Prove it!

Originally posted by mrstabby
Strictly speaking, can one person prove something to another person?

No, there is no way to know anything with 100.000 % of certainty. Therefore is every response with the "Provie it!" meaningless if you want certainty.
Reasonable level of doubt is okay.

Dialogue:
"Evolution is a correct theory, creationism is wrong"
"Prove the Evolution! God created the world in 7 days."
"According to ... then evolution must be a correct theory. Now prove me that God created the world in 7 days!"
"You are wrong about the evolution, that's no proof. However, I feel gods existens and the truthfulness of the bible in my heart, that's proof enough for me!"
(*yawn*)

So trying to prove anything in a forum on internet is futile.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
I enjoy these forums overall. But there are times when some folks start debating you who aren't actually engaging their intellects, just having conditioned reflexes. It really is something to behold.
My attempt here may be in vain, but I hope to demonstrate something. One of you who have engaged me in other threads - please prove to me that you were born.

My Mom can testify that I was born..she was there. I have a valid birth certificate as well from the state of Maryland.

Originally posted by MontyMoose
Sorry, I'm not in the Spirit forum much so I don't think I've talked to you, but allow me to lay out the start of an answer to your challenge. Notice I said "start of an answer" and it would be the same if you had said "prove to me algebra works" or "prove to me the Alamo exists". The general question of how do we know what we know is not a trivial one fo ...[text shortened]... would you also agree that I was born?

Best
Steve (or is it?)

Sorry so slow in responsing here.
Thanks, mooseman, for taking the time and making the effort to put up such a thorough and thoughtful response. Perhaps we'll engage in these forums going forward now that we've been introduced. BTW, would you have any objection to me referencing your post here in future posts I may put up? I think it could prove helpful. Let me know.
Early on you brought up the question of how we know what we know, and that we, and some much smarter than we, could, and have, spent a lifetime fathoming that question. All I want to state is that for any debate to be functional, we first have to agree that there are things that we can know with certainty (such as our own births) even if making the case may seem tedious.
So, you could make the case to me, just as you outlined here, and if I were a REASONABLE person, I might have some of the documents that were presented verified, have some of your witnesses backgrounds checked out, get your fingerprints, and have a blood test done, just to make sure you are who you say you are, Steve 😉 The preponderance of the evidence would lead to a reasonable belief that you are who you say you are and, in the end, I would have no reason to doubt that you were, in fact, born.
BUT !!! If I had a mind to, I could throw up all sorts of objections. I might state that in this age of computer technology, documents are easily forged, and question you about if you've ever lied before about who you were, maybe you've presented a phony ID when attempting to get into a bar underage, etc. Or perhaps one document said you were born at 5:06 AM and another 6:05AM. And therefore if the documents don't even agree on the time, they are unreliable, and how can we know for sure what time you were born, or even if you were born?!? Or state that fingerprints have become reproducible (don't know this, just making it up) and criminals now use reproduced latex fingerprint overlays to cover-up their true identities and incriminate innocent people. I might mention that all your witnesses are friends and family and therefore unreliable witnesses with compromised motives, etc. Maybe your blood type, hair color, and eye color are shared by 1/3 of the world's population and therefore are poor evidence for proving that you are who you say you are. I could go on and on just throwing out objection after objection just because I had a mind to. And I could probably cause some doubts to rise up, even if you had made a good positive case (remember the OJ Simpson trial?).
Despite that, I think you've shown that there are ways for us to know whether or not something is true and believable and, let me add, why it may also be unreasonable to believe otherwise, even if a negative case is presented. Evidence for something may not in and of itself be proof, but a preponderance of compelling evidence is sufficient to make the case.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
BTW, would you have any objection to me referencing your post here in future posts I may put up? I think it could prove helpful. Let me know....

The preponderance of the evidence would lead to a reasonable belief...

...I think you've shown that there are ways for us to know whether or not something is true and believable and, let me add, why it may a ...[text shortened]... and of itself be proof, but a preponderance of compelling evidence is sufficient to make the case.

Anything I put in the public forums is fair game, but thanks for asking.

Your other two statements about evidence are wise, correct, and well-stated.

Originally posted by MontyMoose
Sorry, I'm not in the Spirit forum much so I don't think I've talked to you, but allow me to lay out the start of an answer to your challenge. Notice I said "start of an answer" and it would be the same if you had said "prove to me algebra works" or "prove to me the Alamo exists". The general question of how do we know what we know is not a trivial one fo ...[text shortened]... would you also agree that I was born?

Best
Steve (or is it?)

That's a load of BS, your creation involved an artificial placenta and a big glass tube 😛