OraProNobis wrote:For those who refuse to open their hearts, minds, and eyes, no proof will suffice.
Perhaps you have been given proof, in a spiritual way at some point in your journey of life at1with0 , and for some reason we are not privy to, or that you yourself ,do not understand , you are refusing to acknowledge it.
My heartfelt prayer for you is that you open your heart and your mind to The Holy Trinity, and ask that you be lead to the TRUTH , and to the will of the heavenly Father, and His Son, Jesus for the remainder of your life.
What can I say? I'll attempt to provide my opinions here in the hope that I don't leave anything out.
True proof is objective and not subject to frail human modes of self-conviction or self-convincing. For those who let themselves be owned by their biases, no amount of convincing will suffice, yes. That goes for everyone reading this be they Christian, Agnostic, Pantheist, or what not.
True proof may not be known as such because of how arbitrarily one can define a true proof. A logician might define a true proof to be a sequence of statements with the important property that each statement in the sequence of statements, in some sense, follows
from the preceding statements. How one defines "follows from" perhaps is the crux of the matter. "Socrates is a man" some might say follows from
the statement "All men are mortal and Socrates is a man." (This is merely an application of a variant of the logical rule of inference known as modus ponens.)
A true proof in other avenues of thought is, of course, not going to be exactly the same as a logician's definition of true proof which I point out just to add evidence to the statement that one's definition of a true proof is somewhat arbitrary.
Given the arbitrariness
of what constitutes a true proof, there is no ultimately true proof.
This principle is not just valid in math but in science, the courtroom, the court of public opinion, and in philosophy and theology. Different kinds of evidence will confirm or not confirm a proposition in different fields. Asking someone to defend the existence of God or prove God exists will lead to the question of "prove according to whom?" The arbitrary nature of true proof leads to quite the conundrum.
As a slight diversion, the reader may find this site entertaining, especially if they've seen someone really believe they have proved anything with any of these tacticshttp://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Proof
So it all comes down to what is convincing and what fails to convince. For me, it started with a dream. I was an agnostic and prayed anyway. I prayed that God would reveal itself to me. The God that did turned out to be a pantheist's God. I've had many semi-peak moments and a few full-blown peak moments that convinced me that God, whether I understood it or not as such, existed in some form or another. It took a while to figure out how to make this not a contradiction, to figure out how to put my perception