Proof is a term we hear often—especially in conversations about belief, God, religion, and truth. But there’s something about proof that may not make it as definitive as we think. My contention is this: proof requires consensus.

​

Let me put that another way. The person to whom you’re demonstrating proof must be willing to accept what you’re offering as proof—otherwise, it doesn’t function as proof in that instance.

​

Sounds strange, right? But let’s take a deeper look.

​

Can you prove to me that 2 + 2 = 4? Sure you can. But now imagine trying to prove that to someone who has no knowledge of the decimal numbering system. You might start by demonstrating what “1” is—maybe by holding up a single object. But what if they respond, “Okay, I see that—but can you prove to me that this is 1?”

​

Now what?

​

You can’t prove “1” to someone who has no conceptual framework to accept it. Proof, in that moment, fails—not because the proposition is false, but because the recipient lacks the foundation to recognize it as true.

​

Let’s return to 2 + 2 = 4. If I say, “I accept that as proof,” then you’ve proven it—to me. But if I reject it, then in that instance, you haven’t proven it. You may take the equation elsewhere, present it to others, and receive consensus—and therefore, proof. But as long as I deny what you offer, the proof doesn’t land.

​

Proof requires consensus.

​

This idea has profound implications for belief. If someone accepts a religious experience as proof of God, it functions as proof—for them. But if another person rejects that experience as insufficient or subjective, then it fails to prove anything in that context. Proof, then, is not just about evidence—it’s about shared frameworks, mutual recognition, and the willingness to accept.

​

And that’s why belief—and especially faith—can be so polarizing. It operates outside the bounds of consensus. It asks us to accept without proof, and sometimes, without even the possibility of proof.