Look man, I'm all for comedy... but that's nothing to joke about.

This is appropriate in the sense of the OP. Many different people have different meanings of the word "god". So somebody looking to challenge religious people to a debate should ask what exactly it is the religious people believe, and why they believe it. God becomes an empty catchall word until someone says precisely what it is they believe.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Two high class philosophers could be said to be using "identical reasoning skills" and yet come down on different sides of a particular question. Does that somehow mean that these philosophers are a "bad barometer" to reach conclusions about philosophical questions?

Well, one thing's for certain, if you're hoping observing religious people will destroy the last shreds of your faith, you've definitely come to the right place.

If you want to have an honest discussion/sermon/lecture from someone who is both sincere enough and intelligent enough to answer your questions in a way you might respect.

Rob Bell strikes me as a guy who is genuinely intelligent, devout, and well spoken. He's got a few books out as well.

If it were really true, I could define "god" to be "the force which attracts to massive bodies towards each other" and then prove that "god" exists, and there would be no argument. Presumably, you would reject that and say that this isn't *really* "god" and that I haven't done anything productive.

So I don't think that OP's post could possibly be meaningful unless he's bringing in *SOME* conception of God. Otherwise, he might as well be asking us to prove that aluagduilh exist (aluagduilh is the plural of aluagduile).

This is precisely what I was pointing OP towards. When he makes the following claim about his use of the term "God":

He must be saying *something* meaningful. So the question begins with "What is he meaning by these words?"

I disagree for the reasons outlined above. It's not actually empty. If it were, he would be asking about nonsense characters. There is *some* concept of *something* going on.

Allow me to reiterate. For every life experience that you could raise that helped you believe in the Christian God I could raise an analogous one that a Muslim went through.

How could an objective observer determine, through both of your life experiences, who was believing in the 'right' God?

I read his book "Love Wins." I highly recommend this book to anyone that has a distasteful look towards Christianity. As I have said in the past, I completely understand people's negative opinions on Christianity at times, many have brought it upon ourselves. Very good book, I recommend it to anyone searching and wanting to see religion the way Christ truly meant it. Many overly conservative fundamentalist Christians take offense to this book and gave it negative reviews. Many accuse him of spreading heresy, I don't see it that way. I thought the book was really good.

I put up a thread sort of relating to what he writes about in that book a few minutes ago.

How do you think that a Muslim reaches the conclusion of his faith? How do you think a Christian does? (What about a Buddhist?)

It would seem to me that you're doing an identical thing to what uke was talking about. If you think that it's merely a matter of switching out the letters G-o-d with A-l-l-a-h, then I don't think you're actually using the words in a meaningful way.

Since an objective (external) observer is not privy to the full experience that the individual has, I'm not sure what one should expect an objective (external) observer be able determine from making observations.

---

Edit: Awwww... you changed your post.

It depends. You said life experiences were the deciding factor in your believing, so I can only assume you meant that God acted in some way as to profoundly affect your life (either all at once, or with small interactions).

Not exactly. There isn't anything, so far as I know, that is "God specific" insofar as life experiences go. So, with regard to life experiences, why are you giving priority to one (Christianity) over another (Islam)?

Wouldn't this mean that I, who does not possess such life experiences, would be unable to determine the correct God?

Not really. There are many people with a pantheist or aesthetic idea of God not exactly that far from what you just said. If someone comes up with such a definition, then I would be happy to discuss perhaps saying something like "i have no issue with your premise outside of the confusion caused by the religious language".

But sure, if someone said "god is my pet cat" then yes there are some limits where it becomes ludicrous. But the net here where I am at least initially willing to take any seriously intended definition of god and discuss that premise. Yes there is a canon of conventionally considered properties which most common definitions of god will borrow from, but I don't think I have any real burden to give an exact list of acceptable properties and definitions in an open ended question like this one.

I am not defending that other guy's flying spagetti monster nonsense, btw. It is appropriate as an analogy only for certain precise definitions.

oh shoot I hope I was not implying this. For some arguments, these can be replaced, but not for others. For instance, since both Yahweh and Allah are charged with creating the universe, then if the argument is constrained to the property of universe creation then I can use either interchangeably. But if the argument is about God loving us as evidence by sending Jesus then that would not be able to be interchanged with Allah.

go on...

What do you mean by this? If you're claiming that any "God experience" can be redefined by an objective (external) observer as being "not a God experience" then I agree with you.

Because the information I have about Islam is not congruent with the information that I have about Christianity.

I'm not sure I follow. What life experiences? Whose life experiences?

Essentially what you're saying is: ignore the problem. A completely rational person would conclude that personal experience is a highly fallible form of evidence.
Humans, as well as other animals, are highly superstitious. For example, B.F. Skinner did an experiment with pigeons, where he placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these same actions - e.g. flapping its wings at every interval, believing that by flapping its wings, its somehow responsible for the food being delivered. They call this - pigeon superstition. The pigeon constructs an erroneous belief that is not based in evidence, but rather superstition, in an attempt to enhance its chances of survival (via receiving more food).

As humans, just as with most other animals, we have evolved to be rather superstitious, and not because there's some deeper truth in superstition, but simply because recognizing patterns in nature and ascribing agency, facilitates survival. Such thought processes are however redundant in the modern day - as food/energy is not as rare/difficult to acquire as it would have been throughout the majority of our evolution. We now need to turn toward evidence-based thinking.

Okay. As a Christian you presumably label Muslim's "God experience" as being "not a God experience". So, given that both experiences are identical to an objective (external) observer, how do you explain what is going on in their head versus what is going on in your head (during a God experience).

Could you elaborate? I thought you said your belief was based on life experiences, which I thought was of a personal nature.

And what do you mean by "not congruent"? A Muslim could equally retort that Christianity is not congruent with the information that he has about Islam, so I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't have any life (God) experiences. So, I am for all intents and purposes, an outside observer. You said we shouldn't expect for an outside observer to be able to determine the 'right' God.