Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Hope]

I can tell you that I am in love with person X, but if you asked me to verify it objectively, I couldn't.

so, 'you' would therefore decide that you would not accept the 'fact' that you have already confirmed to 'me'?  (not personalising things, by the way)

[Sebastian Toe]

 and, if there is, which of the many on offer is the real one...?

I think the best way to look at this is to look at what they offer.  Do they offer ill-health if you fail to worship them - as is the case in fatalistic Hinduism, or does god offer salvation at no price to you and I other than that we accept the offer?

How is that the best way to determine which one is the real one?
It might determine which one you would like to be real but that doesn't actually make it so!

[2Corrie]

If anyone wants to compare Christianity with Hinduism and other religions may I recommend Ravi Zacharias?  For instance his book 'Jesus Among Other Gods.'

[Brownie]

Ravi Zacharias says:  “The reality is that if religion is to be treated with intellectual respect, then it must stand the test of truth, regardless of the mood of the day. ''
That's a topic that comes up every day on this forum!
(Mr Zacharias is not biased of course  .)

[Shaker]

If anyone wants to compare Christianity with Hinduism and other religions may I recommend Ravi Zacharias?  For instance his book 'Jesus Among Other Gods.'

Can you summarise it?

I can. I haven't (thankfully) read the book but (unfortunately) have heard of Ravi Zacharias so I know in advance what his conclusion is - "Jesus is the bestest God ever ever ever and all the others are silly poo poo heads."

Broadly accurate? Where do I claim my prize?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

Ravi Zacharias says:  “The reality is that if religion is to be treated with intellectual respect, then it must stand the test of truth, regardless of the mood of the day. ''
That's a topic that comes up every day on this forum!
(Mr Zacharias is not biased of course  .)

Does he now? Well, fair enough then but - as no-one else here seems to be willing or able to provide it - does anyone know what "test" Mr Zacharias proposes exactly?

[Brownie]

I'd never heard of him before, I just looked him up.  I found this which explains what he means by explaining the truth.  Haven't read it all myself yet but I might tomorrow.

http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions

There's also a youtube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAfAP0lP-ws

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

I'd never heard of him before, I just looked him up.  I found this which explains what he means by explaining the truth.  Haven't read it all myself yet but I might tomorrow.

http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions

There's also a youtube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAfAP0lP-ws

Thanks for posting. I just had a look at his home page: it's appalling. Essentially a list of assertions, logical fallacies, non sequiturs, category errors etc. Yet somehow this chap has made it into print it seems. I guess no-one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the credulous eh?

[jeremyp]

so, 'you' would therefore decide that you would not accept the 'fact' that you have already confirmed to 'me'?  (not personalising things, by the way)

Love is a subjective feeling. I have an experience but it emanates from my own mind. It's a product of my brain just as your god is a product of yours.

[Brownie]

Brownie,

Thanks for posting. I just had a look at his home page: it's appalling. . Yet somehow this chap has made it into print it seems. I guess no-one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the credulous eh?

I watched the above youtube clip and then watched three others.  He is easy to listen to but somehow made me feel a bit subdued, depressed. 
You said: "Essentially a list of assertions, logical fallacies, non sequiturs, category errors etc"
I can't argue with that, he doesn't really answer any questions, he just explains what he believes.   I don't think anyone is able to do anything else, frankly.

Night night. x

[Stranger]

I thought that being in love was an objective reality for most people.

Did you? Are you even sure any two people would mean exactly the same thing by those words? The point is that it's an internal state of mind - only you can label your own state of mind 'in love'. Even if you have strict internal criteria, other people can't objectively measure it.

As I say, in the same way that most people believe, objectively, that they are in love

If god is more than an internal state of mind, then this is absurd. It is not an objective test.

Look, this isn't so hard; if I want to know about my own state of mind (am I in love, happy, sad, excited and so on) then I can  find out by simple self-examination. That method is totally inappropriate to deciding on the existence of things or beings external to me - you must be able to see that, surely? If someone tells me of something that is objectively real (they have a pet wombat or something), I can't check it by navel-gazing.

I think the best way to look at this is to look at what they offer.  Do they offer ill-health if you fail to worship them - as is the case in fatalistic Hinduism, or does god offer salvation at no price to you and I other than that we accept the offer?

So, the one you like most must be real?     

That's easy - we treat it in the same way as we treat many aspects of our lives.

Many aspects of our lives are not objective. Doesn't mean they are not important or not real to us, but that's not the same thing as being objectively real for everybody.

[torridon]

Ravi Zacharias says:  “The reality is that if religion is to be treated with intellectual respect, then it must stand the test of truth, regardless of the mood of the day. ''

Curiously, people who make the baldest claims to 'truth' are also those who are least willing to put their claims to the test ime.  Maybe that is not a coincidence.

[Leonard James]

Curiously, people who make the baldest claims to 'truth' are also those who are least willing to put their claims to the test ime.  Maybe that is not a coincidence.

No, it isn't a coincidence. It's just the fact that religious beliefs don't stand up to any reliable form of test.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I thought that being in love was an objective reality for most people. 
As I say, in the same way that most people believe, objectively, that they are in love

I am in love with my wife. It is an emotion. When I am dead I am pretty sure I won't have emotions. Therefore, my love is not objective in the same way that your belief in God is. If you want to claim a true for yourself God that dies when you do then no problem.

[Stranger]

http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions

Hilarious! Very sad that people can be taken in by this sort of drivel though.