Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if you cannot share that proof with the other person?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I Have Proof
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
It isn't valid to prove a belief to another person but I think it is OK to say that I have evidence that proves to me that such and such is true.
Sure it's valid. You are, however, shifting the evidence of your "proof"* from the actual evidence itself to your credibility as a witness and judge of the actual evidence. There's nothing in principle wrong with that -- it does not violate any rules of logic§ -- but your argument might be less persuasive to others because of the shift.
Such arguments are made everyday. A simple, commonplace example of such an argument would be:
1) I feel love for Beatrice.
2) (implied) I am a credible witness of my own feelings, even though I cannot show those feelings to you in order to "prove" to you that I indeed feel love for Beatrice.
Therefore, it is the case that I actually love Beatrice.
*Note: I am assuming that the word "proof" as used in the OP is synonymous with "evidence", and does not mean proof in the sense in which the word is used in mathematics and some forms of logic. If the latter is the case, then the answer to the question posed in the OP is not "yes", but "no".
§Note: It does not violate any rules of logic assuming that an informal argument is being made. Informal logic (aka inductive logic) would probably characterize such as shift as an appeal to authority. In informal logic, appeals to authority are permissible provided that (1) the claimed expertise is relevant to the argument, and (2) the claimed expertise is genuine. For an argument to be inductively valid, the conclusion must be probable, given the premises.
On the other hand, in formal logic (aka deductive logic), appeals to authority are always fallacious, since they do not require -- that is, they do not necessitate -- a given conclusion. They do not necessitate a given conclusion because it is possible that an authority can be wrong. For an argument to be deductively valid, the conclusion must be necessary, given the premises.
It doesn't constitute evidence until it is shared, the thing about something being proof means that two people can reasonably agree that the data is accurate if it is made visible to many folks. It is not, however, the case that you can refuse to accept proof if it refutes you -- you must counter or discredit the evidence with more evidence.
Using such an argument without providing the data is basically a modified, "tu quoque" logic fallacy, but rather than turning the criticism back on the person asking the questions you evade by criticizing their comment in the first place. That's to say, you feel you don't have to answer it because we should just "trust you", and that's what's known as an "appeal to authority" (but in this case their own.) Can't make logic out of being illogical...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
NOPE!
I think that's a good point if one takes the word "proof" in the OP to have the meaning commonly given to the word in mathematics and in some forms of logic (e.g. deductive logic).
Why not?
Proof you can't share isn't proof. Using your example regarding personal feelings, you can make attempts at proving such a thing. They may not work, but attempts can be made. But if you cannot share your proof or evidence, it's useless to anyone that isn't you, because it looks like it doesn't exist.
Then would you claim that someone stating they were in love was not providing evidence of their being in love?
Whoever says, "I have proof that I am in love with you"?
McBell
Unbound
I am confused.
What does evidence have to do with proof?
Depends on whether you are using the word "proof" in its most common usage -- in which case, the word is synonymous with evidence -- or you are using the word "proof" in the technical sense in which it's used in mathematics and some forms of logic. I am assuming that the word is being used in the OP in its most common usage.
McBell
Unbound
Fair enough.
I tend to use proof to describe evidence that meets my standards for evidence and evidence for the rest.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
It all depends on where you get that so called proof, religion mostly gets its proof from scripture that cannot be relied on, but still they believe its proof, which isn't proof at all.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
I have to agree with @Nietzsche on this one. It would be the same as saying "trust me" without explaining why you should be trusted.
I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion in some instances, but how can you arrive at that conclusion in all instances? For example, Neo, suppose you told someone you were in love with your wife. Would you also tell them not to trust your word unless you explain to them why your word should be trusted?
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Everyone understands love (or should if they have ever loved someone). They can relate to the message.
If you are making a claim that the person can't relate to, and don't offer any evidence for you claim, then it becomes baseless. If you want someone to trust you over a claim, then the burden of proof is on you.