Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[SteveII]

I, an otherwise normal respected person, hereby report seeing a pink elephant following me all day as I go about my business. Can science prove whether or not I am truly accompanied by a pink elephant? If not, are we to assume totally that pink elephants that are visible only to me don't exist? What if a dozen other people report seeing them? What if thousands of otherwise regular people make this claim?

Well the issue isn't whether I'm "mostly" sane or credible yet see pink elephants. The issue is whether I can present any evidence to substantiate it. If I can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. If thousands of people can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. It doesn't mean I'm crazy or "not regular", it means I am making an unsubstantiated claim. If the elephant is invisible and not detectable in any way, then it's not even substantiatable.

Finally if I claim the elephant isn't part of the natural world then I have two problems. Now it's REALLY unsubstantiatable, inherently. And if I'm claiming as a matter of knowledge that my pink elephant exists, then I'm making an inherently illogical claim. I'm saying the elephant doesn't exist in the only universe I have access to examine, yet, I can't make that claim since I have no access to that imagined realm where I claim the elephant is.

Science would regard thousands of people claiming to be followed by pink elephants that only they can see, as an interesting case of mass hysteria or delusion, and would examine it as such. It would not consider it an interesting case of invisible pink elephants. Simplest explanation, Occam's Razor, etc.

I'm astounded that here in the 21st century I have to explain this to you, frankly.

Your analogy is lacking. Your pink elephant has no purpose/meaning/message, no explanation for its existence, no precedence, and not part of a bigger framework of the supernatural world. Lacking all those, it seem your pink elephant has no causal effect on the natural world and all your objections apply. But since angels or God has all those things, there is an effect on the natural world that can be measured (it might only be information) and so your objections do not apply.

---

1. It is not true that we would have no information about it. It's pretty much the whole purpose of the Bible and other writings to provide information on the supernatural. The supernatural has causal power in the natural world--presto--information available to consider. It does not make any sense that causal power from the supernatural to the natural world changes the supernatural into the natural. It only indicates the effects are natural. 
2. Except the ones that are witnessed, believed and cataloged (see the NT for examples of evidenced supernatural causation).
3. Falsificationism is a theory about what makes a claim scientific, and not every rationally acceptable claim is or ought to be a scientific claim. Hence not every rationally acceptable claim is or ought to be empirically falsifiable. Your conclusion is absolutely unwarranted.

Please do present to me any substantiation you can offer for the supernatural, and demonstrate clearly how it's distinguishable from just asserting something to be true, or stating that you afford belief to it as true.

Pro tip: ancient writings making assertions or large numbers of people making assertions are no more substantiations or evidence of any kind, than are your assertions. "Witnessed, believed and cataloged" is not substantiation. They are just assertions / claims until they can be evidenced. More assertions, longstanding assertions, assertions by authorities or by claimed holy books, popular assertions, etc., are still just assertions, not evidence.

Millions once asserted that the best treatment for disease was bleeding with leeches. Including medical authorities. Including books that it was written down in. You would have no trouble finding people who witnessed, believed and cataloged healing with leeches. None of that made it true that leeches were effective or appropriate treatments for the vast majority of illnesses, or for the notion of bodily humors being out of balance, etc. being the cause of those diseases.

If people witnessed an event and told someone else or wrote it down, then we do in fact have evidence. 

The problem is with defining words.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that the NT is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

Excellent discussion on it at http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/