Is God a rational belief?

[theVOID]

His experience only would matter if he had something other than his story to tell as evidence.

As such, the bite marks and other physical trauma may be evidence, but even then there is a degree of uncertainty involved.

They are most certainly evidence, just like blurry photos of a giant hominid shaped something constitutes evidence for Bigfoot, it's just poor quality evidence that is better explained by ~P.

---

Well I intended to add his collegiate pedigree to buttress a certain aspect of the story. I wanted it to be relatively clear that his beliefs would be based on subjective experience and some real analysis of the situation..A trained scientist will probably consider that he may be experiencing a delusion..If he is satisfied after analysis that the event is real it would probable result from careful study.

Which would be along the lines of what I did below, if he carefully considered the evidence he would see that his experience is more likely given delusion and therefore conclude it was one. If he came back with a time machine or something though... That would be evidence that is much more likely if he met time traveling Oolak.

Exactly, except let us say that at some point he did consider the angle that the experience was subjective only and by some method became satisfied that the experience did in fact occur outside of himself..

Then you would have to present the method and not just assert that he used some undefined method to determine that his experience was in objective reality. I bet you could find no method to do so, let alone inside a psychotic episode. I have an acquaintance who stayed at my flat for a week, he was studying law at university when he had a completely unexpected psychotic break during a Christmas family lunch and developed schizophrenia. In his delusions he simply cannot tell what is real or not, no matter how much he thinks about it and he has delusions that are clearly not in objective reality, he believes he is the entire country of Israel...

So not only can a person tell what the cause of such an experience is, real or imaginary, but there is really no analysis that they could do that would rationally determine that his experience was not subjective other than considering how likely each hypothesis is given the available evidence.

I guess my question would be is it possible to reduce the probabilty of ~P from an interior (subjective) standpoint, or should the rule be that any conclusion reached which cannot be corrobotated by others is subject to exponentially higher scrutiny and should be treated with skepticism when the claim is extraordinary even if the claim is verified by atleast one person of sound mind.

Short answer, No. He had an experience with numerous possible causes and simply experiencing something is not good evidence that it happened one way or the other.

Corroboration with others isn't something I used to decide the probability that P < ~P so it's not really relevant to this scenario, it would certainly change the probability of P if another person who had also never heard of Ookla had the same experience(E1) and came back with alloy eyebrows(E3), it would also upshift the probability of 'evil scientist abducts people and implants memories' and a number of other possible scenarios - The only probability it would downshift is that of a delusion, two identical delusions happening to strangers with no prior knowledge of the subject matter and coming back with alloy in their eyebrows in far more unlikely than it happening to one person.

Further, if the person conducting the test is the claimant, any results form the test other than ~P should be discarded

What test? How would it work? We can't simply assert at this point that he has a reliable method to determine if it was objective of subjective because that changes the original scenario - If you believe that he is rational because of method X you must present X so we can see if it it's logic sound and valid.