Ridiculous/Annoying analogies.

[schlitt]

Why do woo persons constantly use the ludicrous analogy of being in love to try an illustrate their point?

Woo: Have you ever been in love?
Non-woo: yes
Woo: Prove it... Ha! you cant can you! see! see! just because you cant prove something doesnt make it not real!

This is perhaps the poorest analogy i have ever come across.

Being in love is a perfectly provable chemical brain state. If someone wanted to prove it, they could certainly do so.
But even if you could not prove it scientifically, that analogy is still rubbish, because people may have complete different perceptions of love.
The word love, would essentially be meaningless, if it was not related to a brain state which is consistent across humanity.

To me, when a woo uses this analogy it shows a few things:
1.) They know nothing about biology
2.) They most likely lack the intellectual capacity to think critically
3.) If they are stupid enough to use this analogy in the first place, then there is no point in arguing with them.

Any other analogies that annoy people?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"Homeopathy is just like vaccination. A little bit goes a long way."

No it is not. We know from biology how vaccination works. We know from physics that Homeopathy quacks like duck. :mad:

[KingMerv00]

"A tornado passing through a junkyard would never assemble a 747. "

---Fred Hoyle

[Morrigan]

I thought of the "prove you're in love" meme immediately upon reading the thread title. It IS so very annoying.
Even if you can't *prove* that you really do have this chemical reaction in your brain, you can still show *evidence* that you are in love, by demonstrating it, and I'm sure there have been studies analysing such brain reactions anyway. It has nothing to do with thoroughly undemonstrated, unsubstantiated claims of psychic powers.

Hell technically you can't *prove* you have psychic powers. Passing the JREF test would not prove it. But it'd certainly be credible evidence.

[Denver]

This kind of thing (Have you ever been in love?) is also focused on the past. (As was it's perhaps most famous reference as it occurred in the movie Contact (1997)). Simplifying from the chemical defense, how can you prove a past event with no documentation? First thing to do with those claims, is to get them to focus on an actual current or predicted/potential future event.

[ImaginalDisc]

This kind of thing (Have you ever been in love?) is also focused on the past. (As was it's perhaps most famous reference as it occurred in the movie Contact (1997)). Simplifying from the chemical defense, how can you prove a past event with no documentation? First thing to do with those claims, is to get them to focus on an actual current or predicted/potential future event.

Just test the implications of an event in the past. If you claim there was a castle that once stood on the cliff to the east, we should find evidence of it. If they claim some nutter rabbi in Iudea died for our sins, look for evidence to support the implications of that claim, like Heaven, Hell, the efficacy of prayer, etc.

[bokonon]

The "have you ever been in love" analogy may be annoying, but I don't think it's invalid. The point is, there are some things which are experienced internally, and which therefore seem completely real to the person experiencing them, but which may or may not provide evidence which would be discernible by an objective outsider.

I've heard the question mostly in relation to the existence of God, where the person citing it has had some sort of spiritual experience, which they've interpreted as some kind of manifestation of the presence of God.

Even if you're correct, that "being in love" is a chemical reaction of some sort, or the presence of elevated levels of some hormones in the bloodstream, or a brain state detectable by MRI or EEG or whatever, you still have to take someone's word for their interpretation of the things you're observing.

I'd be willing to bet that when someone has a purportedly spiritual experience, there are detectable physiological changes which accompany that as well. If they say "God is speaking to me now," and you say "No, it's just a dose of serotonin," or "No, you're just experiencing increased activity in the hypothalamus," you're essentially back where you started. The people who stimulate spiritual experiences by taking drugs or starving themselves don't consider the spiritual experience less valid because they're capable of inducing it.

I don't have a good debunker for "internal state" evidence, and I find that annoying too, but I don't think these facile attempts to dismiss it are ever going to be effective. More than that, I don't think the ones I've seen here are even valid dismissals, if there are real physiological changes which accompany the experiences. The most I think one can do in such cases is to point out that the interpretation of the experience is subjective, and is probably culturally conditioned (Christians may interpret it as a visit from Jesus, while Hindus may interpret it as a visit from Vishnu, etc.). Since it's subjective, it can only be evidence for the subject himself, and his interpretation may be very much mistaken.

[schlitt]

The "have you ever been in love" analogy may be annoying, but I don't think it's invalid. The point is, there are some things which are experienced internally, and which therefore seem completely real to the person experiencing them, but which may or may not provide evidence which would be discernible by an objective outsider.

I've heard the question mostly in relation to the existence of God, where the person citing it has had some sort of spiritual experience, which they've interpreted as some kind of manifestation of the presence of God.

Even if you're correct, that "being in love" is a chemical reaction of some sort, or the presence of elevated levels of some hormones in the bloodstream, or a brain state detectable by MRI or EEG or whatever, you still have to take someone's word for their interpretation of the things you're observing.

I'd be willing to bet that when someone has a purportedly spiritual experience, there are detectable physiological changes which accompany that as well. If they say "God is speaking to me now," and you say "No, it's just a dose of serotonin," or "No, you're just experiencing increased activity in the hypothalamus," you're essentially back where you started. The people who stimulate spiritual experiences by taking drugs or starving themselves don't consider the spiritual experience less valid because they're capable of inducing it.

I don't have a good debunker for "internal state" evidence, and I find that annoying too, but I don't think these facile attempts to dismiss it are ever going to be effective. More than that, I don't think the ones I've seen here are even valid dismissals, if there are real physiological changes which accompany the experiences. The most I think one can do in such cases is to point out that the interpretation of the experience is subjective, and is probably culturally conditioned (Christians may interpret it as a visit from Jesus, while Hindus may interpret it as a visit from Vishnu, etc.). Since it's subjective, it can only be evidence for the subject himself, and his interpretation may be very much mistaken.

I think you may have interpreted the analogy in a more complex way than it is usually intended.

Picture if like this:

Woo: Have you ever been in love?
Non-woo: Yes
Woo: Prove it then!
Non-woo: Sure, here you go, take a look at this MRI

Do you think the woo would continue further with their analogy?

[ksbluesfan]

Good definitions often serve to quash silly analogies. Ask the person to explain in detail what it means to be "in love". The same goes for the "atheists have faith" statement. Define "faith".

[Miss Whiplash]

This isn't as intelligent as the OP, but I saw a lulu yesterday on a local message board:

"Science is faith-based, just like religion. "

I didn't bother to debate it. I just took to bed for an hour with a headache.

[Ersby]

The whole "oh, they laughed at continental shift and then they all agreed with it, so there must be something to parapsychology" thing. Especially annoying when they try to tell you that Wegener died an outcast from the scientific community.

[Michael C]

"They laughed at Galileo/the Wright brothers/Einstein/-------" therefore:
- In 50 years time psi-esp will be part of mainstream science.
- Mr Y who has devloped yet another free energy machine is a misunderstood genius.
- If you don't undersand this you are a "closed-minded skeptic" who doesn't know what "real science" is.

:beararghh::beararghh::beararghh:

[schlitt]

"Homeopathy is just like vaccination. A little bit goes a long way."

No it is not. We know from biology how vaccination works. We know from physics that Homeopathy quacks like duck. :mad:

This is another pet hate of mine also.
It is so far off the mark, yet the people who use it are so smug when doing so.

[schlitt]

"They laughed at Galileo/the Wright brothers/Einstein/-------" therefore:
- In 50 years time psi-esp will be part of mainstream science.
- Mr Y who has devloped yet another free energy machine is a misunderstood genius.
- If you don't undersand this you are a "closed-minded skeptic" who doesn't know what "real science" is.

:beararghh::beararghh::beararghh:

Some of my favourites also.

[schlitt]

This isn't as intelligent as the OP, but I saw a lulu yesterday on a local message board:

"Science is faith-based, just like religion. "

I didn't bother to debate it. I just took to bed for an hour with a headache.

Good move. The resulting headache from engaging in debate would have been much worse. :)


P.S Is there an easy way to quote multiple people in the same post?

[bokonon]

I think you may have interpreted the analogy in a more complex way than it is usually intended.

Picture if like this:

Woo: Have you ever been in love?
Non-woo: Yes
Woo: Prove it then!
Non-woo: Sure, here you go, take a look at this MRI

Do you think the woo would continue further with their analogy?
They should. I would, if I was the person you were challenging. What is it about this MRI that indicates "love"? If I show you 10 MRIs, can you pick out which subjects are "in love" and which are not?

Good definitions often serve to quash silly analogies. Ask the person to explain in detail what it means to be "in love". The same goes for the "atheists have faith" statement. Define "faith".
Just because somebody defines love as "Moons and Junes and ferris wheels, the giddy, dancing way you feel" doesn't mean the debate is over. Even if they don't have a good definition, the thing they're trying to define may be real. Define "dark energy"; define "dark matter".

P.S Is there an easy way to quote multiple people in the same post?
Yes, you click on the double-quote key (") for each of the posts you want to quote except for the last, then click on the quote key (QUOTE) for the last one.

[Monza]

"They laughed at Galileo/the Wright brothers/Einstein/-------" therefore:
- In 50 years time psi-esp will be part of mainstream science.
- Mr Y who has devloped yet another free energy machine is a misunderstood genius.
- If you don't undersand this you are a "closed-minded skeptic" who doesn't know what "real science" is.

:beararghh::beararghh::beararghh:

This one always bugs me. The woos always forget to mention the vast array of kooks that were also laughed at by mainstream science. Playing the odds, woos are more likely to be one of the kooks than they are Galileo.

[schlitt]

They should. I would, if I was the person you were challenging. What is it about this MRI that indicates "love"? If I show you 10 MRIs, can you pick out which subjects are "in love" and which are not?


I am not sure if it would be possible to do so, I was just using a hypothetical example of providing evidence. Im not sure what the real evidence would be comprised of, but suffice to say it would be obtainable. (or at least it is scientifically possible to obtain evidence showing the chemical state that we term love)
The point is, we know that what we have termed "love" is a relation to the chemical state of the brain, therefore the analogy is plain and simply wrong i.e love is provable

Cheers for the quoting tip :)

[Lonewulf]

What someone on this forum said:

You can't work for the Army, even if you're a GS 12 Accountant that actually works directly for the Army, handling Army accountants, under Army military commanders, and gain awards directly by Army commanders (my mom got an award from a general, which I'm proud of) because...

"I sometimes do work for military personnel. Does that make me Army?"

Silly, stupid analogies indeed.

[ksbluesfan]

Just because somebody defines love as "Moons and Junes and ferris wheels, the giddy, dancing way you feel" doesn't mean the debate is over. Even if they don't have a good definition, the thing they're trying to define may be real. Define "dark energy"; define "dark matter".

If that's their definition of love, the debate is over because that is something I have never felt. By that definition of love, I have never been in love. Love is subjective, but dark matter is not.

[Lonewulf]

"Dark Matter -- An unknown substance that has a measurable gravitational effect on matter in the Universe."

[bokonon]

Love is subjective, but dark matter is not.
Yes, love is subjective, but it can still be very meaningful to those who experience it. I think that's what people are trying to express when they pull this analogy out of their hat -- that their spiritual experience, while subjective, is very real TO THEM. I don't try to argue with them at that point, unless they try to press the matter with me, i.e. "If you'll just ask Jesus to come into your heart, I'm sure you'll have the same experience." Well, no, I won't. Trust me.

I think you can plant seeds of doubt in such cases, by pointing out (for example) that dreams seem very real while they're happening, but they don't reflect objective reality. Our imaginations can be powerful things, convincing us that there is something "out there" when all there really is is something "in here." But I don't think you can reason somebody out of a subjective conviction, at least, I don't think I ever have.

[bokonon]

"Dark Matter -- An unknown substance that has a measurable gravitational effect on matter in the Universe."
Measurable how? Is there a control group without dark matter? If it's measurable, can you say where it is?

[Gilmar]

Woo: Have you ever been in love?
Non-woo: yes
Woo: Prove it...

Non-woo: What would, for you, constitute evidence? What? You have no standard of evidence? Then your request that I prove it is irrelevant and/or meaningless.

[Lonewulf]

Measurable how? Is there a control group without dark matter? If it's measurable, can you say where it is?
...Basic research on the subject is suggested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter

I really don't have time to answer questions of everyone that fails to do the most rudimentary research on the subject they inquire about.

[bokonon]

...Basic research on the subject is suggested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter

I really don't have time to answer questions of everyone that fails to do the most rudimentary research on the subject they inquire about.
If you don't know, just say so. "It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with "terra incognita".

I've always found it less embarrassing to admit what I don't know, rather than pretending to know things I can't possibly know, like (for example) how much rudimentary research a stranger has done on dark matter and dark energy.

[Lonewulf]

The gravity of the visible galaxies in the cluster would be far too small for such fast orbits, so something extra was required. This is known as the "missing mass problem". Based on these conclusions, Zwicky inferred that there must be some non-visible form of matter which would provide enough of the mass and gravity to hold the cluster together.

Much of the evidence for dark matter comes from the study of the motions of galaxies. Many of these appear to be fairly uniform, so by the virial theorem the total kinetic energy should be half the total gravitational binding energy of the galaxies. Experimentally, however, the total kinetic energy is found to be much greater: in particular, assuming the gravitational mass is due to only the visible matter of the galaxy, stars far from the center of galaxies have much higher velocities than predicted by the virial theorem. Galactic rotation curves, which illustrate the velocity of rotation versus the distance from the galactic center, cannot be explained by only the visible matter.

"Dark Matter -- An unknown substance that has a measurable gravitational effect on matter in the Universe."

Hence. Measurable. Gravitational. Forces.

Careful flinging around accusations of ignorance.

What do you think? That scientists pulled Dark Matter out of their asses? That it was made up on the spot for no reason at all?

Seriously. :rolleyes:

[bokonon]

"Dark Matter -- An unknown substance that has a measurable gravitational effect on matter in the Universe."

Hence. Measurable. Gravitational. Forces.

Careful flinging around accusations of ignorance.

What do you think? That scientists pulled Dark Matter out of their asses? That it was made up on the spot for no reason at all?
No, I think that neither scientists, nor you, know what it is. Calling it a "substance" at this point is sheer speculation, just as scientists once speculated that "ether" was the substance through which light waves propagated. It may be that it's a property of space, rather than a substance. Maybe gravity behaves differently at galactic scales, just as things get strange at sub-atomic scales. It may be that dark matter is another aspect of dark energy. I freely concede that I DON'T KNOW.

Right now, dark matter is merely a fudge factor, just as epicycles were once a fudge factor for those who insisted that a perfect God would only create perfectly circular orbits. In this case, the fudge factor is bigger than the thing we're fudging, which suggests to me that agnosticism -- an admission of ignorance -- is probably not a bad position to adopt with respect to it, while waiting for more data to come in.

I don't know for a fact that only matter can account for gravitational effects. I don't know that what appears to be "gravitational lensing" is actually caused by gravity from invisible matter or something else.

The point isn't to derail this thread into a discussion of dark matter, but rather to suggest that sometimes a "woo" may deserve a bit more respect than simply dismissing them (and their "annoying" analogies) with a perjorative label.

[Aussie Thinker]

Bokonon is spot on.

You will never prove “love’ by referring to MRI’s etc because its definition is so vague and different for most people.

However I take a different tack when referring to how love can be “scientifically” explained (if not proven).

Love is just a made up human concept for a raft of completely natural responses.

Do we say animals are “in love”.. Nope.. yet they exhibit all the same things humans do when they are in “love”

Sexual evolutionary pressure has heightened and exaggerated the basic need of all creatures to procreate.. this is not love.. just lust or desire.

Parents and mates go to extraordinary lengths to protect their young/mate, even to the point of sacrificing their own lives.. love.. nope.. just basic evolutionary pressure.. those creatures who didn’t protect their young/mates didn’t make it through through !

Companionship.. love… no again.. just basic survival stuff.. more is better.. stronger.. more alert etc etc.

Finally loss.. all part of most higher animals makeup.. you miss any of the above when they are gone.. Sex, protection, companionship.

We just link all these basic animal instincts together and call them love !

So I argue LOVE does not really exist and therefore does not need to be proven (just like woo stuff)

[Mercutio]

Hmph. I am perhaps the biggest believer in love this forum has to offer... but anyone who says that love is reducible to a chemical state in the brain is itching for a fight, in my book. Let us suppose that love is reducible to a chemical state... has that explained it? Not at all! That has merely described it, at a different level of description. Do not confuse reductionism with explanation. Sometimes, "what is water?" is not best answered "two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom", but rather "the stuff that falls over Niagara falls, and out of clouds, and gets mixed with salt in the ocean, and provides resistance to your kayak paddle, and rinses your laundry, and slakes your thirst, and dilutes your whisky."

If you are satisfied that love is a chemical reaction, then frankly I pity you. Water is more than hydrogen and oxygen, and love is more than one set of chemicals.

Is love magic? No; love is misunderstood, and perhaps any one instance of love is beyond understanding. It is easily beyond our current understanding. I absolutely think it is, in theory, possible to explain love in terms of environmental variables. But just as the ocean is more complex than salt water in a test tube, love is more complex than one set of chemicals interacting.

Is love an illusion? Does love not exist? Pish, tosh, and balderdash! The only people who believe that have never felt love. Love exists every bit as much as sunrises and sunsets exist...of course a sunrise is not the sun rising over a stationary earth...it is not what it may seem (sunrise is actually earth-rotation), but it is very real nonetheless. Love is not Cupid, or Aphrodite, or magic. It is real, but it is not the myth that we have been taught. Love is as important a subject as human experience can give us, but that does not put it beyond our investigation and explanation. We may find ourselves dissappointed, or at least surprised, that some of our assumptions turn out to be unsupported... but I have faith in love. Love has enough mystery left in it to keep us investigating for, I suspect, generations. I am all for it.

[schlitt]

I do not share your poetic outlook on life Mercutio. (though i wish i did :))
Water is H20. Love is a brain state. Depression is a brain state. We are a collection of atoms, everything has a reasonable explanation.

Experiencing these things can be amazing, but that does not change what they are at the very fundamental level.

[Professor Yaffle]

With the love analogy, I always use the following tack: Love is just an emotion I feel that is triggered by another person that I can verify exists. If religious people just said "I get a particular emotion when praying/meditiating" etc then I would have no problem accepting that. Its when people say that having this particular feeling is evidence of God's existence that I have the problem. My feelings of love for my husband are not evidence that my husband exists. I can show he exists in many other ways.

[Wildy]

"You can't prove a banana came from a rock" - Some Stupid Creationist.

Although not an analogy I would like to share one other thing. I asked a woo to explain how he could prove his point and he went into a rant about "orthodox science" censoring his work and does not have the capability to test his stuff.

[Lonewulf]

Bokonon, then why do you attack the idea of "observational evidence"? I just demonstrated why it was observational. It affects gravity. Just because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean that there isn't an observational effect, even if we don't know the cause.

Do you now concede that there is observational evidence?

Or are you saying that scientists pulled Dark Matter out of their butts for no reason at all?

Or do you subscribe to the theory that if it isn't in a lab, it can't exist?

[fls]

Regardless of the underlying nature of love and whether or not it is amenable to study....love has a measureable effect and therefore is something that can be subject to proof. The analogy is reasonable, it's that the woos get the answer wrong.

Linda

[bokonon]

Bokonon, then why do you attack the idea of "observational evidence"? I just demonstrated why it was observational. It affects gravity. Just because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean that there isn't an observational effect, even if we don't know the cause.

Do you now concede that there is observational evidence?

Or are you saying that scientists pulled Dark Matter out of their butts for no reason at all?

Or do you subscribe to the theory that if it isn't in a lab, it can't exist?
There is also "observational evidence" that a person's spiritual experience affects his subsequent actions. He says it's evidence of God. I say it isn't. How likely is it that I'll convince him that he's mistaken about the cause of his own actions? I say "There is no objective evidence for the existence of God," and he throws the "love analogy" card. I whip out my "love MRI," and he whips out his "spiritual experience MRI."

I may still have an argument, but I don't think it's going to be "define your terms" or "show your evidence." The effectiveness of my argument is going to depend, it seems to me, on acknowledging that a purely subjective experience is compelling evidence to the person who had the experience. That's where I start. I think the analogy is annoying because it's valid, not because it's invalid.

[Lonewulf]

There is also "observational evidence" that a person's spiritual experience affects his subsequent actions.
So now you're saying the two are equal?

"Silly analogies" indeed.

He says it's evidence of God. I say it isn't. How likely is it that I'll convince him that he's mistaken about the cause of his own actions? I say "There is no objective evidence for the existence of God," and he throws the "love analogy" card. I whip out my "love MRI," and he whips out his "spiritual experience MRI."

Which aren't equal. There's a wide gap between "one person loves another person", and "There was this invisible man called God, that gave birth to a son through a mortal woman, has created the universe, etc."

"Creator of the universe" and "spiritual M.R.I." are WORLDS apart. To be literal, it's one universe apart.

And the comparison to Dark Matter is utterly fallacious here, too. "Something is affecting gravity according to our theory, so therefore there's something X that's causing this fluctuation in gravity" is ONE step.

"I feel something, so therefore this thing must exist, it's also the creator of the universe" is MULTIPLE steps.

[Cuddles]

With the love analogy, I always use the following tack: Love is just an emotion I feel that is triggered by another person that I can verify exists. If religious people just said "I get a particular emotion when praying/meditiating" etc then I would have no problem accepting that. Its when people say that having this particular feeling is evidence of God's existence that I have the problem. My feelings of love for my husband are not evidence that my husband exists. I can show he exists in many other ways.

Exactly. The love/god analogy is invalid because they are comparing the wrong things. No, you can't prove love in the same way that you can't prove your belief in god. However, you could certainly prove the existence of the person you claim to love, in the same way that you should be able to prove the god you claim to believe in.

[bruto]

Along similar lines, this little snippet clipped from an unknown long-ago magazine, came to mind:

To say that a man is made up of certain chemical elements is a satisfactory description only for those who intend to use him as a fertilizer. (Herbert J. Muller)

[bokonon]

So now you're saying the two are equal?
No. I began by saying that the lack of a rigorous definition didn't mean the thing lacking such a definition (in this case, love) didn't exist, and gave two examples, "dark matter" and "dark energy." You offered a definition of one term, and ignored the other. I pointed out why I thought your definition was inadequate. You segued into a "there's evidence" discussion, something which was never disputed, and which is also completely beside the point. There's objective evidence for dark matter. There's objective evidence for love. The fact that there's objective evidence doesn't mean that either term can be rigorously defined. The lack of a rigorous definition doesn't, in and of itself, prove that the ill-defined thing is imaginary.

Which aren't equal. There's a wide gap between "one person loves another person", and "There was this invisible man called God, that gave birth to a son through a mortal woman, has created the universe, etc."
Yes, I think it's valid to point out that a spiritual experience is not necessarily confirmation of an entire body of dogma. That's generally where I would try to lead the discussion after the love analogy.

And the comparison to Dark Matter is utterly fallacious here, too. "Something is affecting gravity according to our theory, so therefore there's something X that's causing this fluctuation in gravity" is ONE step.

"I feel something, so therefore this thing must exist, it's also the creator of the universe" is MULTIPLE steps.
I raised "dark matter" and "dark energy" in response to a call for definitions, and I still consider them valid examples for the point I was trying to make: that we can, and often must, discuss things which are poorly defined.

If you can get someone to define "God" as "the creator of the universe," then it's potentially useful to point out that their subjective experience may be due to things other than the manifestation of that creator. Noting the cultural conditioning that led to the association of the experience with a particular flavor of creator may also open a crack to let the light of reason in.

[Lonewulf]

No. I began by saying that the lack of a rigorous definition didn't mean the thing lacking such a definition (in this case, love) didn't exist, and gave two examples, "dark matter" and "dark energy." You offered a definition of one term, and ignored the other. I pointed out why I thought your definition was inadequate. You segued into a "there's evidence" discussion, something which was never disputed, and which is also completely beside the point.
Wow, then we must have totally miscommunicated, because see, you said this:

Measurable how? Is there a control group without dark matter? If it's measurable, can you say where it is?

You specifically targeted the claim that the effects of gravity were measurable. I'm sorry, but if it's beside the point, then why did you bring it up?

There's objective evidence for dark matter. There's objective evidence for love. The fact that there's objective evidence doesn't mean that either term can be rigorously defined.
And I never said that they could be.

Next?

The lack of a rigorous definition doesn't, in and of itself, prove that the ill-defined thing is imaginary.
Okay.

Yes, I think it's valid to point out that a spiritual experience is not necessarily confirmation of an entire body of dogma. That's generally where I would try to lead the discussion after the love analogy.
It would also be valid to point out that if someone has a "positive benefit" from "belief", there are alternative explanations other than just, "God must exist".

It would also not prove that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-beneficial, or that he created the universe. So pretty much, it proves absolutely nothing at all by itself, and proves very little even when combined with other "proofs".

I raised "dark matter" and "dark energy" in response to a call for definitions, and I still consider them valid examples for the point I was trying to make: that we can, and often must, discuss things which are poorly defined.

Okay.

If you can get someone to define "God" as "the creator of the universe," then it's potentially useful to point out that their subjective experience may be due to things other than the manifestation of that creator.
Yes.

Noting the cultural conditioning that led to the association of the experience with a particular flavor of creator may also open a crack to let the light of reason in.
Yes.

Glad we agree.