Just found this forum, wanted to ask a question. What does it mean to 'prove' something to somebody? Or what does it mean to call something 'proven'? Most often one would say that 'proof' refers to something that is undeniably true, but the term 'proven' has been used to refer to many things that later were said to not be 'proven'. Furthermore, two people can hold the belief that two mutually exclusive ideas or worldviews are both somehow 'proven' to be true. How do we make sense of this though? What determines what is really 'proven' and what is being falsely called 'proven'? If 'proof' is undeniable, we should start there, asking what it means for something to be 'undeniable'. Simply, it means that you can't deny it. What does that mean for a human? There is nothing that humans can't deny, ranging from the existence of God, to the truth value of evolution, to the existence of the universe, even to the existence of the self. But in that case, nothing would technically be provable because everything would be deniable. I think the key is our interpretation of an event or a belief/worldview. Something can be proven to one person, but not to another, so the 'proof' exists within the individual in their acceptance of a particular belief/worldview. To have something 'proven' to you it to simply be convinced that something is true. This is why whether or not somebody believes something wholly depends on who they are, and not what the evidence or reasoning is, since the evidence/reasoning can stay the same while still being rejected by some and supported by others. People talk about things being 'proven' all the time, and when I ask for the proof they give me reasoning or alleged evidence, but I still don't believe it. Then they say I am ignorant of the 'facts' or am being willfully obtuse. I have experienced this from worldviews that are both contrary to mine and an amplification of mine. It is my belief that to 'prove' something to someone merely means to convince someone of something. Apart from that 'proof' seems to just be a term people throw around to give justification to their own beliefs and to discredit beliefs contrary to their own. When people say 'proof' is something that is definitely true whether you believe it or not, I believe the correct term there is 'truth'. I believe any proof for any given worldview/belief exists within our minds, not outside of them. That doesn't mean we can't be right about things we think are proven though, just that our personal reasoning (ie: our 'proof') for our beliefs aren't some form of magic spells that forces people to believe things, and to go against something that some or many claim is 'proven' isn't inherently an act of anti-intellectualism. So, does this make sense?