Very valid points made about being saved.
I've heard and read many times that when a person is "truly" saved, that it manifests itself in their lives and changes them forever. Changes them in the sense that their personal relationship with God is very real, and they live their lives with the full realization that God is directing their steps, actions, and choices.
I would think that if a person really has a close, personal relationship with God, that it would show. They'd be happier, more optimistic about the future, eager to share their faith, motivated to do good to and for others, and able to make changes in their life pleasing to Him. Not that they wouldn't have bad days and moments of doubt. As humans we aren't designed to keep in some emotional "mode" long-term. FI, someone who is always, totally happy would strike me as odd, to say the least. Do they sleep with a silly grin on their face?
I can't help but wonder if some of these people simply say they are saved in some casual, perfunctory way, but it doesn't really have any real meaning or value to them in reality.
I wonder if many people say it because they don't feel like a "real Christian" if they don't. Like their religious experience isn't as "valid."
If someone says they are Saved, how can they also have conflict within themselves, needing scientific evidences of scripture renderings?
Some people might feel they're on safer ground debating nonbelievers if they can point to proofs produced by scientists as far as a Biblical flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or other events, that nonbelievers would be more willing to accept. Others might say that we were given brains and curiosity, and the need to verify some things for ourselves, not taking them on blind faith, is both designed into us and beneficial for our spiritual growth.
Like people who don't believe anything at all unless it's right in front of their face and they can touch it. How can these same people claim to be Saved?
What they are in, imo, is denial...skepticism carried to a dangerous extreme. For example, if we believe in the reality of only those things we personally see/hear/touch/taste/smell, all else is illusion. If we admit our senses can be fooled (hallucinations both visual and aural, for example), then what is real? If an illusion could be crafted so skillfully that we couldn't tell where reality (whatever that is under the ultimate skeptic's definition) ends and illusion begins, which one is which? Are they both Reality, both Illusion, or neither? This sort of thinking has several (bad) uses. One, an excuse not to believe. Two, an excuse not to try and rebut someone else's logical arguments in favor of belief. Three, possibly a first step toward complete psychosis and loss of contact with reality.
God's existence (for those who believe) can't be proven scientifically. How do you make a spirit creature visual ? How much does He weigh? Can someone tell how much space He takes up? What color is he? (Not as in race, just color, period.) His existence can only be surmised circumstantially. The beauty of a sunset, the playful nature of a kitten, the variety of colors, shapes, and tastes to food, the differing appearances/aromas of flowers, show evidence of someone who didn't want life to be boring for creatures here able to appreciate these things. Otherwise only bees care about flower smells, dogs don't care about a sunset, and the effort would be largely wasted.
Faith, to me then, would be defined as the process of seeing proofs of a loving God all around and logically assuming His characteristics can be discerned from the things He did, just as our actions give clues to the thinking behind them.
I hope this gives some useful input and you find what you seek.
