Evidence, proof and prove

[Left Coast]

True. But many things are waved off simply because "you can't prove it so therefore I don't believe you"
Not everything can be proven.

That's true, not everything can. But the more extraordinary the claim, the more reasonable it becomes for people to doubt you when you claim something that can't be verified.

 

[We Never Know]

That's true, not everything can. But the more extraordinary the claim, the more reasonable it becomes for people to doubt you when you claim something that can't be verified.

I don't believe in a god, some do and some claim to have had some kind of personal experience.
Should I tell them they are delusional because I don't believe in a god, even though I know a god can be neither proven or disproven?

 

[Left Coast]

I don't believe in a god, some do and some claim to have had some kind of personal experience.
Should I tell them they are delusional because I don't believe in a god, even though I know a god can be neither proven or disproven?

People mean very different things by god, so I'd require more information from the person before going so far as to label them "delusional." But if it's a typical theist sort of creator God I would probably say their belief is unreasonable or not supported by the evidence.

 

[John53]

Personally, I believe that there is a distinction to be made between debating a topic like Sasquatch or ghosts and labeling those who believe in them as delusional, illogical, and unable to reason rationally. I don't believe there is any valid reason or excuse to disparage people with whom you disagree or do not share their beliefs. The primary reason I don't debate about my spiritual beliefs, my psychic mediumship, or my paranormal experiences is because of how most skeptics (both Christian and non-Christian) have mistreated me.

Fortunately for me I was born with thick skin. Anyway all that probably falls within the no personal attacks rule.

 

[We Never Know]

Fortunately for me I was born with thick skin. Anyway all that probably falls within the no personal attacks rule.

But is it as thick as Sasquatch skin?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Thats sad you laughed and joked about that post. Its a true story. The next day they found out three houses down a person crawled through a window and killed a 7 year old girl.

I'm sorry...

This is debates, not the jokes forum. I'll take a left and exit the conversation.

 

[John53]

But is it as thick as Sasquatch skin?

Never examined one so I don't know.

 

[Stevicus]

Personally, I believe that there is a distinction to be made between debating a topic like Sasquatch or ghosts and labeling those who believe in them as delusional, illogical, and unable to reason rationally. I don't believe there is any valid reason or excuse to disparage people with whom you disagree or do not share their beliefs. The primary reason I don't debate about my spiritual beliefs, my psychic mediumship, or my paranormal experiences is because of how most skeptics (both Christian and non-Christian) have mistreated me.

My view on this topic is that, if someone told me directly that they saw something and/or witnessed it firsthand, I wouldn't have any reason to doubt or disbelieve them - at least not out of hand.

I do, however, get doubtful when it's second- or third-hand information or "a friend of a friend told me."

 

[Nakosis]

Bob lives alone. Last Sunday Bob ate a ham and cheese sandwich.

Bob doesn't have have ham or cheese in his fridge. He already digested what he ate. He doesn't have evidence or any proof that he ate a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday so he can't prove he did.

Does that mean Bob didn't eat a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday??

It doesn't matter.
Whether it happened of not is completely inconsequential to anyone else.
Bob could 100% lie about what he eat last Sunday and it would matter to no one other than himself.

Many would accept the claim that he did because there'd be no consequence to them if he was lying or not.

 

[Stevicus]

True. But many things are waved off simply because "you can't prove it so therefore I don't believe you"
Not everything can be proven.

Some things may remain unproven and unresolvable. I don't think it really matters much if people believe it or disbelieve it, at least with most things. It only really seems to matter when it comes to the realm of public policy and national politics.

It's also important in the legal system, as proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard which they're supposed to follow before convicting someone of a crime. In those cases, if you can't prove it, then by law, they're not allowed to believe you. It's an adversarial system, so if one side does sloppy investigation or if their dog ate their homework, then they may still end up losing the case, regardless of what the actual "truth" might be. "Proof" can sometimes be far too subjective, which is how innocent people can be sentenced for crimes they didn't commit. Or sometimes, the guilty might go free.

In the science world, it's a bit different, at least inasmuch as no one is in danger of going to prison if someone can't prove their claims. The worst that might happen is that someone might get ridiculed and mocked, which is how mad scientists are created. ("They laughed and made jokes, but now I'm going to prove them all wrong and take over the world! Bwahahahaha!")

 

[We Never Know]

Some things may remain unproven and unresolvable. I don't think it really matters much if people believe it or disbelieve it, at least with most things. It only really seems to matter when it comes to the realm of public policy and national politics.

It's also important in the legal system, as proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard which they're supposed to follow before convicting someone of a crime. In those cases, if you can't prove it, then by law, they're not allowed to believe you. It's an adversarial system, so if one side does sloppy investigation or if their dog ate their homework, then they may still end up losing the case, regardless of what the actual "truth" might be. "Proof" can sometimes be far too subjective, which is how innocent people can be sentenced for crimes they didn't commit. Or sometimes, the guilty might go free.

In the science world, it's a bit different, at least inasmuch as no one is in danger of going to prison if someone can't prove their claims. The worst that might happen is that someone might get ridiculed and mocked, which is how mad scientists are created. ("They laughed and made jokes, but now I'm going to prove them all wrong and take over the world! Bwahahahaha!")

IMO there are several wannabe mad scientist in the forum and good thing it isn't a court of law(the legal system) or many here would be held in contempt of court often, me myself a few times too lol

 

[Brian2]

Bob lives alone. Last Sunday Bob ate a ham and cheese sandwich.

Bob doesn't have have ham or cheese in his fridge. He already digested what he ate. He doesn't have evidence or any proof that he ate a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday so he can't prove he did.

Does that mean Bob didn't eat a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday??

You already told us that last Sunday Bob ate a ham and cheese sandwich. Did you lie to us about it or is it true, and if it is true how do you know?
I suppose you want us to ignore your story and prove Bob had a ham and cheese sandwich while considering your story to be a nothing, just a story that might be true or might be a lie.
If other people say the same thing about Bob having a ham and cheese sandwich then it might be possible to show that Bob did have such a sandwich last sunday,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but only to those people who are willing to accept the witness of those other people.

 

[Heyo]

Bob lives alone. Last Sunday Bob ate a ham and cheese sandwich.

Bob doesn't have have ham or cheese in his fridge. He already digested what he ate. He doesn't have evidence or any proof that he ate a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday so he can't prove he did.

Does that mean Bob didn't eat a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday??

Is logic binary?

Aristotle, the first to seriously formalize logic, thought so when he formulated the law of the excluded middle. A statement, in Aristotelian logic, is either true or it is false. That is useful in teaching to think logically and keep the thinking sharp.

But it also has lead to black-and-white thinking where it is not appropriate. Reality is more complex and in many cases the answer is simply "we don't know".

 

[Brian2]

It doesn't matter.
Whether it happened of not is completely inconsequential to anyone else.
Bob could 100% lie about what he eat last Sunday and it would matter to no one other than himself.

Many would accept the claim that he did because there'd be no consequence to them if he was lying or not.

Of course the consequences to us should have no bearing on whether we think the story true or not, but it would be hard to eliminate the consequences for us in weighing up the evidence if there could be consequences.
Some people would want a lot of evidence if there were consequences. Is that a sensible approach do you think?

 

[Quintessence]

True. But many things are waved off simply because "you can't prove it so therefore I don't believe you"

This is why I don't often talk directly about my religious experiences. The lack of basic respect some have for others who share their experiences is... unfortunate. Unfortunate is an inadequate word to describe the problem.

To weave a tale that better encapsulates the problem, once upon a time there was a teenager who took the risk of telling someone about one of their most deeply-held secrets. They held this secret because it was an experience that is either condemned as evil or mocked as delusion by their culture. But this experience was deeply important to them, and there came a point where not being able to share it was more hurtful than being mocked as deluded or condemned as wicked. When the teenager took the chance on a girl they barely knew, the girl simply listened. The girl did not condemn, the girl did not mock, the girl did not wave it off. She did not demand proof this, proof that, and begin an interrogation. She simply listened. She simply respected.

This girl belonged to a religion called "Wicca." The Wiccan never told the teenager much more about what that was, other than she had something called a "Book of Shadows." It meant nothing to the teenager, this "Wicca" or its "Book of Shadows." What mattered is this girl had listened.

A few years later, remembering that kindness helped the once-teenager find their way in life.

Such is the power of shutting up and just listening and taking people at their word.

 

[Heyo]

They held this secret because it was an experience that is either condemned as evil or mocked as delusion by their culture.

I don't mind people sharing their experience, dreams, hallucinations. It only becomes an issue when they insist that their personal experience was an objective fact. When your (extraordinary) experience could have influence on my understanding of the world, it is worth investigating.

 

[PureX]

Is Bob telling us he ate a ham and cheese sandwich "evidence" in support of that fact? And if not, and there is no evidence to the contrary except the "lack of evidence", does that mean we must assume that there was no ham and cheese sandwich, unless and until proven otherwise?

 

[Brian2]

Is Bob telling us he ate a ham and cheese sandwich "evidence" in support of that fact? And if not, and there is no evidence to the contrary except the "lack of evidence", does that mean we must assume that there was no ham and cheese sandwich, unless and until proven otherwise?

Good point. So lack of evidence is not proof that the story is a fabrication.
It could not be considered "history" that Bob ate that sandwich however unless enough independent witness to the event is given by people who have no vested interest in the truth of the event and no position on the event either way.
This of course makes one wonder how and from whom these independent witnesses managed to find out that Bob ate that sandwich. The only way would be from people who did not know or from Bob himself (who seems a little confused as to whether he ate the sandwich or not, why would we be doing all this but to affirm Bob that his sanity and memory are intact ?).
So there is no way to have independent evidence from reliable people, but that does not mean Bob did not have the sandwich.
Circumstantial evidence might be found in shopping dockets that Bob might find, but proof evades us and unsupported faith going on the reported words of Bob (hearsay) is all we have, and still that is fine for most people to believe the story if it is reported as a true story. (and if Bob can sound a bit more convincing when he says he ate the sandwich, if indeed he can be found to confirm the story or not).

 

[HonestJoe]

Yep. My point is there are times when some things happen and the only person around is yourself.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just gives others a reason to doubt you.... But that doesn't mean it didnt happen.

Has anyone ever claimed otherwise? Note that stating that you don't believe something happened isn't the same as definitively stating that it didn't happen (even if you're not conscious of the difference).

There is little (arguably nothing) that we can be 100% certain about regardless of the available evidence and so everything we talking about "knowing" are really beliefs. Lots of them are very secure beliefs (or work in practice, even if they're not entirely accurate) but beliefs all the same.

There is always some evidence for anything though, even if it is weaker or circumstantial evidence. In your example, Bob simply saying that he ate the sandwich is evidence. He might be lying but if there is no specific reason for him to do so, the balance would lean towards it being true. Also, a ham and cheese sandwich is a perfectly normal snack, maybe even something Bob has been known to eat in the past. If he is a lactose-intolerant vegetarian or he said he had a kangaroo meat and polar-bear cheese sandwich, it might raise a little more doubt. If he said it was a unicorn and Moon-cheese sandwich, that would obviously imply evidence specifically against it being true.

Either way, anyone hearing the statement will instinctively reach a conclusion of a level of belief based on all available evidence and significantly, also based on how important knowing whether it is true or not is to them.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

True. But does that mean it didn't happen?

I agree. The point is when we should believe something to be true. You don't have to believe I had an encounter with Bigfoot, but that is not saying you believe I did not.