the argument from experience:

P1) i have the experience of god
P2) in order to experience something the object of your experience must exist
_________________________________
C) god exists!

> But don't schizophrenics, and others of us who experience hallucinations, counter this?

They show us that premiss two is false hence the argument does not go through to the conclusion. (That doesn't mean the conclusion is negated, it just means the conclusion isn't supported by this particular argument). There might be better arguments out there...

It shows us something about the nature of experience, however. While only the person knows whether they have an experience or not experiences are indeed known to diverge from their causes...

I think it is interesting to consider the arguments for the existence of god and the arguments against the existence of god (though I expect people would be offended if i talked about the latter even if i used them to point out how they fail...) that is a shame...

One thing that considering the arguments from both sides does is... To clarify the nature and role of faith.

Because the arguments seem to be stacked fairly evenly, you see. There are significant problems with the arguments from both sides. (Sometimes people don't like to look at the arguments because they are afraid they will be persuaded to lose their faith, I think). But quite the opposite is usually true...

People find their faith is strengthened...

Because whether to believe or not is not a matter of reason...

It is indeed a matter of faith...