re: What is "proof" exactly...

Beautifully said. Well done.

quote:

---

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

---

My concern is midichlorians. How do we detect them, and more importantly count them? I, for one, would like to know if we've got another potential Darth Vader on the horizon.

quote:

---

I'm assuming "proof" requires evidence

---

Proof is evidence

quote:

---

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.

---

That's called the "friendly fade".

Do you even natural law, breh?

Proof is subjective. Your ideology of proof would differ from someone else based upon knowledge of something or life experience. I think it's what a reasonable person could determine would be/ could be possible or applicable to a situation.

quote:

---

Do you even natural law, breh?

---

wut

If someone is stealing and you have video of them stealing, thats fricking proof my friend.

More of this hipster bullshite...

Nobody fricking cares. Eat a bag of bloody assholes.

quote:

---

I'm assuming "proof" requires evidence, but what is evidence? Does it have to be quantifiable? What if the "evidence" conflicts? Is that "proof"?

---

Proof presupposes a reason or premise. Evidence is a data point that only exists as evidence in the context of trying to prove something. Footprints leading to a window might be a meaningless data point; they might be evidence if a burglary occurred in that house. It isn't a matter of relativism as much as context. A given argument might require certain kinds of proof. Certain kinds of proof require certain kinds of evidence. Certain kinds of evidence require collection by different means: the five senses, tools that expand the reach of the five senses (microscopes, telescopes, seismographs, etc.), deductive and/or inductive logic, probably others.

To the poster Joshryn: Your dismissal of Aquinas' proofs don't rise to any satisfactory level of evidence and don't constitute proof that they are incorrect. They are your opinion and you're entitled to that opinion. And, frankly, I'm not interested in convincing you otherwise... But, since I'm singling you out, I'll offer at least one counterpoint:

Regarding your dismissal of point #4 "as silliness". Proof of degrees of perfection is a nod to Plato's Theory of Forms. We cannot draw a perfect circle. At some point, down to molecular or smaller level, there will be an imperfection. Similarly, while we can draw line segments, it isn't even possible to draw an actual line or ray, though we have logical proof of their existence. Perfection in various qualities such as nobility are similarly abstract; we can see examples of people that are more and less good, noble, etc. But the perfect ideal of such qualities necessarily exists beyond physical limitation.

In fact, the Platonic ideal provides adequate logic to refute nearly every one of your points. You rebutted the first 3 proofs with the same line, "Also applies to God." In the example above, when you go beyond the limited, imperfect circle to the Platonic... or mathematically... perfect ideal of a circle, there is not a logical progression you can take from there. There is not a way to take an ideal, perfect circle and make it more perfect. This is the end of logic. So it is with the other stated proofs. It is possible to deductively prove them to the point Aquinas reaches. There is no proof whatsoever for the notions you strive to support.