Can Atheists be Moral?

[ding]

The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof, (please dont post what you feel is your your proof its redundant at this point)...

instead of the null hypothesis, which is more appropriate shy of personal omniscience.... which is...

man learned the most practical ways to survive....and simply communicated it and we all built upon and improved it over time.

Its practical, and its how every human actually behaves. Passing down stories of things we learned is not some blockbuster revelation.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. You perceive God to be some magical fairytale so everything you see skews to that result. There isn't one single thing that you will agree with or accept. Whereas if you were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick. I perceive God to be consciousness without form. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

A case for spirit creating the material world can be made by examining the evidence that we have at our disposal.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist which is exactly what we see. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time. God is no thing.

 

[RodISHI]

Irrational beliefs like God created the material world so that he can share in our experiences?

Yeah, thats quite irrational. A person doesn't write a book to educate himself dummy. Human beings are invited to experience life in the realm of God. Its not the other way around.

Only a condemned spirit in the realm of the dead would seek experiences through those living on earth.

The devil has tricked you into worshipping him..

But if it makes you so happy just go ahead and gibber your life away..

People write books for a number of reasons, one of which is to share knowledge. They also write books because using our talents and creating is enjoyable and fun.

Yes, human beings are invited to experience God, but like all relationships it is a two way street.

I believe you have an unrealistic perception of God. If you perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything you see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that you will accept. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us. God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. Mind you I am not saying I understand the nature of God, I am only telling you that in our limited human capacity the closest we can come to understanding the nature of God is that God is like a mind without a body.

So starting from that position and using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is why? Why did a mind with no body create minds with bodies? There are a number of possible reasons. Again, using our experiences as creators as a proxy and your book analogy, we create things because using our talents and creating things are enjoyable and fun, but we also create things for a reason to serve a purpose. We also create things to share with others. We know from our experiences that relationships are not one way. So it is no great leap in logic to believe that God shares in our experiences as much if not more than we share in his experiences.

we we we, us us us ...

How many of you are there?

One body many members.

Yes, but only one head.

Without it the body is dead.

My people shall never be put to shame.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evidence and proof are different, conceptually...though.

Right...one concept actually exists outside of mathematics , and the other does not.

A deity has some evidence

I don't think so.

 

[G.T.]

Evidence can be valid, invalid, strong, poor, inconclusive or conclusive ~ and a failure to set it apart from what we call proof bogs down SO many would-be fruitful discussions regarding epistemology, metaphysics, etc

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but that same evidence could also be evidence for other explanations which makes it just evidence, and not proof.

Hmm,not really. If something is to be evidence of another thing, then it should be ruled out by some method as evidence of much simpler explanations.


For example, finding a glass of spilled milk on the floor near your kitchen table, with the cat sitting nearby. Never ever would you say, "while this is evidence the cat knocked over the glass, it is also evidence that a rainbow unicorn passed through my kitchen and knocked it over."

 

[ding]

How would atheists know if they were moral?

Compassion

How do you know compassion is moral? This is really simple stuff here.

Its simple to know compassion is moral because our moral progress and intuition tells us so, but for folks who need a crutch of understanding - our reasoning tells us its moral because a community without compassion would have greater communal suffering.

Its basic survival instincts paired with a logical dissection of cause and effect.

Without a doubt virtue is the greatest organizing principle of man. Societies which behave with virtue experience harmony and order. Societies which behave without virtue experience chaos and disorder. So clearly not all behaviors have equal outcomes. Man did not invent virtue. Man discovered virtue. Man did not invent the successful behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. Man discovered these successful behaviors. In part from comparing them to the failed behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.

If we look at it through the lens of natural selection we find that man does have a preference for virtuous behavior because virtuous behaviors offer a functional advantage. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that virtue is a behavior which leads to success.

But under no circumstances can man make make virtue be what he wants it to be because we do live in a logical universe where cause and effect control outcomes. And because we live in a logical universe governed by cause and effect, standards exist for reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from standards, eventually the reason the standard exists will make itself known and be discovered. Which is why...

Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures.

Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct.

Ding- pro tip.

When two folks seem to agree that cause and effect exists, you dont need to waste 5 irrelevant paragraphs of jargain - of your time.

What you just said amounts to literally zero effect in advancing any conversation. You can comfort yourself by repeating shit youve posted several thousand times on someone else's time, man. Ill talk to hobelum alone for this very reason going fw, bloviating is just a waste of time.

I do when you have reached erroneous conclusions.

I am not trying to convince you. I am correcting you.

 

[G.T.]

Evidence and proof are different, conceptually...though.

Right...one concept actually exists outside of mathematics , and the other does not.

A deity has some evidence

I don't think so.

Hey, evidence can be unconvincing which, speaking of a deity....it all seems to be unconvincing
.

but its still evidence.


Evidence can literally be defined into existence. If I was to tell you that washing machines make bacon....

bacon is evidence of my claim.


Its not proof, and its not convincing.....thats the distinction.

 

[G.T.]

but that same evidence could also be evidence for other explanations which makes it just evidence, and not proof.

Hmm,not really. If something is to be evidence of another thing, then it should be ruled out by some method as evidence of much simpler explanations.


For example, finding a glass of spilled milk on the floor near your kitchen table, with the cat sitting nearby. Never ever would you say, "while this is evidence the cat knocked over the glass, it is also evidence that a rainbow unicorn passed through my kitchen and knocked it over."

Youre still failing to distinguish between evidence and proof.

Youre requiring the evidence to be conclusive to even be considered evidence...but then...thats just proof.

 

[ding]

The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof,

I.e., not a shred of evidence whatsoever.

Wrong. Physical laws, biological laws and moral laws provide all the evidence you need.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hey, evidence can be unconvincing

True...but at what point can we call it, "not evidence", then? Never? I mean, the fact that the moon is round does not convince me that leprechauns make ice cream. So is that just "unconvincing evidence", or "not evidence"?

Youre still failing to distinguish between evidence and proof.

No, I very clearly and strongly delineated the difference: "proof" only exists in mathematics. I have seen no such clear distinction from you, though. But I would like to hear it. It seems to me you are defining "proof" as, "that which is strong enough to convince you". Well, that's not a very strong definition, when it can so vastly change from person to person.

One person may see the sunrise as proof that Allah wants him to blow up children at a bus stop. Are we to kowtow to this nonsense and allow him use of the word, "proof"? No. I won't even agree that it is evidence. But you would...you would just defer and say, "it's evidence, just not good evidence".

 

[Taz]

The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof,

I.e., not a shred of evidence whatsoever.

Wrong. Physical laws, biological laws and moral laws provide all the evidence you need.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So no real proof, just personal opinion. Got it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Youre requiring the evidence to be conclusive to even be considered evidence..

Not true at all. If I have a dog amd a cat, the spilt milk is evidence one of them knocked it over. Is it conclusive? No, I suppose a small earthquake may have occurred while I was in the shower, so I didn't notice. But that would be a path to looking for more evidence. I wouldn't suddenly, upon seeing the glass of spilt milk,be lost in an unbounded barrage of ideas like, rainbow unicorns and fairies spilling the milk. While I cannot be 100% certain what happened, I can still make fair determinations and proceed from them.

 

[G.T.]

Hey, evidence can be unconvincing

True...but at what point can we call it, "not evidence", then? Never? I mean, the fact that the moon is round does not convince me that leprechauns make ice cream. So is that just "unconvincing evidence", or "not evidence"?

Youre still failing to distinguish between evidence and proof.

No, I very clearly and strongly delineated the difference: "proof" only exists in mathematics. I have seen no such clear distinction from you, though. But I would like to hear it. It seems to me you are defining "proof" as, "that which is strong enough to convince you". Well, that's not a very strong definition, when it can so vastly change from person to person.

One person may see the sunrise as proof that Allah wants him to blow up children at a bus stop. Are we to kowtow to this nonsense and allow him use of the word, "proof"? No. I won't even agree that it is evidence. But you would...you would just defer and say, "it's evidence, just not good evidence".

No, I dont define proof that way...proof is something that reveals the truth of a proposition.

Evidence is ruled out when it is refuted.

 

[G.T.]

Youre requiring the evidence to be conclusive to even be considered evidence..

Not true at all. If I have a dog amd a cat, the spilt milk is evidence one of them knocked it over. Is it conclusive? No, I suppose a small earthquake may have occurred while I was in the shower, so I didn't notice. But that would be a path to looking for more evidence. I wouldn't suddenly, upon seeing the glass of spilt milk,be lost in an unbounded barrage of ideas like, rainbow unicorns and fairies spilling the milk. While I cannot be 100% certain what happened, I can still make fair determinations and proceed from them.

Exactly! And when theres paint on all of their paws...

and the only print on the glass is a dog print ~ the dog's presence at the scene becomes stronger evidence in light of the print evidence corroborating it, and the cat evidence becomes much weaker.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I dont define proof that way...proof is something that reveals the truth of a proposition.

Which simply does not exist, outside of mathematics. What does exist is evidence based determination. Once the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence supports an idea, we accept it as fact out of pragmatism. Evolution, in this way, is accepted fact. Have we completely ruled out the idea that the laws of nature were altered to fool us, for example? Have we, with 100% certainty, ruled out the existence of rabbits in the Cambrian? No, but we have so much evidence to the contrary that it would be foolish to waste time on such pursuits.

 

[ding]

Hey, evidence can be unconvincing

True...but at what point can we call it, "not evidence", then? Never? I mean, the fact that the moon is round does not convince me that leprechauns make ice cream. So I that just "unconvincing evidence", or "not evidence"?

Youre still failing to distinguish between evidence and proof.

No, I very clearly and strongly delineated the difference: "proof" only exists in mathematics. I have seen no such clear distinction from you, though. But I would like to hear it. It seems to me you are defining "proof" as, "that which is strong enough to convince you". Well, that's not a very strong definition, when it can so vastly change from person to person.

One person may see the sunrise as proof that Allah wants him to blow up children at a bus stop. Are we to know to this nonsense and allow him use of the word, "proof"? No.

The evidence is what was created and how it was created and the laws of nature which governed its creation. The proof is that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time. So the only thing that can create space and time is no thing (which is exactly what science tells us). Spirit is no thing. God is spirit. You can't comprehend what I am telling you because you being a thing can't comprehend a no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. Your problem is that you can't comprehend or accept that consciousness without form can exist outside of space and time even though science tells us that only something like consciousness without form can exist outside of space and time. It is literally your ignorance of science which prevents you from exploring the possibility of what I am talking about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and the cat evidence becomes much weaker.

Right, agreed. But yet, not 100%, conclusive proof. Nor will you ever find such an elusive thing.

 

[ding]

The problem, ding, is that you attribute the wisdom to a deity with poor foundational proof,

I.e., not a shred of evidence whatsoever.

Wrong. Physical laws, biological laws and moral laws provide all the evidence you need.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

So no real proof, just personal opinion. Got it.

The proof you are so sorely seeking

 

[G.T.]

No, I dont define proof that way...proof is something that reveals the truth of a proposition.

Which simply does not exist, outside of mathematics. What does exist is evidence based determination. Once the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence supports an idea, we accept it as fact out of pragmatism. Evolution, in this way, is accepted fact. Have we completely ruled out the idea that the laws of nature were altered to fool us, for example? Have we, with 100% certainty, ruled out the existence of rabbits in the Cambrian? No, but we have so much evidence to the contrary that it would be foolish to waste time on such pursuits.

Well, "outside of mathematics" as a concept, in and of itself, might be nonsensical in this universe if this universe were a program of all 1s and 0s.

 

[G.T.]

and the cat evidence becomes much weaker.

Right, agreed. But yet, not 100%, conclusive proof. Nor will you ever find such an elusive thing.

I consider proof to be not so elusive. Empirical proof exists if it can be tested and falsified. But.....we could argue for days if that all Ultimately leads to mathematics so Id be an agnostic, as a starting point. Ive never tried that rabbit hole.