(Feel free just to answer the question its self without reading on)
I'm not sure exactly what this question may imply in entirety, but it struck me as a question I didn't really have an answer for. And then I got caught up deciding whether the act of saying I lacked an answer was an answer in its self (and other endless nonsenses). To expand on the question, it means to say, if we have discovered evidence that contradicts what we know as a fundamental truth, do we embrace that truth, or do we challenge that and continue looking for more information to verify the nature of the anomaly? If you discovered something new about your lover for instance, that completely changed the way you would look at your lover (some scandal or alike), would you change what you think about your lover, or seek more evidence to explain the anomaly?
From a philosophical perspective, if you were a materialist and you were shown near absolute proof that Jesus was resurrected, would you try to explain how it could fit within a naturalistic perspective, or change the fundamental basis from which you look at reality to suit the easier explanation?
What do you think of the question, and how would you answer the question?
-
Hmmmmm.....faulty question?If evidence merely points to something considered to be impossible (strange or counter-intuitive ideas like Einstein's theories or the evolution of species) then what we are talking about is not accepting the impossible but extending the realm of the possible.40% Voted for by Alexander Hine, hahaney.
If, however, we are talking about things or propositions impossible by definition (eg. 2+2=5; "All squares are circles"; an infinitely large spider [unless of course we posit that our universe is part of its innards, but that is a discussion for another day]) then we should not feel compelled to accept them by any evidence whatsoever, as such evidence must of necessity be flawed in some important respect.
A. H. -
It depends on circumstancesI think that it would really depend on the question or what is trying to be proven. The 'impossible' is a very broad topic, and in the 21st century, people are always trying to find a way to go against the "impossible." Therefore, if evidence points to the impossible, it may be something to look twice at, and maybe examine a little more closely, just to make sure that all the evidence is there and nothing contradicts it. If it all works out, than this "impossible" that you speak of may very well be true. However, nobody MUST believe anything, so they don't necessarily have to believe the "impossible" even though it is probably true. However, remember that ALL the evidence must be there before any assumptions or conclusions are made.Voted for by monkeygurl7863.
-
This is a dumb questionThis is a dumb question. If evidence points to something that is truly impossible, then that evidence is false. If it is not impossible, either the evidence is false or the fundamental truth is not a truth. You find which one of these options is correct by logic, and if you cannot prove without a doubt which one is correct, you say that you don't know for sure what to believe. You don't make the assumption one way or another just to make yourself feel better.Voted for by alpPDCjr12.
-
I'm really not sure what I thinkShould we challenge the evidence? When our doubts are quenched, what next? Will you accept the answer? What dictates the fine line between what evidence we choose to accept and not? Emotion?Voted for by Molzahn.
Should our sense of reason have anything to do with the fickle aether flame of emotion? Isn't that the next step to madness?
Or maybe I'm already there
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!