What do you count as proof?

Question

Considering that causality is not observable, only inferred according to sequence and context, is there such a thing as proof at all? and if so how can you substantiate such a claim?

-Rob

with math there are only proofs which are based on axioms - propositions which are made without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from them.
So the proofs are based on unproved premises.

Descartes said "I think therefore I am" (Cogito ergo sum), implying that perception is somehow proof of being.
Just because there is perception though, does not imply that there is a perciever.
It would make as much sense to say that being implies perception. The facts are concurrent; circular.

In this sense, does it make sense to assert that all proofs MUST be circular, in that the existence of everything is defined by how it relates to everything else? and in excluding any single thing from the context of whatever it is that you're trying to prove, you extract it from the reality that it's being proved for?

and I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about proof of God specifically. I meant proof of anything. This isn't a question about what you believe and why...it's what do you count as proof? not what proof do you have or want.
Hope that's clear now.

Answer 1

cause and effect. action and reaction. proof and animal bit you would be teeth marks. of course you can argue any point as you are demonstrating with this question.

Answer 2

Just as sure as the is a person at the end of computer writing this stupid question is the type of proof I need to believe a an all powerful God that created this universe is seven days.

Seeing that nothing is coming forward to claim this deed I am sticking with the fact God doesn't exist. But you and I exist so I have no problem believing in my fellow man but not a God.

But I do know man has an imagination that can create just about anything. Man wrote the book called the bible. Man created the mythical character called God to justify his existence. But they did not see the modern man coming to debunk their claims to an all powerful God. It just floors me that anyone in this modern time can't see through the construct of a more primitive civilization.

Answer 3

I have proof there is air because I can breathe it, I have proof there is a sky because I can see it, I have proof there is life because I am alive; my proof is my senses, if I use at least one of these sight, taste, smell, touch or hearing, I know it exists. If God where to speak to me directly, touch me in some way, or stand in front of me...............I would have all the proof I needed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so far none of this has happened................and I don't mean hearing in your head... I mean actually hearing ..and seeing what is around is still not enough proof because I didnt see him do it. Until then I am sticking with the facts that I have and from my point of view he just does not exist or else he would have done one of those things by now.

Answer 4

For me, any proof is acceptance to my conscience. Sometime intuitively I realize some thing as true. For that also I won't seek any proof.

Answer 5

The only proofs exist in mathematics. In everything else, we have only "degrees of certainty".

Answer 6

causality is proveable, by observation of it's components, its processes, its mechanics, and its results.
The end result of that is your proof.
X = Y = smoke = fire..... or..... X =Y = a cavity = a tooth ache.

You can maintain its order,.... or you can re-arrange it,.... but its constituents, its components, its processes, and results remain the same.

You can test at cellular, molecular, chemical, atomic, or sub-atomic formula level if you wish, but still,.... evidence of clear proof remain's.

Causality is definitely proveable.

corz the proof is in the pudding....

Answer 7

I agree with Zeta the proof is in sciance, and if not there then there is no real proof.