Is it correct to say proof

[mcteague]

I notice that a number if threads here us the term proof. Can homosexuality be proved wrong? What is your favorite proof of God? etc.
Is it really correct to use the term proof for the kinds of philosophical issues normally discussed here. Are these the kinds of things that can really be proved. Shouldn’t we say instead “can it be successfully argued” or “can we reasonably conclude”, or “can a valid arguement be made”.

I ask not because I am a Fowler junkie, but rather because I automatically convert philosophical statements, especially metaphysical ones, using the term proof to less certain language. For example one really can not prove Gods existence, but you could make a reasonable argument that God does.
I have just assumed that people were using the term in an imprecise manner. But it is possible that people here do believe that metaphysical issues can be proved in the same way Fermats last theorem has been. That would indicate a strong difference in the way we approach these subjects. So I would like some clarification on what people here think can be proved. Thank you

 

[JohnDamian]

There is more proof for Gods (in general) existence, unicity, consciousness and act of creation than there is for mine or your existence;

A proof is where something is certain; and a person would have to be a fool or uninformed to feel otherwise.

 

[mcteague]

There is more proof for Gods (in general) existence, unicity, consciousness and act of creation than there is for mine or your existence;

A proof is where something is certain; and a person would have to be a fool or uninformed to feel otherwise.

I did not intend my post as an argument against Gods existence. Merely as an inquiry over correct terminolgy. I am perfectly satisfied to let people believe what they want. Surely you really mean there is more evidence, not there is more proof. The question, “do you believe in God?” is rather common usage. Suggesting that proof is the wrong term. You would never ask, do you believe 1+1=2, or do you believe in shoes.
When I read a post like “can homosexuality be proved wrong from natural law” I think about the terminology. Think about the term believe, know, and prove. They have different meaning and should not be used interchangeably. That does not mean that one beliefs, or what one knows is to be dismissed. But can these things be proved in the same way as a mathematical or scientific statement? It just seems like bad terminology

 

[JohnDamian]

There is a distinction in quality between evidence and proof; evidence supports a conclusion; wheras proof compels it.

Well; it is certain to myself that the existence of God has proof; wheras the violation of Natural Law of Homosexuality only has evidence.

 

[Apollos]

Can homosexuality be proved wrong? … Is it really correct to use the term proof for the kinds of philosophical issues normally discussed here. Are these the kinds of things that can really be proved. Shouldn’t we say instead “can it be successfully argued” or “can we reasonably conclude”, or “can a valid arguement be made”. … For example one really can not prove Gods existence, but you could make a reasonable argument that God does.

Yes, it can be, and has been. I don’t have a polished demonstration at hand, but judging from your philosophical sophistication (which is hard to say while drunk!) I’ll just refer you to ST II-II.154.11-12 & SCG III.122, online somewhere, that with little stitching together and a little massaging should do the trick.

An argument is a proof when its conclusion is necessary; if there are any necessary philosophical conclusions then there must be philosophical proofs. The question then is whether you have the temerity to admit the truth of the premises.

And where did you get the idea that the existence of God cannot be proved? We already know with dogmatic certainty that reason can infer it (cf. Romans 1 & Vatican I); Aquinas’ proofs are the most likely candidates.

 

[awatkins69]

There is a distinction in quality between evidence and proof; evidence supports a conclusion; wheras proof compels it.

Well; it is certain to myself that the existence of God has proof; wheras the violation of Natural Law of Homosexuality only has evidence.

John gave a good, clear distinction between proof and evidence. That’s basically it.

I would only disagree about whether the existence of God has proof. I think there is strong evidence.