>>17473040> objective proofThis is going to sound like a cop-out; unless you know what I'm talking about in which case it isn't...
... there is difference between "evidence" and "proof". Evidence is an objective collection of data which allows for a certain repeatable conclusion. In other words...it is transferrable.
"proof" is more an individual thing. It is possible to have "proof" which completely satisfies a conclusion; while not being sufficient "evidence" to prove to others.
A real world example... you come home from work and find your wife having sex with the next door neighbor. You go out and file for divorce. Both she and the neighbor deny it. You have no "evidence", but you still have enough "proof" to satisfy yourself.
As it applies to religion; proof would (potentially) deny the free will of others. So, while a human may have a lifetime of proof for the existence of God; that's not the same as having evidence that he can use to convince his neighbors.
I've found that in the end, it comes down to a transaction of trust. How willing a person is to believe the testimony of others is directly proportional to how much their opinion, and reputation, is valued.
