> How do you know that your senses, or the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid? Surely you would agree that knowledge cannot be attained through invalid senses or reasoning?

Consensus and verification. The vast majority of people would be able to agree, for instance, that the sky and the ocean are a similar hue. Someone arguing otherwise would be grounds for the investigation of a visual or mental defect in the individual, or perhaps a local anomaly in the sky/ocean (pollution these days...)

Now, I'm aware that reasoning seems to contradict the argument against the theistic worldview, since the majority of the world population does believe in a God or gods. However, there are major disagreements about the nature of this God, and that is enough to give me doubt. Christians are the most populous, but they're split about half-and-half over the question of whether the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth. Twenty percent of the world believes there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. About ten percent believes in Vishnu, Shiva, etc and another ten percent don't believe in gods per se, but believe one can achieve a godlike state by achieving enlightenment. So on and so forth.

I think that when so many people disagree about something so vehemently, something odd is going on, and it's probably not that seventy percent of humans on Earth are brain-damaged.

Another major problem with spiritual knowledge and experiences - demonstrated by your failure, thus far, to explain the precise nature of how God has revealed himself to you - are that they are almost wholly ineffable, nor transferable by any other means. Most sensory experiences are ineffable when you get down to the basics - try and describe "blue" without using any sort of analogy, simile or metaphor - but at least one can point to the sky and say "That's blue." As far as I know, there's nothing you can point to and say "That's God." You can merely present your ontological arguments, have us read the prophecies come of other people's spiritual experiences from thousands of years ago, and hope that we arrive at a similar epiphany.

I doubt your spiritual beliefs because, being non-transferable, there is no way for me to evaluate for myself whether they are true observations or the product of faulty senses or reasoning. Properly done science can always be reduced to observations; one can travel to the Galapagos and see the same things Darwin did back when he wrote his controversial little book. But when you point at logic, I see only a set of convenient axioms. When you point at morality, I see a social construct.

> Then that very statement would have to be invalid as it cannot be proven.

It cannot be proven that there exists no concept of proof outside of formal sciences such as logic and mathematics? I suppose so, but that just makes my statement falsifiable, not false.

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

As I see it, the reason that proof only exists in formal sciences is that in the natural world, there are an infinite number of potential confounding factors which may disprove a theory once they are discovered. Therefore certainty is impossible unless you remove the natural world and replace it with a set of axioms - such as the bases of logic and mathematics.