Vlad,
I am not talking with a status of a faith belief I am talking about the status of the particular God.
First, that’s just a “my Dad’s bigger than your Dad game”. Any of the other nine could assert their god to out-status yours.
Second, “status” tells you nothing about the cogency of an argument for the “experiencing” of one god vs another one.
Did they meet Eric the deputy assistant god for treasury tags or The One God, the supreme entelechy of our being. Did Eric tell you how to use a treasury tag in a way pleasing to him or did he cause your chains to sin and guilt of past sin f If it doesn't make any difference to you that is your choice to be flippant.
You’re trying to retro-fit the content of the claim to its epistemic truth. Doesn’t work – bigging up the size of the claim tells you nothing about whether that claim of an "experience" is more or less likely to be true. (It’s also the opposite of the bottom-up Feserism you espouse by the way.)
If you are just talking about meeting a deity why would I doubt that he had met something divine. The question is how intimately and existential was that meeting.
That’s not the question. The question is whether or not there’s a cogent reason to think any of you had “experienced” any of your gods.
We have discussed this before.
For the most part no we haven’t because you usually run away from the problem.
We can of course not know except for finding out for ourselves.
“Finding out for ourselves” is generally a bad way to establish objective truth because all it gives you is opinion. Your nine colleagues genuinely think just as much as you do that they
have “found out for themselves”.
What makes them wrong and you right?
