Believers & Evidence for God: do you understand the argument?

Question

I’m asking this question to see if believers understand what they believe. It is not meant to be offensive.


The second best argument I've ever encountered for a belief in some kind of God, is "personal experience." That is, someone will claim to have met or talked to God, or felt something like the Holy Spirit.

MY QUESTION IS do you as a believer understand the COUNTER-argument for this one? In other words, what is the counter-argument for this that non-believers will site?

Please tell me the counter argument (you may rebut the counter argument if you like but I’m more interested to see if you understand the non-believer position).


If no one puts up a good answer, I will. So please check back.

If you wish to see what I thought was the “best argument” was you may refer to my previous question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkAhsIVA7UZfHm8VMyIJ_uHsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071001170006AALuWUQ

Most people did not even understand the question, let alone give a good answer so I’m hoping for better luck this time.

Thank you in advance.

It has been my experience that once a believer is convinced because of this, NOTHING will change their mind.

Paul, if that were the counter-argument, it would be irrational. So that obviously must not be the counter-argument.

Joe... no.

Alan... you may be correct that I am not presenting the question correctly (you seem to have understood it). Any suggestions?

7 responses so far and not one good answer (though Alan's may be closest).

It is just more evidence to me that believers do not even understand what non-believers think, and therefore do not even understand their own positions.

Perhaps the majority agree with Spike who feels it’s OK to believe things for bad reasons.

The 8th answer by James also comes close but doesn’t quite touch on it.

Oops, I did it again: it should be "cite" not "site."

BC: Very good, not the one I had in mind, but good none the less.

Answer 1

The counter argument is "subjectivity". However, that does not mean it is not true, but only that we cannot scientifically prove it to anyone else.

Answer 2

The counter argument is, "If something cannot come from nothing, where did God come from?" or "How do we know the uncaused cause is God? Why not something else?) Let me say, however, that we all agree that there was never a time that there was nothing. The theistic argument is that in the order of corporal things, causation appears to be necessary, and that this necessity is observable. Thus a principle of existence in which causation is not necessary is postulated. Whether one accepts this or not is really dependent what "feels" correct to the mind of that individual. The question of whether this is the single God of Abraham is a separate question, and is not dealt with in this argument. *edit* I can't believe how slow the answers are coming in; I thought you'd have gotten starred at least 5 times by now, Bill! *edit* Not bacteria, I would assume :p. Otherwise we'd have a giant bacterium rampaging through Tokyo. I don't know; I would be very interested in an experiment in which a radioactive element could somehow be isolated in such a way as to preclude its interaction with anything outside of itself. I'm not a scientist; that's why I don't understand what light waves travel through when they travel through space :\

Answer 3

I understand the mental battle all too well. The sea of doubt and fear are the foundations for everything unlike God and His idea. I lived at that address for a long time.
But to put things simply, there is divine evidence that even tugs at you right now, otherwise you would not want to or need to post the seeming argument against a spiritual creation.
I put down my frying pan awhile back and do not use it to get my point across. The big bang and evolution do explain all that is mortally material and subject to change and death. But only God explains truth and love being present in (even this seeming) mortal man made of dust.

Answer 4

In my experience atheists don't believe simply because they have no "proof." They say that personal experiences aren't proof enough. That if God was real, He would have given proof of existence by now, and because atheist don't have enough evidence for God, they choose not to believe in Him at all.
I don't really have a counter argument for them, and usually just state a personal experience. But they make a good point, I'll give them that: why believe in something that doesn't have any concrete proof?
My answer to that is that I have my proof already, I know He is there, and that He loves me.

Answer 5

There is really no argument. . . there is no proven evidence for or against the existence of a god. Beliving in a spiritual or religious tradition is a matter faith, period. When will people stop trying to convince others one way or the other. What is it in human beings that makes them need to have their belief or nonbelief confirmed???

Answer 6

obviously the counter argument is that such belief may be subjective.
Could it be that people do not understand because you do not present it in adequate terminology?

My main reason for faith is that it has proved utterly fulfilling for around 50 years!

Answer 7

There is no way to prove that the personal experience was not delusional, either to others or to one's self. That is, one cannot be certain of the source.

Answer 8

do you understand that the 'argument' is largely contained within your mind? what YOU fail to understand is that, while you may feel free to want 'proof', we are under NO obligation to play your little game. feel free to believe whatever you choose, but please stop demanding that i 'prove' God's existence to you...i know He is, and if you choose not to agree, that's your business

Answer 9

The counter-argument to "I have personally experienced it, therefore it must exist" is "I have not personally experienced it, therefore it must not exist", which is clearly irrational.

Answer 10

I beleive is a statement of I do not know, so how can a Believer know when his statement alone shows that he does not?