You are talking about his contention that he kiddingly summarizes with the words "we are all zombies"? I don't believe there is general expert agreement with that.

Just a quick general note regarding science:
Science is always looking at one part of the coin. Ofc sicence will always rich their aims and if their aim will be to show that God (in which form doesn't matter) doesn't exist then they will be able to show it. Why is this the case? Because they are defining the questions in a way that they can find an answer to it. But this way everything will remain subjective and not objective. Their explanations is always their point of view.
Example:
There is a significant difference between the following questions:
a) How can something become conscious?
b) How can something be that is not conscious while there is something that is conscious?
While question a might be solved, the question b is impossible to solve, cause we are not capable to show that there is anything that is not conscious.
Now someone might say how a stone could be conscious? But if a stone is conscious, it might also be able to hide it from us.
My suggestion would be:
A group of scientists should try to live two years as ascetics and then make a report about what they did experience (or witness). This would take a look at the other part of the coin.

In our solar system there are 338 objects which are classified as moons and ours is the only one which has the same apparent size when view from the surface of the host planet.

Now I can see chalking up a 338 to one shot to natural happenstance, but where do you draw the line? Suppose you learn it is a trillion to 1 shot that the earth and moon are the same apparent size in the size as veiw from the surface of the host planet...would you accept it as the work of God? I guess what I am asking is how long does the longshot have to be before you begin to discredit natural happenstance in favor of the handy-work of an uncertain God?

It depends on what you originally assigned to the probabilty of God and to how many things are out there that could have given you the opportunity to be amazed, but didn't.

Two problems with the moon theory are that it seems trivial (as opposed to a miracle that has some major impact on humans) and more importantly that the same size appearance is only approximate and could have, I believe, been even closer, without violating the laws of physics.

The easiest way to prove that the moon's size says little about God is that Not Ready never used the argument.

This is the last thing Christians want to do, but sadly, it is what so many of them communicate to non-believers. I know that you think we (as Christians) are comfortable sending you to hell. This couldn't be further from the truth.

The theme of the Bible is forgiveness and salvation - not hell and damnation. Many Christians today (who i disagree with their evangelical tactics) try to scare people into Christianity. As someone who spent 4 years at a Christian high school and 2 at a Christian liberal arts university, I don't understand what 95% of other Christians are thinking. (obv 3-6 points less than all other non-believers)

If your Gods not in my heart and i have no longing for him do you think its moral for him to not accept me?

You're incorrect sir.

Matthew 7:18-19 says, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Fire refers to hell. Christians either bear good or bad fruits. Fruits are the messages they proclaim and the work they do. Either your message and deed is aligned with Christ, or it's false.

Preceding this, Jesus says (Matthew 7:15) "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

I suggest you go to that passage starting at Matthew 7:15.

Prophet refers to false teachers in that context, not necessarily people like Nostradamus.

Your post proves you probably don't understand the importance of the theme of forgiveness and salvation, or else you would not have made a compromising post like this.

God could become man and walk on water and it wouldn't impact humans....It would just be an event which glorified Himself.

I didn't think you would classify anything as a miracle unless it violated the laws of physics. Is it fair to say the only things you consider as evidence of God's existence are events which violate the laws of physics?

It would not be a violation of the laws of physics if the moon and sun where the same apparent size down to 120 decimal places but even atheist and father of string theorist Lenord Susskind would not chalk that up to simple happenstance(he'd just look for some natural explaination). I'd be curious to know what your personal point of precision in matching the size of the sun and moon in the sky would cause you to begin to suspect a designer....maybe not an O3 god but rather a higher dimensional 6th grader or something.

No, incredibly improbable events work also. But you can't data mine. You can't display a trillion to one shot if there were many billions to choose from.

If the pope sat down for his first poker session and he was dealt three pat Royals in a row it would be more likely that it was a miracle than random luck.

On the other hand I guess you could say that I still am defining a miracle as violating the laws of physics because the three Royals, if miraculous, required God to make things happen different from what physics would have almost certainly made happen.

But you would think the deal was influenced by a mechanic and not the hand of God.