Total Posts:185|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do you need proof to believe

sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 9:58:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do you need proof to believe or is evidence enough?

If you witness Jack chasing John into a room with a knife, then Jack comes out with a bloody knife. There is evidence that Jack murdered John, but theres no proof. Can you say beyond reasonable doubt that Jack is guilty.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 10:03:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 9:58:47 AM, sal wrote:
Do you need proof to believe or is evidence enough?

If you witness Jack chasing John into a room with a knife, then Jack comes out with a bloody knife. There is evidence that Jack murdered John, but theres no proof. Can you say beyond reasonable doubt that Jack is guilty.

Is there a body?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 10:08:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 10:04:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Knife can be tested for blood.

There is a body and the blood can be tested, thats evidence not proof.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 10:19:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 10:08:02 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:04:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Knife can be tested for blood.

There is a body and the blood can be tested, thats evidence not proof.

Is there any other way in or out of the room? Where Jack & John the only one's in the room?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:25:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.

Proof is no other possibility, evidence can have another explanation.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:27:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 10:19:07 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:08:02 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:04:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Knife can be tested for blood.

There is a body and the blood can be tested, thats evidence not proof.

Is there any other way in or out of the room? Where Jack & John the only one's in the room?

No other entrance and no one else is in the room.
Why are you avoiding answering the question?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:28:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:25:55 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.

Proof is no other possibility, evidence can have another explanation.

Blood on the knife match victims blood? Yes
Murderers fingerprints on the knife? yes
Wound size match the knife? Yes
Traces of the murderer on the vitim? Yes

There's enough evidence there to prove he killed him. What Tkubok.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:28:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:28:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:25:55 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.

Proof is no other possibility, evidence can have another explanation.

Blood on the knife match victims blood? Yes
Murderers fingerprints on the knife? yes
Wound size match the knife? Yes
Traces of the murderer on the vitim? Yes

There's enough evidence there to prove he killed him. What Tkubok said.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:32:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:27:24 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:19:07 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:08:02 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:04:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Knife can be tested for blood.

There is a body and the blood can be tested, thats evidence not proof.

Is there any other way in or out of the room? Where Jack & John the only one's in the room?

No other entrance and no one else is in the room.
Why are you avoiding answering the question?

Whats your obsesion with saying people are avoiding answering questions?
Most questions need to be explained thoroughly along with the answers. Its not avoiding its you did not give enough information.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:34:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:28:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:25:55 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.

Proof is no other possibility, evidence can have another explanation.

Blood on the knife match victims blood? Yes
Murderers fingerprints on the knife? yes
Wound size match the knife? Yes
Traces of the murderer on the vitim? Yes

There's enough evidence there to prove he killed him. What Tkubok.

Evidence Yes.
Proof No.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:35:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:25:55 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.

Proof is no other possibility, evidence can have another explanation.

You are using a definition of the term 'proof' that is absurd and useless. It's impossible to prove anything to 100% certainty.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:37:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:32:42 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:27:24 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:19:07 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:08:02 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:04:30 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Knife can be tested for blood.

There is a body and the blood can be tested, thats evidence not proof.

Is there any other way in or out of the room? Where Jack & John the only one's in the room?

No other entrance and no one else is in the room.
Why are you avoiding answering the question?

Whats your obsesion with saying people are avoiding answering questions?
Most questions need to be explained thoroughly along with the answers. Its not avoiding its you did not give enough information.

Its avoiding answering my point.
Is evidence enough to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt?
The exact details of my example are not necessary.
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:38:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:35:32 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:25:55 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.

Proof is no other possibility, evidence can have another explanation.

You are using a definition of the term 'proof' that is absurd and useless. It's impossible to prove anything to 100% certainty.

Will you still lock the guy up without 100% certainty?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:41:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:38:25 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:35:32 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:25:55 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.

Proof is no other possibility, evidence can have another explanation.

You are using a definition of the term 'proof' that is absurd and useless. It's impossible to prove anything to 100% certainty.

Will you still lock the guy up without 100% certainty?

Ya, because if you needed 100% certainty then nobody would ever go to jail. As others have said, proof in the context you're referring to does not mean 100% certainty, it means enough evidence to elominate reasonable doubt.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:45:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:41:20 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:38:25 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:35:32 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:25:55 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 10:44:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
No no. Youre mistaking the difference between proof and evidence.

Proof is a term that exists only in mathematics. In general terms, though, proof IS a substantial amount of evidence. So if you have enough evidence, it becomes proof.

Proof is no other possibility, evidence can have another explanation.

You are using a definition of the term 'proof' that is absurd and useless. It's impossible to prove anything to 100% certainty.

Will you still lock the guy up without 100% certainty?

Ya, because if you needed 100% certainty then nobody would ever go to jail. As others have said, proof in the context you're referring to does not mean 100% certainty, it means enough evidence to elominate reasonable doubt.

So are you saying its logical to say something when theres no proof/100% certainty.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:48:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
sal wrote:
So are you saying its logical to say something when theres no proof/100% certainty.

Yes, because there IS proof. Just not 100% certainty.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 11:51:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:48:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
sal wrote:
So are you saying its logical to say something when theres no proof/100% certainty.

Yes, because there IS proof. Just not 100% certainty.

Then you consider evidence proof, even if there can be another explanation and its logical to say something without 100% certainty.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:05:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:51:22 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:48:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
sal wrote:
So are you saying its logical to say something when theres no proof/100% certainty.

Yes, because there IS proof. Just not 100% certainty.

Then you consider evidence proof, even if there can be another explanation and its logical to say something without 100% certainty.

I don't consider evidence proof, evidence IS proof. In the context you're using all proof means is: evidence that eliminates reasonable doubt. Proof =/= 100% certainty.

Saying something with 100% certainty is the exact opposite of logic. Just because there CAN be another explanation does not make it logical to assume there is one.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:14:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 12:05:13 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:51:22 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:48:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
sal wrote:
So are you saying its logical to say something when theres no proof/100% certainty.

Yes, because there IS proof. Just not 100% certainty.

Then you consider evidence proof, even if there can be another explanation and its logical to say something without 100% certainty.

I don't consider evidence proof, evidence IS proof. In the context you're using all proof means is: evidence that eliminates reasonable doubt. Proof =/= 100% certainty.

Saying something with 100% certainty is the exact opposite of logic. Just because there CAN be another explanation does not make it logical to assume there is one.

Do all atheists believe that.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:23:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 11:27:24 AM, sal wrote:
No other entrance and no one else is in the room.
Why are you avoiding answering the question?

Why are you being defensive when I am simply asking you questions to help clarify a PURPOSEFULLY vague scenario which you have described? One needs to ascertain the totality of the circumstance.

To build off I-am-a-panda's post:

Cause of death related to the stab wounds-Y
Wounds consistent with murder weapon-Y
Blood on the weapon match victim's blood-Y
Actor's fingerprints on murder weapon-Y
Victim's blood on Actor's person-Y
Actor has a motive-Y

Well GIVEN this evidence, I think that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Actor is guilty as charged.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:25:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 12:14:38 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 12:05:13 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:51:22 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:48:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
sal wrote:
So are you saying its logical to say something when theres no proof/100% certainty.

Yes, because there IS proof. Just not 100% certainty.

Then you consider evidence proof, even if there can be another explanation and its logical to say something without 100% certainty.

I don't consider evidence proof, evidence IS proof. In the context you're using all proof means is: evidence that eliminates reasonable doubt. Proof =/= 100% certainty.

Saying something with 100% certainty is the exact opposite of logic. Just because there CAN be another explanation does not make it logical to assume there is one.

Do all atheists believe that.

I wouldn't know. The only thing universal when it comes to atheists is the disbelief in deities.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:26:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 12:23:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:27:24 AM, sal wrote:
No other entrance and no one else is in the room.
Why are you avoiding answering the question?

Why are you being defensive when I am simply asking you questions to help clarify a PURPOSEFULLY vague scenario which you have described? One needs to ascertain the totality of the circumstance.

To build off I-am-a-panda's post:

Cause of death related to the stab wounds-Y
Wounds consistent with murder weapon-Y
Blood on the weapon match victim's blood-Y
Actor's fingerprints on murder weapon-Y
Victim's blood on Actor's person-Y
Actor has a motive-Y

Well GIVEN this evidence, I think that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Actor is guilty as charged.

Is there no other possibility?
Is that 100% certain?
sal
Posts: 319
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:28:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 12:25:12 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/26/2010 12:14:38 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 12:05:13 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:51:22 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:48:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
sal wrote:
So are you saying its logical to say something when theres no proof/100% certainty.

Yes, because there IS proof. Just not 100% certainty.

Then you consider evidence proof, even if there can be another explanation and its logical to say something without 100% certainty.

I don't consider evidence proof, evidence IS proof. In the context you're using all proof means is: evidence that eliminates reasonable doubt. Proof =/= 100% certainty.

Saying something with 100% certainty is the exact opposite of logic. Just because there CAN be another explanation does not make it logical to assume there is one.

Do all atheists believe that.

I wouldn't know. The only thing universal when it comes to atheists is the disbelief in deities.

They also say believers are illogical.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:29:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 12:26:21 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 12:23:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:27:24 AM, sal wrote:
No other entrance and no one else is in the room.
Why are you avoiding answering the question?

Why are you being defensive when I am simply asking you questions to help clarify a PURPOSEFULLY vague scenario which you have described? One needs to ascertain the totality of the circumstance.

To build off I-am-a-panda's post:

Cause of death related to the stab wounds-Y
Wounds consistent with murder weapon-Y
Blood on the weapon match victim's blood-Y
Actor's fingerprints on murder weapon-Y
Victim's blood on Actor's person-Y
Actor has a motive-Y

Well GIVEN this evidence, I think that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Actor is guilty as charged.

Is there no other possibility?
Is that 100% certain?

Of course there are other possibilities, all the word possibility implies is another scenario with greater than 0% chance of occurring. This chance can be as low as .0000000000...1.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:30:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 12:26:21 PM, sal wrote:
Is there no other possibility?
There may be, but these other possibilities are at best highly unlikely.

Is that 100% certain?
It's certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:30:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 12:28:54 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 12:25:12 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/26/2010 12:14:38 PM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 12:05:13 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:51:22 AM, sal wrote:
At 7/26/2010 11:48:54 AM, Korashk wrote:
sal wrote:
So are you saying its logical to say something when theres no proof/100% certainty.

Yes, because there IS proof. Just not 100% certainty.

Then you consider evidence proof, even if there can be another explanation and its logical to say something without 100% certainty.

I don't consider evidence proof, evidence IS proof. In the context you're using all proof means is: evidence that eliminates reasonable doubt. Proof =/= 100% certainty.

Saying something with 100% certainty is the exact opposite of logic. Just because there CAN be another explanation does not make it logical to assume there is one.

Do all atheists believe that.

I wouldn't know. The only thing universal when it comes to atheists is the disbelief in deities.

They also say believers are illogical.

I'm sure a lot do, but thinking that believers are illogical has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:34:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 12:28:54 PM, sal wrote:

They also say believers are illogical.

I just say I haven't found a religion that makes sense to me. If someone wants to worship purple unicorns that no one else has seen heard touched felt or expieranced in anyway, power to them, but don't expect me to just join the belief.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave