It is interesting, the arguments we have over the ability to prove G-d's existence. Throughout the ages, many philosophers have tried to establish a logical proof of G-d's existence, and time and again they have been rightly dismissed as failing to prove it with logical rigor. However, the question I have is, what is the significance of this?

You see, the problem is there are many things we cannot establish with the certainty demanded of formal logic, yet we accept as being proved. So, though the teleological argument does not meet the demands of formal logic, what does it matter? We can't prove that my sensory experiences are true to the satisfaction of formal logic either, yet we all accept that premise on a daily basis. In fact, the rigors of formal logic cannot be satisfied by most of our knowledge. The theories of science, being based upon unreliable sensory experience and based upon only provisional experimental proof clearly do not meet the rigors of logic, yet we do not deny that scientific proof is sufficient.

Only when it comes to the divine do we demand not only proof, but proof that meets all the rigors of formal logic. For example, in the case of scientific evidence, we accept sensory experience as a basic datum, though we do demand that experiments can be replicated. However, in some cases we even make allowances for replication. For example, in behavioral sciences we do not insist on the exact, mechanistic reproduction of results, only that an overall pattern be observable.

But in religion, we dismiss first hand experience as either delusion or deceit, even when an experience can be replicated, such as the subjective sensations of those experiencing religious rapture, or those undergoing so-called "near death experiences". Now, I do not deny that it is possible in either case the experience is delusional or an outright lie, but only in the case of religion do we start from the assumption that the subjective experience is false, in any other field of science we operate form an initial assumption that the senses are reliable.

Not that I claim any experiences prove that G-d exists, nor that there is conclusive proof for his experience, even by the more lax standards of science. In fact, not being falsifiable, G-d's existence is not subject to scientific proof or disproof. All I wanted to point out was that our age is unusual in being the first to start from an automatic assumption that G-d does not exist, and that anything beyond the strictly material is suspect. More than that, I wanted to argue, despite all the claims that such a position is more "rational", that in reality, there is no logical reason to prefer either assumption, either for or against, as a starting point. However, if we are going to assume the senses are reliable in all other contexts, is it not more sensible to also assume they are reliable regardless of subject matter? Does it make sense that experience is reliable except when relating to G-d?

POSTSCRIPT

A bit of confession. I have been as guilty of this as anyone. When an acquaintance of mine told me of her first hand experience of G-d, I scoffed, as I thought her an unlikely candidate for divine communication. However, looking back, I see that I was being quite arrogant in my assumption. First, who am I to say who G-d would choose for communication? Second, if I assume the senses are reliable in everyday life, and would have accepted eye witness testimony from my acquaintance on any other matter, why should I doubt her simply because of the subject matter?

But I was much younger at the time, and still prone to Objectivist-inspired excesses, so it is understandable, if not exactly forgivable. Today I would not be as prone to dismiss reports of such a subjective experience. Regardless of the source, unless proven repeatedly to be an outright liar, I would likely give a much more positive reception to such claims.

POSTSCRIPT II

As G-d is not subject to scientific proof, his existence not being a proper subject for experimentation, and as he cannot be proved sufficiently through formal logic, then what remains? Well, to be honest,t he only real proof of G-d is a direct, first hand experience of him. I suppose should you take my argument to heart, you could also accept the testimony of those who have had such first hand experiences, but I fear most would still dismiss such claims as insufficient. So, in reality, the only possible proof is direct experience, and even then, it provides proof only for the one undergoing the experience. For the rest of us, which seems to be most of humanity, the existence of the divine remains a question of faith.