I Have Proof

[Segev Moran]

Certainly. What difference would the lack of an ability to share your proof with person X have on the validity of your statement? Of course, this assumes there is such a proof.
If Einstein had made the claim to me that "I have proof that E = MC² " and I, being incapable of understanding the proof, would render his sharing worthless. Yet his statement "I have a . . . ." would remain valid.
.

So would you say Einstein proved "E=MC2" if when asked he would say: Trust me, its like so, but i can't show it.
Please note the question was towards other person.

Obviously, a mathematical proof, like x=3 so 2x=6, is valid, but it is not "evidential" proof.
It doesn't present evidence of anything, rather proving you calculated your numbers correctly.

I Think once the question relate to another person, things are only valid when you can prove them.
So Einstein, assuming he never shared his proof of his formula, would be a person that claimed to know the "answer" but can't prove it to anyone.

 

[Skwim]

So would you say Einstein proved "E=MC2" if when asked he would say: Trust me, its like so, but i can't show it.
Please note the question was towards other person.

No it wasn't. It was directed at the validity of the statement. Take a look at the post

"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?"​

and consider just the following:

"When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if . . . . "​

The subject of the "if" clause only qualifies the object of the sentence: the validity of the statement. In other words, to rephrase:

"If one cannot share a particular claimed proof with another person, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement?
​

The validity ("truth" would be the proper term) only pertains to the statement and nothing else. If one has such a proof then the statement is "valid." If one does not have a such proof then the statement wouldn't be valid.


.


.

 

[Thief]

People are seen as individuals only when in the state of Identification, which is the state of most of mankind. When Identification is transcended via a radical transformation of consciousness, individuals are now seen as part of the Universal Self, and individual identity is seen as fiction.

"One Light, though the lamps be many"

sooooooo.......while you and I are in this ....'state'.....

you and I exist as individuals

 

[Thief]

The short answer is No,
It is not a valid statement to the other person.

Lets put that to the test:

You walk the street and someone runs to you with a cop and claims you just robbed him.
You say you didn't and maybe after some digging, the cop would like a bit of evidence that you indeed tried or did mug him.
Imagine the cop asking the person, "can you prove it somehow?" and the answer is "yes, but i can't show it".
Obviously the "evidence" is not considered evidence until evident by others

Now, From my experience, When you tell someone something, and he asks for a proof, this means he doesn't really believe your word, thus, using the "I Have the proof, count on my word" argument, is not really valid.

If it is a matter of He and She for example, and you are required to present evidence to something you claim, I would say there might be a bit of a trust issue ( Nothing serious though, not suggesting anything )

So to sum it up, a proof is only a proof if it proves something to the other person. Otherwise, it is not valid to claim you have a proof, as a proof.

.

nay.....someone people don't like their boat to be rocked
denial is a practice

I have proof....you simply refuse
you might have to rebuild all that you claim to believe

 

[godnotgod]

sooooooo.......while you and I are in this ....'state'.....

you and I exist as individuals

We only exist as individuals due to our faulty perception that we do. That perception is called 'duality', which thinks it sees 'this and that', 'you and I', 'self and other', etc., where no such distinctions actually exist in reality. This 'state' of Identification, as I pointed out, is a fictional one, in which one firmly believes in the existence of 'I', and that this 'I' is the ego that acts upon the world. This is the delusive state most humans labor under, and the drama and tragic history of the world, which is that of ever-becoming, and is the direct outcome of this delusive state.

 

[godnotgod]

nay.....someone people don't like their boat to be rocked
denial is a practice

I have proof....you simply refuse
you might have to rebuild all that you claim to believe

Actually, you might have to completely discard all belief, period.

No, you don't have proof. If your God could truly be proven, it would be a dead God. The true nature of the divine is beyond all dualities, and that includes proof and disproof. Those who merely believe can never know God, because God is beyond the machinations of the mind, and belief is always a product of mind, of thought. Divine Union, or Yoga, 'is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind', as told by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras.

 

[Thief]

We only exist as individuals due to our faulty perception that we do. That perception is called 'duality', which thinks it sees 'this and that', 'you and I', 'self and other', etc., where no such distinctions actually exist in reality. This 'state' of Identification, as I pointed out, is a fictional one, in which one firmly believes in the existence of 'I', and that this 'I' is the ego that acts upon the world. This is the delusive state most humans labor under, and the drama and tragic history of the world, which is that of ever-becoming, and is the direct outcome of this delusive state.

I bet there is more than one state between us

you over there.....myself over here

way too many means and methods making denial of your perspective

 

[Thief]

Actually, you might have to completely discard all belief, period.

No, you don't have proof. If your God could truly be proven, it would be a dead God. The true nature of the divine is beyond all dualities, and that includes proof and disproof. Those who merely believe can never know God, because God is beyond the machinations of the mind, and belief is always a product of mind, of thought. Divine Union, or Yoga, 'is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind', as told by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras.

so if I prove you are real....you are dead?

 

[godnotgod]

I bet there is more than one state between us

you over there.....myself over here

way too many means and methods making denial of your perspective

There is only one state, and that is consciousness, with variation. It is that same variation which creates the illusion of both separate states and separate bodies. In reality, there is but one consciousness, manifesting itself as you and I and as the entire Universe, playing all the parts simultaneously. Deluded perception says they are separate things; transcendence allows you to see that all is One Reality, that is to say, The Uni-verse.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

 

[godnotgod]

so if I prove you are real....you are dead?

Were God actually provable via Reason, Logic, and Analysis (ie reductionism), you would end up with a God in a jar of formaldehyde on some dusty lab shelf, because God cannot be encapsulated by any of these methods. The true nature of what you call 'God' is beyond the spheres of Reason, Logic, or Analysis. You cannot prove that 'God' either exists or not-exists by any of these methods. You can only experience God directly, and that means that these methods must be abandoned.

In addition, the nature of God is a living presence in this eternal Present Moment (not the fleeting moment of the ticking clock) which has no history or memory, as it does not exist in Space or Time. Facts and data as evidence for proof exist in the dead past, and so cannot possibly yield the desired result. The rational mind is going down the wrong path in seeking The Infinite. It is only when the rational mind is burst that The Infinite can flood in. That is the method of the koan in Zen, for example; it short-circuits the thinking mind so 'Big Mind' can then come into play.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

No it wasn't. It was directed at the validity of the statement. Take a look at the post

"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?"​

and consider just the following:

"When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if . . . . "​

The subject of the "if" clause only qualifies the object of the sentence: the validity of the statement. In other words, to rephrase:

"If one cannot share a particular claimed proof with another person, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement?
​

The validity ("truth" would be the proper term) only pertains to the statement and nothing else. If one has such a proof then the statement is "valid." If one does not have a such proof then the statement wouldn't be valid.


.


.

He is right, you are ignoring the "When making a claim to someone else" which is modifying the subject "the statement "I have Proof."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I can see some people want to address this questions by taking aspects of it out of context, and reducing it to an individual level, but the question clearly involves an interaction between people. That is its intent and that is the way it is written.

 

[Segev Moran]

No it wasn't. It was directed at the validity of the statement. Take a look at the post

"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?"​

and consider just the following:

"When making a claim to someone else, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement if . . . . "​

The subject of the "if" clause only qualifies the object of the sentence: the validity of the statement. In other words, to rephrase:

"If one cannot share a particular claimed proof with another person, is the statement "I have Proof" a valid statement?
​

The validity ("truth" would be the proper term) only pertains to the statement and nothing else. If one has such a proof then the statement is "valid." If one does not have a such proof then the statement wouldn't be valid.
.

If you talk about "I have a proof" is valid for one's self, then yes. If i have a proof that I keep for myself, it is valid... but ONLY for myself.

I Think we agree in the literal sense of the statement.
The question is, what did the poster of this thread meant when asking whether it is a valid statement. Is it valid to yourself? or is it valid to the other person.

 

[Skwim]

He is right, you are ignoring the "When making a claim to someone else" which is modifying the subject "the statement "I have Proof."

To modify means to have an affect on. In this case, the validity of of the statement "I have Proof." So, exactly how does "When making a claim to someone else" affect the validity of "I have Proof"?

I can see some people want to address this questions by taking aspects of it out of context, and reducing it to an individual level, but the question clearly involves an interaction between people. That is its intent and that is the way it is written.

Your question was:

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?​

and if this isn't addressing the validity of the statement "I have proof," then please explain, as I asked in post 59, "What difference would the lack of an ability to share your proof with person X have on the validity of your statement?"

.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

To modify means to have an affect on. In this case, the validity of of the statement "I have Proof." So, exactly how does "When making a claim to someone else" affect the validity of "I have Proof"?


Your question was:

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?​

and if this isn't addressing the validity of the statement "I have proof," then please explain, as I asked in post 59, "What difference would the lack of an ability to share your proof with person X have on the validity of your statement?"

.

You are taking things out of context. It is as simple as that, and I have no plans to go back and forth over it for the next 50 replies. The question is clearly in a context of an interaction between people. You are not focusing on the question as a whole, therefore you are not actually addressing the OP. As the writer of OP I have clarified this several times.

"
So, exactly how does "When making a claim to someone else" affect the validity of "I have Proof"?"

The semantics of this has already been discussed please go back and read it.

 

[Skwim]

You are taking things out of context. It is as simple as that, and I have no plans to go back and forth over it for the next 50 replies. The question is clearly in a context of an interaction between people. You are not focusing on the question as a whole, therefore you are not actually addressing the OP. As the writer of OP I have clarified this several times.

"
So, exactly how does "When making a claim to someone else" affect the validity of "I have Proof"?"

The semantics of this has already been discussed please go back and read it.

Okay, you simply misspoke---didn't phrase it properly. I can buy that. English isn't the easiest language to work with.


.


.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Okay, you simply misspoke---didn't phrase it properly. I can buy that. English isn't the easiest language to work with.


.


.

"English isn't the easiest language to work with."

I can tell you have problems with it.

 

[Skwim]

"English isn't the easiest language to work with."

I can tell you have problems with it.

Only with those who disregard its grammar rules, or are unaware of them. My suspicion is that you misplaced a modifier or two and can't see it.

.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Only with those who disregard its grammar rules, or are unaware of them. My suspicion is that you misplaced a modifier or two and can't see it.

.

My suspicion is that you don't read very well.

 

[Furball]

No. It is not a valid statement. Without proof, all you have is someone making a claim, and a claim without proof is a falsehood.

Person A: The sun isn't hot, I have proof.
Person B: What is your proof?
Person A: I cannot share this proof with you.
Person B: Then you're lying. Or delusional. One of the other. Or both.