Why do people alway ask for proof?

...And what constitutes proof?

i think it's the law
and most cases a drivers license will do

Thank goodness for you JB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's something that drives me absolutely batsh*t!!!!


You exist in your world, sharing insights and truths...your truths...

I exist in my world, sharing insights and truths....my truths.

I DON'T NEED PROOF... cause you aren't trying to strong arm me to be you...you aren't sitting there with your clicker counting your converts!!!!


Or are you???????????

proof of what?

Or are we talking about alcohol and the percentage of proof????

Girl... do you know how many dates I have gone on and they all told me they were the man,,, or maybe it was that they were a man...well anyways...I need proof

when it comes to "ever after" with my soul... yea, I need some proof. Kinda important.

man this thread is going in so many directions what was the question?

Someone who agreed with me completely and believed every wild theory I came up with would scare me.

Even if I had what I thought was proof, I know I could still find many many people who just would not be convinced.

It's too much a waste of energy to try to prove something to someone. Its frustrating too.

I just like ideas, imagination, conspiracy theories, facts, puzzles, information, etc.

Belief is interesting but it is not who you are. It can change. Don't be attached to it.

Reality is not all that stable.

JB

For me, proof is contextual and has to do with formal logical systems.

All formal logical systems always begin with unproven axioms or premises which is uses as a foundation.

Therefore, any proofs within those systems are only valid within those systems.

Nothing can be proven outside of a logical system because the very concept of proof has no meaning outside of a logical system.

Experience alone is not proof of anything. It's just an experience. Nothing more, nothing less.

God himself, or herself, or itself could not even prove to you that it is God. At best it can convince you that it can give you experiences that are beyond your belief. But does that prove that it's God? No. At best it just proves that it has powers that you don't. And it doesn't even prove that because you might actually have the very same powers and just not know how to wield them.

You can't even prove to yourself that you're as pathetical inept as you believe yourself to be.

Ultimately nothing can be proven to be true in an absolute sense (without accepting unproven premises to begin with)

However, it is possible to prove that some things are false.

As I've already stated, proof is a concept that belongs to logical systems that are based on premises. Things are proven or disprove relative to those premises.

Therefore if you have a logical system that has premises that say, for example, that God is all-wise and all-powerful, and then that same system goes on to describe God doing all sorts of unwise and powerless things, then you can conclude that the system is false because it's contradicting its own premises.

So while it's impossible to prove some things, it's still possible to show why other things cannot be true, simply because they contradict their own premises.

That's the basis of what proof is all about. Proof is nothing more than showing whether or not things are in harmony with the original premises.

Also if you can't agree on original premises then to argue about something is moot. Arguing about premises would be like arguing with someone about apples tasting better than oranges. To each their own truth!

There are no absolute premises unless they've already been written down in dogma. Then you have something that is carved in stone to argue about.

To find proof, one would first have to decide which aspect of reality one needed proof to be proven.

If there was no establishment of proof in any matter, then perhaps the cognitive mind would not be able to jog itself off of one subject long enough to concentrate on something else.

Thus, I might be able to say that in order to have proof, you are going to also need a little box called a stereotype.

I think of stereotypes like this; the mind perceives through one or more of the five senses a relatively curious new thing of some type. As this thing comes into the mind through the eyes, or the ears, or perhaps by taste, touch or smell, the mind then begins a process of logic and thought. Let's take the sense of taste for instance, but any of the five senses could be used.

How do we prove something tastes salty? What do we have in our mind that registers as salty? In our mind let's say there is a little box on a shelf labeled "salty" and inside of the box is everything we have ever experienced in our lifetime that has tasted salty. Now, if any other distinct and unique flavor were to enter our mouth, and touch our tongue, even if it did not have the exact same chemical make up as salt, if it tasted like salt, we would say "it is salty."

Let's take something more controversial. Let's take the color of a human being's skin. With our eyes, we see the person's skin and we have some kind of name for that thing that we take into our mind from the senses. Our eyes are the receptors this time instead of our sense of taste.

For the sake of conversation, let's say there are people of several different colors, as we often describe them. There are red people, yellow people, brown people, black people, and white people. There may be some more different colors, and we aren't adding in our bi-racial fellow humans at this time.

For each color, there is a little "box" (quote-unquote) in our brain that has information stored in it from our life experience with each color of human skin. If we meet a black woman, we already have a certain amount of information in our box named "black woman" in our brain. I will give that box a name. That box in our brain is called a "stereo-type".

In order for our cognitive mind to establish a settling point or final thought process on any one subject, it must create a small box or filing cabinet drawer called a stereo-type. At this point, the stereo-type is neither good nor bad, it just exists. It is a place in our mind that needs to be there so that out brain does not go off the deep end concentrating on one single subject. Once the mind places the new information about a similar subject into this little box, the mind can then move on to another subject or motor function.

This is a way that I am trying to explain how the mind works in regard to labeling and organizing common information.

Every defined item has a box. Some things (2 different things) that might work together might have a box that is associated in the mind with this complexity of mixture, and this new box has yet a new label and yet exists as yet one more box in the mind.

Therefore, having said all of that, the human mind needs to establish proof or evidence so that it can correctly file information into the long term memory into this type of box system that I am describing here. Some form of common determining factor for the taste of salt needs to be proven in order for the taste of salt, and the word salt to be established. If there was no definition, then the mind would not be able to retain or to associate the taste of salt each new time it experiences the taste of salt.

So, what constitutes proof? Proof is the common agreement in the human mind that an item that exists inside one of the mind's stereo-type boxes is indeed that stereo-typical thing. It could most likely be said that proof would then be discovered by the constant testing of any one labeled item.

Humans need proof because it is in the nature of the biological system of how the brain works to find a settling point and a labeling point. As the mind is exposed to reality through the 5 senses, the mind must label each new occurrence into its proper stereo-typical box.

Without proof, there would be no settling of the mind or agreement in the mind to label any certain thing by a name from the human being's language system. Salt is salt in English, but in another language, it will be a different formation of ways that the tongue will pronounce the descriptive thing, and it will be labeled inside of that mind by way of that person's language and memory capacity.

*********************

I think a greater question is inferred, why do humans argue?

In matters of religion, the human mind has many boxes and many labels, and the human mind is as individual as a finger print. We can find common box names for common items with our language but the human species is complex enough to acknowledge many different forms of nearly the exact same thing. The problem occurs when the human central nervous system is influenced by chemicals, emotions, hormones, things such as adrenalin, other factors besides the cellular structure that makes up the actual brain itself.

In the language the mind can create boxes to fit billions and billions of new articles of information. But to make it easier on the mind, the organism creates boxes called stereo-types. The overall result is most likely the exact same emotional, cognitive and physical experience, but people have a tendency to want to be important, and they want to be considered correct and right in their definition of their religious experience.

Entire cultures develop with a common language and a common theme to a religion (or are the opposite, they have zero religion). The struggle to be important and correct outweighs the cognitive ability to truly understand all aspects of perceived reality.

What is the amazing thing is this....

The human being has the biological make up and potential to understand and interpret every type of religion ever discussed on the planet. If one person can control their mind enough to discuss this or that religion or lack of religion, then it is also humanly possible for every other human to discuss and understand the exact same thing.

The mystery isn't really why people need proof, and the question isn't why people argue, the amazing thing is that we all as human beings have the ability to believe 100% of every aspect of all of it, all at the same time, but we decide not to do that very thing.

The mysterious thing is why people choose sides in the first place. I might ask... why do people choose sides? By choosing a side, you are setting yourself up for some type of war. It seems as if humans need war in their lives, so they decide to perpetuate silly arguments about reality so that they can present to themselves a certain degree of importance.

A better question to ask, instead of being on the path for the search for proof, might be to try to understand why people disagree in the first place. I think a disagreement is like a coat that is lying in the chair, and a person simply wants to try it on to see how it feels. I think some people have more desire to disagree and argue than others. (My ex-wife, for example, never went through one day of her life (that I witnessed) without arguing with somebody in the family, be it me, the kids, what ever... LOL) If it was not chaotic, it was not normal to her, and she would cause situations to happen that would crate chaos so that she could get back to her norm.

Proof?

It is merely the biological way our bodies store and retain information. In order to live, one must ask for proof constantly, millions of times every second that we live. The human mind cannot think without proof. It would not be able to function with out what I have described as proof in the previous paragraphs.

I hope this offers at least one brief explanation for your question.

Brief?

I realize that sometimes I annoy people with my statements of the nature of reality, perhaps because I state them as if they are facts.

(I do this on purpose to annoy Tribo. )

For example:

"This reality is a three dimensional reflection which is holographic in nature which is generated from a collective or "universal" mind."

Of course I should have started that sentence with "I believe..blah blah blah.." or "..its my conclusion..or my opinion...blah blah blah...

But usually I find that nobody cares what my opinions or conclusions are and I don't get enough attention when I do that. LOL

So you will find me stating what I believe or what I am considering as truth as a fact more often than not.

Then someone who disagrees wildly with me will ask for "proof," not because they intend to consider it, but because they want to discredit my bold and sometimes "ridiculous" statement.

"The ruler of this galaxy is a draconian queen."

I just want to say that I don't blame you for asking for proof. Not at all. I would do the very same.

I am inclined to ask for proof when someone starts a sentence with:

"God said....."

Oh really?

Or when people make unbelievable claims of miracles and give the credit to their God.

Oh really? That's nice. (I just don't believe it.)

Perhaps if I actually experienced a miracle myself I would believe it... but that is probably the only time I would.

I may not disbelieve something but I may not believe it either. I might just remain neutral...and think, well I'm sure YOU believe it.. but I have my doubts.

So ask for proof and keep asking. But keep an open mind. This is a very weird reality.

JB

Good point.

This is where religions that claim their doctrines are the word of God get themselves in trouble.

If a person is going to claim to have the words of the creator of this universe they damn well better to be able to verify the source.

Otherwise it's blaspheme!

I do not feel the need to prove my beliefs or my opinion.

Heck, when it comes to funches I would be unable to prove that I'm not delusional, so what's the point in starting?

"Invisible" that's the beauty of beliefs ...they need no proof ..you can believe in God the tooth fairy even the great pumpkin .."Happy Halloween" today everyone

but once you start claiming belief to be fact and feel you need to provide no proof that it is.. then you are delusional

You have a good point, but the part where you call someone "delusional" is only your opinion and you can't really prove that part Funches. You are only stating your opinion when you conclude they are delusional.

It is not up to a delusional person to prove they are not delusional. They may think everyone else is.

If you live it...

and your life is mostly ok in living it.

you have all the proof you need.

I AM.

"JennieBean"...it's not up to anyone to prove someone is delusional or having delusions usually the delusional person does that themselves by claiming a fantasy or belief as a reality ..then to say they don't have to provide any proof is surely delusional

the first rule of soceity is to consider that all it's citizens are insane and in need of protection from others and themselves ...so as long as you are not harming yourself or others the government allows a acceptable amount of delusion to take place..

you exist in life needing proof for practically whatever you do and then to claim that doesn't apply to something someone is claiming to be fact ...is delusional

You realize of course all of your above post is simply your opinion.

You can have the opinion that anyone is delusional, and no on will stop you.

Perhaps believing that you have proof of something is delusional since proof is a matter of belief.

If you think you have proof, but no one believes you or your proof, then you are delusional to think you have proof.