I am trying to get an idea of evidence for proving how we know how things are as they seem. Just stating that to try to stay on track.

Maybe rewording the question may help too. How do we prove philosophy in general? People have thoughts and opinions, but is there any way to prove most philosophy topics (opinions). I am working on seeing where the flaws are in philosophy and trying to change it. Regardless, evidence is one of the biggest hurdle for discovery within philosophy in my opinion.

Getting more specific to what 'I like sushi" said.
People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson state ideas of which is that experience alone isnt proof enough with sciences like biology, chemistry, and physics because each experience is subjective. You can believe experiences say one thing when they could in fact say another. An example he gave is that when many people come back from death they see bright lights. He claimed that this could be because of where the person is at, in a hospital ER (or hospital in general). There are reasons for what people say they experience, but getting down to the root of reason can nearly be impossible with finding out when it comes to all experiences.

I do agree with the logical principles and will have to check out the resources mentioned. When you being up this chess example, I would like to elaborate on my thoughts. Chess yes, is very logically based and it typically behaves with what move is the best (or most correct) move. There are possibilities even within chess that dont have any "good" moves (as you get towards the end game), or possibilities like there being more than one "great" move. If you compare this to life, these are the moments in life that I feel matters most.

Have you ever heard of the choice between a lesser evil? That is what I am getting at here today. Those situations that are not always easy to determine whether they are true or false (or correct / incorrect) so these situations seem to matters most in my eyes. These choices are what show to others what is important to you (i.e. when you have to make morally harder choices). While I like the chess example, I feel life behaves more complex then chess can (more possibilities. Also, more then just one thing is being done like in chess. In chess, you're only playing chess).

I do like how you viewed everything though "I like Sushi". Especially the last paragraph. It is why I am not fond of the quote "beyond a reasonable doubt" in politics. Truly, nobody can be beyond a reasonable doubt, but we can make an informed decision and consider the odds. That is partly why humans are intelligent species. We are able to comb through the possibilities (some are better at it than others) and decide what is the "most correct" choice. It is pretty cool in my opinion.

Lastly, Gregory! Thank you for commenting! If I understand you right, I don't think it is as simple as uses our senses to prove things, as I mentioned above, however in order to have ways to gain scientific evidence, those ways of proving is because of experience too. I feel like there can be an underlying contradiction when it comes to a lot of philosophy, let's be real.

Thank you all for the thoughts and I will check out the resources mentioned! Thank you all!

You are right. Life is always contradicting. You can love and hate someone for instance. I'll read that resource, thanks.

I'll check it out, thank you. What did you like/dislike about the resource?