Yep...Amos made the point...once you are a "True Believer" (ala Eric Hoffer), proofs pop out of the woodwork!...and I forget sometimes that rigorous philosophy needs to be presented at greater length than mere 'common sense' or "Ordinary Language" philosophy.

I simply wished to make the point that what counts as 'proof' is a slippery thing. If the clouds parted every Sunday morning and a big voice boomed down in thunder & lightning with the latest edicts, debate about "God" would be a bit different than it is. And if a 'soul' were some sort of visable thing which could be seen or measured entering a fetus at some definable moment, then abortion debates would be different too.

As it is, we can only 'believe'...a process which is very little different from 'wanting' or 'liking' or 'trusting'...In some cases,it may turn out that one's belief is correct, but in other matters, the concept of strict philosophical 'proof' is not even applicable, except in so far as it is internally consistent, given first premises.

(*sigh*..I'm afraid catspaw is right...a cuppa coffee or maybe a beer is in order....my degree has gotten me very little once I left school, realizing that they didn't NEED many Philosophers...and my epistemology is a bit rusty nowadays)

Bill D...145 hours of Philosophy and ¼ of a thesis on A.N. Whitehead...which qualifies me to stand on any soapbox I can find...*grin*