Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
What do you think of this theory?
"Belief or disbelief in anything does not change the existence of anything."
Ok, so it might be more like a hypothesis than a theory. But its general purpose is to explain why people would believe in something that can't actually be proven by scientific means, such as the existence of God. And why others will deny the existence of something for the same reason, but still justify their belief or disbelief.
Proof is irrelevant to the theory, proof only changes the belief of a person in any particular thing or concept. A person's belief in God or disbelief in God does not change the actual state of God's existence one way or the other. God or anything for that matter will continue to exist or not exist regardless of a person's belief in it or not. And just for the record the theory applies to anyone belief or disbelief.
So to reword the theory "Any person's belief or disbelief in anything does not change the actual state of existence of anything. Proof of anything will only change a person's state of belief not the state of existence of anything."
3 Answers
- secretsauceLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Well I wouldn't call that a "theory" or a hypothesis ... it's just a trivially true statement.
Simple proof: It it were false, then if two people disagreed on the existence of something, then that thing would both exist and not exist.
Or alternatively, people could never change their belief or disbelief at all. If believing something caused it to exist, then it would be impossible to ever change that opinion. If I believed in the tooth fairy as a child, then that belief would have brought the tooth fairy into existence ... and I would *have* to continue to believe in it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Your theory is wrong. Proof is evidence sufficient to convince.
How much proof is necessary to convice someone who is already a believer AND how much is necessary to convince a non-believer? Answer: 0 and 1/0.
Similarly with your word "explain" An explanation is a story sufficient to satisfy.
The wonder is that we can communicate and often agree that there are objective proofs and objective truths describing an objective reality. This objective reality is different for each of us but its wonderful that there is so much of it in common between us.
Belief changes perception, behavior, attitude and one's mental "framework", the questions one raises, the answers one accepts. and the way one acts. What is more real than that?
Did you mean to write: "YOUR belief or disbelief in anything does not change MY belief in the existence of anything"?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
That's not really your theory. That's sort of the oldest philosophical question. 'Is there reality that is truly independent from our perception?'