Is personal experience a valid argument for God’s existence (used by theists)?

In this, maybe a bit longer answer, is presented a novel model of the ultimate basis of Reality, that
which some call God, and the OP seeks a valid argument for  (albeit heavily drawing inspiration from
the ancient scriptures), in a philosophical sense, but having a heavy emphasis on direct experience, and,
indeed, being inspired mostly by direct experience. Indeed, direct experience is the only possible way to
get to know, what most people call God. And that, what you call God, doesn’t exist, It is the Existence
itself.

On the other hand, I may not be the right person for this, since I don’t label myself theist. I avoid any
labels, as much as possible, but, perhaps, non-dualism, that is, a belief in one reality, where all
separation is an illusion and only Oneness exists (actually, it doesn’t exist, but is, rather, the Existence
itself), would be the closest to my belief system.

In any case, my argument, or better said, a model of reality inspired by ancient scriptures, modern
teachers, as well as my own personal mystical experiences, some of which were rather intense goes as
follows:

It is representing Awareness as the Existence itself, that which is permanent, the Oneness without

attributes, the universal silent Observer (which is a language trap, since It  is not  an object,  It is the
universal Subject itself, or, even better, myself), a concept often ignored when discussing consciousness.

And again, this is another language trap: Awareness is not a concept, but the Being itself. It has to be, for
the lack of a better word, experienced directly (but it is not an experience, or something that could be
experienced, in principle, it is the Being itself, the pure Existence). You (the universal “I”) can just exist,
in the realm of silence, beyond all observable content, doing absolutely nothing, just abiding in that
“mystical” silence (becoming one with the Non-Doer). The realm of silence is always here, it is the
Jesus’ Kingdom of Father/Heaven, as described in the (non-synoptic) Gospel of Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas’s 114 Sayings of Jesus

Read the 114 sayings of Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas as translated by Stephen J. Patterson and
James M. Robinson.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-gospel-of-
thomas-114-sayings-of-jesus/

As an introduction, the first 5 logia of this Gospel will be presented, since they perfectly encapsulate and
directly cut through the core of the problem:

1. And he said: “Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death.”

2. Jesus says:
(1) “The one who seeks should not cease seeking until he finds.

(2) And when he finds, he will be dismayed.

(3) And when he is dismayed, he will be astonished.

(4) And he will be king over the All.”

3. Jesus says:

(1) “If those who lead you say to you: ‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’ then the birds of the sky will
precede you.

(2) If they say to you: ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you.

(3) Rather, the kingdom is inside of you and outside of you.”

(4) “When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the
children of the living Father.

(5) But if you do not come to know yourselves, then you exist in poverty, and you are poverty.”

4. Jesus says:

(1) “The person old in his days will not hesitate to ask a child seven days old about the place of life, and
he will live.

(2) For many who are first will become last, (3) and they will become a single one.”

5. Jesus says:

(1) “Come to know what is in front of you, and that which is hidden from you will become clear to you.

(2) For there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest.”

The main problem arises because of the superposition. The realm of silence (Awareness) is in a
superposition with the realm of content (consciousness), which is the root cause of the confusion about
our true Self (Tat tvam asi). Here is provided the most well condensed knowledge of Advaita Vedanta, I
have ever found:

“What is the difference between consciousness and awareness?”

The difference is the biggest possible.

Advaita Vedanta says this is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION.

Awareness is first — consciousness is derivative.

Awareness is pure — consciousness is mixed.

Awareness is immanent — consciousness is bounded.

Awareness is silence — consciousness is noise.

Awareness is truth — consciousness is illusory.

Awareness is one — consciousness is two.

Awareness is perfect — consciousness is lacking.

Awareness is immaterial — consciousness is matter.

Awareness is Self — consciousness is ego.

Awareness is God — consciousness is God’s manifestation.

But the above does not amount to an answer. The ancients set down these descriptions but warned that
they are not the keys to enlightenment. These concepts are merely to persuade the intellect and allure
the heart that awareness should be sought and consciousness eschewed.

THE ANSWER

We cannot be given the answer.

Why?

Because the answer is not found in any operation of consciousness. Only awareness will fulfill the heart
and intellect. To give logic and emotions to the mind that wants truth is like giving pictures of food to
the hungry.

SOLUTION

No solution needed.

We directly realize awareness all the time.

Everyone insists they are here, now, and aware.

No more awareness of awareness is possible.

But consciousness can be made quieter, so that awareness can become resplendent. When one
meditates and relaxes, awareness remains unchanged but appears to become more “noticeable” due to
the noise level coming down.

As we come closer and closer to deep quiescence, we begin to see silence as more real than noise.

At some point, identity toggles.

We flip from being conscious to being aware.

That’s the enlightenment paradigm shift.

That’s the sole answer to the above question.

Courtesy of Edg Duveyoung

As a side note, when Edg said consciousness is matter, I don’t believe he meant it in the mainstream
physicalist sense, but rather the opposite, that matter emerges within the consciousness. To expand on
that a little bit, let us assume that we experience our experience  as one unified field, as long as there
are no thoughts interpolated between ourselves and our experience (see “binding problem” in
neuroscience, which exists because the mainstream physicalist ontology tries to build the
reality, including consciousness, from matter, i.e. some fundamental physical entities, being the building
blocks of everything, depending on their arrangement, same thing with “the hard problem of
consciousness”).

The first-order abstraction is the act of dividing that unified field of experience, by the faculties of
thinking and perceiving, which are intertwined, into various objects and events, which are then
organized within the specific framework which appears, to the modern human mind, as the
spacetime, thus forming basic conceptual representations of reality.

In other words, all of this is a product of consciousness: objects and events are framed by the faculty of
thinking (mostly linguistic, but also visual, auditory, etc.), time emerges from the faculty of thinking, and
space emerges from the faculty of perceiving. In this way, matter emerges within the consciousness, but
remember that the actual experience underlies, or is prior to, everything described in this, first-order
abstraction. Now, you might complain that these thoughts, and other activities of consciousness,
involved in that first-order abstraction are also experiences, and exactly that is the point. Consciousness
is matter, and thought, and everything else that is impermanent, the whole realm of content, and it
perpetually branches itself in a fractal manner, with the help of attention (as will be shown later) I will
now stop, lest it becomes more confusing, but take your own dreams you dream every night as
something to ponder over.

Moreover, be mindful of how deep these processes are ingrained in our mind. Most, if not all of what
was described here happens completely instantaneously and spontaneously, while we take these
conceptual representations (objects, events, space and time) for granted. It has become our second
nature, and thus, we have forgotten our true nature, that is, I am aware, here and now. Notice how
nothing previously mentioned (objects, events, time and space) is actually present, or needed here. To
give an example, you are always  here and now, and never there and then.

Our experience suggests that we share the same world, governed by the same physical laws, which are
invariant in respect to our volition. This pushes many people into the trap of physicalism, since they are
forgetting that we are still describing what we experience, i.e. the activity of our consciousness, by
postulating additional concepts on top of the only two ontological primitives we can be sure of: 1.
there is experience and 2. there is that which experiences, thus forgetting that everything else is
postulated (and matter is one of the first postulates, and probably one of the hardest to let go off,
because we can feel it, while forgetting that it all happens in the field of experience, i.e. consciousness).

So that would be the first-order abstraction. Then, on top of that, come thoughts, opinions, beliefs and
other biases (that our mind forms automatically, if you observe it a bit, e.g. during meditation, when
everything spontaneously emerges in our field of experience), but also daydreams (when the whole
complex systems are created, then ordinary dreams, as higher-order abstractions (this includes scientific
theories, models, philosophy, this text you are reading right now etc.)

As previously said, I see it as a superposition of the two layers:

The First layer, the fundamental one, can be described as the universal silent Observer, the reality
beyond content (pure silence), the Awareness, which is immanent, invariant, without any attributes,
non-lacking in principle, the ground of Being.

Attention  seemingly emerges from the First layer, and plays a fundamental role in the functioning of
consciousness, it is that, that shines  light  onto the objects in the field of consciousness, thus making
them conscious experiences. If it clings to some content, e.g. a thought that emerged spontaneously
from the Void, that thought will grow into a stream of thoughts, where attention might become
completely entangled (that is what we call “cognitive fusion” in “Acceptance and commitment therapy”,
while cognitive defusion would be practices like mindfulness etc, taking a step back, because we, or our
attention became so entangled in some mental process, that it doesn’t look at it from the side, but rather
looks at the world from the perspective of that mental process (our ego is also a mental process, albeit a
bit more sophisticated, and structurally more complex, but the same rules, and behaviors apply. You can
look at yourself/your ego from a distance, or the other way around, which is how most people spend
their days, e.g. living the life on an auto-pilot).

The second layer, that is superimposed, and causes all this confusion, is the realm of content, the ever-
changing consciousness. These two layers unite in Atman (or trinitarian Christian Son), who unites the
Observer with the observed. Reality is non-dual, only the Existence/Being is real, but in practical terms,
when one wishes to describe reality from our, limited human perspective, there always emerges a
Trinity, in one form or another.

One such allegory (remember that all of this is a mere plethora of linguistic conceptual models, not
Reality itself) could be: There is only one true reality, the Existence itself, and all separation is illusory,
BUT, for the practical purposes, our individual lives could be described in a way that consists of
a “practical Trinity”:

1. “The Awareness” (Christian "Father", Vedantic "Brahman") as the screen of perception, the
universal silent Observer, permanent and invariant (unchangeable), non-lacking in principle, Reality
beyond any content, the ground of Being, prior to spacetime and content, etc.

2. “The Son” (Vedantic "Atman") as the localized perspective, encapsulating both the pure Awareness
beyond any content, i.e. the universal silent Observer, AND the flow of life, the playground of
consciousness. He is lost in that superposition until He “awakens”. In fact,  this superposition happens
exactly in/through the Son.

I have put the definite article, "the Son", because there is only one "I", which we all share. He is "the
victim" of an illusory separation and multiplication, but in reality, He remains One with the
Father/Brahman/Śūnyatā. The "I" is the universal Subject, and He simultaneously experiences infinite
Paths. The Path is an allegory for His venture into the realm of consciousness, but the end of His Path is
always the same as the beginning, the Awareness/Father/Brahman/Śūnyatā, and thus the veil of
ignorance falls. I think that "the parable of the lost Son" describes exactly that, the Son's Path/ His
exploration of the realm of consciousness.

Also, since time is an illusion, the beginning and the end are illusory as well: the Son thinks He exists in
the realm of spacetime, until He awakens and realizes the eternity of "here and now", and an illusory
nature of spacetime, impermanence, and death (this is very similar to the Parmenides' philosophy).
Some famous quotes come to mind here, e.g. "Tat tvam asi"; “I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6); and also the fundamental "formula" of the
Vedantic philosophy: "Atman = Brahman".

3. “The Consciousness” ("the Holy Spirit"/"Prakṛti"), the flow of Life, the fullness of infinite
consciousness, the white light of life falling on the screen of perception (the Father). In this allegory “the
Son”, or rather the Son's every Path (the infinity of Paths), would be like a specific, individual crystal,
through which the white light of the Holy Spirit passes, thus forming a particular image or motion
picture on the screen of perception that lies behind, but remains invariant (unchangeable).

An interesting fact here is that the act of observation influences the observed content, not only in
quantum mechanics, but also in our direct experience: when a thought emerges from the Void, it
depends on attention (i.e. being observed) to evolve into a stream of thoughts, otherwise it returns to
the Void rather quickly (most people had that experience when something came up in their mind, but
they couldn't remember what it was a few minutes later).

If you wonder what Prakṛti is:

according to Dan Lusthaus, "In Sāṃkhya puruṣa signifies the observer, the 'witness'. Prakṛti includes all
the cognitive, moral, psychological, emotional, sensorial and physical aspects of reality. It is often
mistranslated as 'matter' or 'nature' – in non-Sāṃkhyan usage it does mean 'essential nature' – but that
distracts from the heavy Sāṃkhyan stress on prakṛti's cognitive, mental, psychological and sensorial
activities. Moreover, subtle and gross matter are its most derivative byproducts, not its core. Only
prakṛti acts."
Therefore, there is no act of creation, and no “creator God”. God (the Awareness/Father/Brahman/the
Void) is a “non-Doer”, which makes sense since he is invariant, and non-lacking in principle, thus
requiring, or having, no will. He is, on the other hand, the ground of Being. In Him emerges the whole of
consciousness. Everything in the realm of consciousness/content is a spontaneous endless play, a
happening, without a beginning or an end, while the universal silent Observer patiently and attentively
observes all, the whole of consciousness and its activity, the infinity of Paths simultaneously…

The one enigma remaining, at least for me, is the attention. We have established that it influences
observed content, in a way that is similar to creation (content that is deprived of attention returns to the
Void, that is, dies). And it appears to be the only element of reality that we can control, at least
sometimes. Is that control (of attention) an illusion, i.e. happens spontaneously, or an actual choice?
And whose choice is that, the Awareness’ itself? That could have some implications on the idea of a
creator God (we are equating Awareness with God here), but could the concepts such as a volition
(making a choice) even be attributed to Awareness itself (and it does appear to be the source from
which attention emerges), or is it just our limited, human conception of reality. Thus, is making a choice
an illusion (based on previously discussed non-existence of real isolated systems in reality), or an
expression of the universal Awareness (which would then conflict earlier made assumption that it is
non-lacking in principle, thus requiring, or having, no will).