What is "proof" exactly...

Did this sound smarter in your head?

Lol

"Proof" can come from many different directions.
Maybe this will help.
St. Thomas Aquinas 5 proofs of God's existence
This post is for triskelion, for your consideration: from

LINK

Aquinas' Five Proofs

What real evidence can be supplied for God's existence? St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologica, sets forth five separate proofs for the existence of God, Unlike St. Anselm's proof, which deals with pure concepts, St. Thomas' proofs rely on the world of our experience-what we can see around us. In these proofs we can easily see the influence of Aristotle and his doctrine of the Four Causes.

l) The Proof from Motion. We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never have got started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

2) The Proof from Efficient Cause. Everything in the world has its efficient cause--its maker--and that maker has its maker, and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now. But there is something everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and that First Maker we call God.

3) The Proof from Necessary vs. Possible Being. Possible, or contingent, beings are those, such as cars and trees and you and I, whose existence is not necessary. For all such beings there is a time before they come to be when they are not yet, and a time after they cease to be when they are no more. If everything were merely possible, there would have been a time, long ago, when nothing had yet come to be. Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary being. This Necessary Being we call God.

4) The Proof from Degrees of Perfection. We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true, good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be. But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we call God.

5) The Proof from Design. As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design--the bird's wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose of hearing; the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God

triskelion, I interpret proof #3 as talking about the creation of the elements; proof #2 as talking about the forming of the elements into creation; and proof #1 as creation being put into motion.

The irony of proving God exists is, to a non-believer it can never be proven, but to a believer, proof of God can be seen just about everywhere.

Of course, if you need to see it to believe it, do you really have faith?
"The devil fears hearts on fire with love of God." --St. Catherine of Siena

"True holiness does not mean a flight from the world; rather, it lies in the effort to incarnate the Gospel in everyday life, in the family, at school and at work, and in social and political involvement." --Pope JPII

1. Also applies to god
2. Also applies to god
3. Also applies to god
4. Rhetorical silliness
5. Flips cause and effect; ignores natural selection

Like protons, neutrons and electrons. How do we know they exist? How many of you have seen one? You just blindly accept the existence of subatomic particles based of some scientist claiming they exist? The model of the atom has changed several times. So, how do you know they're "right" this time? They had "evidence" that the model of the atom was like plum pudding. Then, Bohr comes along, and it's since been demonstrated that his model is inaccurate as well.

So, in the 1980s, people just blindly accepted the Bohr model because someone wrote it in a book.

quote:

---

Like protons, neutrons and electrons. How do we know they exist? How many of you have seen one?

---

I got my undergrad in Physics and yes, I have personally done experiments demonstrating pretty conclusively that they exist.

quote:

---

So, in the 1980s, people just blindly accepted the Bohr model because someone wrote it in a book.

---

Actually the Bohr model was introduced in 1913 and was known to be incorrect pretty quickly. It's still used as a "simple" way of explaining things but I personally think it's misleading to do so.

What about nucleons?

You never updated us on your situation....

Nothing to update yet. I realized I didn't get "ghosted". She responded, but the responses got shorter and farther. I stopped texting her then.