
"If you completely disregard scientific understanding, we shouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place."
I never disregarded scientific understanding, the scientific method, inductive reasoning or the value of sensual experience. Scripture provides validity for these, as well as validity for the ability of humans to use them (Genesis 4:15; Exodus 4:8, 35:31; Isaiah 49:23, 60:16; Ezekiel 6:7, 14:23; Zechariah 2:9; Matthew 7:16; Luke 7:22; Acts 2:22; James 1:5). My use of science is fully justified based on the authority of my Creator. I wonder how you justify your use of science?
Nonetheless, I am happy to end our conversation if you would like.
"It is still the case that deductive contradictions conclusively demonstrate untruth." We will clearly have to agree to disagree here, though I would suggest you consider at least one realm where it's clear that deduction does not track the truth: the quantum. Have you studied any of the debates in the philosophy of science for the past 50 years?
Suggesting that we don't need something that our most brilliant scientists are working on as we speak is a clear disregard for scientific understanding, as is evident also from much of what you've said.
Have fun in the land of theology and metaphysics, if you ever want to come down to reality, maybe we can have a more fruitful conversation.
If you're asking what justifies science, that's a huge debate that goes back to Thomas Kuhn and beyond. Again, this initial question is about evidence. If you're asking what constitutes evidence (admittedly a legitimate question), I'm pretty sure part of the problem from the beginning is that you have a notion of evidence that is not always consistent with the way science is done.
Since logic is primarily the study of patterns, some form of pattern is necessary. Logic works because consistent patterns exist. But is the existence of patterns proof in and of itself that a divine being is the author of those patterns?
As I understand it (and I don't claim to be an expert by any means) evolution doesn't claim that everything happened by random chance, and is an example of quite the opposite. Everything is put together, bit by bit, through success upon success. Logic is used as a tool to help understand the world we live in, not because it is absolute, but because it works. Every single columnist here has relied on a mixture of logic and assumption to respond to questions. (con't.)
I was mentally contorted trying to follow the twists of logic required to 'prove' the existence of God. And I realized that 'God' makes extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is thus on God. And frankly, things look a little mundane.
(i realize the Bible claims 'God's' authority. Anything verified only by itself is a bit suspect, dont'cha think? Or maybe that darn logic is failing...)
If "mundane" as you are using it means "not of supernatural origin", then what does "supernatural" mean? What is your definition of "supernatural"? What items or processes would you classify as "supernatural" and why would you label them as such?
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous
"Science... has provided mundane (as in not of supernatural origin) explanations..."
If "supernatural" means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" then, from a Newtonian perspective, the Theory of Relativity is supernatural, as it is beyond the Newtonian laws of nature.
Is this really the definition you were intending?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you arguing that the Theory of Relativity is supernatural in origin? Or are you pointing out that Einstein's theory changed the way we perceive time and motion, and that was somehow beyond scientific understanding? If you limit yourself to a specific period of human understanding 200+ years old, then you can argue anything. I think penicillin is supernatural, if I limit my perspective to ancient humorism.
I restate: It is blind faith to credit a supernatural deity for mysteries made mundane by science. Also, the 'proof' of Christianity, or of any deity, should not depend on how you choose to define a particular word, or require convoluted logic.
I was pointing out your (probably unintentional) bait-and-switch. Watch:
Christian: God is supernatural (meaning He is not like anything we immediately experience on a normative basis).
Atheist: Science helps us discover the nature of things. Only natural things have natures. If something isn't natural it has no nature. If something has no nature it doesn't exist. Thus, if God is supernatural (meaning without a nature), He doesn't exist, and science continually demonstrates this.
I'm pretty sure that was your actual argument. If it wasn't, I honestly don't know what you were trying to say. If it was, it's simply a bait-and-switch.
Christians don't claim that God is supernatural in the sense of having no nature. Rather, we claim that He is supernatural in the sense that when we experience Him immediately (as opposed to experiencing Him through intermediaries or secondary causes), He is unlike anything else. Science does not even begin to debunk this.
In fact, it is the Bible's claim that numerous individuals throughout history have repeatedly experienced God in a sensory manner, meaning that His existence is as scientifically certain as anything else. Finally, science itself is incoherent if Atheism is true; science is not incoherent; therefore Atheism is not true.
To bring up bait-and-switches, if the definition of supernatural remains constant as Google defines it, then the point I made, namely that it is blind faith to credit a supernatural deity for the mysteries science has made mundane - I won't switch terms for continuity - remains simple and easily understood.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say regarding sensory experiences. Some people claim to have repeatedly experienced alien abduction in a sensory manner. Does that mean alien abductions are as scientifically certain as the existence of God?
The concept of God is supernatural, as defined by Google. God may be experienced by people who are looking for that experience, but leaves no measurable quantification to prove His existence. Without faith there is no reason to believe in God. (faith:Heb. 11:1)
I am personally hoping to find proof of God's existence. Science is, simply, the measure of the quantifiable. It is reasonable to search science for proof that verifies the claims of the Bible, because even the Bible sets multiple witnesses as a standard for verification, authenticating the validity of independent verification. Yet science has not.
To be Christian seems to require careful framing of logical riddles and special definitions to work. No thanks!