This still seems to be an experiential argument for God, isn't that inconsistent with your axiomatic approach?

I have no idea how lizw would answer this, but I don't personally see any contradiction. All the axioms I find useful are, IMO, experiential in nature. I don't really understand how I'd acquire an axiom that wasn't wasn't based on my experiences or one which contradicted them.

That said, I don't translate my experiences blindly into axioms, but try to consider what axioms are sensible given the experiences. That still, to my mind, makes them experiential in nature. If I obtained them by reason, they wouldn't be axiomatic, but would be derived from other axioms.

Which axioms do you have that aren't experiential? I suspect that either you're using the words in a different way from me, or have a very different standard of axiom - either of those is completely fine, but I think I need to understand the disconnect before I discuss this with you further.

(I have, obviously, very different axioms from lizw. But I often find that the way that I reason is very similar, although as we start with different axioms we often come to very different conclusions.)