About other gods-question for theists

[orangebox21]

Could you clarify what you mean in saying that our 'experiences and observations cannot be trusted, with regards to religion - whilst our experience of religion -can- be trusted?'

-as only one possible route to demolishing my opinion of the matter, by no means the only or the most conclusive, I'll elaborate.

When considering apologetics, I'm often being asked to trust the experience of the apologist. In this case, anyone who want's to give me a good bit of hellfire and brimstone and vicarious redemption. If not direct experience, I'm being asked to trust the experience of some other. I am given no common ground or objective point from which to reason other than one of these two choices. The discussion can't even begin until I assume their experiences (or the experiences they refer to) to be in some measure, accurate, authoritative, or informative.

I couldn't tell you if this problem arises out of the fundamental nature of a "god argument" or simply because of the lack of imagination in those who might propose one - but there it is (and I suspect the latter). Demanded by that assumption, and implied within it - is that our experiences are unreliable (mine, specifically). In a rather mystifying way...that same axe doesn't seem to have fallen on the experiences of others (themselves, specifically) -as expounded upon above..

Sure, they may offer plenty of examples as to why they assume their experience to be valid whilst mine is not - but I doubt I'd have to go through with you line by line for you to imagine my opinion of that list of excuses. The effect, from my POV - is that nothing is being offered beyond

"Hey atheist, don't trust your experience - trust mine"

Clearly, I have a fundamental bone to pick with that one.

Thanks for the clarification. I do understand your position better as a result. I'm not sure if you'll agree or not, but I would propose that due to the inconsistency of personal experiences, they aren't to be considered the ultimate standard by which truth should be judged. That's not to say they (experiences) don't hold value or explanatory power. It is to say, as you've stated, assuming the basic functioning and reliability of our senses the argument stating that your (human) experience is not to be trusted, but my (human) experience is to be trusted is self-refuting. I think there are more variables involved in the argument, but as you've stated it, I see your point.

So that I can further understand how your position applies please explain. With respect to the alleged contradiction between the geneaologies listed in Matthew and Luke. When I say that one is a geneaology tracing the paternal line and one is a geneology tracing the maternal line, how am I asking you to 'assume my experience' as a starting point and as a result giving you 'no common ground or objective point from which to reason.' It seems to me my experience is irrelevant to these statements and you could simply begin reasoning by evalutating the truth value of my two statements (do the geneaologies follow the lines I have proposed).

Please define what you mean by solipsim.

Sure.

-is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Thanks.

In listening to a lecture I heard 'rationalism' explained by this definition as well. Is solipsism the same thing as rationalism? If not, how do they differ.