Is provability required for belief?

tayla · Jul 14, 2019

Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Fool · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

belief without proof is just fantasy.

friendship is proven by action. it isn't belief based. no one should be in any kind of relationship where the relationship isn't mutually loving, caring. the verb, the action, is necessary to establish friendship.

1-Brother James · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Thief · Jul 14, 2019

by definition......no

Terry Sampson · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Is provability required for belief?

Clearly not, because there are plenty of folks around here who believe un-provable stuff, and--as you've noticed--there are a goodly number of scientists who are not on RF who propound some wild stuff with nothing more than a "maybe" to surf on.

1-Brother James · Jul 14, 2019

There is no way to physically " prove" the existence of Spiritual Energy, nor the energy of the MIND for that matter. However, one may experience both by use of one's faculty of Intuition. My term for this is "ExperTuit," which combines experience and Intuition. Peace

1-Brother James · Jul 14, 2019

Thief said:
by definition......no

There is relative truth, and Truth that is an absolute that can only be Known by Intuition. Peace

Twilight Hue · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Of course belief ought to be proven. Otherwise there's only proof that it's a belief and nothing else.

David T · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

fec7182e-b72d-4fae-836f-fbf728dbd186_1.64d5c202fe3e7e47f1d8f5b98677da55.jpeg

"i peed"
"you idiot there is no proof show proof"
"how do i show proof?"
"emperically you have no proof therefore there is no pee."
"But it felt like i peed"
"there ya go totally subjective feelings with no evidence, thats not scientific. I will run a scientific test to show you. I tasted, The water does not taste like pee, therefore scientifically, no such thing as pee"
"I refuse to accept your science"
"there ya go with your myths and old ideas feelings are not scientific grow up evolve"

ChristineM · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Belief is an attitude, with proof it becomes more

Skwim · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

Why does this seem so? No Materialists/physicalists I've ever read or talked to has given this impression. Who have you been listening to?

.

tayla · Jul 14, 2019

Skwim said:
Why does it seem so? No Materialists/physicalists I've ever read or talked to has given this impression. Who have you been listening to?

Am I understanding you correctly? Are you claiming materialists/physicalists think it's OK for people to believe things not proven as true? Or things proven as false? If they think it's OK, why then do they try to convert them to the true view of atheist?

Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.
--Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Skwim · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you claiming materialists/physicalists think it's OK for people to believe things not proven as true? Or things proven as false? If they think it's OK, why then do they try to convert them to the true view of atheist?

I'm saying that no thinking person regards proof of X as necessary for believing X. Here:

believe
[ bih-leev ]

verb (used without object), be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without proof that one is right in doing so:

So what it comes down to is that belief is a conviction without convincing evidence. Establish convincing evidence and you'll have knowledge, If I come to a four-way stop intersection before the car to my left does, I will proceed ahead of him believing he won't T-bone me, but I certainly have no "proof" or knowledge he wont.

And just as an FYI. Proof in its true sense only exists in mathematics, logic, and alcohol content.

,

Willamena · Jul 14, 2019

Skwim said:
I'm saying that no thinking person regards proof of X as necessary for believing X. Here:

believe
[ bih-leev ]

verb (used without object), be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without proof that one is right in doing so:

,

proof
[pro͞of]
NOUN

evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

If you don't have confidence in the truth of something proven, then there is a problem. That "knowledge is a justified true belief" cannot work without belief.

bobhikes · Jul 14, 2019

Fool said:
belief without proof is just fantasy.

friendship is proven by action. it isn't belief based. no one should be in any kind of relationship where the relationship isn't mutually loving, caring. the verb, the action, is necessary to establish friendship.

So before scientific fact came to be everything everyone was doing was fantasy. Everything the cavemen did was just fantasy. Language is fantasy,(you can't prove Red is Red and it is Rojo, Rouge in other countries). Monetary value is fantasy (nothing supports it besides your belief).

Audie · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Nobody with a beginners clue about science
thinks anything can be proved, except in math.

LuisDantas · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

Probability is a mathematical tool. It is only useful to the extent that the accuracy of one's model allows it to be.

Science is, by design, even more limited. It can't really state very much at all without a lot of evidence and testing for alternatives.

As for the merits of belief as a form of reaching conclusions, I think that those are real enough. We certainly know and perceive a lot more than we can fully demonstrate and explain.

The problem here is not at all whether they are "scientific" or "materialistic" or "physicalist" enough to be taken seriously, but rather on how reliable and how clear they are to be trusted on their own terms, and on how responsible we are while relying on them. Those forms of perception are quite unreliable, as has been demonstrated time and again.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

True, but misleading. Scientists are entitled to speculation just like anyone else. They just should not mislabel that speculation as scientific findings until and unless actual evidence and falseability are attained.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

I don't think we have enough information yet to tell with much certainty one way or the other.

For the time being, it is just a matter of aesthetical perception.

Neutral Name · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable. This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” I always said to myself "then I must not be blessed because I had to see to believe". I had things happen which proved the presence of God to me.

I have always had a scientific viewpoint because I was raised by a scientist, a biologist. Darwin anyone? I had very little concept of God outside of meeting a few people who would speak of God. So, until I had many and amazing coincidences happen, I did not believe in the supernatural, God.

As far as quantum mechanics/physics is concerned, physicists have mathematical proof even when they don't yet have physical proof. They have already managed to create a quantum computer and send an atom back in time one second. Their theories are sound. I personally believe that physicists will find God when they are capable of entering other dimensions.

I would, also, believe that consciousness will one day be proven through the realization of the ability of the mind to control atoms and particles, energies, time, space and matter. This is already done on a limited level when viewed atoms change trajectories.

Consciousness is not the complete story, though. There is mind, body, soul and spirit. The existence of a mind is known, obviously, but all of its operations and capabilities are not fully understood. The same is true for the body. Science does not have all knowledge, only what has been learned and proven so far. Science is not perfect despite those who would claim that it is.

The soul, to me, could be the same thing as consciousness since it is the essence of our thoughts. It will one day be proven scientifically. The soul never dies because, scientifically, energy can never be destroyed. So, scientifically, the signals in our bodies and brains continue on forever.

The spirit is the most important yet the most elusive to science. It is our connection with God. It is the higher spiritual. The spirit is inter-dimensional which will, also, be proven one day but has not been yet.

So, we are left with the fact that those who believe only in science will most likely continue to do so. Those who believe in the spiritual will, also, do so. Generally, the two will not find common ground until the day that science does prove the existence of the supernatural or God and the spiritual people come to see that science does have some validity.

leov · Jul 14, 2019

Skwim said:
I'm saying that no thinking person regards proof of X as necessary for believing X. Here:

believe
[ bih-leev ]

verb (used without object), be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without proof that one is right in doing so:

So what it comes down to is that belief is a conviction without convincing evidence. Establish convincing evidence and you'll have knowledge, If I come to a four-way stop intersection before the car to my left does, I will proceed ahead of him believing he won't T-bone me, but I certainly have no "proof" or knowledge he wont.

And just as an FYI. Proof in its true sense only exists in mathematics, logic, and alcohol content.

,

Misunderstanding, in Greek "faith" means:
" 4102 pístis (from 3982/peithô, "persuade, be persuaded") – properly, persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust); faith."

Sapiens · Jul 14, 2019

dmap said:
Materialists/physicalists seem to think you should only believe something that's provable.

No. We think that nothing of any sort should be "believed."

dmap said:
This limits belief to the subset of the physical universe provable by the scientific method.

No. This limits claimed knowledge of the physical universe to that "provable" by the scientific method.

dmap said:
An example of something not provable but worthy of belief: You meet someone you think you will become lifelong friends with. Certainly there is no scientific proof involved; merely intuition. It's OK to believe you might become lifelong friends with them.

No. You can believe anything you want, just try to not confuse fact with fancy.

dmap said:
What about scientific speculation; for example, multiple universes? Why do scientists even think about such things if they can't find a way to prove them? It's because they believe they could be true with no evidence they are true.

It is only as one thinks about things that one finds ways to test them and thus for into wrong headed, possible as some level of probability or damn likely.

dmap said:
The existence of the subjective experience of consciousness deviates from the scope of provable science enough to warrant believing it is outside the physical domain. After all, all other emergent properties (such as the surface tension of water) are still physical, having atoms obeying the laws of physics. Yet there is no quantum field called "consciousness", so it may not be physical in essence.

Please demonstrate that "consciousness" exists as anything but a way for you (and others like you) to claim that you are somehow better than all other animals on earth. That is such egotistical horse pucky.

Is provability required for belief?

My dog's name is Tayla

ALL in all

Member

Rogue Theologian

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Well-Known Member

Attachments

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Veteran Member

My dog's name is Tayla

Veteran Member

Just me

Nondetermined

Veteran Member

Aura of atheification

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Polymathematician