[gjenkins]

"I present this entire thread."

By using the term vision, you have admitted that it is non-reproducible and that it was non-physical. If you had a non-recurring vision, present it and try to convince others of its authenticity. You will have a hard time of it ... even with christians. Trying to base your proof or argue on the mere possibility of a vision is not going to fly. Most people understand the portions of their visions which are rooted in reality and the portions which are not. The reality based can be communicated and agreed on by others.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

By using the term vision, you have admitted that it is non-reproducible and that it was non-physical. If you had a non-recurring vision, present it and try to convince others of its authenticity. You will have a hard time of it ... even with christians.

I wasn't asking whether it would be evidence to other Christians. I was asking whether it would be evidence to himself, given a clean bill of mental health by the professionals. He dismissed the possibility as a fantasy scenario, which, whether it is or isn't, avoids the question.

Y'see one of the things I've noticed about some skeptics is the denial of personal experience on their part. Even if it isn't verifiable in any scientific way, the fact remains that personal experience affects a person's belief. Skeptics would deny the evidence of the senses; in this case LuvIt isn't even willing to consider the possibility of a scenario that would not fit in with his worldview.

The point I'm make is not so much for LuvIt's notice -- though it would be nice if he did catch it -- as much as for other readers of this thread.