Is Proof necessary ?

[Zersy]

Do you really need proof to show that something is true ? like the god arguement ,many people say there isn't any reliable proof but does that give a good reason to say god can not exist what about the idea that the proof is all around us that proof is us or how great and amazing everything around us is how the idea of something so superior and powerful that beyond understanding or imagination can have caused this ? (or the eye theory).

How about in a court ? if all the evidence points towards someone being guilty but the individual still says he's/she's innocent can we trust there point ?

My main point is that is proof really necessary ? can't we simply just go with a idea and accept it ? should we really rely so heavily on making sense of it ?

Please discuss.

 

[XJ-0461]

It depends on the person and the argument.

For example, in court, if the evidence points to the accused comitting the crime, I'm likely to go with the evidence, while others may trust the person about to get sentanced.

 

[Sparrow]

Well, it's handy, I'll say that much.

However, if you want a laugh, have two people from seperate religons argue why their religion is right, and the others is wrong. It's fucking hilarious. I do believe I still have a video on my phone of a Christian guy and some Jewish woman arguing about it.

 

[Julianking93]

Yes.

 

[BeeRye]

If you are a man of science only proof will suffice. If you are a man of faith it may not be necessary. Am I close?

 

[El Poncho]

Get in the fucking sack.(cookies up for grabs).

 

[Zyxzy]

...What? How the hell can you have a position without proof? That's like a barbecue without a fire.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Without proof, everything is theory. Some things can be taken on pure idea, others cannot. It all relies heavily on the situation. Most situations require proof. Especially things in court, or else so many more innocents would be sent to prison.

What I will say is lack of proof of is not proof against. It simply means no proof has been found.

 

[Zersy]

Yes. I mean I need proof to accept something, acceptance without proof is idiocy of the highest order.

What about instinct ? you follow your instinct even though the evidence says your wrong but you continue to follow it and accept what your instincts tell you and they turn out to be right.

it happens

 

[Crimsane]

Arguments are won with facts, not ideas.

 

[Adam]

Get in the fucking sack.(cookies up for grabs).

Dara O'Brian stand up show, and I agree.

Of course we need proof. If we took everyones word then we'd have a lot of criminals on the street etc.

 

[Im A Cuttlefish]

This is the dumbest question I have read in a long time, seriously. That's like saying "there's evidence this guy murdered someone, and there's no evidence he didn't, but because he says he didn't, we must believe him!" Yes, proof is necessary.
On your subject of God, the arguments are flawed because while everything around us may be amazing, and one may suppose it has a creator, there is no evidence for this creator, and there is no reason it could not just be random chance. You are making an inductive leap if you just suppose it has a creator.
My final point: the JTB argument. For knowledge, you require Justification (or proof/ evidence), Truth to the statement, and Belief in the statement.
And example relating to a statement without proof:
There are termites in my house. I can't see them, or any evidence for them, but they are there (so truth) and I believe they are there (belief). But because there's no evidence, I can't have knowledge of them.
Any argument that does not have proof, is irrational, and it's stupid to say otherwise, because you aren't even making an iference from what you have, you are just making up something saying it's true.

 

[Zyxzy]

Yes. I mean I need proof to accept something, acceptance without proof is idiocy of the highest order.

What about instinct ? you follow your instinct even though the evidence says your wrong but you continue to follow it and accept what your instincts tell you and they turn out to be right.

it happens

That's highly unlikely and stupid.

 

[Skeleon]

The lack of proof for gods does not mean gods cannot exist. It just means there is no reason to believe in any gods besides faith itself.
If faith itself is a good enough reason for you to belief in something, fine.
But don't expect others to have the same sentiment.

A person in court is not really to be trusted considering what's at stake. If somebody faces several years of prison, they will certainly lie as convincingly as they can to get out of it. Unless the evidence is so obvious that the person can only hope to strike a deal by confessing, of course

Ideas and concepts are fine, but where objectivity is required, such as courts or politics or science, evidence is definitely a necessity.

 

[Zacharine]

Yes.

However, the amout of proof I require depends of the claim. If you say you ate cereal for breakfast, I will most likely be content with taking your word for it.

If you say you ate cereal in Peking and then flew over the Pacific and onwards to New York, I might not take your word for it, but a airplane ticket etc with your name on it would go extremely far in proving that.

If you claim ate cereal for breakfast on the surface of the moon with some aliens, I most certainly will not take your word for it and will require quite an extraordinary amount of proof before accepting that.

Because ordinary claims require ordinary proof, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And also the degree to which the claimant might benefit from lying must be taken into account. If there is little no gain to be had from lying, then that persons word carries slightly more weight than ones who could gain by lying. However, as I said word of mouth is proof enough in only everyday occurences.

If we stop requiring proof and evidence, we remove an extremely important filter from our brain; one that allows us to seperate false statements from true statements with high accuracy. And knowing what is true and what is not is one of the required conditions for making correct decisions on repeatable basis.

 

[El Poncho]

Get in the fucking sack.(cookies up for grabs).

Dara O'Brian stand up show, and I agree.

Of course we need proof. If we took everyones word then we'd have a lot of criminals on the street etc.

You deserve these

Spoiler

 

[BeeRye]

Yes. I mean I need proof to accept something, acceptance without proof is idiocy of the highest order.

What about instinct ? you follow your instinct even though the evidence says your wrong but you continue to follow it and accept what your instincts tell you and they turn out to be right.

it happens

I would have thought that if you are given proof that something is so (assuming it is actual proof, not just made up) then it is so, and your instincts are wrong?

 

[VeX1le]

Well from what i've heard gravity is still a theory but will you try to prove that there is no gravity? you make a good point. (correct me if i'm wrong bout the gravity thing)

 

[ZeroMachine]

Yes.

However, the amout of proof I require depends of the claim. If you say you ate cereal for breakfast, I will most likely be content with taking your word for it.

If you say you ate cereal in Peking and then flew over the Pacific and onwards to New York, I might not take your word for it, but a airplane ticket etc with your name on it would go extremely far in proving that.

If you claim ate cereal for breakfast on the surface of the moon with some aliens, I most certainly will not take your word for it and will require quite an extraordinary amount of proof before accepting that.

Because ordinary claims require ordinary proof, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And also the degree to which the claimant might benefit from lying must be taken into account. If there is little no gain to be had from lying, then that persons word carries slightly more weight than ones who could gain by lying. However, as I said word of mouth is proof enough in only everyday occurences.

If we stop requiring proof and evidence, we remove an extremely important filter from our brain; one that allows us to seperate false statements from true statements with high accuracy. And knowing what is true and what is not is one of the required conditions for making correct decisions on repeatable basis.

I'm pretty sure this sums it up perfectly right here. Kudos.

 

[Skeleon]

Well from what i've heard gravity is still a theory but will you try to prove that there is no gravity? you make a good point. (correct me if i'm wrong bout the gravity thing)

Well, actually, they still do research on gravity because some of it doesn't add up yet. They don't try to disprove it but find out how it actually works. There's the stuff about "dark matter" (matter we can't detect but needs to be there for gravitational forces to be the way they are) when looking at the movement of galaxies and so on...
Science never stops asking for proof. If it did, it'd stop being science and begin being dogma.