Having previously presented considerable and substantial evidence suggesting that the existence of God is more likely than not, it could be further said that if a person believes they have encountered God through some particular experience, then, all things considered, they should suppose that they have indeed encountered God. Such is the underlying premise that gives structure to what are known as arguments for the existence of God from religious experience. The argument itself is based on the existence of God being the best explanation for various phenomena collectively termed “religious experience.” Religious experiences are personal encounters with God that often occur through events such as terminal lucidity and Near-Death Experiences, both of which have been extensively discussed in past articles, along with other phenomena perceived in and through miraculous healings, dreams, visions, a sense of divine presence, and overwhelming awe. Physiologically, many religious experiences are sensory experiences perceived through the five senses, which are generally considered quite reliable. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to maintain that because sensory experiences are considered excellent grounds for beliefs about the physical world, religious experiences are valid grounds for religious beliefs. Even so, the big question is this: “Can these experiences be true, or are they made-up tales of experiences that never happened?” After all, some claims seem absurd, while others border on theatrical. Philosopher Richard Swinburne can be of help here, pointing out two guiding principles when evaluating claims of religious experience. First, the principle of credulity holds that unless there is good evidence to the contrary, if a person claims a particular experience, then we should believe that they did experience what they claimed. Or, as already stated, “If I believe I have encountered God through some particular experience, then, all things considered, I should suppose that I have indeed encountered God.” Swinburne’s second principle in determining the truthfulness of a religious experience claim is the principle of testimony, which holds that testimony is generally reliable. That is, people typically do not give false testimony, nor are they often deceived by what they experienced. At any rate, that does not ensure that all religious experience claims are truthful. In fact, I am quite certain that some, if not many, religious experience claims are pure fabrications. After all, the eighteenth-century skeptic David Hume once said, “It is nothing strange that men should lie in all ages.” While I do not believe that is the general rule, I agree with Hume regarding a minority of cases. While Swinburne’s two principles may seem somewhat weak and optimistic, they do not stand alone.