Wondering if
I’m wondering, because of a discussion with Don in the comments, if there is a valid distinction between saying ‘there is no good evidence that “God” (as commonly understood) exists’ and affirmatively claiming that ‘God’ doesn’t exist. I think there is, but I’m wondering if I’m cheating in thinking that.
Surely not, though. Not least because it is perfectly possible to know there is no evidence for something without taking that as evidence for not-something. There is no evidence for an infinite number of things (that someone had a particular thought a year ago, for instance) that may well be true just the same.
God of course is somewhat different, since given the usual definition of God, we know that there would be evidence if a God so defined wanted there to be evidence. An omnipotent God must be able to produce evidence of itself – so in the case of a God so defined, the lack of evidence is a little suspicious. Either it’s playing silly games, or it doesn’t exist; both possibilities are disconcerting for believers.
There is no good evidence that Santa Claus exists. Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
There is no good evidence that I am immortal. I am not immortal.
Is there a difference between both affirmations? Maybe, but not enough difference to make a difference outside of the field of epistemology.
Of course there is a distinction. But a more interesting question is whether the distinction makes a difference.
Sometimes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sometimes it is. It depends. Often it depends on whether if something exists there would be, or should be, evidence for it — some way to discern its existence. In that event, if you look for evidence and don’t find it, you may be warranted in concluding that this particular something does not exist.
Pink unicorns might be an example. If pink unicorns existed, it seems likely that someone, some where, some how, would have evidence that they do. There is no such evidence. Assuming only that that folks have actually done sufficient looking for pink unicorns, it is warranted to conclude that pink unicorns do not exist. This is a simple and maybe even a simplistic example. You can easily conjure up more complicated cases. But the principle seems valid.
I haven’t read the other discussion so I may have go the wrong end of the stick, but I think you have to distinguish between two different claims:
i) “there is no good evidence that God exists” is semantically equivalent to “God does not exist”
ii) If the proposition “there is no good evidence that God exists” is true then belief in the proposition “God does not exist” is justified.
i) is not true because the two propositions have different truth conditions – for example in a world in which there is no good evidence that God exists but this is nevertheless the case (maybe he is really good at covering it up). ii) is true for the reasons amos mentioned.
Undoubtedly, I think, Jakob is right. There is an important distinction between the claim that God does not exist and that there is no evidence that God exists. As Jakob says, the truth conditions are different. There being no evidence for the existence of something is a basis for a justfied (true) belief that that thing does not exist. Do we need anything stronger than that? In fact, equating belief in non-existence with lack of evidence for such a belief is in fact very like saying that the lack of evidence for the existence of black swans is equivalent to the belief in the non-existence of black swans, which, once the evidence was no longer lacking, was false.
There is also the possibility that it might be argued that God is a special category of being which does not require evidence in the normal sense, and therefore qualifies as a special kind of knowing. Such claims are often made, especially since Schleiermacher and Hegel.
There is another problem, which lies in the protean nature of the concept of God, which as soon as its existence is placed in the doubtful column, suddenly appears with ever new characteristics. This is the favourite argument today. But of course what you call God is something to which I cannot ascribe thew glory of God, which is greater that we can knoe or comprehend. The task of an anti-theist is to get a firm agreement as to what it is that he is willing to open to criticism.
I think Jeff is right that the real question is not is there a difference between the two, but is it a difference that makes a difference? As I’ve said before, one important difference is at least partly strategic. People who insist on the existence of an entity that is completely undetectable – or perhaps only reveals itself in a completely subjective fashion to some people and not others, which doesn’t improve matters much – are making an extraordinary claim for which they cannot seem to provide even the most ordinary evidence. The burden of proof is wholly and completely on them, and allowing them to shift the burden of proof is both logically unwarranted and strategically unwise.
Consider these two claims:
[1] “I do not believe God exists because there is no good evidence to believe in God’s existence.”
[2] “I believe that God does not exist because there is good evidence to deny God’s existence.”
These are substantially different claims, and I personally would be perfectly happy stating either of them (for suitable definitions of “God,” see below). However, my assent to both claims does not make them equivalent. The first claim DOES NOT LOGICALLY ENTAIL THE SECOND. Anyone who claims that 1 entails 2 is trying to shift the burden of proof illegitimately. It’s a rhetorical maneuver intended to put the atheist on the defensive and make the theist position the “default.” It most assuredly is not.
Also, “God” is a word with nearly as many definitions as people using the word. Theists constantly bait and switch definitions of God to suit their current rhetorical purposes, which is another good reason to demand that THEY make the arguments – so we can demand the definitions, and point out the equivocations between different definitions when they try to slip them by. For example, suppose some Christian throws yet another lame version of the first cause argument at me.
Again. *sigh*
I could point out the egregious logical flaws in the argument for the millionth time, but why bother? Instead, I can just point out that they have offered evidence for something so vague – an uncaused cause, whatever that is – that it could just as well be the Big Bang. It’s a long way from the uncaused cause to the God who gave us His only Son (who was really Him) and all that balderdash. That is, all I am really required to do from any reasonable perspective is point out that the existence of what the Christian claims exists – the God of the Bible, however interpreted – is not at all supported by the evidence offered.
People who insist that “atheism” must always and only be defined as the positive insistence that God does not exist are trying to paint atheists in to an absurd logical corner. I am NOT obligated as an atheist to insist that “God” does not exist if someone uses the word “God” just to stand in for the intelligibility of nature or some other ultra vague, purely naturalistic conception of “God” along the lines of Spinoza/Einstein/whomever. Frankly, I find the use of the same word for the naturalistic Einstein/Spinoza concept and the God of the Bible (or Quran, or whatever) to be an appalling abuse of language, since there isn’t a shred of resemblance between the two entities being given the same name. It makes literal non-sense of the word “God,” and gives aid and comfort to all sorts of theists’ deceptions (including self-deceptions).
Those are a few of the reasons the distinction really does make a difference, in my opinion.
There’s plenty of evidence that there’s no intercessionary god.
Once you get to that point ‘God’ just becomes a word that doesn’t mean very much.
We have to take our adversary serious, even if they’re flaming idiots like in this case. Very little people of faith would have us look for evidence of God in explicit interventions counter to a couple of well established laws of our nature, not since the mostly religious non-flaming idiot philisophers of 18th & 19ht century. True, popes & like are keeping the folklore alive in order to raise better propaganda. But whilst it is an immoral thing to do it’s not the issue at stake.
The real counter-argument is that what we see in the well established laws of nature IS the evidence of this hand of God. This counter-argument fails – but it fails rather more elegantly, & it’s not so easy to argue with (nor does it turn the word ‘God’ into something w/o meaning although it puts its believers back in the equivalent of ‘reading the leaves to tell the future’).
How would one dismiss this evidence? & how would one even start with stronger claims that we can have their evidence & eat it too (in using it as a support to affirmatively claim that such a God as theirs does not exist)?
We should fight the ID’ers all the way but we are too easily tempted to argue as if us being right were a premise of ours.
G. is exactly right. For contemporary believers (as opposed to ancient believers for whom religion also served real ontological and epistomological functions), the issue of FAITH is the Alpha and Omega of everything. This was the powerful thrust of the Reformation, though Christians, so incurious about most things, including their own religion, don’t know the political issues that underpinned the new emphasis.
I’m convinced “blind” faith plays the hugest part in the Christian anti-science stance. Science is not something the average Christian gives much thought to because it’s exists in a rarefied space they don’t occupy but merely benefit from, and it’s simply not true when it contradicts scripture. They’re irritated only when science (and science teachers) force them to think about it and they begin to see the flimsy scaffolding their faith is actually built on and that it can be legitimately questioned.
Of course the the morning propaganda rallies see that all is maintained in good order but one has to feel sorry for these kids being put in such a bizarre adversarial/defensive position where the stakes are literally eternal salvation or what “appears” to be maybe true.
At that point they have their subjective experience and habit to fall back on and that is always more important and immediately more satisying if not convincing than heretical facts. Besides, their God is always one step ahead of human understanding, is “inscrutable” according to St. Paul and, if one reads the texts, perfectly capable of treachery in the face of human affrontery to his greatness. Then, of course, there’s the devil…
You see what we’re up against. The semantics really only matter to us unless they can be used and twisted as word-games by religious apologists in debate. The average Christian just wants to feel good and get those endorphins flowing come Sunday. We WANT to think (it’s why we’re here), they want to feel good, self-righteous and superior without the hard work so unnecessary when Jesus is your Lord and Saviour simply by reciting the little spell on the back of the tract.
Apologies, Ophelia. I know I’ve veered somewhat off-topic here, my response unhelpful where your actual question is concerned.
B.
I am distinguishing between the two different claims – between ‘there is no evidence that God exists’ and ‘lack of evidence that God exists means God does not exist.’ That’s why I think teachers can say the first without saying the second.
And, for the record, amos – there is a big difference between ‘there is no evidence for X’ and ‘X does not exist.’ Even if you were right that the difference didn’t matter outside ‘the field of epistemology’ – that would be enough to matter! Epistemology is enormously important. It matters to know what we can know and what we can’t, and how securely we can know what we know. Why would it not matter?
Epistemology isn’t just a ‘field’ for experts; it concerns everyone.
There is a difference, as many people have pointed out. However, let’s take two examples.
a. There is no evidence that Santa Claus exists. b. Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
a. There is no evidence of a genetic cause for disease X. b. A genetic cause for disease X does not exist.
It seems to me that there is a difference between my two examples and that the existence of God is closer to the existence of Santa Claus. In my second example, the genetic cause of disease X, the distinction between the two affirmations is clear.
I like your statement: epistemology matters. No argument.
This is kind of related to that discussion of how to define atheism (the one at Talking Philosophy). I don’t generally say ‘God doesn’t exist,’ I find – I say things like ‘there is no good reason to think God exists.’ I of course don’t think God does exist – and, if pressed, I can agree that I think God doesn’t exist – but I don’t put it that way – probably largely because I don’t know that, and I know I don’t know that, and so on. But in one sense the difference doesn’t matter because I think we shouldn’t believe Xs exist without evidence. (Cf Clifford.) Saying there is no evidence that or no good reason to, is enough. I seldom feel much need to say more.
Partly this is a moral thing to do with God. A God that did exist but refused to give any evidence that it existed but also expected us to have ‘faith’ that it exists – would be a thug.
This is what my essay for the belief book is about.
“…Saying there is no evidence…no good reason…is enough. I seldom feel much need to say more.”
There is no reason to say more because what is left unsaid is a logical consequence by implication, impossible to ignore. The stupidest believer will hear it. It also serves the practical purpose of not immediately shutting-down the conversation. That’s the believer’s next move, hadn’t you noticed?
As for God as thug, is there really any other interpretation given his portrayal in the holy books? One only sees a “Psycho Daddy” and malevolent puppeteer who plays fast and loose with meaning. At least that’s the God of the Bible and Koran.
No evidence for god? Hell, if an ambiguously shaped damp patch isn’t evidence I don’t know what is. Not to mention weeping effigies, demonic possession, tripartite frozen waterfalls and great-aunt Emily’s hip surgery which went without a hitch – exactly as her church group had prayed it would.
If you have the right frame of mind, evidence is piled up in mounds. You think floods and earthquakes just happen? Contemporary, senior figures in just about any christian sect know better.
Of course if you have the wrong frame of mind you are liable to ask to test the evidence, but that is just attacking a straw man because… well, because those evidences weren’t meant for you, but for the unlearned and gullible.
For awkward buggers like you god exists because it is logically necessary that he exists. There are vast libraries of convoluted and scholarly tomes reaching back centuries which demonstrate this, if you are prepared to spend, say, thirty years studying them. There doesn’t seem to be one of these demonstrations on which the church is willing to bet the farm , but they can keep churning them out and re-cycling them until the cows come home.
And if you get past that … quantum stuff, dark matter… wonder of creation…
Warm fuzzies…
I take the position that as a hypothesis to explain the universe ‘god’ is unevidenced, unnecessary, unconvincing, and riddled with internal contradictions. It doesn’t get past the threshold for serious consideration any more than a 419 email. I don’t feel obliged to demonstrate that the sender does not, in fact, have $50 million he wants to pay into my account, that’s what spam folders are for.
Is there actually someone in Nigeria who wants to make me a millionaire? Can’t prove there isn’t, not interested in trying.
But as a teacher I have to watch every word. If a kid comes in to class and says mummy is in heaven watching over me, what do I say?
I watched Dawkins on Darwin and one scene made me respect Dawkins even more than before. He was talking to an African woman who had been reduced to prostitution and who had apparently developed an immunity to AIDS. She was in a squalid hut servicing truckers for coppers and when asked why she thought she had developed this immunity she replied ‘Because god has blessed me.’ Dawkins response was a gentle, respectful and infinitely sad ‘Yes’.
I used to be obliged to teach RE (we have since reached an understanding) and when Easter or Christmas rolled around I would generally look at the origins of the customs and traditions and how the same themes keep cropping up in different beliefs. If asked directly if I believed in god I would answer with a simple no, but was reluctant to go beyond that because the kids believe what I tell them. And believing something on the basis of my authority is no better than believing the opposite on the basis of some cleric’s authority. Well, perhaps a little better.
(I teach special needs, which puts me in a different position to mainstream teachers being messed around by smug creo kids.)
Belief is the issue. If asked ‘Do you believe…’ I would always answer no. I do not believe, but I frequently accept the most probable working hypothesis.
Right now I can look out of my window and see my car, so I am reasonably sure it hasn’t been stolen. Is it possible ingenious thieves have blown up a photo of my parked car and put it in front of my window? During the half hour which has passed since I put it there? Well, yes. I can’t say it is impossible, but I am not going outside to check.
Yeah. Well of course – if a kid says Mummy is in heaven you don’t say nuffink.
But if it’s a high school science class? Then…it’s a bit different.
Yes, it’s different. But how?
The teacher agreed that ‘Does god exist’ was a question which science could not conclusively answer. That’s not an unreasonable position to take, although as you have shown it is not unassailable. The teacher in question apparently ‘believes’ in god and also ‘believes’ in evolution. These are two different kinds of ‘belief’.
I personally ‘believe’ in evolution and don’t ‘believe’ in god.
Were I a science teacher it would be my duty to teach the former, but not the latter. I might wish that the former would lead to the latter, but whether it does or not is not my role.
From what I can gather the guy is a damn good teacher – his evolution of Mickey Mouse lesson sounds great – and PZ’s characterisation of him as ‘chickenshit’ is extremely harsh.
To be fair, PZ characterized the NOMA position itself as chickenshit, not the teacher in question. I thought it was pretty clear that his ire was aimed at the sad state of affairs in which a teacher has to do so much tiptoeing around the obvious because so many parents and pastors feed children such enormous volumes of bullshit. Of course, being pugnacious in general, PZ thinks the solution is to step on some toes – to confront the undeserved, ultra-respectful, completely hands-off status that this society demands we give any old nonsense beliefs as long as they are associated with some mainstream religion. As regular readers might guess, I can’t say as I disagree with PZ on this – although I doubt the public school classroom is the best place to take the battle to the defenders of ignorance and superstition.
Funny how often we adapt things just slightly in order to strengthen our case (I’m sure I do it myself). The teacher didn’t say ‘which science could not conclusively answer’ – he was more categorical than that. I’m not blaming the teacher! Just the idea.
I don’t see why atheists should discuss any propositions about an unspecified ‘God’. As G (and others) so clearly point out, believers’ ‘God’ is deceitfully protean. Christians’ fave prayer starts ‘hallowed be thy Name‘, but the cheaters don’t actually use its name. Demand that they specify YHWH Mark1, the brute of the Torah, or YHWH Mark2, the kindly face of some bits of the Psalms, or YHWH Mark3, the braggart of Job, or YHWH Mark4, who appeared in human form as Jesus and bangs on about damnation for unbelievers. Or Keith-Wardian woolly nothingness about the beauty of the inverse square law.
As Amos says, ‘there is no evidence for an elephant in this room’ does imply ‘no elephant exists in this room’, because, if there were an elephant, we would see both the elephant, and piles of dung. Likewise, if there is a kind version of YHWH (or of any of the hundreds of others), it would be apparent. Sweet grannies who were sincerely prayed for would get remissions of their cancer provably more often than evil grandpas who hid the biscuits. And swans wouldn’t hatch 7 cygnets of which 6 usually die young.
Compare also the Higgs boson. There is (as yet) no evidence that it exists. But if it does, particle physics makes better sense. CERN is about to look for evidence. What’s the comparable experiment to check whether YHWH Mark 4, or Allah, or Ganesh, turned the dials on their universe-making machine so that carbon nuclei would be stable?
I’d have to agree entirely with what G said in his first comment, only he put it (as usual) so much better than I could have done…
:-)
Off-topic: Hey, OB, I *finally* bought a copy of “Why Ruth Mutters” today…so that’s about 5 cents for you, and I get to walk around holding a book that lets me pretend to be clever! :-)))
Well…yeah, I think if there were a benevolent God then that would be apparent, but that’s hardly a watertight argument. They can (and do) always wriggle out of it, the bastards. I still prefer to insist on the fact that there’s no good reason to believe there is a benevolent god rather than try to claim that the lack of evidence shows that there is no god.
The fact that there is no good reason is absolutely damning for god, in my view. That’s what I said in this essay. A god that witholds evidence yet still expects us to believe in it – is playing some stupid childish game and I flatly refuse to believe in it, and so should everyone else. God has no right to make a virtue of ‘faith’ – and if believers are right that god does do that, then god is a shit. Fortunately, there’s no reason to think there is such a god.
Hey Andy, cool – and you’re right about the 5 cents; that’s almost literally what it is. Publishing is a racket. Tell Ruth to speak up!
:- )
While I can see the appeal of the ‘evolution of Mickey Mouse’ over Darwin’s finches, it seems like a wierd way to teach science – with cutesy, superficially simple to grasp parables rather than you know,science.
Introducing evolution like this, in the style of a sunday school teacher, makes it from the start into a coversation about belief rather than understanding.
The obvious point a creationist student can shoot back is that Mickey Mouse was designed. And the takeaway is that teacher tells one story, and the church tells another.
sorry to go off topic.
Philosophy has the classification of some statements as “open universal”. An example is “All swans are white”. Demonstrating such statments to be true is theoretically or practically impossible becuase to do so requires one to find every instance of the set (in our example, every swan).
It strikes me that saying “There is no god” is a statement of this kind, as in practice we cannot rule out the existence of some kind of supernatural being.
Perhaps some philosophically sophisticated person can tell me if this is correct.
Maya, that’s on topic – and I had the same thought, for what that’s worth. I was puzzled that he started with something designed.
I think Maya’s point, which is not off topic, is a good one, and reinforces Ophelia’s point. When you consider why ruth mutters, you will see that propositions which make claims of existence/non-existence are always questionable (fragwürdig) in the sense that you can always raise the question about its truth, as Paul points out. All synthetic propositions as Hume pointed out cannot be demonstrated. One (now unknown) fact can defeat them. That’s why black swans are so important to philosophy.
But the tactic of denying sufficient evidence puts the onus on the other person to present it. And when it comes to the protean concepts of God or spirituality, this means that the religious are put on the spot. They have to do two things: (i) they have to define what they mean by the monosyllable ‘god’, and (ii) they have to provide evidence for believing that this term is a referring expression.
In the game of tennis (which Dennett likens somewhere to a tennis game) this is a well-placed return, and will probably result in the disappointed devotee to go off muttering under his breath about ruth, and throwing his racquet in anger.
My parenthetical remark about Dennis should have read: ‘Dennett somewhere likens argument to a tennis game.”
Dennett, of course. The problem is due to having one finger in a splint. It’s very difficult to type.
Eric, if a finger in a splint leads to typing Dennis iso Dennett … there is your evidence ;-)
“Why Ruth Mutters”
Because she misses ta very much.
(corny)
Damn. I realised today just *how much* funnier that book title gag would have been if I’d written:
“‘Why?’, Ruth mutters…”
See? Now you’re practically helpless, almost weeping through the paroxysms of laughter…
Or not.
And as for the 5 cents, well, come on, surely they lavished you with extravagant piles of moolah up front…?
Or not.
:-)
Nope; over-egging; why Ruth mutters is much funnier.
Jeremy always over-eggs too: that’s why my jokes are always much funnier than his.
Piles of moolah up front…uh huh.
I thought ‘Why Ruth Mutters’ much better too. I’d like some of the moolah, if you don’t mind. Or do I have to write my own book? Perhaps, ‘Why? Ruth Muttered, and would not wait for an answer.’
Clearly, the Mexican Supreme Court is not convinced that God exists either, at least not for the purposes of their decision. Conservatives (code for catholic (and drug dealers too, I shouldn’t wonder) in Mexico) didn’t get their way. Was it lack of evidence, I wonder? Or just dogmatic atheism?
Paul Power: A good point about “all swans are white”, which once was believed, although not true.
It is a long time since I studied formal logic but:
1. There are no criteria for belief, either in science or philosophy.
2. The ‘open universal’ proposition “all swans are white” can be rewritten as “no swans are non-white”, and then disproved by the single instance of a non-white swan. Thus “all swans are white” can be disproved, but not proved. (Entrance cue Karl Popper.)
3. One cannot prove a general negative eg “I have no diamonds”, (even if in my own case it happens to be true). However, one can prove a specific negative of the form “I do not have in my possession the Star of Africa diamond.”
4. I could easily prove the positives of both the above propositions, if either of them were true. Regrettably impossible in my case.
5. “God does not exist” is impossible to prove, but possible to argue. (Not quite the same thing.) Likewise “God exists”. As both propositions are inherently non-disprovable, they lie outside the bounds of Popperian science. Therefore we can never have the ‘creation science’ as pushed by modern Biblical creationists (with or without the theory of ‘intelligent design’) within the framework of science.
6. Mr Saddam Hussein got caught on point (3) above when required by the UN to prove that he had no weapons of mass destruction. (Impossible.) This impossibility was made even harder for him (as if that were possible) because he certainly had form on them, so he was hoist on his own petard. The rest is history.
I hope the above helps. If not, there must be something wrong with it.
Hmm. “There exists a parent which continuously protects this child from lethal harm” is not disproved by seeing the child playing on a swing, because such a parent can reasonably hold that the child will learn valuable lessons, and not die, if it falls off a swing once or twice. But, I suggest, it is disproved by seeing the child playing with a live wire carrying 24000 volts.
“There exists an omnipotent god which protects fledgling sparrows from lethal harm” is likewise disproved by seeing a hawk eating a fledgling sparrow.
“There exists an omnipotent entity which displays boundless love towards all life on planet earth” (which, surely, is pretty well the vague least that believers in god(s) claim?) is, in my opinion, disproved by countless observations. And huge numbers of these observations cannot be explained away by saying that the entity has chosen, in its unchallengeable wisdom, to allow humans unlimited freedom to screw up. For example, as I said before, most cygnets die young, even on remote rivers unknown to humans. The soil on the foothills of volcanoes is usually especially fertile, and (even if humans have learnt to keep away) teems with sentient life which is occasionally burnt or suffocated to painful death.
‘Proved’ and ‘disproved’ aren’t useful terms to use with empirical questions. Proof works with logic but not with evidence.
(It’s ‘would not stay for an answer,’ not ‘wait’ – ‘stay’ meaning ‘wait’ in Tudor English. What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer. Great line…)
“‘Proved’ and ‘disproved’ aren’t useful terms to use with empirical questions.”
Please could you elaborate (or give a Treference to Ruth’s Natters?) The OED has lots of citations of ‘prove’ which are about empirical questions. Can’t I prove that I can cook a soufflé by cooking one? Can’t I prove that there is a prime bigger than 17 by asking you the factors of 19?
It is proved already that all gods are little better than false knaves, and it will go near to be thought so shortly!
One cannot prove that one can cook an egg by cooking one. One shows that one can cook an egg. Proof has to do with logic or with mathematics, which, is not an empirical field.
Nicholas: you’re trying to stretch the use of the word “proof”, as Ophelia points out. Of course, in common use, one can ask a woman to prove her love, but we’re trying to be more exact here, aren’t we?
Yeah that’s the thing. It’s idiomatic to say all kinds of things prove whatever – but that’s a problem because it causes confusion. Journalists use ‘prove’ very loosely in contexts where they really need to get it right, such as in science reporting.
PZ says this is one of the first things he tells beginning students: that science doesn’t prove things.
It’s interesting and unfortunate that courts of law use ‘prove’ quite loosely too.
OB: If “‘proved’ and ‘disproved’ aren’t useful terms to use with empirical questions”, and “proof works with logic but not with evidence”, does that mean that the proof of the pudding (a) is not with the eating, (b) is with the non-eating, (c) is with finding a coin in it, (d) all or none of the above, (e) some ot not some of the above?
I think that just about covers it.
The proof of the pudding may be in the eating, but what if you don’t like pudding? That’s a nice colloquial expression, and ‘proof’ is used that way all the time, but that still doesn’t prove anything! :-)
The proof of the pudding is in the over-egging. Can I offer you a curate’s egg?
Kind of you to offer, but I was never that obsequious! I was never a curate, come to think of it.