DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

Having lived with psychotic delusions the bulk of my life, I'm quite familiar with how things can seem real and convincing, yet all the same be poorly and inadequately justified.  For an example from a different subject, people who live through NDEs report their experiences as being so clear and compelling, that some even say that they are more real to them than their ordinary experience.  Yet its known that starving the brain of oxygen and injecting someone with ketamine can also produce experiences that are more real than their ordinary experiences, which some even believe in spite of knowing the cause.  The phenomenological appearance of something is a poor indicator of its likely reflection of truth.  Do you not agree?  If so, what exactly are you resting your certainty upon aside from this?

You cannot possibly understand what someone else has experienced, nor can you decide why or how they experienced it. The signs I've gotten don't have any feasible explanation or I would not be so convinced. All life is made up of are our experiences and I am just so glad I know for sure now. (So ecstatically happy to have my own personal proof, I just can't even explain)  But,I don't expect you or anyone else to just take my word for it. I didn't take anyone else's word for it. I had to have these experiences myself to be fully convinced. And when you have real spiritual experiences (esp the shared/mutual ones) and you add it to tons of unexplainable signs, you then really do know it's true. And some day you really will, no matter how much you don't believe it now.

I asked for specifics and you answered that you and someone else mutually experienced feelings which you attributed to the divine. That's interesting but hardly impressive, as both the fact itself is unremarkable and doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusion and because, depending upon the specifics, it may simply be an example of folie a deux. Now you are saying that the reason for your inferences had to do with your inability to explain something. Given your general inability across a range of subjects, I'm not immediately impressed by this, but again I have to press for specifics. It's a common claim by religious people that something is inexplicable, or at the least, highly improbable which, upon investigation, proved not to be so inexplicable or improbable after all. Lacking specifics, and especially if you are reluctant to discuss said specifics, our skepticism would be justifiably bolstered. So I must ask the obvious question. Just what specifically were these experience that you believe are so improbable as to defy any explanation?

Oh, and as a parenthetical, I'm not sure what you're claiming by saying that I cannot possibly understand what someone else has experienced. For you to know that, you would have to know what I have experienced, which if I understand your claim, is something you think is impossible, so the claim itself would be self-refuting. No, I cannot decide what someone else has experienced or why, but I can estimate the probability that said experience may have mundane underpinnings, so I do not need to know conclusively what or why somebody else experienced something. As long as I can show that there are more probable explanations for their experience than the one they are giving, then I can establish a strong prima facie case that said person's beliefs are irrational and not to be relied upon as indicators of the truth.