Spiritual phenomenology isn't really the issue. I have no problem accepting widely experienced phenomena as evidence. I still like it to make sense, however. My question is about the conclusions that are drawn based on the phenomenological evidence. How do you get from a spiritual experience to a virgin birth and a being that, at will, alters the basic laws of nature that (s)he supposedly set up in the first place? Perhaps there are other conclusions that could be reached that would explain the phenomena without resorting to conscious beings that are outside the space/time continuum and/or belief in events that clearly can't happen?

I understand that lots of people believe in gods and don't feel any need for proof. To that, I say, "Fine, just don't try to force your beliefs on me." My questions are for those who claim that their belief is rational. Being irrational can be a good thing -- I do a fair bit of it myself. But if someone tells me that something that looks irrational is, in fact, rational, I want the chain of logic laid out.