3 ms·

if there would be any evidence, you wouldn't have to "believe". It would be fact. But that isn't the case. On the contrary: given the state of the world the on

• michaelmior 3y ago
  > if there would be any evidence, you wouldn't have to "believe". It would be fact. A lot of people don't believe the world is round despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People come to different conclusions based on the same evidence all the time. (I'd prefer an example that doesn't imply that people with one belief are completely irrational, but that's the first one I came up with.) To me, it's a lot harder to believe that God doesn't exist. Our beliefs are also shaped by our own experience and lots of intangible things.
• dragonwriter 3y ago
  > if there would be any evidence, you wouldn't have to "believe". It would be fact. No, “any evidence for X” does not imply “X is fact”. That's why in the justice systems different degrees of evidence are needed for different consequences: if your rule was true, if there was any evidence for something, we could just jump to the most extreme consequence warranted given the assumption that the thing for which there was evidence was a certain fact. It would be “there's even the slightest evidence of guilt” -> “impose punishment”.