"Proof", as the term is used in formal systems, is a verb, not a noun. It is a decision that the evidence meets some burden of proof. That decision is personal. That threshold is different for each person. That is why our court systems are designed that way, to set a burden of proof, and then ask each member of the Jury to decide for themselves if the evidence presented meets that burden. It is a personal choice.

It is impossible to ever prove anything, because it is a personal decision. Evidence is all that can ever be presented. A case is made with evidence. If you choose to say that the evidence does not meet a certain burden of proof for you, I totally respect that. Suggesting there is "no evidence" however is false. As long as you can admit there is evidence, then I'm good with that. If you can further admit that some of it is pretty good, that would make me happy. :)

Not that I need to be happy about this. But some of it is pretty good.

"Proof", as the term is used in formal systems, is a verb, not a noun. It is a decision that the evidence meets some burden of proof. That decision is personal. That threshold is different for each person. That is why our court systems are designed that way, to set a burden of proof, and then ask each member of the Jury to decide for themselves if the evidence presented meets that burden. It is a personal choice.

Evidence is all that can ever be presented. A case is made with evidence. If you choose to say that the evidence does not meet a certain burden of proof for you, I totally respect that. Suggesting there is "no evidence" however is false. As long as you can admit there is evidence, then I'm good with that. If you can further admit that some of it is pretty good, that would make me happy. :)

Not that I need to be happy about this. But some of it is pretty good.