[adam_az]

"For example- what if I am addicted to certain substances, activities and practices. (Which I was.) Then I have a salvation experience where I put my faith in Jesus Christ. (Which I did.) Then, I instantly have no more of these addictions, and remain addiction free for fifteen years. (Which I have.)"

What you have is an inadequate sample size. You also failed to account for the fact that other people have put faith in Judaism, Hinduism, Satanism, and Scientology and have also remained addiction free.

So, it's still faith. You just think it turned into belief. That's because you failed to account or test for or disprove other possible causes. After all, correlation (spiritual experience and sobriety) is not causation.

[ovrtaxt]

That's because you failed to account or test for or disprove other possible causes.

Okay. My total deliverance and radical lifestyle transformation just happened to coincide, to the moment, with a profound experience with God, Who had nothing to do with it.

Now that takes a lot of faith to believe.

[ovrtaxt]

What you have is an inadequate sample size.

Do you really want to go there? My experience is shared by millions, perhaps over a billion, who will die for their 'knowledge'.

[spunkets]

"What you have is an inadequate sample size. You also failed to account for the fact that other people have put faith in Judaism, Hinduism, Satanism, and Scientology and have also remained addiction free."

See # 32. No sample size is required. Ovrtaxt's statements are fact. He has put his faith in someone; that is an essential part of the reasons why he changed his behavior. That's as far as science can go. It's quite simple to recognize and identify the particular reasons and motivations for any decision. Whether the change involved insight, or revelation from a particular source, is pointless to argue on scientific grounds alone. The arugment will never be empirical.

The only thing that can be said about any particular religion, belief system, or claim in general, is whether, or not it is logical and whether, or not it conflicts with reality, or something else, like a moral code.

"That's because you failed to account or test for or disprove other possible causes. After all, correlation (spiritual experience and sobriety) is not causation."

All one needs is a sound sufficient cause that doesn't contradict reality. Again, it's pointless to address the difference, between insight and revelation with the scientific method. Logic on the claimed belief system is all that can be applied. That is theology, not acience.

[grey_whiskers]

After all, correlation (spiritual experience and sobriety) is not causation.

It may be evidence of causation. "Necessary but not sufficient" and all that.

Cheers!