Can you only believe when there is no proof of, or can you still believe when there is proof of?

Belief, as defined by wikipedia, is "the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Hence if you think something true, you believe it. Doesn't matter if there's proof or not, it's still belief. The issue is whether that belief is supported by evidence or not.

A person can believe something with or without proof.

A person can never be absolutely certain that what they believe is true.

You just operate on probabilities. You give it your best shot.

Here is an example from a philosophy class I took: The professor said that he knew his car was in the parking lot. He parked it there a few minutes before going into class. But how can he say that his car is in the parking lot? What if he is wrong? He could be spreading lies! What if a car thief stole his car and it is no longer out there? What if the parking brake failed and the car rolled off the hill? What if a sinkhole opened up and swallowed his car? What if he wasn't making his payments and the repo man came and took his car? What if his memory is bad and actually walked to work or caught a ride with another professor?

This is all pretty ridiculous. We should trust him when he says his car is in the parking lot. But there is the slight chance that it is not true. We should go through life believing things that are reasonable to believe, but now and then if we discover that we are wrong, we should not be too shocked.

"Belief" is acceptance of something as true without any requirement for knowledge about that something, evidence for that something, or "proof" of that something.

"Knowledge" is defined as "justified, true belief" -- and the only way to show a "belief" is "justified and true" is through evidence or "proof." So once you're dealing with evidence and proof, you have knowledge -- you no longer have "belief." "Belief" is the hypothesis; knowledge is the conclusion you reach when the hypothesis is shown correct by evidence.

Sadly, many people consider belief to BE knowledge. It's not. They're two different things. "Belief" is essentially worthless, except perhaps as a way to formulate an hypothesis for testing; since it requires no evidence or "proof," a "belief" can be true or false, but whether it's one or the other is not known.

Proof and evidence are different. Evidence is the foundation of proof. In a trial, evidence is presented against the defendant. If the defendant did commit the crime but it can't be proven, the jury rules innocent. That doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed by the defendant, just that it can't be proven that the crime was committed. You could still be correct in believing that a person ruled innocent was guilty.

Likewise, evidence can be misleading, and create the illusion of proof of a truth claim that is factually false. See numerous examples of people wrongfully convicted and later exonerated.

Philosophy.. joy :-)

A belief exists where there is no proof. A belief becomes fact when there is proof.

If there were proof that God exists, belief in God would stop, because you'd know he was there.

Some believers (in any faith) will say they have proof of their God's existence, however this is just a strong belief.

A certain element of belief is involved in trusting factual evidence.

"FAITH: Not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe. -

Voltaire

Christianity is a faith and seeking proof shows lack of faith. But they dare not even consider proof simply because all the evidence of history is against Christian claims!

The only way primitive religion exists today is through the child abuse of forcing it into very, very young children but thanks to better education and growing intellects so many teens are able to discover the truth, throw off the indoctrination and step into the real world!

Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

I can only speak for myself but I believe because of the evidence...

That there are some atheists who deny the evidence because it goes against their own beliefs has no bearing on the validity of the evidence or the existence of the evidence.

to believe in anything it must manifest, sooner or later, or it's just hope, to make it appear in the natural ,"faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" it's there, but can't see it, faith pulls things from the spiritual world into the natural world" faith in people is not like faith in God, even the best person in the world will eventually let you down, "God can't lie, He's not a man that He could" don't hope or have faith that a certain person is for you, unless God says it

Anyone can believe anything, with or without proof. But if you want to convince anyone else of your beliefs it helps to have something to back it up.