Crisis of faith and the reality of the Holy Spirit

[Yahshua]

Correct me if i get this wrong but it sounds to me you are saying that since more than 40 witnesses report in the bible, their testimony is reliable.

Do you think that all 40 authors or so of the bible agree on their story? It seems to me those authors are not always saying the same thing. Beside they could have believed anything they wanted, that wouldn't necessarily make them correct. The more recent authors clearly had read the more ancient ones. i think accepting as reliable the testimony of those authors the early church accepted as "acceptable" in its canon do show some bias. the testimonies in the bible are not exactly unbiased, don't you think?

Not exactly what I'm saying and forgive me if I'm not clear. What I'm getting at is you have to go back further than the creation of "the bible". The bible is relatively new in comparison to the *different written accounts* that the Catholic Church gathered to form the bible. If we're trying to get back to the roots we can't stop at the trunk calling it the root. See what I mean? The Bible is the trunk. The individual writings are the roots.

With regard to the 40 witnesses; it's not just the fact that there are 40 (as opposed to 10 or 5 etc), it's that these 40 aren't (a) in close proximity to each other (i.e. time), that they wrote their own works AND YET they are validating (b) the same thing. Now our English translations may leave a LOT to be desired but inkeeping with the desire to return to the roots of everything, it's important to return to the original languages of these writings. And if you do you'll find they are saying the same things about God.

But yes it's true, any of the writers could've believed *anything* they wanted like you say. But even though that's a possibility, we can't automatically assume that's a likelihood. This is why I said the critical piece of the puzzle is that the God they wrote about *must never change*. Situations can change between the accounts. Different scenarios can develop. But the character of God shown has to be constant. The testimony has to be constant.

Conversely, we can't simultaneously discount these individual accounts as "bias" if things they say ARE the same or if they build upon previous testimony from older accounts because *every* advancement humanity makes (in other worldly truths) is also made the same way: by building upon previously "accepted" truths...isn't it? Take the sciences and technology for example.

so back to the holy spirit.

I think the first step in all this would be to determine what kind of test we can devise to check if the holy spirit is real. What would show it is not, also, to avoid confirmation bias. I mean, we got a hypothesis, let's test it, right ?

What kind of thing would be convincing enough to show that the Holy spirit really fills people ?

I can't think of anything, and i'm hoping people here might bring something up that i could then consider.

Actually i am kind of surprised this is not coming up easier. The belief in the holy spirit is indeed the bedrock of christianity. It seems like if nobody has wondered if it was true before.

In the same spirit (lol pardon the pun) as what I wrote above, if you're trying to get back to the roots, you have to assume a position a "non-believer" would assume; someone who has never heard anything about God at all. In other words, you gotta start over. So just as the first step for a non-believer wouldn't be to "receive the Holy Spirit", you can't start from a position of trying to confirm what it's like to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Rather, the first step would be to gain accurate knowledge about God...which brings us back to the issue of the individual writings that we must tackle. The knowledge of God must be confirmed first before we reach the step of receiving the Holy Spirit because how would one know when they've receive the Holy Spirit if they don't really know God?

Now I'm not saying you don't know God, but the accounts detail that the mission of God's witnesses was to spread the *knowledge* of God first. And after the knowledge of God is accepted by a person, the next step was to repent, and THEN that person was to receive the Holy Spirit.

But if what I just detailed is order of operation, can one really receive/experience the Holy Spirit if the knowledge of God (step 1) is incorrect? So again I think it necessitates us tackling the individual writings first, to build the correct foundation.

 

[Zmouth]

With respect I think you're still missing what I'm pointing out...and I'm not sure what you intention here is. Is it to help Simeon with his question, edify me, or what?

Geez don't rush to judgment LOL

I think your analytical skill is excellent and that is why I am trying to see if you can possibly identify the WITNESS which they didn't detect. And while it I didn't see until they started to handcuff me.

Now according to your principle they had sufficiently satisfied the # witness requirement to arrest me on DWUI charges, correct?

I will try to help Simeon if I can, not sure if I can. Hopefully we might both benefit from the exchange of constructive feedback.

You've missed the witnesses that would validate the truth that you deserved being arrested

With these three witnesses the officers just validated that you to broke the law, which warrants your arrest so that you don't get behind the wheel again and potentially hurt someone.

I agree and I'm think I am still with you regarding the principle of the prima facie case and the witnesses.

So reviewing the documentation provided do you find anything that could reasonably be examined at the time which in would prove that the number of the witnesses affirming the principle were in error beyond reasonable doubt.?

It's a principle.

Being a principle in which it fulfilled , validated and confirmed the witness requirement that affirmed that I had committed DWIU in violation of the law, then if one witness in and by itself could exhonerate an individual from the three witness principle that would that be a sufficient falsifiability to demonstrate that the witness requirement is a good rule but not a actual principle ? I think the facts in this incident might be it falsifiability but won't know until tested.

 

[bikerchaz]

thanks everybody for your interest and your responses.
I'll consider them all.

for yahshua and zmouth:

i'm not sure this witness testimony thing is really on point.

i might need to clarify something else: i hold that we accept the veracity of the bible on faith. i do not think there is valid evidence that what is in the bible is true, we do not know (in the philosophical sense) that what is described in the bible is true, we need to accept it on faith. now i realize that might be a contentious point, but if we are honnest with ourselves we have to concede it. without our faith we would not accept the bible, its miracles and its information about God. by itself, as a document, the bible is not a reliable source, any biblical scholar will tell you that. if it was a reliable source, then everbody on earth would accept it as such, the same way everybody accepts any proven facts.

so i would rather focus on faith itself, as faith supports the bible. you see, i'm digging back to the root of everything.

as i explained in my long posts, the justification we have for faith is that the holy spirit provides us with the knowledge of what is true and what is not. without the holy spirit, faith rests on no justification and is not a reliable way to know anything about God. it is indeferenciable from comfirmation bias or other delusions.

so we need to find something that warrants our belief that the Holy spirit actually provides us with knowldege of what is true and what is not. everything hinges on this. if the Holy spirit is accepted without justification, proof, warrant, anything to confirm independently from our subjective perception that it actually is what we think it is, then we could be wrong about it, we could have built our whole edifice of thought, our whole worldview, on shaky ground.

the bedrock of christianity is our conviction that the Holy spirit fills us and let us see the truth. if that is not the case, christianity is make believe. do we agree on that?

if we do, we have the imperative duty to make sure we are not deluded about this. i want what i will teach my kids to be true to be based on something rock solid, not wishful thinking.

this bedrock of the holy spirit needs to be rock solid to be a valid bedrock. what do we have to show that it is solid?
we can't use faith nor the bible, since they are built on top of this bedrock, they rest on it, they are part of the building, they are the ground floor.

is this clearer?

Yes it is and he answer is JESUS. Jesus is the rock, the truth the life. Without Jesus we have nothing.

 

[bikerchaz]

Correct me if i get this wrong but it sounds to me you are saying that since more than 40 witnesses report in the bible, their testimony is reliable.

Do you think that all 40 authors or so of the bible agree on their story ? It seems to me those authors are not always saying the same thing. Beside they could have believed anything they wanted, that wouldn't necessarily make them correct. The more recent authors clearly had read the more ancient ones. i think accepting as reliable the testimony of those authors the early church accepted as "acceptable" in its canon do show some bias. the testimonies in the bible are not exactly unbiased, don't you think?

so back to the holy spirit.

I think the first step in all this would be to determine what kind of test we can devise to check if the holy spirit is real. What would show it is not, also, to avoid confirmation bias. I mean, we got a hypothesis, let's test it, right ?

What kind of thing would be convincing enough to show that the Holy spirit really fills people ?

I can't think of anything, and i'm hoping people here might bring something up that i could then consider.

Actually i am kind of surprised this is not coming up easier. The belief in the holy spirit is indeed the bedrock of christianity. It seems like if nobody has wondered if it was true before.

You are close, but the bedrock of Christianity in Jesus. First and foremost. The Spirit is Jesus in us 'Emanuel'.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Simeon, good morning.
You said you would pray and ask if God would let you meet this Holy Spirit others talk about having met.
Did you do that yet?
Because I don't know how any other thing would be proof to a man. It would be hope maybe, but not infallible proof.

 

[Zmouth]

I mentioned this in a previous post but you might have missed it :

Faith is an epistemology.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy focusing on how one comes to knowledge, which processes of knowing can be relied upon to lead one to truth, and what knowledge is.

A knowledge claim is an assertion of truth. For example : « I have faith that Jesus will heal my sickness because it says so in Luke » is a knowledge claim. When I say « I have faith that Jesus walked on water», it is obviously not a trust claim, nor a hope claim. When I say that, I really mean it, I do not imply that I merely hope Jesus will heal my sickness or that He was resurrected. I am saying I know it to be true. Faith is an epistemology. It is a process of knowing.

But by definition, knowledge is a justified true belief.

That means that to know something, that belief in something needs not only to be true ( the belief must lawfully correspond to reality), it most importantly needs to be justified ( one needs something to warrant that belief).

Faith is used for justification, it replaces, suplants even, the need for evidence in justification. Faith is a process we christians use to come to knowledge about the inevident, it is the something that warrants our belief. Most people seem to agree that faith is a conviction attained and maintained unrelated to evidence and reason. « Evidence takes you only so far, faith takes you the rest of the way » is something I hear often. Faith is the word we invoke when there is not enough evidence as justification to warrant a belief in a proposition, but when we decide to believe anyway and need to justify ourselves. All the other definitions of faith I have encountered so far, including Hebrew 11:1, are just another way to say this or were word play, equivocation.

Hope is not the same as faith. Hoping is not the same as knowing.if you hope something happened, you are not claiming it did happen. You don't say « I hope jesus walked on water », you say I have faith Jesus walked on water. That's claiming Jesus actually did walk on water, not just wishing it did.

You say faith is hope with substance.

What is this substance you are talking about ? Knowledge. Faith is what enables us to make a knowledge claim. Do you see what I mean ?

Ok, hope is an expected occurrence, so merely having that expectation is not faith, it would simply be hope. So in order to quantify the substance of the hope, then the hope must be assigned a qualifier. Okay now using this special and unique qualifier known only to myself I am going to beam back up to the ship and acquire the necessary documentary evidence to prove my faith that man can walk and/or move upon the waters in consistency with those environmental factors present during that time as the set forth in the STANDARDS in a manner consistent within the specificity evident and demonstrated in CONDITIONS set forth in Genesis 1:2 for the ATTEMPTS (1) (2) (3).

STANDARD: Link

CONDITIONS: Link

ATTEMPT NO. 1
ATTEMPT NO. 2
ATTEMPT NO. 3

Check out the results yourself, I don't know how any more clearer and empirical evidence can be submitted to affirm the sons of God moving upon the waters.

 

[Yahshua]

Geez don't rush to judgment LOL

I think your analytical skill is excellent and that is why I am trying to see if you can possibly identify the WITNESS which they didn't detect. And while it I didn't see until they started to handcuff me.

Now according to your principle they had sufficiently satisfied the # witness requirement to arrest me on DWUI charges, correct?

I will try to help Simeon if I can, not sure if I can. Hopefully we might both benefit from the exchange of constructive feedback.



I agree and I'm think I am still with you regarding the principle of the prima facie case and the witnesses.

So reviewing the documentation provided do you find anything that could reasonably be examined at the time which in would prove that the number of the witnesses affirming the principle were in error beyond reasonable doubt.?




Being a principle in which it fulfilled , validated and confirmed the witness requirement that affirmed that I had committed DWIU in violation of the law, then if one witness in and by itself could exhonerate an individual from the three witness principle that would that be a sufficient falsifiability to demonstrate that the witness requirement is a good rule but not a actual principle ? I think the facts in this incident might be it falsifiability but won't know until tested.

Lol ok my apologies for rushing to that conclusion. And also, thank you for the edification.

To answer your last question I would have to say, "no the principle would stand", but I'm interested in what this one witness is and its testimony.

What's interesting is your scenario brings to mind the issue of "bearing false witness", one of the crimes against God’s law. The judgment of God's law brings death because things that are contradictory to principles he's established can not continue to exist in reality. God’s words are "what is", so what "is not" can't continue to be (as a consequence). So because bearing false witness is a sin commanded against, and judged in death, it proves the principle, though still possible to do for now.

Notwithstanding, a situation being confirmed would still find more than one perspective in it to validate it, even if it's just to validate that "hey...someone is lying here" or "no, this guy didn't actually break the law. We've got the wrong man". The truth is still validated.

Said another way; one can not determine dimension from just one point in space. You need two or more points, not matter how great or small the distance between them.

If I inconsider your scenario again, you - the one being questioned - are *already* one witness. You've given a testimony of yourself (that you were there)...but again that can't establish anything on its own.

So the one other witness not yet revealed that could validate your testimony wouldn't be "one witness in and of itself", but actually the 2nd witness for the matter, after you.

 

[Simeon]

Simeon, good morning.
You said you would pray and ask if God would let you meet this Holy Spirit others talk about having met.
Did you do that yet?
Because I don't know how any other thing would be proof to a man. It would be hope maybe, but not infallible proof.

thank you for your concern. I have prayed...
I'm also pursuing multiple avenues, and although i do not explain everything here, i have serious reasons to think you are right, there might be no other thing that would be proof than hope or wish. that's part of my problem really.

 

[Simeon]

yahshua and zmouth, I'm analysing and giving thought to what you wrote. thanks for the input.

 

[Simeon]

You are close, but the bedrock of Christianity in Jesus. First and foremost. The Spirit is Jesus in us 'Emanuel'.

well, yes i see what you mean of course.
what I'm trying to determine, if maybe you read back posts #52, is a non circular way to assert that the spirit is in us. A way to show it, if you will, that does not rely on faith, because i have established to my satisfaction that faith itself is a valid way of knowing only thanks to the influence of the Holy Spirit. so i can't rely on faith to assert the spirit is in us without going circular, i need something else to make it a likely possibility, a possibility that is more likely that various other explanation for the same effects, such as cognitive bias for example. do you see what i mean?

 

[Simeon]

Could you people give me the top 3 reasons or explanation or proof or whatever you call it for why you are convinced the holy spirit is in you?

I guess that could help me.

 

[Yahshua]

yahshua and zmouth, I'm analysing and giving thought to what you wrote. thanks for the input.

No problem. I hope it helps.

Could you people give me the top 3 reasons or explanation or proof or whatever you call it for why you are convinced the holy spirit is in you?

I guess that could help me.

Ok. Again, I feel that [what I previously wrote] is the necessary next step in your search for the truth, else it makes things harder to understand. But if you're asking for proof why I'm convinced the Holy Spirit is in me, then here are mine:

1) I actually *want* to know & obey God's law. There's a motivation; an urge to. But why when i know in my mind my life would be significantly more pleasurable if I didn't?

2) I feel serious guilt when I break God’s law, i.e. "sin", (but not fear of judgment or damnation). Like a disappointment. But again why, when intellectually I know I would be completely free to do what feels pleasurable if I didn't care about obeying?

---

There was a time beforehand when 1 and 2 didn't apply to me, even though I grew up in the Christian tradition all my life, studying, knowing the scriptures. God meant as much to me as "year years eve" or any other tradition. There was a disassociation. I've never seen this being so how could I possibly care as much for him as my loved ones or seek to please him as my own parents? But the love is now there. Ezekiel 36:27

3) No amount of scriptural knowledge or conditioning could make me care enough about other people, to try to help make their lives better at my expense or loss (i.e. my time, money, energy, etc). It would be easier to just worry about myself *first*, and give what extra I have left (if any), as I have my own problems to deal with. But somehow the love is now there to make the sacrifice.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

thank you for your concern. I have prayed...
I'm also pursuing multiple avenues, and although i do not explain everything here, i have serious reasons to think you are right, there might be no other thing that would be proof than hope or wish. that's part of my problem really.

If you meet God, how is that just hope or wish...?
If God reveals Himself to you, it isn't hope or wish - it has moved beyond that.

 

[Simeon]

No problem. I hope it helps.



Ok. Again, I feel that [what I previously wrote] is the necessary next step in your search for the truth, else it makes things harder to understand. But if you're asking for proof why I'm convinced the Holy Spirit is in me, then here are mine:

1) I actually *want* to know & obey God's law. There's a motivation; an urge to. But why when i know in my mind my life would be significantly more pleasurable if I didn't?

2) I feel serious guilt when I break God’s law, i.e. "sin", (but not fear of judgment or damnation). Like a disappointment. But again why, when intellectually I know I would be completely free to do what feels pleasurable if I didn't care about obeying?

---

There was a time beforehand when 1 and 2 didn't apply to me, even though I grew up in the Christian tradition all my life, studying, knowing the scriptures. God meant as much to me as "year years eve" or any other tradition. There was a disassociation. I've never seen this being so how could I possibly care as much for him as my loved ones or seek to please him as my own parents? But the love is now there. Ezekiel 36:27

3) No amount of scriptural knowledge or conditioning could make me care enough about other people, to try to help make their lives better at my expense or loss (i.e. my time, money, energy, etc). It would be easier to just worry about myself *first*, and give what extra I have left (if any), as I have my own problems to deal with. But somehow the love is now there to make the sacrifice.

well thanks for that. i'm surprised you are the only one providing an answer... i'm still pondering the other stuff you wrote about, looking stuff up, reading more about it.

as for your reasons: in what way would they be "proving" the Holy Spirit dwells in you, as opposed to proving you strongly believe the laws of christianity are binding and actual directives from God?

Wouldn't a muslim or a hindoo be able to say exactly the same things about his attitude toward the laws of his faith, albeit for a different set of laws? I would say yes. Since the laws are not only different but mostly contradictory(alcool, pork, beef, polytheism, polygamy, etc etc) some people who think like you do are by necessity wrong about it. How do you make sure it is not you?

 

[Simeon]

i still think showing that the holy Spirit actually dwells in christians is crucial for christianity. if we can't show that conclusively, we have no way to show that we're right and all the others are wrong. our very faith is built upon the concept that the Holy spirit dwell in us. and our faith is what make us accept the laws of christianity as god given. i'm affraid your "proofs" are slightly circular...

 

[Simeon]

If you meet God, how is that just hope or wish...?
If God reveals Himself to you, it isn't hope or wish - it has moved beyond that.

the problem is in determining you are not wrong about having actually met God. if all you have is the subjective feeling that god has revealed himself to you, there is no way to conclusively determine if you actually met God or if you made it up. we have to accept that. people get deluded all the time. before we can affirm something as extraordinary as having met God , we need to eliminate the possibility that it was a made up ilusion. People are deluded into believing the strangest things all the time. Ever heard of cottard's delusion? pretty far out stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion

if people can be deluded into thinking they are actually dead, it makes me think people can be deluded into thinking they met God too. That's why i'm actively looking around for conclusive evidence, or proof, or indication or logical argument that the Holy spirit is real. If all we have is that people say they have met God, then we haven't moved very far from wishing it is true.

 

[Yahshua]

well thanks for that. i'm surprised you are the only one providing an answer... i'm still pondering the other stuff you wrote about, looking stuff up, reading more about it.

I dont think you should be surprised at how many have answered you...unless you're actually challenging people with this thread and not genuinely seeking answers for yourself? We've had many challengers frequent these parts posing as those seeking answers so maybe they've noticed a few similarities and are opting out, but you're genuine right ? Then again maybe folks are busy. No one here's obligated to answer anyone's thread on a web forum (no, not even a christian forum), you'd agree?

as for your reasons: in what way would they be "proving" the Holy Spirit dwells in you, as opposed to proving you strongly believe the laws of christianity are binding and actual directives from God?

I told you, to understand you'll have to start from the other stuff I wrote, else you can't understand. It's like coming late to the game trying to figure out something by skipping through the process...but I'll try to answer:

Think of someone you love. Do you have the person in mind? It can be your child, a parent, a lover or spouse, a pet. Now with that person/thing in mind successfully prove to *me* - to my satisfaction - that you actually love them. What "proof" can you give me, right now, that it's actually love and not a social or biological directive you strongly believe in or have been conditioned or brainwashed to follow? What reasons can you give me that the love in you (for them) really exists and isn't just something you've deceived yourself into believing?

Wouldn't a muslim or a hindoo be able to say exactly the same things about his attitude toward the laws of his faith, albeit for a different set of laws? I would say yes. Since the laws are not only different but mostly contradictory(alcool, pork, beef, polytheism, polygamy, etc etc) some people who think like you do are by necessity wrong about it. How do you make sure it is not you?

Forgive me but you seem quick to answer your own question here, and then conclude from your answer, which means it's not really questions but statement.

 

[Simeon]

I dont think you should be surprised at how many have answered you...unless you're actually challenging people with this thread and not genuinely seeking answers for yourself? We've had many challengers frequent these parts posing as those seeking answers so maybe they've noticed a few similarities and are opting out, but you're genuine right ?

I'm sorry i could have come across this way and that people could have misinterpreted my intent. i was just asking questions that i think are important and unanswered

Then again maybe folks are busy. No one here's obligated to answer anyone's thread on a web forum (no, not even a christian forum), you'd agree?

of course. i guess i was just being self centered, figuring that what i consider such important questions would interest other people too. i did not mean to imply people should have answered, just that i had hoped they would.


I told you, to understand you'll have to start from the other stuff I wrote, else you can't understand. It's like coming late to the game trying to figure out something by skipping through the process...but I'll try to answer:

Think of someone you love. Do you have the person in mind? It can be your child, a parent, a lover or spouse, a pet. Now with that person/thing in mind successfully prove to *me* - to my satisfaction - that you actually love them. What "proof" can you give me, right now, that it's actually love and not a social or biological directive you strongly believe in or have been conditioned or brainwashed to follow? What reasons can you give me that the love in you (for them) really exists and isn't just something you've deceived yourself into believing?

i see your point. the thing is that i'm not questioning love or the feeling or the belief itself, i'm questioning the objective reality of the Holy Spirit. in your example there is usually no issue about the objective reality of the person you love, the objective reality of your wife or pet is fact.

In the case of the Holy Spirit, i'm suggesting the objective reality of it is not established and that we need to establish it before we affirm it is objective and analyse our relationship with it. the love in me is a subjective feeling. people can love things that do not exist, a character in a book for example, or an imaginary friend. my love, or any other subjective emotion or feeling is no garantee that the object of the love or feeling is real. do you agree with that?

Forgive me but you seem quick to answer your own question here, and then conclude from your answer, which means it's not really questions but statement.

sure it was a statement. i'm not completely clueless, I do know a thing or two and i try to convey them. i make statements about the things i think are true to support why i'm asing the questions i ask and why the answers i'm given are not satisfying to me. my questions do not come out of thin air, they are based on things i have established to my satisfaction were true, and they are the next step.

are you contesting my statement and conclusion above? i would be curious for you to explain on what ground.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

the problem is in determining you are not wrong about having actually met God. if all you have is the subjective feeling that god has revealed himself to you, there is no way to conclusively determine if you actually met God or if you made it up. we have to accept that. people get deluded all the time. before we can affirm something as extraordinary as having met God , we need to eliminate the possibility that it was a made up ilusion. People are deluded into believing the strangest things all the time. Ever heard of cottard's delusion? pretty far out stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion

if people can be deluded into thinking they are actually dead, it makes me think people can be deluded into thinking they met God too. That's why i'm actively looking around for conclusive evidence, or proof, or indication or logical argument that the Holy spirit is real. If all we have is that people say they have met God, then we haven't moved very far from wishing it is true.

And how would you eliminate the possibility that I have only had delusions? What would be the proof for one or the other?

 

[Simeon]

And how would you eliminate the possibility that I have only had delusions? What would be the proof for one or the other?

Very good question, that's exactly what I'm asking. That is the point of this thread. I do not feel satisfied with the answers we got yet, here on this thread, in the books and articles I found about the subject, in the discussions I have had with other people.

I'm starting to suspect we can't eliminate the possibility we are deluded when we have a special relationship with God. Not that we don't have an experience of course, what we feel is what we feel and there is no denying it, but we might be deluded about it being a relationship with God, not just a relationship with a god we made up, that do not really interact with us, that we just feels that way because of a delusion, like the woman who feels she is dead... and that's only two of the options, there are others to consider and eliminate, like being deceived by an evil demon, or by very advanced aliens, or by another god than the God of the bible, or by our own wishful thinking, or anything really. What do we have to show conclusively that what christians say they feel is actually a relationship with the God of the bible? We only have our conviction it is true, and on the face of it, it is not enough, we could be wrong about it.

So if you got an answer that you find convincing and conclusive, by all means share it. I hope you see it is important.
And, don't take it personal, it is not just you. It is a concern for believers in general.

The point is, of course, that if we can't answer those questions, eliminate possible alternatives, then certainty is not warranted. We have to admit that the possibility exists that we are wrong about christianity, just like the nonbelievers say.

So many christians affirm, assert, appear absolutely certain about being filled by the Holy Spirit, about having a personal relationship with God, yet do not seem to have eliminated the possibilities they could be wrong. As I don't understand how they can do that with intellectual integrity, I'm trying to figure it out.