That's an entirely contradictory thing to say though, Paul. And you know that.
If a large enough number of people claim to have experienced something, it doesn't make it true. Right. But if a large enough number of people claim to have experienced something that is legitimately outside of their subjective view, yet still observable, then there are two options; accept that there is something objective, and therefore permanently outside of our simple comprehension; or deny an objective entirely and destroy your point of others being able to validate something for you.
If you deny an objective reality outside of our own subjective experience, then you imply that all of us are simply running around with meaningless, subjective standpoints that have no bearing on one another.
If you acknowledge and accept an objective reality, then it is reasonable to consider the possibility of a God or Gods, because an objective reality is in line with the idea and structure of a God or God-like being.
If a large enough number of people claim to have experienced something, it doesn't make it true. Right. But if a large enough number of people claim to have experienced something that is legitimately outside of their subjective view, yet still observable, then there are two options; accept that there is something objective, and therefore permanently outside of our simple comprehension; or deny an objective entirely and destroy your point of others being able to validate something for you.
If you deny an objective reality outside of our own subjective experience, then you imply that all of us are simply running around with meaningless, subjective standpoints that have no bearing on one another.
If you acknowledge and accept an objective reality, then it is reasonable to consider the possibility of a God or Gods, because an objective reality is in line with the idea and structure of a God or God-like being.
