Judges assume that facts stated in a probable cause affidavit are true unless the affidavit gives reason to believe otherwise, but if a fact turns out not to be true, that doesn't negate the existence of probable cause.  I'm not sure what you mean by "AND serve as evidence."

Ummm...no.  Probable cause exists if the evidence makes it more likely than not that whatever is alleged (e.g., that Person X committed a crime or that certain evidence may be found in a particular location) is true.  In other words, "truth" is not part of the equation to arrive at probable cause.  Moreover, no one is searching for absolute truth.  To paraphrase Indiana Jones, if it's truth you're interested in, check out the philosophy class right down the hall.

One does not "prove probability."  Since probability means "more likely than not," the notion of proving probability is an oxymoron.  Also, investigating suspicion is probably the biggest reason why a law enforcement officer may need a search warrant.

People's lives are always possibly in mortal danger, so that's a really silly point.  That said, if there is an legitimate likelihood of harm, judges will often issue warrants on less evidence than otherwise might be required if that likelihood didn't exist.  However, mere suspicion never justifies a finding of probable cause.

You ignored the questions I asked in my prior response.  That's unfortunate.