I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

You don't choose to believe in that which is fact and can be proved by evidence. It is simply fact. It requires no 'believing'. Do you even know what the definition of belief is?

But we aren't debating what the factual state of affairs is. We're talking about how and why we have certain beliefs--in particular, if the standard for belief in p is that there is evidence for p, why should I believe in evidentialism? Where is the evidence for it?

It's not a belief, no matter how many times you stupidly say it is. Evidentialism as you call it, is the only rational way to look at the world around us. Now you can sit there and philosophise about bullshit you can and can't prove as much as you want. But there's a difference when it comes to using evidence. Evidence is used to discern fact from fiction, and if you want to disregard evidence on philosophical grounds then more fool you.

How do you know that evidentialism is the only rational way to look at the world? Or is that just an article of faith for you?

Evidence does not require belief like you are making out. It is not something you can debate over. There is either evidence supporting a hypothesis or there is not. If there is not then give me one rational reason, to think that such a hypothesis is true.

Sure, the 'evidence' (however defined) either exists or it doesn't. I never claimed otherwise.

The question is how you know that we should care about the evidence. How do you know that we should correlate our beliefs with the evidence available to us?

Suppose someone disagreed with evidentialism. That is, suppose someone believed, "There are at least some propositions for which there is no evidence, but that we should affirm as beliefs."

How would you prove them wrong? If evidentialism is truly the only rational worldview--that is, every rational worldview must include evidentialism--then you should be able to demonstrate some contradiction in the above person's belief.

Can you provide such a contradiction?