If you could go to the moon (a big if, but bear with me), there would either be evidence that men walked there, or there wouldn't be. That's what "falsifiable" means: in theory, the assertion that men walked on the moon could be shown to be false, by a lack of physical evidence.



I do understand what you mean here. An analogy I came up regarding this goes as follows: Imagine two people, one raised on land (living in the open air) and one raised deep under the ocean, surrounded by water. They would both find it uncomfortable, if not intolerable, to switch places. The first one would be disturbed by the increased pressure, while the second one would feel incredibly vulnerable without being immersed in the comforting sea.

Nevertheless, my main objection to religious experiences is not the fact of the experiences themselves. It's the idea that I should accept the experiencer's own religious explanation, when logically simpler ones exist, and the experiencer is not necessarily particularly qualified to come up with an explanation for the experience.