Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Belief without proof?

a_drumming_dog
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?

Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?
The truth will set you free
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:12:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?
Yes, just don't expect me to believe it or try too hard to convince me that I should (a little bit of convincing is ok)


Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?
Depends on what it is and whether it's useful for me to believe it.
If it makes no difference to my life then no.
If believing it makes it easy to derive predictions about the world that I can act on to positively impact my life and the lives of those around me then yes
Pynoretta
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:40:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?

Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?

With respect, I do not believe you are asking the right question DD, to believe in something without evidence is a hallmark of humanity. (now I'm not saying it's a good one but it has it's good points.) The important question is; what do you do with that belief once you have it. Do you use it to serve humanity or yourself. Also, if evidence does exist, it doesn't mean people won't still turn a blind eye to it and believe as they chose to any how. Think of the idea of "race", science has recently proved it to be a myth, an idea we as human beings created, yet most people accept "race" as a scientific fact.
My mother is adventure and my father is the wild.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:34:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?

Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?

Yes.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:46:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?

Don't know. A priori it is more likely for something to not exist than to exist, so you need at least some positive reasons for accepting existance.

Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?

Your confidence in it's existance would have greater standing than if you didn't have it, that's for sure.

For example black holes are unobservable, but we can be pretty confident they exist due to observed effects of their presence which is precisely in line with what we expect if they existed.

It could always be the case black holes really don't exist and that they are just some spacetime ripple or something, such is the epistemic problem.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 9:25:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?

Yes, since that's exactly what *belief* entails/is.

Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?

Probably not. It'd depend on the amount of faith I've invested into that belief.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
AngelofDeath
Posts: 2,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 9:35:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?
What do you mean by solid evidence? For example, seeing it?
Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?
I believe there is air. There is a lot of indirect evidence, such as science, or seemingly empty plastic bags, but if i cant physically see air, does that mean i shouldnt believe?
I may or may not be a cat
sweet-t115
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 4:44:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes to both questions. Belief without proof is faith. The things I have faith in are heavily tied to intuition. in my experiences intuition has proven to be very reliable. I think waaaay to many things have been assumed because of LACK of proof. First off, so called facts and "proof" of things is trustworthy. I do not persona the scientists/scholars/doctors that "prove" things, but I do know that there are plenty of agendas that heavily influence the outcomes and information released to the public. unpopular theories are shunned if they do not fit in with mainstream thought. On the other hand I do know myself and I trust my own intuition as I believe it is a built in tool that can automatically evaluate information in my subconscious mind, giving me answers I don't consciously have. to me my faith is heavily tied to my intuition. I trust myself before I trust. these sources who may be hiding or distorting information, as it has done before. if you ever take philosophy 111/logic 101 you will find logic is not always as reasonable as ior accurate as it seems..
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 6:50:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?

Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?

It doesn't really make a difference if your evidence is direct or indirect, the question is whether it is valid and whether the strength of the belief you hold is proportionate to the strength of the evidence for it.

If the thing you believe exists affects your lifestyle, like for example dictating what you do with your Sunday's off, then you would need some pretty strong evidence to justify that.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 4:05:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?

Subjective belief, yes. Objective belief, absolutely not. That's a sign of insanity.


Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?

I don't think indirect evidence exists. How we perceive our observations and experiences is subjective. Evidence is objective. Hence why belief can only be an opinion. Even if an individual belief is in fact true, if one has no way of knowing, it only becomes knowledge when it is proven using evidence. Evidence gathered through accurate and repeatable experimentation.
To believe is to know nothing.
Student4Life1975
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 4:28:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2014 12:48:36 AM, a_drumming_dog wrote:
Would you consider it okay to believe something exists without solid objective evidence of its existence?

Would you believe in that thing if there was a lot of indirect evidence of it, but not any objective evidence?

We all believe in things without solid objective evidence. The catch is, some things have more evidence than other things. Even something that has little evidence has more credibility than something with no evidence. It's higher up on the scale so to speak, and thats what seperates it in the end.
there is no progress without compromise"