Is Proof necessary ?

[Stalk3rchief]

You forgot to mention on the evidence that DOES exist against religion. You can't start a forum like that and not expect answers like mine, just saying.


OT:No, you don't always need proof, but 99.99% of the time, you do. You can't expect people to take a story to be true without evidence, and that's because people lie, and they do it a lot. Any one can make something up.

 

[w-Jinksy]

Prood is everything, if a man ran up to you and said he just totally done a sweet backflip off a building and landed ona mars bar that shot off and killed peaches geldof youd obviously ask for proof you wouldnt just blindly believe....unless you were religous.

Oh dont take notice im just being a twat today anyway yes proof is really important,

 

[Vault Citizen]

In court there is the "burden of proof" principle. Most commonly known as "innocent untill proven guilty". It is not up to the defense to prove that the defendant is not guilty but up to the prosecution to prove that he/she is.

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

This line doesn't help your argument. First you ask if proof is required then you say should we trust someone's word if all evidence (or proof) points to them being guilty. This is conflicting at best.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Big thing here, though, is that there is never enough proof. Just recently geneticists were able to prove that you can plant "fake DNA" on the crime scene that matches anyone you want, for example.

This. So this. Definitely exactly and completely this.

People go on about proof usually neglect to mention all the things in their own lives that they take on faith, because there's just never enough empirical evidence to completely prove every little thing.

There are lots of things we don't truly understand, but we know enough about them to make them work for us, and that's all we need. For example, does anyone really 100% understand the nature of light? I remember hearing a while ago that scientists in an experiment had proven light could make "decisions" if given an equal choice in where to travel.

 

[jboking]

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 ?

...'Cause OJ was totally innocent...

The court is the one place where having no evidence is grounds for being thrown out of court.

p.s. I ignored the god arguments because I am quite simply sick of it.

 

[MajoraPersona]

Some people believe that proof, and the reality it brings, are infinitely more important than simply believing in something that brings an understanding of reality.

 

[sokka14]

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.

It's particularly funny when one religion scorns another because of the ridiculous things they believe. My (christian) friend once mocked the believability of the miracles performed by Mohammed. The hypocrisy was priceless!

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

In this world, you can disprove pretty much everything eventually. The guy disproving you just needs to find proof disproving your proof. He can't convince anyone that he is right otherwise. So yeah, proof is nice. Just stay far far away from religion.

 

[Laughing Man]

Do you really need proof to show that something is true ?

Yes

With proof it is fact, ergo true
Without proof it is belief, ergo open to whatever airy fairy thoughts just happen to be swimming through your mind at the time.

 

[OniSuika]

Proof is necessary because to make exceptions for proof to certain arguments would mean our ideas of facts become opinion.

So unless something can be physically proved, then it's only an opinion.

 

[Gotham Soul]

Proof is required for it to be fact.

Everything else is just opinion.

 

[KarumaK]

Proof is for the weak.

If you know you're right all you must do is force all others to admit it, whether they agree is irrelevant.

 

[Notsomuch]

proof is a bad word to use. Something should be able to be demonstrated rather than proven. Both are nice of course, However there are many credible theories or hypothesis that can be demonstrated but not yet proven outside of a simulation. Rationally speaking, if something can be supported by other things that we can establish to be true then that is at least a solid foundation. On a side note, by proof I am referring to evidence that is empirical.

When religious people or the supporters of supernatural are speaking of a suspension of proof or evidence for their particular brand of snake oil they are usually referring to a suspension of disbelief that goes beyond all reasonable suspensions. If what they were selling could even be demonstrated they would have their place in history and a Nobel prize.

 

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd say it depends on the gravity of the test. You don't really have to prove anything if the outcome isn't really important. Truth without proof has the same value as a lie without proof, so proof is relative to the demands of the truth at hand.

Proof is a collection of evidence that follows a logical path from one point to another. It does nothing to say whether those two points are directly connected to the test at hand, as it can only convince other people of the value of an argument. We once had proof that Earth was flat, leeches cured disease, and witches had to be burned, after all.

Additionally, a test of faith is a silly thing to prove, because all the evidence can do is convince people of an argument. (Which is like having faith, anyway.) In essence, faith cannot be tested, ergo proof is not required.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Something with proof is much more concrete than something without, though there are some things I believe regardless of proof.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Lack of proof is proof of falsehood.

 

[Clashero]

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.

I can imagine two schoolboys "No, Unicorns are real!" "No, Unicorns don't exist! Leprechauns are the ones that exist!"

 

[iblis666]

proof is only needed if you expect me to pray other than that im fine with only getting proof after death

 

[Clyde]

Besides proof, you can make decisions based rationality.
Weighing the positives against the negatives is a reasonable making process.
I hope you can see the implications this has with Heaven.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

It depends. the more important or surreal the subject is, the more proof is neccesary. Lets say your friend says he had pizza for lunch. That doesn't really need proof because even if he's lying and had tacos for lunch, who cares? Now let's say bob says jim murdered steve. If bob is lying and everyone believes him, the murderer for steve is never found, and Jim goes to jail for 25 years. If bob is the murderer he would have very good incentive for lying. And if jim is the murderer, he would have very good incentive for claiming his innocence as well.

With god it naturally SHOULD take proof because it's a surreal and extravagant claim. I'll give you an example of what I mean. Look at the halo 3 ODST advertisement. that ODST is real and is going to kill you exactly one minute after you read this. Now do a simple experiment. Try to believe this. Don't pretend to believe, but actually believe that ODST is real and he's going to kill you in exactly one minute. If you haven't crapped your pants and cried in the fetal position for a minute I think I've proved my point.