I could only see the abstract of that nun article

Strange. It’s a web of Houston Baptist University. The article is called “Science Does Not Understand Our Consciousness of God, but Not for the Reasons We Might Think” and it was written by Denyse O’Leary.

That is a question for scientists to answer.

And here I’m completely with Craig. It would be helpful to at least provide a basic definition of what God is. Then scientists could figure out what to test and measure. Alas, this won’t happen — see below.

Guys like Rupert Sheldrake look for scientific answers to just this kind of puzzle, and get mocked as charlatans for trying.

And IMHO they do it without actually knowing what God really is. They all presume that God is an external force that can be separated from the rest of things, because that’s what their perception is telling them. As for Sheldrake specifically — if I didn’t see his wiki page listing his education in biology, I would never believe he has any. The amount of nonsense he produces is a sight to behold. But it earns him money, so I guess on his part it’s OK. So yeah, Sheldrake is mocked as a charlatan, because he is one.

What bothers me is when people point to the specific perceptions of others and say, “but not YOUR perceptions!”

Well, the problem is that in the case of what we call God, ALL perceptions “drool”, and, basically, you cannot separate God from the physical. I guess, that’s what also Craig tried to convey to you (or no?).

In other words — whatever you measure, you measure a facet of God. Or better said, God measures a facet of God.