Proof - What is it?

[larryt]

In discussions on this forum is it appropriate to claim that something is proved, as in

It has been proved that you are wrong.

I proved my point.

Is not this a statement of pride? What does it take to prove something? Is a concensus proof?

In Science a Theory is not proof. And when it is finally proven to be true sometimes the theory is overturned. To offer proof is taking a position on a topic, but to claim that your proof is better than someone elses may or may not be true. The only one to judge will be the Lord in cases of Theology. No one here or anywhere in the church has an absolute corner on what is completely correct about the Bible.

I bring this up because this is not appropriate to label someone as wrong -

Because we proved it.

Or label someone as anything as no one can really know what someone else thinks for sure.

I think it is pride for someone to claim they proved anything.

So what does it mean to "PROVE" something.

[Guest man]

So what does it mean to "PROVE" something.

That depends on what you're trying to prove.

[Guest man]

Proof - What is it?

Evidence to backup a claim.

[Guest shiloh357]

There are different standards of proof that people will appeal to. In our courts of law, something need only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Other people want absolute, undeniable proof beyond the shadow or any possibility of doubt, which is something no one can provide. Ususally people demand an unreachable standard of proof to avoid having to face up to inconvenient truths.

For the person unwilling to be convinced, no standard of proof would ever suffice.

[LOVE SONGS]

A study of the facts of a subject is its Proof .

[larryt]

In Science, you don't prove something. In Science, there is no such thing as proof. You prove things in Math class but that isn't proof.

I had an atheistic Physics professor and he taught us this. How far do you want me to discuss this?

Hi Chuckt

I think I remember the definition of a Theory in science as: Something that can be proved or disproved. I think I brought up the idea that in science some theories are thought to be proved and later proved to be the opposite or disproved.

My point here at WB is that some people resort to "we proved it" to declare someone else as wrong when in reality all that has been done is providing a point of view and back up evidence to support their possition. I try to present a point of view and state my reasons for believing why I believe that point of view. It does not matter if I prove anything. I am not trying to. I have found in my walk with the Lord that I know even less now compared to the whole than I did 25 yrs ago. I have changed my view on many things and will probably change my view again when the Spirit illuminates my understanding.

How far do we go with this???? As far as needed to bring us all to the knowledge of Christ without some of the anger and hatred that has been coming out in some of the posts.

Grace & Peace.

LT

[larryt]

Proof - What is it?

Evidence to backup a claim.

If all you do is present the evidence you have is that proof, have you proved something and can you claim that you proved it.

Grace & Peace

LT

[larryt]

There are different standards of proof that people will appeal to. In our courts of law, something need only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Other people want absolute, undeniable proof beyond the shadow or any possibility of doubt, which is something no one can provide. Ususally people demand an unreachable standard of proof to avoid having to face up to inconvenient truths.

For the person unwilling to be convinced, no standard of proof would ever suffice.

I agree with your definitions and analysis. Will these standard apply to you as with myself and others?

[enoob57]

In Science, you don't prove something. In Science, there is no such thing as proof. You prove things in Math class but that isn't proof.

I had an atheistic Physics professor and he taught us this. How far do you want me to discuss this?

In all things there 'IS' continuance... this is the proving of the infinite exist- as we with begin we are witnessing Him Who 'IS'

without begin... Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

There are different standards of proof that people will appeal to. In our courts of law, something need only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Other people want absolute, undeniable proof beyond the shadow or any possibility of doubt, which is something no one can provide. Ususally people demand an unreachable standard of proof to avoid having to face up to inconvenient truths.

For the person unwilling to be convinced, no standard of proof would ever suffice.

I agree with your definitions and analysis. Will these standard apply to you as with myself and others?

The point I am making is that different people use different standards. Some people are more reasonable in how they use the term. In many cases, people are too free and loose with the word proof. I prefer to use the term "demonstrate" or I claim that to have "evidence" for my point rather than claim that I have proven something unless I can satisfy that standard.

The problem lies with people who apply an unlrealistic standard as to what constitutes genuine proof. To a reasonable person, it can be proven that man has been to the moon. But, for some people who are bent to rejecting such proof, there would be no proof that anyone could provide that they would accept. Not because it is not provable, but because they are bent on preserving their unbelief and will employ any measure no matter how absurd or unreasonable.