I have proven it to myself so I believe it, but that does not mean that the evidence I used to prove it to myself will be accepted by others.
But the evidence is the foundation of the proof, so if I or someone else can demonstrate why your evidence is not sufficient or valid to back up your proof, it should also be insufficient for you.
Important to underline here, is that im not talking about an opinion, but something which is demonstrably wrong. This includes misinterpretation of evidence, logic, and reasoning.
Because the rules used to evaluate these things apply to us all and are unbiased. So for example, let's say we had to evaluate the following conclusion (Marked with red):
Assume only the following statements and consider them as facts:
- All reptiles lay eggs
- All reptiles are vertebrates
- All snakes are reptiles
- All vertebrates have brains
- Some reptiles hatch their eggs themselves
- Most reptiles have two lungs
- Many snakes only have one lung
- Cobras are poisonous snakes
- All reptiles are animals
Conclusion: Some snakes hatch their eggs themselves.
A. The conclusion follows
B. The conclusion doesn't follow
There is only one correct answer to this, which is (B), doesn't matter what each of us thinks, it can be demonstrated that if someone said (A) they are wrong.
The same can be done with evidence, so even if you believe that some evidence supports your claim or proof. If it can be demonstrated that these ain't conclusive, then they are not good evidence for that claim and therefore not proof as they could just as well point to something else.
It would be logically impossible to convince everyone else with the same evidence since all people have their own way of thinking and their confirmation biases that prevent them from looking at the evidence the same way that I did.
This is why we use critical thinking methods to evaluate claims and get rid of as many of these biases as possible. The solution is not to convince anyone and therefore conclude that it is impossible so therefore we are entitled to jump to our own proofs. But rather to use these methods to demonstrate why something is wrong and why someone has drawn a wrong conclusion. Doesn't mean they are ultimately wrong, simply that they have insufficient evidence to back up their claim/proof.
Imagine if science worked by people just proving things to themselves, it would be chaos. Einstein proved his theory by presenting conclusive evidence for it and came up with predictions etc. There is no one arguing about whether he was right or not, there might be special situations where they don't work, like in black holes etc. But the evidence and proof for what he said is overwhelming to such a degree that no one questions it and if they do, they can try to recreate his experiments.
It sure as hell does work that way. Baha'is believe in what is called independent investigation of truth, which means that one should always investigate the truth for themselves if they want to know the truth. People should never take anyone else's word for what is true.
And that is correct, you should do that. But that doesn't mean that you should draw your own conclusions or be free of scrutiny. Again it is no different than what Einstein did, he had some ideas and put them to the test because he didn't agree with or found issues with Newton's work, so he investigated things himself and when he was done, he presented it to the rest of the scientific community for them to rip it apart/find errors in it etc.
I think you might misunderstand what is meant by this because even the Bahai's would still have to live up to the logical and reasoning rules, again these are unbiased methods.
Why is it a claim?
Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search
How could I provide evidence or proof that I have proven it to myself?
I can only SAY I have, I cannot prove I have.
You don't have to provide evidence for you having proven it to yourself, again because that is impossible and not how proofs work.
When you use the word "proof/proven" it automatically assumes that you can present conclusive evidence that supports the proof. And these can be evaluated by anyone.
Take a very simple example:
You want to prove to "yourself" that you can climb a mountain, so you do it.
This proves that you can do it, not only for yourself but for everyone else at the same time. There is no such thing as a separate proof that only applies to an individual, either you can demonstrate it and convince everyone that you can do it or you can't.
