The Double Negative: Where Lies the Proof?

This so reminds me of Schrödinger's cat. In your first statement, you are basically saying what I said above in that two nons = a non-non. Ergo, if something is not not, then something is. "I'm not doing nothing." is a wonderful example of poor English as it consists of a double negative. If one is not doing nothing, then one is in fact doing something - not nothing = something. My original rant, stated, "To think about it [god, flying monkeys, unicorns, etc.] makes it so even if not so." To expand upon my words from a psychological level, I can say that the thought, in itself, is real strictly to thinker without need for external verification. IT exists because it is being thought of. However, the proof or evidence of ITS objective existence does not exist. On the other hand, ITS existence cannot be scrutinized because what lies in the mind is not up for close and critical observation or examination....YET.

NOTE: The existence of god is a thought that comes from indoctrination and is reinforced through communication. No one is born a believer.

Communicating along the same lines: It does happen that people speak of that which they believe to be true. The only “proof” is that they agree to the same belief. I’d like to open that up a bit with a make-believe experiment.

Each experimental subject will be subjected to a lie detector that does not yet exist. The detector will not only signal “LIE” when there is deception, it will also signal emotions http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emotions. Let’s call this my people reader. Each detector will be worn about the neck and will be subject for viewing by others. Since I don’t want to mix xtians, I will only target one xtian group; I will target catholics. However, I think this would work for any group that supposedly falls within a group of self-proclaimed sames.

Take ALL catholics and place them in one space.

Encourage said catholics to discuss their general beliefs.

Encourage said catholics to express their "personal level" beliefs.

Encourage said catholics to ask questions of each other regarding their lifestyle.

Provide said catholics with a list of questions they probably wouldn’t dare ask a stranger.  Ensure that these questions are asked of each other.

Monitor the group's actions/reactions and their communicativeness.

How long do you think this group will communicate positively? IF they cease to communicate after the experiment because they have read the others and others have read them TRULY, how then will a proof be communicated? Is it possible they will doubt themselves and their beliefs? IF left strictly with their personal level of proof with no external support (communication of proof), how long might their personal level of proof endure? These are but questions.