I like how you've hijacked your own thread in 2 posts and gone another direction with it, instead of asking why believe just making borad statements about christians and not waiting for any person to give their reasons.
1)You say you had what christians call a 'mountain top experience,' but was that God or just your hormones going off?
2)The difference that scientists will argue to your first paragraph is that their reasoning can be done with things that are tangible. The religious person: why do they believe it was God who gave them the experience? Was it because they have logical reasoning that there really is no other way to explain it? It is what their pastor told them? How they were brought up?
3)These are real issues people are realizing in their beliefs which is why tons are leaving religion in the world today. The basis for religion being true was based on how they have been brought up. Not real critical thinking.
1) It is based on what was witnessed and experienced. There is not sufficient data to say either way necessarily. However, their have been, for many people, experiences and things that we have witnessed that "prove" god to us. if you're going to argue every incident for every person as being "hormones" or something else, then there is no way a persons individual experiences could be measured. For comparison, what if I claimed that all experiences with some kind of drug were just hormones going off and that the drug didn't actually do what it claimed?
2)My witnessed events and experiences may be just as tangible as your events and experiences. You discounted all of them before you were even told what they were. For all you know, I saw god appear and turn my television into a rock and back again and had several people with me to confirm it happened (not saying I did, just trying to get a point across. Dont discount evidence before hearing it. Your questions, in order: Because it seemed most plausible to the person based on the input they received at the time. God isn't bound by logic, to make arguments against god's existence because he isn't logical is illogical itself. Irrelevant, we're talking personal experiences. Irrelevant, we're still talking personal experiences.
3) You discount, once again, all personal experiences, research, and analysis of christians. You lump all christians into a blindly faithful mass who follow their priests without question. You do realize there are entire college courses devoted to studying the bible, deciding what it means and whats true and what's metaphor? As well as many christians, especially today in such a science driven world, question their beliefs regularly and think hard on them before continuing to believe it as true.
