The existence of personal witness of the holy spirit is an an empirically falsifiable fact

Given the description of divine or personal witnessing, as provided, wherein it states that it "does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence", and " that such an experience provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit", it seems clear that the fundamental test for such an experience would be to ask, "Do you believe it was what it appeared to be? " If the subject isn't convinced, if he or she has any doubts or is unsure, then the experience has been falsified. Note that the question should not be, "Do you believe in God? ", or "Do you accept Christ as your savior? " or other questions of this sort because one could accept that the experience is valid and still reject God. As Dr. Craig put it, "the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable)". So, if the subject is totally and completely convinced that they have indeed experienced a personal witnessing of a divine entity then, for them, it is a fact. The empirical evidence was the experience itself. For everyone who didn't experience what the subject experienced, though, there needs to be some supplemental evidence as they are not privy to the empirical evidence themselves. This evidence would need to be obtained through a battery of tests designed to show that something other than contact with a divine being was responsible for the subject's experience. These tests would include CAT scans, MRI s, EEG s and blood tests along with other possible procedures and those performing the test should look for the symptoms of diseases such as Parkinson's, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's alcoholism, drug addiction and the possible presence of neurotoxins or other environmental sources. If the subject tests positive for any of these possibilities and, after treating or removing this source, the experiences quit happening, then the experience has been falsified. But, what if the subject had only one experience? How do we know that the condition or disease isn't a coincidence? Any reasonable person would, when confronted with evidence of a mental disorder or disease, would have to doubt that there experience was real, thus proving it to be false. So what happens if no natural or external sources can be found or once found and eliminated, the experiences continue? Well, there's still one other test that needs to be done – a lie detector test. I count myself fortunate that, just today, I received a letter (addressed to resident) from Saint Matthews Churches containing my very own prayer rug (an 81/2" x 17" piece of paper with a picture of Jesus on it) and instructions telling me to kneel on the rug, pray for all the things I want, mail the rug back to them (along with a modest donation) and wait for God to give me everything I wished for. It also included a pamphlet containing stories from people who have followed these instructions and swear that they got everything they prayed for. Now I'm certain that few, if any of these people would test positive for any sort of disorder, but I doubt any of them would pass a lie detector test. www. saintmatthewschurches. com . http://www.houstonpress.com... So, if the subject's honesty and integrity are intact, they are of sound mind and body and they are confident that they're experiences are valid, then it should be considered to be a fact that it happened.