Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[RoadRunner79]

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.

"Come one, come all..."  The Acts of Peter records a talking dog.  Why not accept that?  Why not accept the millions of accounts of alien abductions?  It was claimed that Charles Manson levitated a bus over a ravine; why not accept that?  Why not accept the accounts of visitations by the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Eucharistic miracles?

Do you have a specific objection to something I had said or a certain principle, that you wish to express?