Originally Posted by
recycle 
I don’t require proof of God’s existence, I would be wholly satisfied with a strong intuition, or even experience. Proof is a construct of reason which is only a subset of knowledge. There are many true but unprovable statements that I accept as true. For example, I have cannot prove you are conscious, I choose to believe that you are conscious because I have experience that tells me I am conscious and you seem to similar to me, and you tell me you are, so I believe you. The fact that lots of other people tell me they are conscious doesn’t constitute proof either. It is a matter of faith on my part that I believe you and others are conscious.
Circling this back to recovery, I held a number of delusions about truth that helped to keep me drunk. I am still sorting through many of them, but the idea that something had to be provable to be believable was one of the first to go.
I think we can make a sufficiently strong inductive argument for the existence of other minds which warrants belief. In particular, we have models of our own experience with open links where we should expect other real experiences to lie. Put in more familiar terms, we observe that our own mind has an orderly association with our physical brain, and we infer inductively that other brains which exhibit similar orderings have their own associated minds. This seems to me entirely consistent with the standards of induction to which we ordinarily appeal.
There are other defenses for the rationality of belief in other minds, for instance the argument that such beliefs are psychologically unshakable and therefore not subject to epistemological critique. But none of these defenses are compatible with an argument for the existence of God.