I'm good with God. Isn't that enough?

The claim under examination: a powerful personal spiritual experience can establish that a particular view of God is true.

Standard · preponderance of the evidence, not proof

◆ The case for
  • Experiences are real, and widespread. Across cultures, people report vivid encounters that change their lives.
  • "Just brain chemistry" is a cheat. Every experience involves the brain; that does not prove the object is unreal.
  • Transformation counts. Lives genuinely change, so the experience is not trivial.
◇ The case against
  • Contradictory experiences, equal sincerity. A Christian meets Jesus, a Hindu meets Krishna, a Muslim feels Allah. They can't all be right about what it was.
  • Culture shapes interpretation. The raw experience and the meaning placed on it are two different steps.
  • Similar states can be induced, which warns against "it felt real, so my explanation is true."

The verdict

DisprovenUnlikelyPlausibleStrongly supportedEstablished

That people have genuine, powerful spiritual experiences is strongly supported. That such an experience, by itself, proves one religion true is weakly supported without outside evidence.

If you read nothing else

Something happened to you. What it means is a separate question.

Experience deserves respect, not a quick skeptical dismissal. But experiences do not interpret themselves, and sincere people reach opposite conclusions from equally powerful ones. So experience is strong evidence that people encounter something, and weak evidence for deciding which interpretation is true.