The Argument from Personal Experience is also a circular argument. In other words: “The proof of God is that I believe in Him.” The conclusion is assumed in the premise. These kinds of statements are absolutely worthless in establishing the truth.
If you are asked to prove the existence of god, don't bother stating your personal relationship with him as proof. Saying so will only make you appear to be a brainwashed individual who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. As an argument, it carries no weight, and does nothing to counter the mountain of biblical errors, obscenities and absurdities.
I don't know what the "Argument from Personal Experience" is supposed to look like, but it doesn't have to be circular. Here's a simple version I invented just now, using probably the most common inference human beings make:
1. I just had an amazing experience completely outside of anything else I've ever felt.
2. The
best explanation for this amazing experience is that I just came into contact with God.
3. Therefore, I just came into contact with God.
I'm sure something like this happens in a religious person's mind: they experience whatever it is they experience, then seek an explanation. They fasten upon what they feel is the best explanation, and this is their justification for what they believe about the experience. This is perfectly valid logically, even if it ends up not being true (for example, I think there are better explanations for religious experience out there).
In other words, there's nothing
logically wrong with arguing from personal experience.