A reason to believe?

[Watson]

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that the sun will rise the next morning when I wake up.

You can see the sun, it's demonstrably real. However, the fact that you believe it to survive another rotation of the Earth has no merit on whether it will actually do so.

No, it's not. The only thing proving it is real, to me subjectively, is that I can experience it's warmth, I can see the light it gives, and I can benefit from it's existance. I'm fairly confident through faith in my experience with the sun that it will not, in fact, explode or go out overnight. My belief has no bearing on whether or not it does or does not, that's correct, but I don't have to sit around worrying like a paranoid schizo because, hey, I believe in the sun and it's nature pretty confidently.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

Again, this belief has absolutely no merit as you absolutely need evidence to say such a thing. I think you meant to say "I don't believe that when I come home I will find my house burned down to the ground when I get there." It's a non-belief, and does not require evidence. You don't actively hold the belief that something WON'T happen, and if you do, I'd wonder what else you hold as an active belief. [/quote]
I hold everything as an active belief, so you're comment is moot. In other words, my beliefs are all actively held and I always hold them somewhere within me, whether or not I'm focusing on them at one time or another.

Further, I don't need evidence to say that my house is not going to be burned to the ground when I get home, I'm just confident it wont be. Why would I need evidence for that? Especially if I'm certain of other factors, like having unplugged or turned off all my electronics before leaving, having turned my stove off, likewise, or not having left anything flammable within the home. I can be certain, to a point, that my house will not be burned down.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that if I make a mistake in my relationship it will still be possible to reconcile with the person I love.

3rd time with this BS. Your belief in trying to make things work in a relationship has absolutely no merit in deciphering whether your belief is relevant to anything. It doesn't make it necessarily true in the least, especially just because you believe in it.[/quote]
Except that holding the belief motivates certain logical actions on my part. In believing that the relationship will work, I will take courses of action and hold myself in a very confident manner throughout the relationship. When the relationship is threatened, I put up a fight for it, rather than laying down and taking abuse. When problems arise, I will try to solve them rather than leave them lying and growing. My actions and feelings are dictated by this belief.

If I'm constantly worrying, instead, that the person I love will leave me, the chances increase that that person will pick up on those feelings and actually leave. Why? Because they will sense my lack of confidence, and really, who wants to be in a relationship where one party feels that the whole thing is extremely fragile? Not many, because love is not a fragile thing.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that having hope through bad times is no more false hope than having hope through good times.

See above.[/quote]
What? No. I think anyone would agree that holding hope throughout your life is better than losing hope entirely when things get rough.

I have to wonder, EvF, why does it bother you so much, and why be so vehement in lashing out at fr0do? Take a chill pill, dude, it's only a debate. Right?

I agree. I've learned to just tune out his shitty reasoning and vague explanations. [/quote]
Don't use your response towards me to take petty pot-shots at fr0do. Your qualm, at present, is with me and not him.

Oh, and Paul, I don't think that was a fancy way of saying God is outside the realm of evidence. He is just outside the realm of scientific evidence. In the case of God, experience is the most reliable form evidence takes. Trust, faith, and belief are required for the experience to be taken as such, however.

That's ridiculous. How do you know God is outside the realm of scientific evidence?[/quote]
Because I've had experiences with God that suggest to me he is above and beyond the realm of scientific evidence. Furthermore, he is, to an extent, within the realm of scientific evidence. I.e.- all of your scientific evidence is just as much a part of God as is me or you, or my subjective experience evidence.

By the way, subjective experience is subjective evidence. That's how you make decisions in life, through similar experiences.

This is what I'm saying, dude. You ask for objective proof of everything, but some things can only be trusted on the subjective level, and do not super-impose onto the objective unless one takes the time to think. I should have been clearer in my attempt to combine the idea of experience and evidence.

If you touch a hot stove and get burned, would you touch it again, having knowledge of your experience? Would you then say "I believe without evidence, but through experience, that a stove will burn my hand"?

If you touched it once, you don't have to touch it again to know it's going to burn you. But on some subconscious level, yes, you do in fact say to yourself "From experience, I know that tove will burn me if I touch it."

Your experiences in life ARE your evidence.

Yes...Yes! Exactly!