Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Perhaps I am just simple, but if you see a pink elephant, and others confirm it (especially without you saying); and you need a scientist to tell if there is a pink elephant there or not, then I think you are a bit misguided.  Observance is all that is really needed, no special equipment or training is required. If I am told that there is a pink elephant messing up the equipment, and they need me to bring my meters is scopes to confirm it, I am going to think that is crazier than the claim that there is a pink elephant in the machine (and likely not going to take my equipment to verify).  Now if you have a reason to determine, that what everyone is seeing is definitely an elephant, and not something that just looks like, one, then for that you may need to investigate further. 

Now if I am seeing a pink elephant following me around, then I may ask others if they see something.  I may not even tell them what I'm seeing (because my friends would say yes, just to mess with ya).  Now, if I am the only one who see's it, then it is subjective and it's reasonable to ask why.  And a psychological answer very well be the correct conclusion.  If others are seeing the same things that I am, then it is objective.

As to your final point, that only certain people can see.  I think I'm going to ask the question if certain people can see, and describe the same thing, or if a number of people are saying that only they can see it (not seeing what the others are claiming they see but each individual).  This is interesting, but I think that if a number of people can see and give a similar independent description of what is going on, then it is objective and may need to be explained why some people cannot see it.   If it is all individual, then I think it gets more difficult, but again a psychological explanation may be best for it's subjectiveness. It seems that there is another alternative, That people see, but there is no one to substantiate the claim at the time. Or a number of people have similar reports, but they are not witnessed by others, because no one else was there. This doesn't necessarily mean that it was subjective or objective. I may look at the reports, and see if they are describing something similar. I may examine something like where the reports come from (how isolated the phenomenon is) Is there things that give the reports credibility. But often I will hold them in some kind of tension (perhaps leaning to one direction or the other), but not really taking a position either way.

I also do not think that if a number of people corroborate a claim, but that in question is no longer available, that you can call it unsubstatiable.  This is normal in life and history.