I thought it was worth making an effort for this topic. I'm going to eschew the usual pick-and-quote method of responding and try to address your main points. I don't intend to ignore or disregard any of your points by doing this, so if I miss any critical challenge or question, please tell me. You posed the challenge that the justification for a claim like the Resurrection has to be empirical, since the Resurrection, if it occurred, would leave empirical evidence. I have no disagreement there. Determining whether or not there had been a Resurrection would require you to look into the matter with your best epistemic tools: seeing if there's an empty tomb or even meeting the Risen Christ. It's a bit ironic that in that earlier post I linked to a video that told the story of Doubting Thomas. Empirical evidence would lend support to the Resurrection story, and at the same time there's evidence that would seem to falsify it; for instance, finding the body. Of course, as the Resurrection (if it happened) occurred almost two thousand years ago, we can't make an investigation like this, and we need to rely on the historical method. A while back I read a book by Richard Swinburne called The Resurrection of God Incarnate which went about doing this. It was a fairly solid work so I'll defer any further questions on the Resurrection there. The important point here is that I do not disagree with you about epistemology. You introduce an objective-subjective distinction pretty quickly, and it seems to me that a lot of your argument turns on it. For instance, the general and scientific images of the table are both objective, and the religious image is not. I question the use of this distinction. All images of the table are subjective, in the sense that they are all simply ways of thinking about an external object. (I'm being a bit lazy with the way I phrase this. I should not be implying that there is an objective table at all, strictly speaking. The assumption that there is depends upon more of those unprovables.) All the images are grounded in the experience of the table, but that seems as far as you can go. (On a side note, I'd like to point out that the science of the Islamic Golden Age was not modern science, precisely. In any case, I'm not particularly committed to any claim about the history of science, and I do see that Islam is a quite scientifically respectable religion.) You note that my spiritual experiences are not objective. I have to respond to that with, "Yes, that's absolutely correct, and you'll notice that I made it clear in my post that I was not attempting to use those experiences as proof of the existence of God for others." Then you also introduce a distinction between provability and testability. I'm not entirely sure what this distinction is or how it's supposed to be relevant. The premises behind modern science are things like 'there is an external world which behaves in predictable ways', 'the universe is governed by certain objective and consistent laws', 'the human mind is capable of comprehending and systematising these laws', 'it is neither immoral nor impious to make an empirical study of the universe', and so on. I don't see how these are testable hypotheses. I have no idea how you would go about testing the idea that the universe follows consistent laws and is not just an arbitrary set of random events, and that's leaving aside the worry that using scientific investigation to justify the premises of science is hopelessly circular. Lastly, you followed along Yuthura's definition of faith as 'believing in something in the absence of evidence or in spite of evidence'. All I have to say is that I don't use the word 'faith' in that way. It is true that faith always goes beyond the evidence, of course. If I have faith that my significant other loves me than I am believing something that cannot be determined beyond any doubt from any evidence available to me. In a sense faith does surmount doubt, and maybe that's what Yuthura's definition is getting at. In any case, I have nothing much to say about the practice of believing things in spite of evidence, so I'll leave it there. I suppose here I should make a note about the idea of proving something. My purpose in this topic is not to prove to you or anyone else that my religion is correct. As I said, I think the best way to go about showing one's religion to be correct is to live it. You show other people the fruit of your religion and let them make their own judgements. If a person comes to me and asks me to evangelise them I will do my best, but that's not what this situation is. If you are asking me to present you with a proof that will convince you to convert, then I am afraid you will be disappointed. I'm just trying to explain the epistemic situation I'm in and why I think it's legitimate to have religious faith.