expeirnce = rational warrant.

[metacrock]

If one has an experince, one is warranted in the assumption that the experince is valid.

If one is warranted in the assumption that the experince is valid, then one is warranted in assuming that the content of the experience is real.

If one is warranted in accepting the content of the experince, one is rationally warranted for any beliefs one derives from such experince.


I can see no other justification for belief in god.


The counterpoint would be if alternate causality can be proved. But if alternate causalities are demonstrated to be improbable or illogical as alternative explanations, then belief is warranted by the experince.

[Mike D]

In saying that an experience is valid, do you mean that 'it is what it appears to be'? How in this do you allow for cultural expectations i.e. the expectations that I have from my culture affect how I interpret an experience? What I believe I have experienced is at least partially a function of what I think it is possible to experience.