at1with0 wrote:The experiences are also explicable with positing the existence of a God.
If they can be reasonably interpreted either way, in what way are the experiences evidence?
It's like saying a bloody knife was found at the scene of the crime, therefore, this is evidence that Ted Bundy is the killer.
Nope, it just proves, at best, that a knife was used, who used it is still up for debate. Likewise, mystical experiences are, at best, evidence that people believe they are communicating with God, the source or cause of the experiences is still up for debate.
Unless you can rule out natural causes, they are not evidence for God, we need to look elsewhere.
When a person experiences the stars at the edge of the observable Universe, I can find no other reasonable conclusion than the fact they actually saw those stars. As to why this is the case, see my post above.
As a falsifier, as a scientific oriented person, it makes sense that you would take scientific claims about what's going on at the outer limits that few have seen on faith. My faith is not that strong. Scientists have as a goal to prove old theories wrong to make way for better ones. The same is actually true of me and my quest towards understanding reality.
What kind of baffles me is that some people hypocritically accept whatever the science consensus is like grand unification theories and quantum mechanics even though they are so removed from experiencing first hand. Well, many people have experienced peak experiences first hand and that in my mind is no more or less reliable than accepting theories I am far removed from having first hand experience with.
I do not reject that the experiences occurred, though. I agree, something is happening there, and it is worthy of respect and study, I just disagree on the source.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris