Experiencing 'proof'

[Cato]

Isn't he just stating the argument from religious experience but in more words?

Jeff, you aren't getting it. Drich is sharing his experiences. I don't doubt his experiences, but you claim they are 'religious' experiences. The point that I have made is that the experiences only become 'religious' because the person who experienced the event attributes the cause to a religious causal agent (It's also strange that the experience is only attributed to the god that is most prevalent in close geographical and familial boundaries). Knowing that others experience the same type of event, but accept other explanations, means that the experiences aren't in and of themselves 'religious'. The assignment comes after the fact.

1. When people experience X they have good reason to believe X exists unless they have reason to think otherwise. (Experiences are treated as innocent until proven guilty)

I have no significant issue with this statement unless someone is attempting to make a dream a reality. I don't think this is your meaning so I'll simply agree.

2. Experiences occur which seem to their subjects to be of God.

I'm ok with this as a logical statement. The subject invokes the idea of God (capital G, a very particular god) as a causal agent, but God has yet to make an appearance. At this point I take the subject at his/her word that he/she thinks the event can be attributed to God, not that God is the actual cause.

3. There are no good reasons for thinking all or most experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God are delusive.

This is where your argument starts to come off the tracks. The experiences aren't delusive, but constantly invoking God in favor of other reasonble explanations is a prime example of delusion.

4. It is rational to believe that at least some experiences which seem to their subjects to be of God really are experiences of God.

Now, you are off the tracks. There is logical consistency in the statement, but the statement means nothing since you insert God as an a priori existent; therefore, this argument is meaningless. The entire point was to use experience as a method of proving God and the only way you can do it is to shove his/her assumed existence into a deductive sequence.

5. It is rational to believe that God exists.

Apparently not.