I would imagine that you would accept that faced with a choice between several different options a person must use some form of reasoning for making a choice.
Yes. I would never recommend an absence of reason in any situation. Nor would I recommend 100% reason (a certain percentage of reason, but not 100%) in all situations either, for example: writing a poem; painting a work of art; coming up with new ideas in work, whether that be in science, or business, marketing; choosing whether to get married to someone or not; and so on.
A 'gut feeling' is generally unreliable.
"Gut feeling" is not a phrase I used.
You say is "generally" unreliable. In which cases is it reliable?
"It is now obvious from your response that you were not able to think up of possible alternative explanations to your experience"
- the important thing is, though, that I tried (have you tried / have you entertained the possibility that the experience might have been divine in origin?)
- a logical explanation for this could be that there was no alternative explanation
-The Scientific Method. The roots of this method go back thousands of years, but have been particularly refined in the last 3 or 4 hundred years and have reached a level of reliability to the point where they have not really changed in the last 60 years or more. This method contends that nothing is completely provable, but that certainty increases with the as the weight of evidence increases. Evidence is essentially repeatable measurements and observations. One of the most powerful techniques in the method is that by continuously attempting to disprove your claims and failing you strengthen it. (eg. recent measurements in dark matter - if they turned out to be different, the theory would have been weakened - but they turned out to be bang on - so the theory is strengthened further).
- I wouldn't disagree with your account of the scientific method. But how does all of this tie in with my particular experience? How would you apply what you say here to such an experience? What kind of method would you set up?
You talk of "scientific method", though, as if it must be the ultimate arbitrator of such an occurence. Is science the only arbitrator of what is true / real? If not then what value do you place in philosophy for example?
Most scientists don't believe that science is the ultimate arbitrator of what is true or real. Most scientists would regard science as being about understanding how the natural world works. Many, such as Max Planck (founder of quantum physics and devout Christian) would have argued that science is outside the remit of certain phenomena (i.e the transcendental). Many agnostic scientists would place great value in other areas of learning such as philosophy, or in culture in general, for enlightenment - not science as the ultimate arbitrator of all truth / reality.
You have asked several times, why we thought this method of reasoning was better than others (even though you did not give an example of any other methods), to which I will answer the following. The Scientific Method has proven over me to be the most reliable way of predicting future event, be it the behaviour of the natural world or man made materials.
And I wouldn't dispute this in a million years. I am not suggesting any other method in trying to understand the natural world.
But the difference between your approach and mine is this:
- I am prepared to consider the possibility that it could be either natural or divine in origin. You (appear, at least) prepared to consider the possibility that is natural in origin only. You jump to the conclusion that it was natural in origin, and base your approach / argument around this. Whereas I have been (trying at least) to examine the evidence in a neutral way, and then come to conclusion based on that.
So just in case my requests have been lost in the above explanation. Do you have a method of reasoning, comparable to the above method, that would persuade us that your views are in any way reliable?
Like I have said before, I have tried every reasonable approach (I can think of) to try and come to a natural reason for this experience. You haven't given me any detail, at all, about what sort of model (not debating that you wouldn't use a model - but what particular kind / how would it would relate to this particular case) you would use.