frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,474
- 9,950
- 2,030
But proved means proved.Well, I think the problem here is that "prove" means different things to different people.
Does it?
Let's try this one.
Prove humans exist.
Clearly we have "proof" humans exist, right? I'm a human, you're a human. We can provide enough evidence to reach "proof".
But then if we go to an extreme and say "but we might not even exist. We could just be a dream", how do we then prove humans exist? We can't. We don't have access to enough information. We're need to get outside of the universe to even have a chance of figuring out whether we're a dream or not.
Or we could imagine looking back in time. How do we "prove" something happened in the past? It happened. Does video constitute enough proof? Well, we can easily manipulate videos. Same with photos etc. Any measuring device can also be manipulated.
Can we actually "prove" anything?
Or is "proof" just when we reach a point at which the majority of people say it's so?
So, in a Christian church, the "proof" required to prove God exists will be almost nothing, because EVERYONE ACCEPTS. "Enough proof" is so little.
Take a bunch of raving atheists and you might never have enough proof.