So it's almost the end of 2024 and many of us are still in the "New Atheist Movement" mindset (not dissing on atheism, just the movement).
I was in a conversation with someone recently and it made me think of the title question. We had an adventure in philosophy. The person said they were from Pitcairn, as in the country known as Pitcairn, the one with only fifty people living in it. I naturally responded with "uhhh yeah that's going to be a big pill to swallow."
"Where are you from" the person asked?
"I'm from so-and-so."
"Oh, that one village in the Southern US with only forty citizens? I'm going to take a while to register that."
"But you said you were from an island."
"Literally the only difference between where you're from and where I'm from is it's surrounded by water. Does the water affect the odds?"
The message she was getting across seemed clear. "Proof" is relative.
At another point, we spoke about religion.
"Can you prove Jesus existed?"
"No. Can you prove Genghis Khan existed?"
"No, but Jesus made some high claims."
"And look at what people said about Genghis Khan who was said to conquer a whole continent."
At one point, we spoke about God.
"Can you prove God exists?"
"Well... have you ever heard of the church of Google? Is it impossible for something to be considered a true god? Are some things not based on proof but rather criteria?"
"So basically you're saying anything can be a god if you try hard enough?"
We also spoke of dating at one point.
"You got these guys who say 'pics or it didn't happen' but here I am, belonging to a subgroup of humanity that consists of approximately fifty percent of the population if not more, and suddenly I'm held in suspicion because the demographic of the specific community I was in had my subgroup of humanity slightly outnumbered, yet you can say you have something rare like ELS syndrome and people take your word. Go to Lemmy and ask what separates a claim that calls for proof from a claim more fitting in peoples' minds to take their word for it."
"Maybe don't make claims then."
"Why not? On the world's largest source of knowledge I can't make descriptors?"
"I tend to think peoples' definitions of claims-that-need-proof to be subjective."
"Hence why you should ask. But... does each individual have a consistent sense of it? Can they describe in words why claim A can be taken in their mind as is while claim B requires proof? And while some will say it's a matter of knowing someone and trusting them, if someone came running through Walmart saying 'run for your lives, there's a bad entity on the loose', I'm sure people would panic even though they have no proof of anything."
So I'm asking you. What separates them?
Intent matters.
Do you want to claim you found master of the universe? You better have evidence of the cosmological constants that are the building blocks of the entire universe.
No religion on Earth has ever possessed ontological knowledge prior to the scientific discoveries of these fundamental building blocks. These are the true signature of origin. Every bit of information contained within religions can be explained by direct human observation and meddling. It would be very easy to prove divinity by relating such ontological information.
In terms of history, it is always written by the winner. The accuracy is only found in aggregate.
The best times to live are the times when there was nothing of note. The worst times to live are always eras with memorable names of individuals. Only the worst of humans stand out from the fray and plaster themselves on the wall of history. To say Genghis Khan did not exist is not a measuring of the man, but a fool that claims the giant shit stain on the wall does not stink.