> What this means is that while you cannot prove to me objectively that your spiritual relationship with God exists, I also cannot prove that it doesn't exist, since you make no claims that are testable.

I agree with you regarding the testable claims of TV psychics. But I'm not so much interested in that sort of claim, which for all its "psychic" language remains grounded in phenomena observable to our well-developed five senses. You obviously understood the difference between those claims and the form of "Christian spirituality" I spoke of, but ended up mostly addressing the former.

In your post, "testable" bears the usual meaning of "testable by means of our five senses, aided by reason." What I'm curious to know is whether some things that we call untestable, are actually "testable by means of our five senses, plus other senses we do not normally employ, aided by reason." In a nutshell, is there any way for me to increase my capacity as a sensory being so as to perceive -- and test -- new aspects of reality?

I'm unhappy with the connotations inherent in phrasing things that way. To me it smacks of reckless experimentation with either vague religious mysticism or "mind-expanding" drugs. Before jumping into the practice of a new kind of sense, I'd need some good reason to think that it might be anything other than a ridiculous waste of time and a forfeiture of reason. Still, I can't quite let go of the notion that it's actually *likely* that I'm not perfectly equipped to perceive the entire universe armed with only sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell and the ability to think. Which is why I'm taking the time at all to ponder the distinction between things that are truly untestable and things which are only untestable for lack of the proper equipment, as it were.

I dunno. Probably this whole line of thinking is interesting without being very productive.

Iss "one out of two ain't bad" achar