my answers will be kinda breif, im exausted from the gym, so i apologize. well, i wont go into the philosophy of what constitutes a fact, but i will say that there are evidences that require serious thought and not quick dismissal. you havent stated what exactly would constitute a fact, given the thoughts youve presented. for example, you stated that a fact is something that is indisputably the case, and it is also a definition ive found in my websters. so when we analyse the statements youre making, you assume that when something isnt sufficiently established, then the opposite is fact. but what you are forgeting is that it is nigh impossible to establish a universal negative, especially with the method youre using. instead of using the word fact, i think that maybe you should switch more towards evidence, as i think this will be more fruitful to the discussion. further, i look at the statement you made and i see it as flawed because we are speaking in terms of factual things. so when i present to you any evidence, the evidence has a grounds in reality, by using all kinds of facts. like morals. it is a fact that such a thing as morals exist. its not that there arent facts in my arguments, its that you dont agree with the point im making by using certain facts, or dont hold some ideas to be factual. we should not cut off our own arguments roots in presenting our arguments, its not fruitful.<quoted text>All of those various arguments involving the existence of God, are arguments without facts, so become totally worthless. The LACK of facts concerning the existence of God is very clear cut, there are none.
Of course it depends on what kind of personal experience a person has. if someone told me they were at the beach and saw a whale breaching off shore i would lean toward believing them as this is something that has certainly happened in the past on a number of occasions, and all of the elements of the story grounded in reality. Now if you told me God came down last night and spoke to you and then physically touched you on the head, I would be compelled to not believe you as none of the elements are grounded in reality. I would simply chalk it up to you having a serious delusion. The mental institutions are full of people who will swear that there are demons around every corner, would you accept these personal experiences as factual?
now, personal experience is usually taken into consideration given the background information. so you are right in your analagy. i have no problem in saying that believing someones personal experience may be difficult given certain ideas and personal views. for example, if i went to the beach and saw a shark stuck in a small cove with no visable way for it to get in or out, it is highly unlikely that people will believe me. but take the idea that theres a shark there and multiply it by 5 people, and the idea becomes more plausible. now thats how you would handle a material personal experience. now an immaterial personal experience that has to do with a mental experience or a feeling, thats something that also has to be taken into consideration given the background info plus the likelihood of that event, minus your own personal presuppositions. now, as for your example of those who see demons around every corner, again, we have defeaters of those experiences, combined with an objective standard for judging these things. thats why the average person of faith may have "religious experiences" while another person may experience a horrible mental delusion. we have a standard for judging that.