did I say they were synonyms? Because I believe you can't prove without using external biased sources that they are distinct, you assume I think they are synonyms? I made no positive statements at all regarding their definition. Just because you can't prove they are different, doesn't mean that I think they are the same. I may in fact believe they are different. But I cannot prove that to you, because at that point I would be using opinion and interpretation of external sources. You must get a degree in related field, and study it yourself. Writing your own dictionary if you will simply to prove your single fact. And then when you verbalize it, it is lost. The audience will have to do the same. And even then it's not proof, because you could have made a mistake. IF you are at all being intellectually honest, you will admit defeat and realize that you cannot prove nearly anything that you have said in this thread. IF you disagree, please prove one thing you have said. And link to it. I however have proven God's existence as an intellectual and loving creator. I cannot prove it is a christian God, but I can provide evidence that christianity caters to that type of God the most accurately.
Definitions are ultimately arbitrary, Gradyll. There’s no “proving” that x is defined as this or that, it is simply accepted as a provisional given for the purpose of formulating and communicating ideas. Dictionaries report the most common uses of different words as comprehensively as possible. But here’s the logical syllogism, just for you, because you’re committed to being wrong, obtuse, and disingenuous:
Mirage is defined as the phenomenon wherein light refracting due to atmospheric conditions creates the illusion of water or a reflective surface in the distance.
Hallucination is defined as sensory perception projected by the mind which does not correlate to any external stimulus, which the subject is not able to distinguish from perceptions that do correlate to external stimuli.
Therefore, if we accept these two definitions, mirages and hallucinations are two different things. You can bleat all day about how you might hallucinate something that looks exactly what a mirage looks like, but they are by definition two different things because of their causes.
Yes I said the definition of proof is that a said statement is factual and true, that means that because it is factual it is true. It's simpler than you define it. Something can be true without premises, it's just that it cannot be proven to you and me as true. So you don't need premises for it to be true.
You’re not really explaining anything, you’re just creating a meaningless tautology. You’re saying fact is synonymous with truth, which is synonymous with proof. You haven’t defined any path to truth, facts, or proof, and yet you say that we can have proof without facts, facts without proof, and truth without either one. You’re not wrong that we’re not able to have perfect certainty of anything in the outside world, but your explanation of why that is is incoherent. You need to stick with the formal definitions used in philosophy if you’re going to try to make logical arguments. Otherwise any meaningful conversation with you is impossible.
no evidence is not proof, as you already know. At least you should by now, know the basics.
That’s not what I asked. Are the “facts” used as “evidence” in your world “proven?”
a dictionary you cannot prove is true. You are not so good at debate are you?
See above, definitions are provisional, not proven.
here is one of dozens of times you said it:
Argument for God's existence.
Please quote and highlight it. You can’t because I never said it. Your poor reading comprehension is not my problem.
that is not what you said in the post above that I linked, also here you say "the scientific consensus is good evidence"
Argument for God's existence.
A scientific consensus is good evidence that whatever they’re agreeing on is likely the best available model of reality, whether it’s metaphysically true or not.
can you prove that science never incorporated any type of theism, and still does not? I await your reply.
If it did in the past, even that was the best available model of reality. Now, science operates on methodological naturalism, which by definition is not theistic.
logic is based on proof. But not necessarily external sourced truth, like you use. You can have internally based proof that does not rely on external sources. So, no I have not lost. But thanks for confirming yet another win for the theists.
What you’re describing is the difference between synthetic and analytical propositions, but I’m not convinced you actually understand it. You’re so invested in being able to say things like “evolution isn’t proven” truthfully that you’ve had to tailor your definitions such that the sentence itself is meaningless. That’s what I mean when I say you’re lost.