So basically, we agree. In theoretical terms, something can be absolute and proven, but not in the real world. Your question itself is somewhat based off of the interpretation of a words definition in a real world application. As such, when the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is subtracted, Absolutes may only exist in theoretical planes and therefore prrof as well. A real world application of Proof is non-existant.

Because you come across as way too confident in yourself. Its just a touch annoying. Makes us wish to dispute you. That and no one really seems to care that much about the debate overall or on your side other than yourself and the one above you on this side of the argument.

Although I dont directly mean to speak for everyone, I feel compelled to say We, by the way. If you dont share my opinion, then fine. I apologize. But Im keeping we(laughs).

Also, I personally feel as though when you say Proof consists of what is convincing, that seems Far too broad of an inclusion. Thats to say, under your terms, in a court case, a man is accused of rape. Because the woman who is supposedly the victim declares him to be the perpetrator and the state proves that the man was there that night because his fingerprints were there and his shoes were recently covered in oil but the defense has no evidence whatsoever, The man is "Proven" to be a rapist by the court. Is this what you refer to? For that seems, again, FAR too broad an inclusion for some sort of Proof.

Lastly, look at your title. Right off the bat, you either take one side or the other based off of your interpretation of prrof. I personally Think Zombee is more right than you are. But hey, thats me.

Youre Argument against the ABC Argument is only ascertains to the set of Surface area values. ONLY. If you were to incorporate the volume of them as well, then potentially C>B>A. Thats why its hard to use theory to prove the idea of proof. You have to more or less use Scientific method to realize the existence and effectiveness of Scientific Method. Its tough.

Evidence is not proof and never will be.

You make the statement in your argument that enough evidence that is considered conclusive is proof. Yes, but that is a human-developed system, not science. In the Real World, Absolute Proof in true definition cannot be achieved. I make the same argument somewhere below near the bottom of this argument.

Something that is irrefutable?

A=A Boom. Red=Red. 9-9=0.

Exactly. Proof Must be exactly what it strives to do. Prove. Otherwise its just quite a bit of evidence infinitely alluring to a conclusion of correctness. However, Proof only truly exists in exact values and can never be achieved in a real world situation, only evidenced. What we call proof in the real world allures to an absolute value, which is impossible to achieve in the real world. Only The Mathematical systems that you, Atypican, allow for absolutes, like the argument that Zombee put forth about A>B>C, A>C. Even then, the theory postulated could be destroyed by the supersition of a new, more encompassing argument that would, again, be accepted as Good enough, but its all theory. Not Proof. Infinitely evidenced Theory.

I agree entirely with Zombee. The argument against yours, that being essentially what Zombee has put forth, is something that has been around for uite a while. Why do you think that Einstein's THEORY of Relativity has remained with such a name? Because although just about everyone agrees with it, it still cannot be PROVED, only infinitely evidenced further and further. Mathematics and science both cede to this idea, but you, the one who uses them to back up your claim to begin with, do not. Not to be insulting or anything, just trying to break your base.