It is often claimed by theists that non-theists are hypocrites when they deny the reality/existence of an invisible God because such a being is not provable scientifically (invisible because he is defined as a Spirit) yet affirm the reality/existence of things such as love, happiness, beauty, etc., which are also invisible and improvable scientifically. However, this argument fails miserably because it relies on a false assumption: that sensations and perceptions cannot be proven. While it may be true that love, happiness, beauty, pain, and other such sensations and perceptions cannot be put under a microscope, that is a far stretch from saying that they are unprovable.

To prove that invisible sensations can be proven, I will simply focus on the sensation of pain, which like love, theists would claim is improvable scientifically. The next time a theist claims that sensations such as pain are improvable, ask him or her if he or she will allow you to demonstrate to them that pain is indeed provable. If they agree and ask you how you plan to do this, tell them that you will prove to them the existence of pain by making them feel pain (I advise you to draw up a contract for them to sign stating that you are not liable criminally or financially for any pain or suffering you cause them). If they then say they will not allow you to cause them pain, simply ask them why not? If they say because pain hurts or that they know what pain feels like, then inform them that they have just conceded that pain exists and that they know it to be real and provable. If they tell you to proceed with your demonstration, then slap them as hard as you possibly can in the face. If after you have done this they yell, scream, or shout (probably in the form of some curse word), ask them why they reacted in such a manner after you slapped them? They will more than likely tell you that it hurt when you slapped them. Simply inform them that pain hurts! Thus, you have proven the existence of pain. If for some reason you slap them as hard as you possibly can and they do not react, which would be quite embarrassing for you, then proceed to another method of causing them pain, such as hitting them in the head with a hammer. Keep hitting them with various heavy objects until you find an object that finally causes a reaction from the theist consistent with the reaction one would expect to occur when one feels pain. At some point you will either prove to them that pain exists, or you will discover that they are immune to pain, which science has shown some people to be, which leads me to my next point.

For those who are immune to pain, pain cannot be proven. One cannot prove to someone that which they are incapable of experiencing. And this distinction is necessary for drawing the line of what it means and does not mean for sensations and perceptions to be proven. To a person who does not feel pain, it cannot be proven that pain exists. You may be able to convince them that pain exists, but you cannot prove to them that it does. You may be able to show them a person who does feel pain and then set out to cause that person (who does feel pain) pain in order to demonstrate the effect of pain to the one who cannot experience pain themselves. However, the effects of pain can be faked in an artificial manner. I use to fake the effects of pain as a child when my mother would spank me. In effect, I would pretend that her spanking me was painful when it really was not, and I did this so that she would not call my step-dad to come spank me, for he would certainly have caused me great pain. The point I'm making is that pain is relative, for it is a sensation dependant on the existence of pain sensors in the brain. But even if one possesses these pain sensors, they may sense pain in one individual differently than they would in another individual. Meaning, something (such as a flu shot) may not cause me pain while it would cause someone else pain because our tolerance level to pain is different.

Now that I have explained a method for proving pain exists, we must ask ourselves if God is provable in the same way that pain is provable? Many theists would argue that God is provable as pain is provable, for they claim that God is love, and love is a provable sensation just as is pain. However, this seems to present a problem. If God is love, then what exactly does that tell us, and what are we able to know about God outside of the fact that he is love, which is nothing more than a sensation which is relative to that which causes each individual to feel the sensation of love? How does one go from God is love to God/love is a supernatural intelligence whose image humans were made in, that God/love is the creator of the universe, or that God/love is all-knowing and all-powerful? By proving that love exists, do we truly prove a God that is said to be all these other things as well? I think not. If you want to say God is love, so be it, for that is nothing more than your personal opinion/perception, but you should recognize that that is as far as you can go in proving your idea of God. For one cannot state that God is love and thus simultaneously prove all these other attributes many claim God possesses, nor can it be proven that God/love created the universe or anything in it.

And if you claim that God is love, meaning love is a supernatural entity, then what supernatural entity is pain? What supernatural entity is hate, so on and so forth? While love, pain, and hate may be provable to those who can experience them, it is a far stretch to say that these sensations people experience are themselves supernatural entities.