Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – evidence and proof

Christians often try to be clever with something like this, recently posted here by a rather ignorant person, “thinking in darkness”:

(memes below, btw)

“Hi CS, I found this statement interesting, “In that you can’t show your god merely exists, much less that it is what you claim, you have nothing.”

I would like you to try to show/prove that you exist.”

My response: well, there you have it, this person has shown that their god is very unlikely to exist. Since there is plenty of evidence for me, and none for your god, you have even less reason to believe in it.

I’d be happy to give you a good pinch to show you I exist. Of course, you could deny that and pretend that it was only you thinking you were pinched. This ends up going down the rabbit hole of solipsism, and at the bottom of that hole, there is no god either, only the mind of the person who invented it.

The idea that their god must exist if it can’t be shown not to is how theists all fail. Nothing requires their god, and since they can’t show that their god does exist, there is no reason to assume that it does. This is simply the usual attempt by the theist to ignore the fact that they are the ones with the burden of providing evidence for their assertions.

In doing a bit of research on this concept, I found an AI generated summary that I found interesting (from google’s AI)

“Proving God’s existence differs fundamentally from proving a human’s, as the former relies on philosophical arguments, designed complexity, or subjective experience, whereas the latter is established through direct, empirical observation. God is generally treated as non-testable by science, whereas human existence is verifiable via physical presence.

Proving God Exists
Intelligent Design/Cosmological Arguments: Arguments suggest the complexity of the universe (eyes, ears, bird wings) implies an intelligent designer, rather than random chance.
Cosmological Arguments: The existence of the universe itself requires a cause, arguing that everything that exists must have a cause, leading back to a creator.
Ontological Argument: A philosophical argument that defines God as the greatest conceivable being, suggesting that to exist in reality is greater than to exist only in the mind.
Inner Experience: Proponents cite a universal human, even atheistic, feeling that a higher power or creator exists.

Proving a Human Exists
Empirical Observation: Human existence is verified through direct, sensory evidence—seeing, hearing, and touching a physical person.
Scientific Measurability: Human life is material and measurable, fitting within the realms of biology and physics, unlike typically proposed definitions of God.
Testability: Proving a human exists is straightforward, testable, and verifiable, lacking the extraordinary burden of proof often required for supernatural claims.

Key Contrasts
Burden of Proof: While human existence is assumed, the burden of proof lies heavily on those claiming a god exists.
Materiality: Humans are material, testable beings; God is largely considered a metaphysical, non-testable concept.
Nature of Evidence: Evidence for human existence is empirical and instantaneous; evidence for God is often seen as subjective, historical, or philosophical”

You can take that with as much “salt” as you choose.

I also found this interesting on Free Inquiry: “We Know That God does Not Exist by Gary Whittenberger” a riff on the problem of evil and morality.

So, still no evidence for any gods. Plenty of evidence for me, and this christian can’t show that I *don’t* exist. Just like they can’t show that other gods don’t exist, etc. Proving a negative is very hard. I’m curious if she’s up to the task.