• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why would people believe in something which are not proven?

Is it rational if one believe in something which are not proven?


  • Total voters
    30
  • This poll will close: .

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Yes, for those who use the Bible as evidence for God, it is evidence for God.

Now how about you explain the part you skipped over:
but not when it's used by a theist, right?​

I have to ask you to explain this part to me because it is pretty much the exact opposite of what I said.

I do note that you completely failed to address this part:
"What is it you think "I have not yet met a theist who does not have any evidence for their beliefs." means?"​

The jokes on you, its not a double negative, it clearly states theists have evidence for their beliefs and you have not found one that doesn't have evidence.
 
Last edited:

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Faith - strong belief in something which are not proven.
Proven - demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing.
Believe - accept that (something) is true.
Belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true.

(1) If something is not proven, as in not demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing, why would someone believe that something is true/exist?

(2) Why would someone have strong belief in something which are not proven?

(3) Is it rational if one believe in something which are not proven?

(4) Is it rational if one have strong belief in something which are not proven?

(5) What reason can cause one to believe something is true/exist?

(6) What reason will cause one to believe something is true/exist?

Edit:
Definition of Faith:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

(I might not be participate in this discussion, so please feel free to discuss/debate with other people here.)
When you meet an attractive new person...they are not proven.

To try to get to know them is an act of faith.

:) And can be the best thing you've done.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
People used to believe the world was flat,
That the sun revolved around the Earth,
That horse hairs left in rain barrels turned into worms,
that tomatoes were poisonous,


People believe all manner of things that are not true.

Faith is defined as absolute trust or confidence, so no those wouldn't be examples of believing.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
The jokes on you, its not a double negative, it clearly states theists have evidence for their beliefs and you have not found one that doesn't have evidence.
Yes it does.
And that is exactly what I meant when I said it.

Not really sure why you would think it was joke....
My whole point being that I have never met a theist who has not proven to them self that their deity exists.

I even flat out said that my agreeing and or disagreeing with their evidence is completely irrelevant to the matter.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
thomas_huxley-without_evidence-quotes.png


Having cited that, there is also pragmatic belief. Sometimes it simply isn't worth it to investigate a phenomenon or a false belief wouldn't have too much bad consequences. Sometimes the sum of bad, unreliable evidence reaches a threshold for pragmatic belief.
There are many things we belief without proof or evidence in the scientific sense. That's OK and it works, one just has to be prepared to ditch the belief when better evidence to the contrary comes in.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
"God" can simply be a religious name for an idea. Deity is some kind of divine being. When you're talking evidence it's important to be unambiguous.
Fair enough.

And a simple fix as well...

Yes, for those who use the Bible as evidence for a deity, it is evidence for a deity.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Fair enough.

And a simple fix as well...

Yes, for those who use the Bible as evidence for a deity, it is evidence for a deity.

So in what case would there be no evidence of deity? You've already agreed that the Bible is evidence of belief in deity.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
It's not rational to believe just anything (blind faith).

But it is rational to decide (on preliminary clues) if something can be believable and worth further exploration and confirmation at all.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Dude - she never said there was no evidence of deity. You read the initial post wrong.

Here's her original comment:

"I have not yet met a theist who does not have any evidence for their beliefs.
My disagreeing with their evidence is besides the point.
It is still evidenced."

She's saying that she disagrees with their evidence, which would only make sense if it wasn't real evidence. What I'm talking about is real evidence like facts and implications based on reason, which is why I've been moving from evidence of belief to unqualified evidence.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Of course it's rational..! To hope for Justice against this otherwise natural flaw and unfairness in life.

Oh the wailing. I suspect God is deaf. Hence so many different religions all vying for His attention with conflicting results.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Here's her original comment:

"I have not yet met a theist who does not have any evidence for their beliefs.
My disagreeing with their evidence is besides the point.
It is still evidenced."

She's saying that she disagrees with their evidence, which would only make sense if it wasn't real evidence. What I'm talking about is real evidence like facts and implications based on reason, which is why I've been moving from evidence of belief to unqualified evidence.
Here is the crutch, now isn't it?
The word evidence all by it self simply means "that which convinces"
Which is anything that convinces some one of something.

For many theists, the Bible is what convinces them of the existence of their deity.
Thus the Bible is their evidence.
This free form version of evidence is extremely subjective and not the most reliable when trying to convince others of the validity of the evidence.

It is also the cause of much frustration and confusion.
For many a person whines about evidence they disagree with because they did not specify what manner of evidence they were actually asking for.

Best I can tell, the opposite of the generic term "evidence" is the much more specific term "objective empirical evidence".

Which is what quite a few people mean when they use the generic term "evidence".
Their laziness leading to confusion when "evidence" is given in place of the "objective empirical evidence" they asked for, but were to lazy to specify.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Here is the crutch, now isn't it?
The word evidence all by it self simply means "that which convinces"
Which is anything that convinces some one of something.
Evidence also has a more formal meaning of that which leads to proof. In a legal context there are rules of evidence, eg hearsay and ordinary opinion are not admitted under rules of evidence.

For many theists, the Bible is what convinces them of the existence of their deity.
Thus the Bible is their evidence.
This free form version of evidence is extremely subjective and not the most reliable when trying to convince others of the validity of the evidence.
The evidentary value of the Bible depends very much on the argument that is made. If someone says that "the Bible says that God is real and the Bible says that all scripture is God-breathed", then that argument could be rejected as circular reasoning.
Arguments made based on the prediction of future events are harder to reject, but it typically comes down to what standard of proof is required. For a theist that standard of proof would probably be lower because of confirmation bias, and the opposite could be said of an atheist for the same reason.

It is also the cause of much frustration and confusion.
For many a person whines about evidence they disagree with because they did not specify what manner of evidence they were actually asking for.
That's a problem with ambiguity. There's a legal doctrine called contra proferentem where ambiguity is interpreted against the interest of the party who introduced it.

Which is what quite a few people mean when they use the generic term "evidence".
Their laziness leading to confusion when "evidence" is given in place of the "objective empirical evidence" they asked for, but were to lazy to specify.
Empirical evidence relating to deity is typically specific to an individual or group of people.

The best general form of evidence for deity I know of is an argument based on Occam's Razor, which is the argument that some sets of facts can be best explained by the action of a divine being, where 'best explained' means the explanation that makes the least number of assumptions. Occam's Razor does not provide formal proof of anything, but it does give an answer that can reasonably be expected to be true for the known facts.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Faith - strong belief in something which are not proven.
Proven - demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing.
Believe - accept that (something) is true.
Belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true.

(1) If something is not proven, as in not demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing, why would someone believe that something is true/exist?

(2) Why would someone have strong belief in something which are not proven?

(3) Is it rational if one believe in something which are not proven?

(4) Is it rational if one have strong belief in something which are not proven?

(5) What reason can cause one to believe something is true/exist?

(6) What reason will cause one to believe something is true/exist?

Edit:
Definition of Faith:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

(I might not be participate in this discussion, so please feel free to discuss/debate with other people here.)

I had to answer other, as I don't know what kind of evidence, truth or existence we are talking about.
The same with rational.
All of the words are free-floating and apparently taken with complete trust or confidence in, that it is so.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
It depends on what you mean by proof. The only field in which you can say something has been proved with 100% certainty is mathematics. In law, the criminal courts require proof beyond reasonable doubt, the civil ones are content with proof on the balance of probabilities. In scholarship, we hope for the former but often resign ourselves to the latter. So, it's rational to believe in something if the evidence is as good as you could expect under the circumstances.

Remember that most of your decisions were taken without much in the way of proof. When you chose a career, could you prove that it was the best choice beyond reasonable doubt? If you are married, could you prove beforehand that you would live happily ever after, even on the balance of probabilities?
 

SoyLeche

meh...
It depends on what you mean by proof. The only field in which you can say something has been proved with 100% certainty is mathematics. In law, the criminal courts require proof beyond reasonable doubt, the civil ones are content with proof on the balance of probabilities. In scholarship, we hope for the former but often resign ourselves to the latter. So, it's rational to believe in something if the evidence is as good as you could expect under the circumstances.

Remember that most of your decisions were taken without much in the way of proof. When you chose a career, could you prove that it was the best choice beyond reasonable doubt? If you are married, could you prove beforehand that you would live happily ever after, even on the balance of probabilities?
Even then you can only do so by assuming certain axioms are true.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Faith - strong belief in something which are not proven.
Proven - demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing.
Believe - accept that (something) is true.
Belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true.

(1) If something is not proven, as in not demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing, why would someone believe that something is true/exist?

(2) Why would someone have strong belief in something which are not proven?

(3) Is it rational if one believe in something which are not proven?

(4) Is it rational if one have strong belief in something which are not proven?

(5) What reason can cause one to believe something is true/exist?

(6) What reason will cause one to believe something is true/exist?

Edit:
Definition of Faith:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

(I might not be participate in this discussion, so please feel free to discuss/debate with other people here.)

Good point. Rational point.

Must note that it is also not rational to deny something and have faith "it does not or never existed" due to the absence of evidence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Faith - strong belief in something which are not proven.
Proven - demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing.
Believe - accept that (something) is true.
Belief - an acceptance that something exists or is true.

(1) If something is not proven, as in not demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing, why would someone believe that something is true/exist?

(2) Why would someone have strong belief in something which are not proven?

(3) Is it rational if one believe in something which are not proven?

(4) Is it rational if one have strong belief in something which are not proven?

(5) What reason can cause one to believe something is true/exist?

(6) What reason will cause one to believe something is true/exist?

Edit:
Definition of Faith:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

(I might not be participate in this discussion, so please feel free to discuss/debate with other people here.)

Your poll is missing an option for "well supported by evidence".

The world isn't black and white. If you can only believe things that are PROVEN, then there won't be much you can believe.

Most things can never be PROVEN, only supported.

I'ld say that to be rational, belief should come in degrees of certainty. And the degree of certainty should be determined by the amount and quality of evidence in support of something.

Lacking any evidence at all, it is not rational to believe something (to any degree).
 
Top