lack belief vs evidence

[Enmos]

So:

Belief = a psychological state that assumes facts that lack evidence.
Lack of belief = not assuming facts that lack evidence.

 

[lightgigantic]

I think you're confusing belief with faith.

and where does inductive knowledge fit into this?

 

[S.A.M.]

So:

Belief = a psychological state that assumes facts that lack evidence.
Lack of belief = not assuming facts that lack evidence.

How can you not assume a fact?

 

[spidergoat]

who defines evidence?

The dictionary. But besides that, you do. It could be weak or strong evidence, or even faulty evidence.

 

[S.A.M.]

The dictionary. But besides that, you do. It could be weak or strong evidence, or even faulty evidence.

Evidence in its broadest sense, includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Hmm so you think evidence can be subjective?

 

[C1ay]

Do you believe gravity will be there tomorrow?

Your prevarication is not an answer. Is the question to hard for you?

 

[Enmos]

How can you not assume a fact?

Oh ha ha... funny..

Ok:

Lack of belief = not assuming ideas/proposals/whatever that lack evidence.

By the way, that definition of yours is flawed then. Facts required evidence to be facts.

 

[S.A.M.]

Your prevarication is not an answer. Is the question to hard for you?

Try mine on for size. Me, I'm a delusional theist, I don't look for evidence where faith will suffice.

 

[superluminal]

Your prevarication is not an answer. Is the question to hard for you?

sam is a prevaricating provocateur of profoundly pronounced proportions.

 

[S.A.M.]

Facts required evidence to be facts.

Not if the facts are assumed to be not in evidence.

e.g. if I see a ball coming down the street, I brake without waiting to see if a kid follows.

 

[spidergoat]

Evidence in its broadest sense, includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Hmm so you think evidence can be subjective?

Yes, evidence can be anecdotal. But when people say there is no evidence for a designer (for instance), they don't mean that the proponents don't offer evidence at all, it's just that the evidence is not compelling or objective.

 

[Enmos]

Not if the facts are assumed to be not in evidence.

e.g. if I see a ball coming down the street, I brake without waiting to see if a kid follows.

What in that example is the fact you are talking about ? The fact that a kid can follow ?

There is evidence that a kid CAN follow.

 

[superluminal]

There are varying degrees of belief based on varying levels of evidence. In many ways it is extremely subjective. So trying to argue for one or another as the correct interpretation is futile unless you are a philosopher (i.e. have left temporal brain damage).

At some point, "I believe" becomes "I know", like with gravity. As has been said before, "not believing in it" is not the same as "believing it dosen't exist".

 

[superluminal]

Not if the facts are assumed to be not in evidence.

e.g. if I see a ball coming down the street, I brake without waiting to see if a kid follows.

So you think it's a fact that a kid is following the ball?

 

[S.A.M.]

So you think it's a fact that a kid is following the ball?

No I assume it is. Could be a dog, a teenager, an overthrow, an elephant.

 

[Enmos]

No I assume it is. Could be a dog, a teenager, an overthrow, an elephant.

Or nothing. So you assume it's a fact that something follows the ball ?
omg.. :bugeye:

 

[superluminal]

No I assume it is. Could be a dog, a teenager, an overthrow, an elephant.

You assume it's a "fact"? Sam, you're getting really confusing now. Quit drinking directly from the ganges.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, evidence can be anecdotal. But when people say there is no evidence for a designer (for instance), they don't mean that the proponents don't offer evidence at all, it's just that the evidence is not compelling or objective.

Assuming that a designer could be objectively defined.

 

[S.A.M.]

You assume it's a "fact"? Sam, you're getting really confusing now. Quit drinking directly from the ganges.

If I did not assume it as a fact, I would not brake.

Another example, if I feel something go crunch under my tires when I'm speeding down country lanes, I stop.

I assume it may be an animal and I need to ensure its dead (or needs urgent medical attention)

 

[superluminal]

If I did not assume it as a fact, I would not brake.

Huh? Clearly there's a language problem here.