A good case against God

[Mister Agenda]

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Christians based on the personal experience of God. Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable, so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience. Why am I obligated to prove God in this case?

You're not. Your personal faith is your own. If you are aware of this, why do you think we need to make a case against your personal faith?

I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment.

Lots of things that aren't true were taken for granted for a long time. What makes the existence of God an extraordinary claim is not just that you're positing the supernatural with no objective way of demonstrating it, but it's something you can't know based on subjective, unsharable experience. If you think about it, even if you are in contact with an extraordinary or supernatural being, it wouldn't have to be omnipotent to convince you that it's God, only powerful enough to make you feel like you're in touch with what you think is God. That's not even bringing in natural explanations for your experience. I believe that if we try hard enough we can convince ourselves of pretty much anything, which makes 'believe first, then you get evidence' claims pretty shallow. If I believed Voudoun first, I'm sure I'll get 'evidence' too, thanks to altered mental states and confirmation bias. To get past reasonable skepticism, theistic religions have to get us to change our standards of evidence. That's a big red alert sign to me.