Consider the Following:
Summary: This post explores whether a genuine personal relationship with Jesus would include unique, nonpublic knowledge, predictive insights, or tangible, two-way communication—elements expected in authentic relationships. By questioning the reliance on faith alone without objective evidence, it challenges the basis for claiming a real, reciprocal relationship with Jesus.
Imagine a friend, Tom, claims he’s in a personal relationship with actress Elvis. When asked for a unique, private story, Tom only mentions basic facts about Elvis, such as his birthday. You push further, asking if Tom knows anything about Elvis that’s not publicly available. Tom replies, “I feel Elvis’ presence when I speak to him in my mind.” This “feeling,” while powerful to him, doesn’t necessarily reflect a real two-way relationship.
This scenario raises an important question: Wouldn’t a genuine personal relationship with Jesus involve exclusive, nonpublic knowledge about Him? If Christians claim they have a personal relationship with Jesus, one would expect unique insights that go beyond what’s found in public records or scriptures. Here are several ways that a truly personal relationship with Jesus could be evidenced.
Evidence that Might Indicate a Personal Relationship with Jesus
- Predictive Knowledge of Future Events
The most robust form of evidence might come from multiple individuals predicting unexpected future events based on their relationship with Jesus. If their predictions, unknown and unplanned by others, came to pass, it would suggest access to an omniscient source of knowledge, possibly Jesus Himself. - Knowledge of Unique Artifacts
Suppose someone could reveal the location of an ancient artifact connected to Jesus, known only to them through divine communication. If the search verifies the artifact’s existence, it would strongly suggest a form of personal communication with Jesus. While not conclusive, this would at least demonstrate access to information that is unlikely to be fabricated. - Consistent Personal Revelations
If several individuals, without prior contact, report identical nonpublic details about Jesus—such as a specific story that isn’t part of any scriptural record—it could serve as compelling evidence. For instance, if they claim Jesus once performed a prank by turning water into wine, and all details match, this consistency would suggest they are truly privy to personal, intimate knowledge. - Meaningful Assistance in Addressing World Problems
Imagine a scenario where a Christian receives detailed instructions on how to eradicate malaria, knowledge that saves lives. This kind of tangible benefit would not only enhance the credibility of their claimed relationship but also provide a lasting legacy—evidence that this relationship is indeed beneficial and authentic.
The Limitation of Personal Sensations as Evidence
Many Christians describe a profound sense of Jesus’ presence in prayer or worship. However, without corresponding nonpublic knowledge, this feeling is unlikely to convince skeptics of a true relationship. Emotions alone, while significant, do not substitute for factual communication—they’re not usually reliable indicators of external reality.
Denominational Views on Personal Relationships with Jesus
Not all Christian denominations emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus. Evangelicals often promote this concept, whereas others suggest that a relationship with God exists, but with more limited two-way communication. Claims of divine “communication” often amount to positive feelings rather than testable, communicative exchanges.
This raises a further question: Would a God capable of direct human connection limit communication to vague sensations or emotional experiences? It would seem reasonable to expect clear, nonpublic knowledge if such a relationship were genuine and achievable.
A Companion Technical Paper:
The Logical Form
Argument 1: Personal Relationships Involve Unique Knowledge
- Premise 1: A true personal relationship with someone generally includes private, unique knowledge about that person.
- Premise 2: Christians claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus.
- Premise 3: A relationship that includes private, unique knowledge would likely manifest in nonpublic insights.
- Conclusion: Therefore, a true personal relationship with Jesus would include unique, nonpublic knowledge about Him.
Argument 2: The Evidence of a Genuine Relationship through Artifacts
- Premise 1: If someone has a genuine personal relationship with Jesus, they might have access to unique knowledge about artifacts related to Him.
- Premise 2: Access to artifact locations or information that can be verified would support claims of a two-way relationship with Jesus.
- Premise 3: Such artifact knowledge, if verified, would be unlikely to originate from imagination or fabrication.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the presence of verifiable artifact-related knowledge would support the claim of a genuine personal relationship with Jesus.
Argument 3: Consistency in Personal Revelations as Evidence
- Premise 1: Consistent personal revelations from multiple individuals about nonpublic details of Jesus would suggest a common source.
- Premise 2: If several people report the same nonpublic details about Jesus without prior interaction, it would imply communication from Jesus or a shared experience.
- Premise 3: Such consistency in revelations is unlikely to occur from independent imagination alone.
- Conclusion: Therefore, consistent nonpublic revelations among individuals would suggest a genuine relationship with Jesus.
Argument 4: Predictive Knowledge as Evidence
- Premise 1: A personal relationship with Jesus might include access to predictive knowledge about future events.
- Premise 2: If multiple individuals accurately predict future events based on their relationship with Jesus, this would suggest access to divine knowledge.
- Premise 3: Accurate, unexpected predictions imply a source of knowledge beyond the natural ability of the individuals involved.
- Conclusion: Therefore, accurate predictive knowledge would provide evidence for a genuine personal relationship with Jesus.
Argument 5: The Limitation of Emotions as Evidence
- Premise 1: Many Christians experience a profound sense of Jesus’ presence as part of their personal relationship with Him.
- Premise 2: Emotions and sensations alone, without nonpublic knowledge, are not reliable indicators of a two-way relationship.
- Premise 3: A true relationship with someone usually involves meaningful communication and factual exchanges, not merely emotional sensations.
- Conclusion: Therefore, emotional experiences alone are insufficient evidence of a genuine personal relationship with Jesus.
Argument 6: Denominational Views and Communication Limitations
- Premise 1: Not all Christian denominations emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus.
- Premise 2: Many claims of communication with Jesus rely on feelings rather than factual, communicative exchanges.
- Premise 3: A God capable of direct human connection would likely provide clearer communication than vague sensations or emotions.
- Conclusion: Therefore, it is reasonable to question the nature and genuineness of a personal relationship with Jesus if communication is limited to feelings.
(Scan to view post on mobile devices.)
A Dialogue
The Nature of a Personal Relationship with Jesus
CHRIS: I truly believe that having a personal relationship with Jesus is what makes my faith meaningful. It’s not just about knowing doctrines; it’s about having a real, intimate connection with Him.
CLARUS: I’m open to that idea, Chris, but if this relationship is genuine, I’d expect it to involve more than personal feelings. For any personal connection to be real, especially with a historical or non-physical figure, it should involve something like nonpublic knowledge or direct, two-way communication. Otherwise, how can you tell the difference between a real relationship and a belief that simply feels real?
CHRIS: I know He’s there because I feel His presence. When I pray or face difficult times, I sense His love and guidance deeply, which gives me assurance that He’s with me.
CLARUS: I can see how that would feel reassuring. But you know, feeling someone’s presence doesn’t necessarily indicate they’re actually there. People experience the presence of loved ones who have passed away, for example, but we don’t assume that a feeling alone is enough to prove their presence. A relationship with an external person normally includes clear, tangible interactions—think of a friend who calls, shares secrets, or even remembers important things about you. Without some distinct two-way exchange, a feeling is likely just that: a feeling.
CHRIS: But Jesus has given us His teachings in Scripture; through the Bible, I feel I know His heart and mind. Isn’t that enough to establish a connection?
CLARUS: Scripture is a public document that anyone can read. It’s available to believers and non-believers alike, with no special or private insights for any one individual. A personal relationship usually implies exclusive elements that others don’t have access to—like a shared experience or private understanding unique to the relationship. Reading Scripture alone doesn’t set apart your relationship with Jesus any more than reading Shakespeare would create a personal connection with the playwright. It’s information about Jesus, not evidence of His direct involvement with you.
CHRIS: But my relationship with Jesus has changed me. It’s transformed my values, my actions, my whole perspective on life. Doesn’t that transformation count as evidence of a relationship?
CLARUS: Personal transformation can certainly be meaningful, but we experience similar transformations from many sources—books, mentors, significant life events. When people are inspired or deeply moved by a role model or philosophy, it can lead to profound changes, but that doesn’t mean they have a personal relationship with the source. For instance, reading a life-changing book might shape someone’s values, but it doesn’t mean they’re in a relationship with the author. Transformation speaks to the power of belief and ideas, not to the existence of a two-way connection. If your relationship with Jesus is genuinely personal, wouldn’t we expect some objective proof of interaction—something only you could know or experience?
CHRIS: But maybe Jesus doesn’t want to give us private knowledge. Isn’t it possible that He chooses not to reveal certain things to us, as a matter of divine purpose?
CLARUS: It’s possible to say that, but if there’s no nonpublic communication or exclusive insight in a relationship, that’s typically because no real communication is happening. In any genuine relationship, it’s reasonable to expect mutual exchange. A friend, even one who knows more than you, doesn’t withhold everything; they still communicate in ways that show they’re actively engaged with you. If Jesus isn’t providing any direct feedback or unique knowledge beyond what’s already in Scripture, then we’re left with a connection that’s indistinguishable from simply believing in an idea rather than engaging with an actual person.
CHRIS: So you’re saying that without specific, two-way interaction, the relationship doesn’t hold up?
CLARUS: Exactly. Imagine someone told you they had a personal relationship with a famous celebrity but couldn’t offer any specific details about them beyond what anyone could find on the internet. You’d question that claim because a genuine personal relationship means having exclusive knowledge or shared moments that verify its authenticity. If Jesus’s relationship with you is real, it should provide you with something unique, not accessible to every reader of the Bible. Feelings, even powerful ones, don’t verify a real relationship; they just show we’re capable of convincing ourselves of a connection. For this relationship with Jesus to be real, there would need to be tangible proof of His interaction with you, as we’d expect in any relationship.
CHRIS: Maybe that’s where faith comes in. Faith doesn’t require that I see or hear Jesus in a physical way; it’s about trusting in what I feel.
CLARUS: But faith doesn’t actually confirm the reality of what you feel; it only expresses how strongly you want it to be true. Faith lacks epistemic value because it isn’t evidence-based—it’s a subjective commitment, not a reliable indicator of an external reality. Real relationships don’t rely on faith; they rely on demonstrable interactions. Imagine if you had to rely purely on faith for every relationship in your life—no phone calls, no letters, no proof of shared experience. It would seem absurd, right? Why should we hold a relationship with Jesus to a lower standard of evidence?
CHRIS: But Jesus isn’t an ordinary person. Maybe our relationship with Him is on a different level and doesn’t follow the same rules.
CLARUS: If we say Jesus’s relationship with people is entirely beyond verification—that it doesn’t provide distinct interactions, nonpublic knowledge, or unique insight—then it becomes indistinguishable from an imaginary relationship. Just because Jesus isn’t physical doesn’t mean we should abandon the reasonable expectation of evidence. People claim relationships with historical figures, fictional characters, even imaginary friends, and if we don’t question the reality of those relationships, we’re left endorsing belief without evidence. To make a convincing case, a real relationship needs something solid—verifiable moments of interaction that set it apart from mere internal experience.
CHRIS: But faith is central to Christianity. Isn’t that kind of commitment part of what makes the relationship unique?
CLARUS: If a relationship depends solely on faith with no objective interaction, then we have to admit it’s based on internal conviction alone, not on anything verifiable outside oneself. Faith is only unique in that it substitutes evidence for belief, but that doesn’t establish a genuine relationship. Imagine you had faith that a distant relative you’ve never met truly cared about you. Without any objective proof—no letters, no calls, no gestures—would you call that a relationship or simply a strong belief? Real connections, even with non-physical beings, should be able to withstand reasonable scrutiny; otherwise, they’re indistinguishable from wishful thinking.
CHRIS: So, in your view, my relationship with Jesus could just be my own internal projection?
CLARUS: Precisely. Without nonpublic knowledge, predictive insights, or objective exchanges, there’s no basis for thinking it’s anything other than an internal belief. Strong feelings of love or guidance may be personally meaningful, but they don’t indicate an actual two-way relationship with an external figure. In any real relationship, there’s interaction, shared knowledge, and reciprocal influence. A one-sided belief may feel real, but without evidence, we’re simply engaging in emotional projection rather than proving an authentic relationship.
Notes:
Helpful Analogies
Analogy 1: The Relationship with a Celebrity
Imagine someone claims they have a personal relationship with a famous celebrity. When asked for proof, they can only share widely known public facts about the celebrity, like their birthdate or major achievements. In a true personal relationship, one would expect to know unique, private details that aren’t available to the general public. If this knowledge is missing, it raises questions about whether the relationship truly exists or if it’s a one-sided belief based on admiration. This mirrors the expectation of nonpublic knowledge in a personal relationship with Jesus.
Analogy 2: Friendship through Letters Alone
Imagine trying to form a personal relationship with someone who only sends you form letters—general messages without any personal touch or specific details that only the two of you would understand. The relationship would likely feel incomplete and impersonal because there’s no individual communication or private insight. True friendships are often marked by shared memories, inside jokes, and personal understanding that aren’t available to others. Similarly, without unique, private knowledge, a claimed personal relationship with Jesus may seem like one-sided communication, limited to feelings or general teachings rather than an intimate two-way connection.
Analogy 3: The Business Partner Who Never Shares Insights
Imagine working with a business partner who claims to be deeply involved in the company. However, they never share insider information or unique strategies—only what’s already known to everyone else. For a genuine partnership, we would expect direct communication and exclusive insights that help move the business forward. The absence of such insights would lead others to question the authenticity of the relationship. Similarly, in a personal relationship with Jesus, one might expect nonpublic knowledge or guidance beyond what’s already publicly available. Without it, the relationship risks appearing impersonal or unidirectional.
Addressing Theological Responses
Theological Responses
1. Faith Over Proof in Relationships with the Divine
Theologians might argue that a relationship with Jesus is fundamentally different from human relationships because it relies on faith rather than evidence-based proof. In Christianity, faith is valued as a spiritual virtue that strengthens the believer’s connection to God. A lack of nonpublic knowledge doesn’t diminish this relationship; instead, the relationship is understood as a mystery of faith, where the presence of Jesus is felt rather than empirically proven.
2. Scripture as Sufficient Revelation
Theologians could respond that Scripture already provides all the knowledge Christians need to understand Jesus and His teachings. According to this view, God has chosen to reveal Himself through the Bible, which is regarded as complete and divinely inspired. Christians do not need additional nonpublic revelations because the Bible itself is considered the ultimate source of divine knowledge. The relationship with Jesus, then, is nurtured by engaging with His teachings in scripture, prayer, and worship.
3. The Value of Spiritual Sensations
Many theologians argue that spiritual sensations or feelings of Jesus’ presence are meaningful because they provide subjective assurance of God’s love and involvement in a believer’s life. These experiences are personal and often unique to the individual, helping to foster a sense of intimacy and comfort. Although they are not empirical evidence of a relationship, they are seen as valuable forms of spiritual communication that deepen faith.
4. God’s Omniscience and Human Limitations
Theologians might contend that Jesus, as part of the Trinity, possesses omniscience that humans cannot fully comprehend. In this view, God may choose not to reveal nonpublic knowledge to believers for reasons tied to His divine will and the limitations of human understanding. Christians are encouraged to trust in God’s wisdom rather than seek additional private knowledge about Jesus, as such revelations may not be necessary or beneficial to their faith.
5. The Purpose of Mystery in Divine Relationships
Another theological perspective is that mystery plays an essential role in the relationship with God. By not providing tangible, nonpublic knowledge, God invites believers to engage in a deeper form of spiritual trust and commitment. This mystery is seen as a divine tool that encourages humility, reliance on faith, and a sense of wonder about God’s infinite nature, distinguishing the divine relationship from typical human relationships.
6. Personal Relationship as Defined by Transformation
Theologians may define a personal relationship with Jesus not by knowledge or revelation, but by the transformative impact it has on the believer’s character and life. They argue that a true relationship with Jesus is evidenced by a moral and spiritual transformation rather than by unique, private insights. This transformation, marked by love, forgiveness, and compassion, is seen as the primary fruit of a genuine personal relationship with Jesus.
Counter-Responses
1. Faith Lacks Epistemic Value in Establishing Relationships
While faith may be central to Christian belief, it lacks epistemic value—that is, it provides no reliable means of distinguishing between a real relationship with Jesus and a self-generated belief in His presence. In genuine relationships, trust—an analogue to faith—develops from shared experiences and reliable evidence of mutual connection. To claim a personal relationship with Jesus without any nonpublic knowledge or objective evidence risks reducing the relationship to a mere projection of personal feelings. Without epistemic support, faith alone cannot substantiate a two-way connection with an actual, external being.
2. Scripture Alone Does Not Provide a Basis for a Personal Relationship
While Scripture serves as a public record of Jesus’s teachings, reading it alone does not establish a personal relationship. In epistemic terms, relying on universal, publicly accessible text fails to meet the criteria for a direct, individualized relationship. In human relationships, personal knowledge includes unique, private exchanges that confirm mutual connection. If the relationship with Jesus is rooted only in public doctrine and not in personal nonpublic knowledge, it lacks the epistemic criteria that would validate a genuine personal connection. A biography may offer insight into a person’s character, but it does not create a reciprocal, relational bond.
3. Feelings Alone Are Epistemically Unreliable for Establishing External Reality
Though spiritual sensations or feelings of Jesus’s presence can bring comfort, they hold no epistemic validity in establishing an external, two-way relationship. Emotions are subjective and easily influenced by internal biases or cultural context, offering no objective basis to verify an actual connection. To claim a relationship with Jesus based solely on feelings is epistemically weak; it lacks objective verification like nonpublic knowledge that would indicate an external being rather than an internal projection. Without epistemic reliability, feelings alone cannot confirm that a relationship with Jesus is real rather than a personal construct.
4. Omniscience Should Not Exclude Meaningful, Epistemically Sound Communication
Even if Jesus possesses omniscience, this does not logically preclude meaningful, personal communication with believers. For an omniscient being capable of establishing personal relationships, providing nonpublic knowledge would enhance the epistemic basis for these relationships. In human relationships, a friend’s greater knowledge does not prevent them from sharing meaningful insights with a close companion; rather, it enriches the connection. Similarly, one would expect that a personal relationship with Jesus would include unique insights that meet epistemic standards for validating a reciprocal connection. The absence of concrete, nonpublic exchanges weakens the claim of a genuine personal relationship with an external, interactive being.
5. Mystery Lacks Epistemic Value in Establishing Genuine Relationships
The concept of mystery may enhance the spiritual allure of faith, but it provides no epistemic support for the existence of a relationship. In human relationships, while mystery might create initial interest, it does not substitute for direct interaction or tangible exchanges that confirm the bond. If a relationship with Jesus is genuinely personal, it should involve objective interactions or nonpublic knowledge that allow it to meet epistemic standards. Invoking mystery as a way to justify a lack of verifiable knowledge or direct communication can appear as an attempt to rationalize a potentially nonexistent relationship, without providing epistemic grounding for it.
6. Transformation Alone Lacks Epistemic Grounds for a Two-Way Relationship
While moral transformation may be inspired by belief in Jesus’s teachings, it does not serve as epistemic evidence for a personal relationship with Him. People experience profound change from various sources, such as literature, mentors, or personal experiences, none of which require an interactive connection. Transformation, by itself, offers no epistemic basis for a two-way relationship, as personal change does not imply an external relationship. A genuine relationship with Jesus would involve direct interactions or nonpublic knowledge that fulfill epistemic criteria for confirming mutual, interactive contact. Transformation alone is insufficient to validate the existence of a personal, reciprocal relationship with Jesus.
Clarifications
Elements found in Actual Personal Relationships
1. Unique, Nonpublic Knowledge
Evidence in Genuine Relationships: In a personal relationship, individuals often share unique, private information that’s not available to the general public. For example, a close friend might confide in you about personal experiences or intimate memories that only you know.
Failure in Alleged Relationship with Jesus: Claims of a personal relationship with Jesus lack nonpublic knowledge. The information believers share about Jesus is derived solely from scripture or public religious teachings. There are no verifiable accounts of believers knowing exclusive facts about Jesus that aren’t already publicly accessible, making it difficult to distinguish these experiences from self-generated beliefs.
2. Direct, Two-Way Communication
Evidence in Genuine Relationships: Personal relationships include two-way communication where both parties exchange thoughts and responses directly. This can happen through conversation, written correspondence, or even nonverbal cues.
Failure in Alleged Relationship with Jesus: Communication with Jesus is reported by believers as prayer or spiritual feelings, which lack a direct, interactive response. While believers may feel that Jesus hears them, they receive no objective, verifiable replies. Unlike two-way exchanges, this one-sided communication fails to meet the standard for an interactive relationship.
3. Predictive or Insider Knowledge
Evidence in Genuine Relationships: A personal relationship often includes insider knowledge about events or details that outsiders wouldn’t know. For example, a close friend might give you information about their future plans before making them public.
Failure in Alleged Relationship with Jesus: There are no verified cases of believers receiving predictive information from Jesus that later proves true in a way that could not be explained by coincidence or inference. Without access to insider knowledge that could provide evidence of Jesus’s involvement, believers lack a clear basis to claim a genuine connection with an omniscient being.
4. Mutual Growth and Influence
Evidence in Genuine Relationships: In a personal relationship, both people can grow and influence each other’s perspectives or decisions. A true connection is characterized by mutual development and evolving interactions over time.
Failure in Alleged Relationship with Jesus: While believers may feel personal transformation, Jesus himself remains unchanged and uninfluenced by these interactions. The alleged relationship lacks mutual influence—Jesus’s “side” of the relationship is static, unresponsive, and uninfluenced by the believer’s thoughts or actions. This one-sided impact fails to mirror the reciprocity that characterizes real, evolving relationships.
5. Shared Experiences
Evidence in Genuine Relationships: Personal relationships include shared experiences where both parties actively participate in events, memories, or activities together. This creates a sense of bonding and shared history.
Failure in Alleged Relationship with Jesus: Believers claim to feel Jesus’s presence, but there are no observable shared experiences where Jesus actively participates. Unlike shared memories with a friend, these experiences are subjective interpretations without objective, mutual interaction. The lack of shared, observable events makes it hard to establish a true relationship with Jesus beyond internal belief.
6. Exclusive, Personal Insights
Evidence in Genuine Relationships: In close relationships, people develop exclusive insights into each other’s personalities, habits, or preferences. These insights are distinct and can’t be easily guessed by outsiders.
Failure in Alleged Relationship with Jesus: Believers’ “insights” into Jesus are drawn entirely from scripture or public teachings, lacking any exclusive personal understanding that would demonstrate a unique connection. Without distinct, individual insights, believers cannot claim an understanding of Jesus beyond what is accessible to any believer through public means, suggesting a lack of genuine exclusivity in the relationship.
7. Objective, Third-Party Verification
Evidence in Genuine Relationships: Others can typically observe or verify the closeness of a personal relationship through behavior, conversations, or joint actions that demonstrate mutual involvement.
Failure in Alleged Relationship with Jesus: There’s no objective, external verification of a personal relationship with Jesus. Claims of His presence or guidance are internally felt and lack any observable, external validation. This absence of third-party verification casts doubt on the epistemic value of claims to a personal relationship with Jesus, as they rely solely on internal conviction rather than demonstrable interaction.
To rigorously test an alleged personal relationship with a non-physical being (like Jesus), we can design a controlled experiment that seeks objective, testable evidence of two-way interaction, exclusive knowledge, or predictive accuracy. Here’s a step-by-step outline for such a test.
1. Define the Hypothesis and Expected Outcomes
- Hypothesis: If a person has a genuine personal relationship with Jesus, then they should be able to demonstrate exclusive, verifiable knowledge or predictive insights that could not be attained through other means.
- Expected Outcomes: Participants claiming a relationship with Jesus should be able to:
- Access nonpublic knowledge (e.g., specific information unknown to others).
- Provide predictive knowledge about future events with a high degree of accuracy.
- Offer specific answers to questions pre-established by the testing group that would require external knowledge.
2. Identify Test Participants
- Control Group: Participants with no claimed relationship with Jesus, selected to represent a neutral baseline.
- Experimental Group: Participants who claim a personal relationship with Jesus and believe this relationship grants them access to special insights, knowledge, or communication.
3. Design Controlled Tests
- Test A: Nonpublic Knowledge Test
- Procedure: Present each participant with a set of sealed, randomly selected envelopes containing nonpublic, unique facts about an unknown historical event or object that they could not know in advance (e.g., hidden details about a historical figure that are not widely known or easily accessible).
- Objective: Ask each participant to identify the contents of the envelopes without opening them. If the alleged relationship grants exclusive insights, then participants in the experimental group should be able to provide accurate information beyond random chance.
- Test B: Predictive Accuracy Test
- Procedure: Ask participants in both groups to predict specific future events chosen by the testing team (e.g., describe a random sequence of events that will occur in a location unknown to participants over the next month).
- Objective: Assess the accuracy of their predictions. If participants in the experimental group have genuine predictive knowledge, their predictions should statistically exceed those of the control group in accuracy and specificity.
- Test C: Response to Unique Questions Test
- Procedure: Create a series of questions that require unique knowledge or insight, ideally about moral dilemmas or life events unknown to participants but specifically chosen to be complex and not easily inferred. Questions should include details only accessible through alleged supernatural insight.
- Objective: Compare the answers of the experimental group to a predetermined answer key based on private, specialized knowledge known only to the researchers. The results should reveal whether the experimental group demonstrates consistent, precise answers that indicate external guidance.
4. Implement Double-Blind Procedures
- Ensure that neither participants nor the test administrators know the contents of the envelopes, the specific future events chosen, or the answer keys to eliminate bias.
- Include a randomization process for assigning questions and events to prevent patterns that could be detected by guesswork or inference.
5. Collect and Analyze Data
- Statistical Analysis: After testing, calculate the success rate of each group in each test. Use statistical methods (such as chi-square tests for categorical data or t-tests for continuous data) to evaluate if there’s a significant difference between the experimental and control groups.
- Probability and Confidence Intervals: Set a high confidence interval (e.g., 99%) to ensure results aren’t due to random chance. Success rates that significantly exceed the control group would be indicative of something unusual.
6. Interpret Results
- Confirmatory Evidence: If the experimental group consistently scores significantly above chance across all tests, this may indicate a form of external guidance. However, if results are statistically similar to the control group or within the range of random guesswork, this would suggest that the alleged personal relationship does not manifest in measurable, objective outcomes.
- Replication and Reliability: For scientific rigor, repeat the test with different sets of questions and events, ideally involving other researchers to confirm the reliability and replicability of the results.
7. Publish Findings
- Document the methodology, data, and results, ensuring transparency for peer review.
- Discuss potential limitations and future directions for testing, addressing any ethical considerations, such as the psychological impact on participants regarding the nature of their beliefs.
Summary
This scientific test would provide a rigorous framework to examine claims of a personal relationship with Jesus or any non-physical being. By setting up controlled conditions to assess nonpublic knowledge, predictive accuracy, and unique insights, this approach seeks to determine whether the relationship produces objective, verifiable evidence beyond internal conviction or belief.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment