One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof.

You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception.

The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable.

Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured)

Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise.

There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers.

But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar.
Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal)

As soon as you admit the criteria of …
– deception and fraud
– incentive
– cost
– warranty
…. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.