Which types of evidence?

[Kurieuo]

there can be a wide range of opinion within Christianity on qualities "we think" God has

I agree with that. However my point was a stronger one: the argument from design doesn't support any qualities for the creator other than the fact of creation, and possibly (but only at the time of creation) omniscience/omnipotence (I have been doing some thinking in another thread, and have explained what I mean there. This is actually a concession I didn't expect to make!) In any case, even if omniscient and omnipotent, the creator could still be malevolent, accident prone, illogical or even, after Nietzsche, dead.

Well if someone accepts God created, and that such entails omniscience/omnipotence then I'd think an argument could be made that God could not possibly be illogical (I'm assuming you meant in the sense of irrational), accident prone or dead based on these accepted qualities. And if God were malevolent, then why didn't he create a world without good (a reversed theodicy would be required)? Given some thought, there are lots of things that could perhaps be deduced about God given that the creation of our world is accepted. But then... I'll freely admit that we can't nail down everything about God. If anything, what we have are glimpses of what God has chosen to be revealed about Himself.

we will never fully comprehend or entirely understand God

... but in the specific case of a ministry aimed at building its metaphysic on rational grounds, isn't this a little problematic? It does have something of a fideistic ring to it, doesn't it?

I'm really not sure I see a problem with saying we can't know everything about God... I could see a problem if I said we can no nothing about God, but my words above shouldn't be equivocated to the later.

In what way do you think it is fallacious, or were you just meaning you find it unpersuasive?

... The teleological argument certainly ups the stakes (I hadn't realised this until I went through it this evening). But I do think as a proof it's logically fallacious. Once a creator is proved, it may have something to say about the creator's qualities.

I'm assuming you're dissatisfied in general with teleological arguments, that is, arguments made from the order inherent within the universe. I'm not sure I see the fallacy, although I can see how some mind consider the general premises unconvincing.

As for something being "proved," it seems to me that something being proved is dependant on our subjective judgement? Try proving to a philosophical idealist that you really do physically exist for example. Such a person would have to trust their apparent physical senses as telling them the truth. Actually colour is a good example. Do you know the colours you see don't really exist? Rather what we call colours, are simply different wavelengths of light being absorbed and reflected. It's all perceived in your mind. As philosopher Frank Jackson points out:

We sense the world as made up of coloured, materially continuous, macroscopic, stable objects; Science and, in particular, Physics, tells us that the material world is constituted of clouds of minute, colourless, highly-mobile particles… Science forces us to acknowledge that physical or material things are not coloured… This will enable us to conclude that sense-data are all mental, for they are coloured.

(Frank Jackson, Perception (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 121.)

What I am trying to highlight is that we can't be 100% certain when presented even with empirical proof of something. You may find you trust what you observe as "proof" of its existence, whereas an idealist may not. Someone may find teleological arguments very persuasive and so consider such as "proof", while others (like yourself?) may find them somewhat lacking. That's just how the cookie crumbles with "proof" I spose.

Modernism by placing such value on empiricism and rationalism has often relegated one's experiences in life as unimportant. This is possibly why many become involved Post-Modernism where personal experiences are more uplifted although reason is often downplayed

I'm very intrigued by this idea, which has never occurred to me. Could you elaborate? Do you think post modernism is alligned for or against Christianity? Your implication is that is it's alligned against science. In practice maybe, but not in theory: I think postmodernism has some very interesting things to say about rationalism, but I think the "downplaying of reason" aspect arises from a misunderstanding of the value of the post modern programme in the first place.

I believe postmodernism is often seen as a reaction against the rationalism and empiricism that came out of the Enlightenment period. My mother, a Christian, has been very much influenced in her phsychology studies by postmodern thought. She has often a time pointed out that even scientists, who often pride themselves on their empirical methods and rationality, get things wrong... that basically the conclusions scientists may draw from the same facts are very subjectively influenced. She's also pointed this out within Christianity--the different conclusions theologians might draw from the same piece of scripture. Therefore it is her conclusion that "intellectuals" (so they get called, although I've pointed out that her paradigm also consists of a different "intellectuality" -- not sure it had much effect ) claim to know what they really can't, which is objectivity. Therefore anyones subjective opinions are just as good as anyone elses and should be respected as such. I remember speaking to her about certain arguments on these boards, and she reacted to the empiricism and logic within what I was saying, "What? I thought that was in the past, it's postmodernism now." So there are actually many who believe the times of modernity have passed, and people such as you and I, this website even, are seen as backward or not with the times.

Do I think postmodernism is aligned with Christianity? Not really. It tends to deny an objective reality and subjectivity gets uplifted (too high in my opinion). Therefore Christ's dying on the cross might be true for the remission of my sins, but not yours (as you observed in another thread where you said this means non-Christians do not have sins unless they are Christian, which to comment here I believe sin is objective to all and that right and wrong is rooted in God whether we acknowledge that or not). Emotions tend to play a very large role in postmodernism, and the experiences of the self whether or not empirically justified, are placed on a pedastool. To add, my mother often sees modernity and science as denying and writing off the spiritual side to us. Oprah seems very postmodern with her thought, and especially when she use to have the finding your spirit segment to her show.

So postmodernism is very dangerous for Christianity, and any belief that claims objectivity. As you could expect, it is also dangerous for science. Infact Christians like myself and empiricists like yourself will in some sense be comrades in trying to bring some sense to the world if the trend continues. I'm sure you have heard people say that, "all religions have the same God." This is a statement that dismisses the truth claims within each religion, so in reality they all might as well be false. Relativity is a big part of postmodernism, not just when it comes to morality (which you probably accept that morality is relative, an often accepted belief today even amongst Christians), but also with empirical facts that we would call objective. It seems to me that "truth" to some extent gets classified as unimportant, and a higher emphasis gets placed on subjective experiences and emotions. Truth becomes what you make it to be, not what it is.

And out of all other religions (research programs?), a significant theological point I find with Christianity, is that it is the only faith I've found where God reaches down to us in our sins

Except that Christianity, as with all other religious research programmes (it's a term applied by Kuhn to competing scientific theories, and certainly as far as the ministry of this board is concerned, that counts religion), is the determinant of what are sins in the first place, which gives you a circularity, doesn't it? i.e., religion defines your moral code, then provides a method of absolution from breaches of it ... does that offer any independent reason favouring that research programme?

I don't see such circularity as everyone acknowledges the same moral values (I didn't say moral laws within which is a "big" difference). For example, we have a concept of fairness which is seen as good. Concept of love, also good. Hate becomes bad, and with it killing. Preserving good is good, therefore penalties become imposed for those who do wrong in order to preserve good. So, whether or not you agree, I believe my "religion" doesn't define moral values. Rather, these values are rooted in God, and He has implanted them within us. We simply acknowledge them whenever we say, "that's unfair!", and act them out in life.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

i.e., religion defines your moral code, then provides a method of absolution from breaches of it ... does that offer any independent reason favouring that research programme?

You said religion defines our moral code, it does no such thing it only explains it. Whether you believe it or not our physical bodies are already embedded with our human moral code. Even those with no religious training must adhere to it. For instance, married people are healthier overall than those who are not. They have better physical, mental and emotional health than single people. They suffer less depression and men extend their life by 5 years. Even if there was no moral or religious code surrounding marriage, people would still seek to get married not to please God but for purely selfish reasons, because in the end it is more of a benefit for them if they do. Whenever we live outside our moral code sickness ensues. For instance, pregnancy has been proven to provide protection for women from getting breast cancer, when women abort and interrupt that natural process they open themselves up to getting breast cancer. Stress has also been proven to contribute negatively to health, people who have high levels of stress suffer ulcers, heart attacks, etc. Where does most of this stress come from? Anger-when we get angry we change our chemical structure of our body. We release adrenalin which then quickens the heart rate, which can lead to cardiac arrest. Of course promiscious sex is easily identifiable as a health risk. The more partners we sleep with the higher our chances of getting disease and dying, especially when talking about AIDS. This has nothing to do with imposed morality, the health risks are real. Our bodies have defined what is moral and what isn't. When we try to live outside the moral confines of our physical bodies, there is a break down of cellular structure which is why we get cancer and other diseases. I am obese, (though the weight is slowly coming off) and 12 years ago I had cancer, since obesity is derived from gluttony, can you honestly say my cancer wasn't brought on by my body's moral objection to how I was treating it? All religion has done is tell us the obvious, to set up a society based on living in a moral fashion according to what is healthiest for us all. The wages of sin is death, and that is not just spiritual death we are talking about, but physical death. The more you sin, the sooner you die and science has proved that.

[Blind Electric Ray]

True Believer
Your arguments are poor and, in a number of respects, frankly offensive, and they don't really deserve the dignity of a fuller response, other than to your coda:

The more you sin, the sooner you die and science has proved that.

Utter nonsense. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the very philosophy of Science will know it can't prove anything. It can only falsify/disprove. Which is why Christianity even has any wiggle room - because it tends to assert things which are unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific - see Popper) or at least un-disprovable.

In any case, if you're putting that up as a serious scientific theory, I think you'll find Keith Richards's very continued existence has thoroughly disproved it.

It's only rock 'n' roll, but I like it.

Blind Electric Ray

[Kurieuo]

The more you sin, the sooner you die and science has proved that.

Utter nonsense. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the very philosophy of Science will know it can't prove anything. It can only falsify/disprove. Which is why Christianity even has any wiggle room - because it tends to assert things which are unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific - see Popper) or at least un-disprovable.

Your argument about Science above is logically self-refuting. Falsifying or disproving something proves against something, so if Science can't prove anything then Science at the same token couldn't falsify or disprove. Yet, I still agree with your premise that Science can't prove anything. It can only provide compelling evidence for and against things for people to weigh up.

Although I don't agree with all of TrueBeliever's examples, as I don't necessarily think something such as cancer is our body giving a "moral objection," I can agree with her? on that a lot of acts we would call sin are generally unhealthy for us, and in addition that reality (which is perhaps a more fitting word than science) tends to bear that out.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

True Believer
Your arguments are poor and, in a number of respects, frankly offensive, and they don't really deserve the dignity of a fuller response, other than to your coda:

The more you sin, the sooner you die and science has proved that.

Utter nonsense. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the very philosophy of Science will know it can't prove anything.

Okay so if science can't prove anything then what are you doing here? And how can you say science can't prove anything-science proved the world was round didn't it? It proved the existence of dinosaurs by uncovering their fossils didn't it? So how can you say science can't prove anything? But let's say you're right that science can't prove anything, then what is the point of spending billions on research to find cures if nothing can be proved? What is the point of exploring the universe if nothing can be proved? And since you obviously don't believe in God and it sounds like you don't believe in science, how do you explain your existence?

It can only falsify/disprove. Which is why Christianity even has any wiggle room - because it tends to assert things which are unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific - see Popper) or at least un-disprovable.

In any case, if you're putting that up as a serious scientific theory, I think you'll find Keith Richards's very continued existence has thoroughly disproved it.

Keith Richards existence has not disproved anything. For every Keith Richards there is a Kurt Cobain, a John Belushi, a Jimi Hendrix, a Janis Joplin, a John Candy, a Chris Farley, etc. Yes, there are exceptions for every rule and Keith has been luckier than most. That still doesn't negate the fact the more we sin the more unhealthy we become. Next, since you brought Keith up I was under the impression he had stopped the drinking heavily and the drugs. If he is clean and sober that means he has stopped the sin and as such the body has been able to repair itself. By once again adhering to the body's moral code, in some cases (not all) we can reclaim the years we would've lost had we continued. For instance, I have been cancer free for 12 years so now my life expectancy is the same as someone who has never had cancer.

In closing, people like you amuse me. You can't give me any facts to back up your position so you simply say, oh that's nonsense. You didn't say how my arguments were poor, they were the truth. Not one of them was false. My arguments were poor, not because they weren't valid or true but simply because you don't want to believe it. As far as them being offensive, oh well the truth often is offensive. Those who tell the truth often offend people. Jesus did. Ghandi did. King did. So I am not surprised when you say it is offensive, it is because you refuse to see what is right in front of you and you rather believe you can do whatever you want and pay no physical consequences for your actions. Well that is not the way life works.

[Blind Electric Ray]

if Science can't prove anything then Science at the same token couldn't falsify or disprove.

Actually, this is flat out wrong.

Take the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

I get in my car and drive up the M40 and I can't get anywhere near the spead of light. This is consistent with the theory, but doesn't prove it. But if I hop in my starship and zip out to Alpha Centauri and back in two years when light would take eight years to do that, then I've disproved the theory. (I know there are all sorts of relavistic complications, but it's the methodological point not the specific scientific one I'm making).

Similarly showing a good man who has a long life is consistent with, but doesn't prove, the "theory" "The more you sin, the sooner you die"

But (and assuming the Christian view of sin, which it ought to be clear I really don't share, so huge apologies to Keith Richards if he's reading this, I think he's a terrific guy in pretty much every respect and I love his guitar playing) Keith Richards has lived the unchristian lifestyle, and he's looking better than ever. So - ding - "theory" disproved.

Of course, I know you'll say it's a generalisation not a scientific theory. But then I'll say it's a daft generalisation.

Which it is.

Ray

[Kurieuo]

if Science can't prove anything then Science at the same token couldn't falsify or disprove.

Actually, this is flat out wrong.

Don't paraphrase parts of my sentences please (don't mean that in a nasty way)--just that I was dealing with an argument you made and the above seems a little misleading. Yet I don't believe your examples deal with the weight of my words, so I'll go over what my argument was more slowly:

Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the very philosophy of Science will know it can't prove anything. It can only falsify/disprove.

From these words of yours I drew the premise:
1. Science can't prove anything.

Then I added a second premises...

2. Falsifying/disproving "proves" against something.

And the conclusion based upon these premises are...

3. Therefore, Science can't falsify/disprove (as it needs to be able to prove in order to do so).

So to say science can't prove something and that science can only falsify/disprove with the same breath, is to state a contradiction. This is all I was pointing out in your partial quote of my words above. If you disagree then please point out which premise of mine above was wrong.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

Of course, I know you'll say it's a generalisation not a scientific theory. But then I'll say it's a daft generalisation.

Yes, the sentence you picked out is a generalisation, and the fallacy I believe committed was a hasty generalisation. However, did you not read the bulk of TB's post? It appears you're selectively choosing to focus on her hasty generalisation, rather than looking for the truth within the bulk of what she wrote. For example, look at each of her examples. Which one do you disagree with as increasing our health risk--anger, promiscuous sex, gluttony? Are you trying to tell us you think all these things pose no health risk?

So - ding - "theory" disproved.

I guess you do believe her above examples pose no risk to ones health. Your words here tend to show that you are very black and white with generalisations yourself. It appears to me that you have simply gone the opposite extreme to TB by ignoring any valid points in her message, so I personally don't see that you've got anything to boast about over her when it comes to hasty generalisations.

Kurieuo.

[BavarianWheels]

But (and assuming the Christian view of sin, which it ought to be clear I really don't share, so huge apologies to Keith Richards if he's reading this, I think he's a terrific guy in pretty much every respect and I love his guitar playing) Keith Richards has lived the unchristian lifestyle, and he's looking better than ever. So - ding - "theory" disproved.

Looking better than ever? Have you seen him lately...any picture in the past 40 years would do! He's looked like a walking dead man for longer than I've been alive! If that is your perception of "looking better than ever"...you may be scientifically / socially challenged.
.
.

[Blind Electric Ray]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Bav!

Don't paraphrase parts of my sentences please (don't mean that in a nasty way)

I didn't paraphrase - it was a straight lift, and it didn't alter the context. You are mistaken in what you are saying here.

Scientific theories have to be *falsifiable* to be scientific. That is the definition Karl Popper gave to a scientific theory, and I'm not aware of any disagreement over it. A scientific theory *must* be capable of disproof, but no amount of positive evidence can ever *prove* a theory, because emprical evidence is by its nature inductive, and is always susceptible to successive emprical evidence.

That the sun has always risen every day is empirical evidence for the statement "the sun rises every day", but it isn't proof of it. It doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow. The sun not rising tomorrow, however DOES disprove the scientific statement "the sun rises every day".

Kureiuo, with that I will stop getting under your skin, and leave you to what David Hume would call your "dogmatic slumbers"

Ciao

Ray

[Jac3510]

That is the definition Karl Popper gave to a scientific theory, and I'm not aware of any disagreement over it.

It certainly is the main stream idea, but it most certainly has been and still is under criticism. Whether or not that criticism is founded is for each person to decide, I guess . . .

Here is a debate, if you care to read it (I only skimmed it), in which Popper's principle is challenged as being useless. I did a few Google searches on "challenges to falsifiability" and "criticisms of falsifiability" and came up with quite a few links . . . I kept finding some references to three basic challenges, but never found out what they were specifically. Also, here's a link to a paper that states:

"From the time of its birth, Popper's theory of falsifiability has been fiercely criticized from various viewpoints."

I haven't read this paper either, but it goes on to claim the the criticisms are unfounded. I just wanted to point out that it can't be accepted as easily as all that

[Kurieuo]

Don't paraphrase parts of my sentences please (don't mean that in a nasty way)

I didn't paraphrase - it was a straight lift, and it didn't alter the context. You are mistaken in what you are saying here.

What I meant was don't quote parts of my sentences--it missed entirely what I was getting at.

Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the very philosophy of Science will know it can't prove anything. It can only falsify/disprove.

A scientific theory *must* be capable of disproof, but no amount of positive evidence can ever *prove* a theory

It seems you have seen your original mistake and transformed your words from "anything" to "scientific theory" which is perhaps a bit more acceptable (although I'm not sure I'd still be in total agreement). However, if you wish to keep with your first statement that science is unable to prove "anything," then please tell me which premises you disagree with and why in my syllogistic argument above. Either your original statement that science can't prove "anything" is wrong, or perhaps cases involving tobacco companies being successfully sued have been dealt with wrong if it isn't possbile for science to prove a link between their tobacco products and cancer.

Kureiuo, with that I will stop getting under your skin, and leave you to what David Hume would call your "dogmatic slumbers"

I'm quite fine thanks, but I just thought it might be interesting to scrutinise and place your posts under the same microscope that you placed TrueBeliever's under.

Kurieuo.

[Blind Electric Ray]

Jac
I didn't want to continue to post, but I do feel the need to say I'm aware of the debate surrounding falsifiability - it is true that Popper's theory for the development of scientific knowledge isn't generally accepted nowadays (I don't agree with it in whole either): better accounts have been given by Imre Lakatos and more importantly Thomas Kuhn which talk in terms of research programmes and degenerating paradigms (and, being more relativist, are considerably more hostile to the religious programme that Popper's). However, Popper's point about what makes a scientific theory useful is correct and hasn't been subject to criticism at all to my knowledge (and it is difficult to see how it could be - it's pretty obviously common sense when you think about it).

That is, for any theory to reliably tell you about the outside world it has to be conceptually possible that the theory could be shown to be wrong - even if in practice this never happens (because, for example, the theory is actually right). A theory which is consistent with any conceivable evidence is essentially tautological. If a theory could be consistent with any possible evidence, it has no explanatory value.

Mathematics, for example, is not science (a lot of people are surprised by this): it's a closed logical system which can't tell you anything about the outside world. For example, it's just not possible for 1+2=3 to be wrong: it is necessarily, definitionally, true. Therefore, you can't assert anything about the world using that expression alone (but you certainly can use it in conjunction with physics, biology and chemistry to).

This is a big problem religion faces: some people (like Troy) will say it is simply inconceivable that religion is wrong, and whatever evidence comes along will be interpreted to be consistent with the founding religious principle. That's fine - but it's dogma, not science.

If you are prepared to admit to scientific analysis and legitimacy, you need to phrase your beliefs in a way which can be tested: you have to agree that there are certain criteria you will accept which will undermine your theory. You should be confidence that none of these criteria will actually arise (they won't, if your theory is right).

Despite their best intentions, most "firm" Christians are just not prepared to do that. Christianity shies away from making assertions that are independently testable, and makes post facto rationalisations about those assertions it does make which are proven to be false - such as creation myth, for example. (No matter what version of creation you do believe, the literal version, in the bible, that God did it in seven days within the last ten millennia has been conclusively falsified). Yet christians will say it's allegorical, or metaphorical, or come up with all manner of other imaginative ways of "getting out of jail free" on this point.

Can you imagine Einstein, faced with a disproof of special relativity, shrugging his shoulders and saying "hey, it's a metaphor, ok?".

To an extent this is where the Lakatosian/Kuhnian accounts of scientific development come in. They're similar: Lakatos says that there is a "hard core" of theory, the falsification of which must undermine the theory (whereas falsification of the "soft shell" of ancillary hypotheses can lead to adjustment/fine tuning of the theory without it being disproved per se; and Kuhn says there is a research programme which scientists will stick with despite some contrary evidence, but there's a point at which there is so much contrary evidence that credibility can't be maintained - the
theory then becomes a "degenerating paradigm", and at this point the scientific community will reject it in favour of a better theory.

Christianity, on these terms, is a best a degenerating paradigm which should have (and by the majority of scientists, has) been rejected as an explanatory hypothesis, and is more likely just not in anyway a scientific theory at all. As I have repeatedly stressed, I respect Christian belief on that basis and don't wish to argue against it. What I am interested in doing is engaging on whether it is scientific.

A number of comments have been made in response to my posts from various christians on this site which make it clear that no evidence could satisfy them of the falsity of their beliefs. That's fine, as I say, but it simply isn't science.

Anyway, with that, I really do promise to shut up.

Look after yourselves out there.

[Blind Electric Ray]

Um, sorry, one more thing. Kureiuo, you have challenged, so I must answer.

However, if you wish to keep with your first statement that science is unable to prove "anything," then please tell me which premises you disagree with and why in my syllogistic argument above.

You'll be glad to know I do keep with the first statement. I wasn't dissembling. I disagree with your second premise:

2. Falsifying/disproving "proves" against something.

There is perhaps a unstated premise in my argument - I'm talking only about "existential" claims - that make a positive assertion about the state of the universe. Negative statements about the state of the universe - what it isn't - don't tell you anything. The statement "the moon isn't made of blue cheese", has no explanatory content, except in the context of countering the assertion "the moon is made of blue cheese" (a statement which does have explanatory content). The best a negative statment can do is remove explanatory content. That's not enough to build a metaphysic.

"There isn't a yellow petunia the size of the planet Jupiter orbiting the moon humming Offenbach's baccarole"

"I never said there was".

See what I mean?

Either your original statement that science can't prove "anything" is wrong, or perhaps cases involving tobacco companies being successfully sued have been dealt with wrong if it isn't possbile for science to prove a link between their tobacco products and cancer.

You're mistaking "proof" with "establish evidence which tends to show that". Empirical evidence is inductive, and is always subject to subsequent evidence. The possible set of evidence is infinite. Until you have it all, you can't be sure. You can never have it all. You can never prove inductively.

The tobacco cases are compelling, and they will have shown a lot of evidence that there is a link, and probably no evidence has (or will) transpired that there isn't a link, so judging on the evidence now before us (and quite possibly all the evidence we ever will have) the likelihood - the strong likelihood - the almost impossible-to-doubt likelihood, indeed - may be that the litigants' case is true.

But that doesn't mean it is impossible to doubt. (It must be, or it wouldn't be science). It may be true, but we can't know that. We haven't proven it.

This really isn't controversial.

Logically, no inductive argument can ever be a total proof. A deductive argument can be, but deductive arguments are either predicated entirely on other deductively derived truths (like mathematics) in which case they're tautological and don't tell us anything about the world, or they're predicated on inductions, which can never be proofs.

It is not possible for science to prove anything.

Even Descartes, that uber-Christian, acknowledged that:

Cogito, ergo sum.
Je pense, donc je suis.
I am thinking, therefore I exist.

The only thing beyond any doubt is my own existence as a thinking thing (a "res cogitans"), because in order to doubt, I must exist first.

The one thing we can be sure of is a pure deduction, with no explanatory value.

OK. Time for me to shut up.

[Kurieuo]

There is perhaps a unstated premise in my argument - I'm talking only about "existential" claims - that make a positive assertion about the state of the universe. Negative statements about the state of the universe - what it isn't - don't tell you anything.

Don't worry, you don't have to reply again if you don't want to as I won't be adding new content or asking questions. I did figure out what you were meaning, but just liked applying the microscope to your original words which weren't qualified . In addition, I'm all for science having its theories with the ones that get tested and falsified falling to the wayside. It seems given so much uncertainty though, that some things are wrongly given certainty to the point they are said to be proved (in the objective sense) and said to be a fact whether or not anyone believes it.

You're mistaking "proof" with "establish evidence which tends to show that". Empirical evidence is inductive, and is always subject to subsequent evidence. The possible set of evidence is infinite. Until you have it all, you can't be sure. You can never have it all. You can never prove inductively.

The way I've come to understand "proof" is that it is something that can only be subjectively given. For example, if I provide you with evidence of my existence (e.g., such as writing here) and you believe I exist on the basis of this, then I have proved to you that I exist. I think Probe demonstrate this point well. I'd agree with you that we can never have it all and have 100% objective proof, knowing something for certain whether or not others know or believe it. Actually the one thing I believe we can have 100% proof of, is that we ourselves, whatever we are, exist because we are conscious. Sorry - I said I wouldn't introduce new content, but in essence we really do agree on the whole with each other. I was just playing hard.

Anyway, I will end here so good luck with things.

Kurieuo.