Prove your belief system. (No getting angry)

Do you have a belief system that you can reasonably prove?

  • Yes
  • No
  • I don’t know
  • I’m a relativist
0 voters

This is just a post to prove your beliefs, and disproove others. Interact, and prove and disprove, just no name calling please!! I’m doing this to know what is all out there, so I can write it down to see if it is plausible or not. I’m only practising for Philosophy class. Also, take the poll please, if you do not believe that there is such thing as absolute truth click on the poll that says “I’m a relativist”. Thank-you, and happy reasoning.

Where’s the nihilists option? And please don’t cook it on the same grill as the believers.

I don’t believe there is absolute truth, nor do I put any stock in what we call “truth”. “Truth” is nothing more than accepted assumptions, that have no true :laughing: foundation. Everything seems to have the quality of being able to be reduced to to “I think” or “because I say so”. Even what I’m saying now when taken out of the context of combating other peoples “truth” is truthless. “Truth” seems to be wholely a human contruct.

On edit- added everything below.

Take for example the idea of existence. It’s an abstract concept surely, that most take for granted as being a truth. It’s defined as “The fact or state of existing; being” It appeals to the notion of “existing” and being", and “existing” appeals to “being” if you look it up. “Being” is defined as “To exist in actuality; have life or reality” Reverts back to the notion of existing which is circular and introduces the new world “reality” and actuality". Reality is defined as “The quality or state of being actual or true” and “actuality” is defined as “The state or fact of being actual; reality”. Notice that the two words that we introduced to define “being” refer to each other in there own definitions thus ending this outlet in circularity. The new words introduced by this definition is “true”, which in turn refers back to reality, and introduces “not-false”, which “false” is defined as being contrary to truth, and thus ends in circularity.

All these words require each other to stand, they also require the assumption that there is such a thing as “truth”. But how can we establish that there is a thing called “truth” with out a leap of faith of sorts, a primary assumption? How can we accept these concepts as “true” when they themselves are defined by what is “true” and what is “true” is defined by them? Can intuition resolve this conflict, something that cannot be captured in language? Or is all this a futile attempt at justifying that there is something, when infact there is nothing?

I kind of agree, all belief is based on assumptions which cannot be supported by reason. But that does not mean it cannot be true… i.e. I believe that “I exist, I am typing” are true statements. To say that nothing is true is to say that you do not believe anything. I guess that is possible, but when I go to pick up something, I tend to expect it to come up in my hand. I am not constantly surprised that my senses of sight and touch agree. It seems like this would be the case for someone who did not believe anything. Although maybe if you did not believe anything you would never be suprised at anything… it is strange to think about.

I voted “yes”.

My beliefs are based upon physics: the belief that they objectively exist.

The evidence: science. :smiley:

unfortunately this post relies on the false presuposition that one’s system of belief could be exposed in any exhaustive manner with reasonable effort. this is not so. it would take me probably a few hundred pages and a good few weeks of work. the pages i might find, the time very maybe, but the readers i definitely dont think so.

yes, the inductive fallacy is a great proof…


existance is not in fact as simple a matter. to think existance would be something directly accessible to any one observer is rather naive. at the very least we need “levels” of existance. because for instance your wet dreams do exist, but they exist less than the web pages that feed them, which exist more (or less) than the girls/boys/goats that feed them and all that exists differently than the cables that carry it all etc etc

very good so far. Keep the posts coming in…And sorry for the lack of options in the poll…I thought they covered all aspects. I’ll keep your statments in mind, just keep the information flowing… Thanks all who have responded. I’m an objectivist but I’m not going to join the debate, I only want to see what’s out there. :smiley:

PS The poll is not for the internet. It’s partly for my own research, and it’s only a starting ground.

So you mean to establish “existence” as being “real” by adding more unfounded assumptions to the concept? Not to mention the introduction of such vacuous terms as “exist less” and “levels of existence”.

You have to start with at least a few assumptions in order to construct any philosophy at all. For example, the scientist has to have faith that reality is real. If he did not, science would be baseless.
Thus faith is necessary as a starting point. So, how can you tell when your faith is right and wrong? I believe that if your faith is correct, or close to being correct, then the philosophy following from that faith should be cogent, and non-contradictory, and explain the world well. If it is incorrect, then your philosophy will not say anything about the real world, harbor contradictions, or become overly convoluted and tortured in its structure.

For example, suppose you start with the belief that the world is an illusion, and that our senses cannot tell us what is real. Okay. Now you have just denied yourself the ability to call anything else true or false, because you would have no way of knowing anything other than that what you know cannot be trusted. It is a foundation upon which nothing can be built. Thus the faith that the world is real is far more useful than it’s alternative, and probably more correct, because it allows for philosophies that accurately predict the state of the world.

I agree that assumptions are the base of knowlege, but I don’t understand how your further discussion is compatable with this. If you say that our 5 sesnses cannot tell us what is real, but we have some spiritual or magical sense which can, this seems perfectly reasonable. It is assumption in which knowlege is based, you cannot prove or disprove it, or even provide evidence either way. I trust my 5 senses, but this is out of instinct, not reason.

In other words: We should trust our senses, because the philosophies which result accurately predict the world we experience with our senses. You see how this argument is circular? You have to assume that our senses tell us the truth in order to say that these philosophies accurately predict the state of the world.

It makes just as much sense to say that I have a magical 6ht sense, and it must be correct because the philosophies I come up with assuming that this sense is correct accurately predict the state of the world I see through this 6th sense. Even if this sense tells me that the world is currently a purple cat colonized by tiny robots.

I think that people should know of Kurt Godel.

If you hold a belief that you’ve somehow become convinced is 100% true, then what’s it matter if someone wishes to debase that?

If you’re truly of philosophical mind, then when your beliefs are disproven or replaced by better ones, you won’t spitefully try to hold on to them.

I only know a few things. I have discovered to my satisfaction that the universe was intentionally created [or at least the laws that allowed the universe to begin]. I also know that man is naturally drawn to what is correct.

I find these truths to be self-evident. I would be willing to discuss them with anyone who cares to via PM. My beliefs are not held for the purpose of trying to “beat” others with them, and I will only justify them to people who truly wish to know why I think that way, NOT for those who are just spoiling for a fight.

Science doesn’t prove the existence of physics? So physics might not exist? Is that the argument? :confused:

Where does religion and faith fit in ‘Science’?

language doesn’t prove the existence of dictionaries. so dictionaries might not exist. … same circular arguments… science is based on an error, that’s all…


not an error imp, just a leap of faith.

and i think people should listen to ed3.

nihilistic, i have no idea wether reality exists, or existance realityates, or reality is real or existance is existing or any other crap. however, i can construct an entirely arbitrary system of belief based on a quality of objects that i choose to call existance and their relative interrelations. i cant prove all that is “real” and i do not wish to either. because metaphisics ALSO requires a leap of faith.

If you wish to get really technical, anything beyond “I exist” requires some faith. Go Descartes :confused:

For my belief system they don’t. :slight_smile:

Science is based on an error? Now I’m really confused. :frowning:

If science doesn’t “prove” things, what can? Science isn’t just words, just philosophies; it tests the tangible world. Doesn’t it?

If science doesn’t provide the evidence to prove the existence of physics, what does? :confused:

How about math?