A quick reminder of definitions:
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.
So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.
Further, What exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.
In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief.
Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual. So, to simply demand "proof" is insufficient. What kind, what threshold, single issue or cumulative, and to what end?
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.
So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.
Further, What exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.
- Scientific proof
- Historical proof
- Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
- Proof resulting from personal experience
- Possible
- More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
- Beyond reasonable doubt
- Absolute certainty
In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief.
Another point, atheist constantly miss the fact that religious belief is due to a cumulative set of reasons to believe--all with their own kind/threshold of proof needed for that particular individual. So, to simply demand "proof" is insufficient. What kind, what threshold, single issue or cumulative, and to what end?
