So then it's *true* you're confident that you could stand and walk across the room.

So you're certain that you can stand & walk across the room, and you can prove you can walk across the room, but not that you're confident. I have that same confidence. The difference between you and me? I'm even more confident in Christ.

If you only depend on what you can see, if there is in fact a living God, then you're blind.

And you have no idea what it's like living in this perishing flesh, knowing the significance of so many souls who will be utterly lonely for all eternity.

So you're right I can't, nor can anyone prove there is a God; nor that there is not. I wish you knew enough to take your chances with God.

*sigh* This is why all of that was prefaced with the problem of induction and probability. I'm well aware you're confident in Christ. The issue at hand is whether you are justified in that confidence. My confidence that I can walk across the room is 1) as I discussed riddled with philosophical problems and 2) to the extent it exists it is because of empirical data, ie, I and many people I know have walked across the room many times, and is easily demonstrated to the satisfaction of any sane person. There are thousands of different beliefs about God because the concept has no empirical foundations. Anyone can claim anything they want about God and there's no way to test it, to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. What possible reason could I have to choose one denomination of Christianity over another or to choose Christianity at all over Hinduism or Islam or whatever. What possible objective standard is there for me to ascertain whether one or any of them is more correct than another?

If I had no confidence I could walk across the room, I could just do it and demonstrated whether my belief was false or not. The same cannot be said of God. To the extent you "experience" the divine, it's completely subjective and personal. And feelings can and are frequently wrong.

It's like smoking. It just doesn't make sense to use money to do harm to you're own body. Yet people do it. I did it. Or using time you'll never get back to harm other people's data or what not. What sense does it make? You're either in or you're out. It doesn't make sense to be out. To each his own. No blood on my hands.

What chance? If God exists and would condemn me to hell for using the reason he granted me, then I want no part of him. If God exists and all good people are allowed entry to heaven regardless of religious beliefs, then I have no worry.

You missed my point, probably because I forgot to include it You're confident, but you can't prove that confidence. All you can prove is that you can do it. So it is with all those "crazy Christians" telling people about Christ. They can't prove anything until it's too late for most.

I'm sure Harold Camping felt the same way as you.

I took no account of him. In fact, I'm ashamed to say I laughed at him, when I should have prayed for him. Christ had already said that nobody knows the day or hour of his return, not even Christ, only the Father.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) I believe in continuing and personal revelation. And that is where your "empirical evidence" comes in. Given the disparities between different religions, and the different sects among them, I don't blame you for being skeptical of the countless witnesses of God recorded in the Bible. But you can find out which sect of which religion is right, by sincerely praying about it, and exercising just enough faith to expect an answer. If you ask God in faith if say, there is a God at all, then he will answer you. But He might not answer right away, and it is unlikely to be spectacular. And the key is that you have to ask with an open mind, and be willing to accept the answer when you receive.

As a final note, science is not as different from religion as you might think. Take Quantum Mechanics for example. Unless you are a physicist, or possibly an engineer, it is unlikely that you have actually seen experimental evidence for the very counter-intuitive, and almost magical quality of quantum mechanics. And yet those strange results are widely accepted. Will you reject the idea that electrons behave like both particles and waves because you have not yourself seen the experiments? Will you reject the existence of an electron because you have not personally seen any evidence for it (no offense intended if you have personally seen such evidence)? And there are often disagreements between different theories. There are literally hundreds of versions of the Big Bang Theory, does that autamatically mean that the underlying ideas must be wrong? Of course not. I believe that all religions, no matter how different they may appear have at least some truth, just as all scientific theories contain some truth. And some ore more correct than others.

I cannot prove God's existence to you. But He can, ask Him.

Well, at least you tried. "nobody can prove" is an agnostic position, by the way.

What chances? It is unknown if god exists, and even if it exists, then is unknown if this is a christian god. Besides, I wouldn't want to deal with christian god due to all the Old Testament slaughter...

IMO, at this point all logic went out of the window.
You have a set of beliefs. They either are correct or not (it is unknown whether they represent the truth, though). You either can prove that they are correct or can't. If you can't prove that your belief represents the truth, then it will remain unknown whether they are "truth" or not. If they represent the truth, then there should be some kind of undeniable way to prove it. If you're confident that your beliefs are correct, but can't prove them, then there's a chance that you're deluding yourself and your beliefs do not represent the truth.

There's a big problem. If you get an answer, how will you known that it is not your imagination (if the answer is indirect) or a mental illness (if it is direct)?

If you'd read your Bible honestly, you'd see, that's not the way it works. Hell was created for the devil & his demons. God is holy. He makes his home with everyone who receives his Son. God seems so distanced to you because he is holy. When you reject what his Son said, how can he make himself known or make his home with you? It's Christ who makes God known to people.

Yes, but the way of Christ is without error.

That's part of a method you use, which is fallible, but for some reason incomprehensible to me, you assume unquestionable authority in it.

One last ditch effort: You are confident in what we spoke of earlier, and you agree that it's a *truth* that you're confident, and yet you can't prove it to anyone but yourself. So because God hasn't revealed himself directly to you, you conclude either there is no God, or else he hates you. If this is correct, I challenge you to carefully read the book of Job, 42 short chapters.

Have a good night.

What do you mean by that?

Do you mean that the Gospel of Christ is perfect? Or that only the Gospel of Christ can bring us to salvation?

Both of which are true.