Can belief in God be grounded in (and justified by) personal experience rather than philosophical argumentation?

Is it conceivable that the most convincing way to ground belief in God is through direct experiences of God, rather than engaging in an endless, stalemate-prone philosophical debate on the question of God's existence?

In mathematics/logic/computing science, one may show existence of some object 'indirectly', by use of non-constructive reasoning, say, but in real life that's simply not available: existence must be established by exhibiting a/the thing as directly as possible, or something to the effect of interactions with the thing (think elementary particle physics)

In other words: things in real life cannot be "brought into existence" by argument alone, by mere use of language, conjured out of thin air because... that's just not how it works

In particular, yes, it's clear that direct experiences of/with God would be at least as effective/convincing than arguments of existence, even if only because arguments of existence unsuported by evidence are not, cannot be, convincing at all

[Note that this requires/implies neither that such experiences exist nor that they don't, it works either way]

Can belief in God be grounded in (and justified by) personal experience rather than philosophical argumentation?

Is it conceivable that the most convincing way to ground belief in God is through direct experiences of God, rather than engaging in an endless, stalemate-prone philosophical debate on the question of God's existence?

In mathematics/logic/computing science, one may show existence of some object 'indirectly', by use of non-constructive reasoning, say, but in real life that's simply not available: existence must be established by exhibiting a/the thing as directly as possible, or something to the effect of interactions with the thing (think elementary particle physics)

In other words: things in real life cannot be "brought into existence" by argument alone, by mere use of language, conjured out of thin air because... that's just not how it works

In particular, yes, it's clear that direct experiences of/with God would be at least as effective/convincing as arguments of existence, even if only because arguments of existence unsuported by evidence are not, cannot be, convincing at all

[Note that this requires/implies neither that such experiences exist nor that they don't, it works either way]