Have you used that on an atheist? Maybe a theist? It works equally well with both ;)

Proof often is just that...whatever is convincing enough, becomes proof enough, becomes the defining element in the outcome.

Look at the O.J. Simpson case...If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. Well, the prosecutors proved he owned those exact same gloves in the exact same size...but since they didn't fit, it was considered proof (enough) and that was one of the biggest elements that swung the jury to his favor. Everything else is history.

Some say perception is 95% reality whether it is or not!

You do this thing where you quote yourself. That's beyond explanation.

I have to use an example on this, this is how i best explain things.

To use unconvincing 'proof' no one would believe it. Proof is really just showing you something that is evident in simple terms, if you don't do it simply it'll be just as confusing to those you seek to prove it to as the lack of evidence was. The example would be how a lie detector test, might be proof but it is unconvincing proof, and not very likely to sway a court room with doubts, especially if their is video footage also available. Proof that exists that is more convincing that the previous proof.

“Proof consists merely of what is convincing ” ~atypican

And what is convincing is often not any proof at all, but merely what is popular.

I hella agree with that quote. I feel strongly om logic and proof. .