Wrong. I am claiming that subjective claims can be verified or disproved. You are claiming that they must be accepted as reasonable, regardless.
First of all, no you can't. A subjective experience is singular, and personal. Unless it's YOUR subjective experience, you have no basis upon which to judge. For example, "Bob" claims that peas taste to him like cheap dog food. This is his own
subjective experience. Not yours. So you will have no way to validate or invalidate his experience. You can taste the cheap dog food for yourself, and have your own subjective experience, and validate or invalidate the taste comparison for yourself that way, but that still does not apply to his experience of taste, or his conclusion. And the same would be true if he claimed that getting a flat tire on the way to a big job interview was a message to him from God saying that he should be looking at doing something else. There is no way for you ti validate or invalidate his interpretation of his experience. Because it was HIS experience. And HIS interpretation. Not yours.
Secondly, I neither claimed nor inferred that you must accept the claims made by others about their subjective experiences as being anything more than their claims about their own subjective experiences. That's what they are, and that's how you should understand them. They require no validity assessments from you, and you don't have the capacity to make such an assessment, anyway; as it was not your experience, and it was not claimed as such.
Example.
A person tells me they are hovering 6 inches above the ground.
But that isn't the claim being made. THAT claim would include your participation (as witness) in the experience. It's therefor no longer a purely subjective claim. Whereas receiving a message from God is purely a subjective claim. Your participation is not included. And the fact that you had to alter the parameters of the experience to make it useful to you as a "analogy" only shows how it is not analogous, and that your premise is not sound. If it were, you wouldn't have had to alter the analogy to include yourself as a participant.
Regardless of the fact that it can be, absence of evidence is certainly legitimate grounds for scepticism.
In this instance, it is not grounds for anything at all, because there is no reasonable expectation of any evidence, and therefor nothing to be surmised from not having it. And skepticism is NOT the logical default. It may be YOUR default position, but it's not the position being indicated, logically. The position being indicated based on a lack of evidence, logically, is an open mind. That means being equally receptive to evidence in favor of the claim's alidity, as to evidence against the claim's validity.
Yet this is very clearly not YOUR chosen position. And that ought to give you some pause for consideration. Why isn't it?
Firstly, there is evidence on which to reject claims about gods and their behaviour. It ranges from the complete absence of evidence for, and the failure of every attempt to demonstrate, the supernatural - though irrational claims - to the scientific and historical errors in holy texts.
Now you're just stumbling into an abyss of foolish nonsense based on others and your chosen assumptions about how God would or should exist if God did or does exist. And you can't justify any of these expectations.
For the lack of evidence to be meaningful, there has to be an established, reasonable, defined expectation of evidence that could be found and identified as such if it exists. And there is not, because all the claims are either mythical, or subjectively experienced. Proving a myth is a myth is a pointless waste of time, and subjective experiences (of God or anything else) can't be assessed by anyone but the subject that experienced it. So unless you have some other reasonable expectation of discoverable evidence, your not finding any means nothing.
Finally, "subjective experience" is not "evidence".
Well, it's pretty strong evidence to the person having the experience. And it is even evidence to you if you respect the judgment of the person having the experience. But it's
not proof in either case. And neither is the lack of evidence. Especially considering that what you are willing to call "evidence" is completely subject to YOU.
We know the brain can produce experiences that are entirely imaginary, despite seeming entirely real to the subject. (Or are you claiming that the liquid dragons seen by someone on acid actually exist simply because the person imagined them?)
That's irrelevant, however, as you have no way of showing that an experience of God would
not involve the brain doing exactly as you claim. If I take an hallucinogenic drug and "see God" while under it's influence there is no more logical reason to presume that I did not see God, as that I did. Because there is no logical reason to presume that the drug created a false experience as to presume that it enabled a true experience.
