Should we believe only in those things for which there is evidence?

[Gadarene]

There are some things that one will need to necessarily accept in order to function - to avoid solipsism for example.

Given that, in a typical situation, could you be wrong if you think something doesn't exist and you just don't have evidence for it yet? Of course. But that's still what most people do. There are any number of hypothetical entities that could exist, but it is all rather moot until we have some observations that can support it. It strikes me as entirely sensible, otherwise we would be inundated in our thinking and planning with how we should react to a potentially limitless number of possibly existent entities.

Of course, people like the OP do this all the time too - they just want an exception made for their pet posited entity/deity, which I see no reason to grant.

 

[Gadarene]

Everybody ‘believes’.

Well regurgitated, have a gold star.

Post the link next time, or attempt to have an independent thought of your own perhaps.

Make believe knowledge

You may also want to familiarise yourself with this part of the rules:

● Members shall not make posts which violate the copyrights of others or promote another work as your own. Quoted portions of any work, with in reason, must not exceed 20% of the total work. Materials owned by the Associated Press shall not be quoted using more than one sentence. All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the web page from which it was taken.

 

[sandwiches]

There are plenty of evidences. For example, many people believe in it. Is that an evidence?

Would the amount of people who believe something be enough evidence for you?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Would the amount of people who believe something be enough evidence for you?

A consensus?

 

[crimsonleaf]

We would do well to mark the difference between "evidence" and "proof".

People will often say the "the evidence speaks for itself". This is rarely, if ever, true. The evidence lends weight to an individual's presuppositions. One man's naturally occurring Frankenstorm is another man's "judgement upon Gays" (yes, I have heard it said). Evidence only becomes proof in the mind of the individual.

When it comes to evidence for belief I would argue that there is plenty, just that it cannot be measured externally and is therefore disregarded by some. The majority of the world's population believes in a supreme being or beings.

So, is there evidence for God? Yes, plenty. But there are those who cannot recognise it. Is there proof of God's existence? No, not in the mind of the unbeliever.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is there proof of God's existence? No, not in the mind of the unbeliever.

Nor anywhere.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Surely evidence in general, affords us the capacity to believe in faith

or is all the evidence in the world, still worthless?

 

[juvenissun]

Would the amount of people who believe something be enough evidence for you?

If I agreed, then yes. If I don't agree, then no.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. Remarkably poor, bordering on irrelevant evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

That is what YOU think. You might be so ignorant that you do not even see a big flag waving in front of you.

Why is the falling apple not an evidence of gravity for thousands of scholars before Newton?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why is the falling apple not an evidence of gravity for thousands of scholars before Newton?

It was. Scientists had been aware of some intangible force for centuries. Newton was the first to quantify it and make a working model, which was later encompassed in Einsteinian physics.

Meanwhile, theists can't even come up with a coherent definition of 'god', let alone a workable epistemology. There's barely even anything to consider.

 

[bricklayer]

I should be careful to never say that "I believe" a thing.

To me, intellectually, nothing is really ever proven. It's just that all of the other ideas that I have considered have been disproven. What remains is what I am left to believe. Then, that is tested, and so on and so on.

I should be careful to always say that "I am left to believe" a thing.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

That is what YOU think. You might be so ignorant that you do not even see a big flag waving in front of you.

Is this the way you interact with people in real life? Ask a group of people a question, and then insult the only person that bothers to reply?

Yes, that is obviously what I think. If I didn't think it, I wouldn't say it. And yes, I may be that ignorant. But I'm not seeing anything to suggest you're any less ignorant, really.

Why is the falling apple not an evidence of gravity for thousands of scholars before Newton?

It was. Why would it not be?

 

[Davian]

There are plenty of evidences. For example, many people believe in it. Is that an evidence?

Very weak evidence. Without corroborating evidence, particularly scientifically testable evidence, it would be dismissed as an appeal to popularity.

 

[Davian]

A consensus?

There are no signs of a scientific consensus.

Do you mean a consensus of opinion? Like, ice cream is a better dessert food that potato salad?

 

[Davian]

We would do well to mark the difference between "evidence" and "proof".

People will often say the "the evidence speaks for itself". This is rarely, if ever, true. The evidence lends weight to an individual's presuppositions. One man's naturally occurring Frankenstorm is another man's "judgement upon Gays" (yes, I have heard it said). Evidence only becomes proof in the mind of the individual.

When it comes to evidence for belief I would argue that there is plenty, just that it cannot be measured externally and is therefore disregarded by some. The majority of the world's population believes in a supreme being or beings.

So, is there evidence for God? Yes, plenty. But there are those who cannot recognise it. Is there proof of God's existence? No, not in the mind of the unbeliever.

There is also evidence that religion is a by-product of human evolution, that it had adaptive value in our past.

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No actual deites required.

 

[Davian]

Surely evidence in general, affords us the capacity to believe in faith

or is all the evidence in the world, still worthless?

Why is faith required, when you have "all the evidence in the world"?

 

[juvenissun]

Very weak evidence. Without corroborating evidence, particularly scientifically testable evidence, it would be dismissed as an appeal to popularity.

It would depend on the sample of your "population".

 

[juvenissun]

I should be careful to never say that "I believe" a thing.

To me, intellectually, nothing is really ever proven. It's just that all of the other ideas that I have considered have been disproven. What remains is what I am left to believe. Then, that is tested, and so on and so on.

I should be careful to always say that "I am left to believe" a thing.

Ha ha ... If you could not prove anything, how could you disprove anything?

Nothing will be "left". They are all there. You adopt an evidence you like and you go with that. It take a great wisdom to be able to stick with such an evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

Is this the way you interact with people in real life? Ask a group of people a question, and then insult the only person that bothers to reply?

Yes, that is obviously what I think. If I didn't think it, I wouldn't say it. And yes, I may be that ignorant. But I'm not seeing anything to suggest you're any less ignorant, really.



It was. Why would it not be?

Be strong. No one is trying to insult you. That is how a good discussion should be.

 

[juvenissun]

It was. Scientists had been aware of some intangible force for centuries. Newton was the first to quantify it and make a working model, which was later encompassed in Einsteinian physics.

Meanwhile, theists can't even come up with a coherent definition of 'god', let alone a workable epistemology. There's barely even anything to consider.

If so, why was the concept of gravity not known much earlier? If they do not know what gravity is, how could they see any evidence of it, even the evidence is right in front of their eyes

Define God? You must be kidding. You don't even know what God is.