The term ’seeing-as’ is a concept of religious experience, as it argues for the perception of the individual rather than the existence of God through religious experiences. This is also similar to Hare’s concept of a ‘blik.’ This is the way of interpreting religious experience to being unverifiable and unfalsifiable; therefore this does not support the existence of God.
A further concept of religious experience is that the majority of experiences are life enhancing. Surely then a life enhancing experience is more likely to give support to the existence of God than if religious experience was life diminishing. Another concept introduced by Richard Swinburne is called the principle of Credulity. This argues for the existence of God, claiming,” how things seem to be is a good guide to how things are,” arguing that if we seem to experience God then we probably have. Swinburnes other principle, the principle of testimony is another concept which argues for the existence of God. This explains how our knowledge of a person influences our judgment on their claim for religious experience. If they are known to be honest and trustworthy, we would see them as a more reliable source.
A concept of religious experience is the sense of something numinous, where the believer can feel the presence of something powerful. People who have claimed to have encountered God usually say that during this experience they have felt drawn into a deeper knowledge or awareness of god. Surely then, if there is a common feeling from the recipients of god revealing himself, it is more likely that has done than not.
Religious experiences are subjective so we cannot carry out objective experiments to determine the truth whether God has in fact been revealed. Religious experiences are ambiguous and the nature of the the argument depends largely on our presuppositions, so in supporting the probability of God, it is very much down to the interpreter.
In supporting the probability of the existence of God, Brain Davies makes the point that experience can tell a reasonable person that God exists. Davies shows how someone can assert that there is a God without appealing to anything other than a direct contact with God. For example, as I can say there is a pillow on my sofa because I have encountered it, I can say there is a God because I have encountered him.
One argument which criticises the probability of God through religious experience is whether the finite and physical can experience an infinite and transcendent God. It can be said that humans are not just physical products but have a spirituality which gives an awareness of things, however human beings are just things and God is not. Furthermore, as God is not supposed to have a body. how can we come across him in an analogous way. It is this problem why religious experiences cannot be taken as arguing for the existence of God. A further problem experiencing God is whether he can be recognised. If God is said to be the creator, eternal, omnipresent, then how can those attributes be recognised.
In assessing religious experience as an argument for the existence of God, we can conclude that the argument is not definite in proving Gods existence. There is always a dilemma on defining who has encountered God, as the experience can be subjective or objective. Whether God causes religious experiences is also dependent to the individual’s pre-suppositions. If we are to accept claims to religious experience, we must take in account their mental and psychological health, their nature, and the closeness to encountering a God with a similar character. Some argue that the origin of an experience is in fact irrelevant, that the source may be a religious interpretation. Lastly, it can only give a probable God hypothesis, as an “a posteriori,” argument which is subjective.
