Is there anything that we KNOW exists that we don't have direct evidence of?

Question

I'm not talking about extinct animals, or buried cities. I'm talking about things that we know exist in the here and now.

Ask yourself this very simple question... is there ANYTHING that we KNOW for CERTAIN which we do not have some sort of empirical evidence for? The answer is NO. Everything that we KNOW exists, we have a way of verifying. Gravity, atoms, clouds, tomatoes, bulldogs... all these things can be proposed and verified through testable, demonstrable methods.

On the other hand, all the things that we DO NOT know for CERTAIN exist - astrology, ghosts, ESP, alien abductions, bigfoot, GODS - we have no evidence of. In fact, our attempts to verify their existence always fail, or worse, indicate that they DO NOT exist. Therefore;

Things we know exist = we have evidence of.
Things we do not know exist = we have no evidence of.

By following this simple proof it is clearly impossible to make the claim that we KNOW a god exists. The best we can say is we hope a god exists.

Answer 1

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. We know that's true. But there is no scientific way to prove it. In order to prove it, you would have to measure every other way to go between those two points. In math, there are certain assumptions that are made, although I forget the technical term for it, that we know intuitively are true but that we cannot empirically prove. The idea that there is no evidence for God is just proof that you really don't think for yourself, but instead believe everything in science textbooks. To think that as complex as the universe is, it had no creator, is not logical thinking, just like to believe that this computer, as complex as it is, had no creator, would be dismissed by any scientist as illogical.

Answer 2

Here is the thing. You lump bigfoot and aliens with God. Bigfoot and aliens should be verifiable, and should be at least sometimes visible. But they never have been(scientifically
at least) then they should logically not exist. The book that describes God (the Bible) says that no one has seen God. Do you expect to be able to put God under an electron microscope, or use a radio telescope to see heaven? Our instruments cannot perceive other dimensions. Research quantum physics. You will be amazed by how little we can know or perceive. An good analogy is the energy spectrum. Such a tiny portion is visible light. I believe that is parallel to other things in this universe. Everything we can see, is not everything there is. There is probably real science behind not seeing God, we just don't know it yet. Don't close off your mind to that possibility.

Answer 3

The Question dont really make sense, i think maybe your on about Faith? there have been signs of God through Holy books, spirtual visions some people have had but this is all down to having faith, some people might regard this as uncertain while others might regard it as certain, thats where faith comes into it, but other then God all the other things that exist or existed we have evidence for, there is not anything that we dont have direct evidence and is certain NO, how can someting exist if one dont have evidence and not associated with faith, duhhhhhhhhhh lol.

Answer 4

On the sub-atomic level NOTHING EXISTS. By observing anything we infuse it with reality.

The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making. With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle. Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other. DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE. The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION. The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered. Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all that.

Answer 5

So before gravity was defined and known by man, it did not exist?

"Everything that we KNOW exists, we have a way of verifying. Gravity, atoms, clouds, tomatoes, bulldogs... all these things can be proposed and verified through testable, demonstrable methods."

I KNOW God exists because He has demonstrated Himself to me in a manner most testable by me and verified by my life.

Answer 6

At this point, yes, the best we can say is that we hope that God exists, that theism does not violate reason, and that the rules of logic (as currently understood) demonstrate the logical necessity of a Deity (who may or may not be a personal being).

Answer 7

"By following this simple proof it is clearly impossible to make the claim that we KNOW a god exists. The best we can say is we hope a god exists"

That's true. That's why I was an agnostic for most of my life. But now I believe in God because He has proved his existence to me. I can't prove it to you, but He can if you let Him.

Answer 8

Well, it seems you are already convinced that you have the answer, so I don't know why you're asking the question.

Yahoo! Answers is for people asking questions and seeking answers, not arguments.

By the way, I disagree with you. You have completely neglected to mention circumstantial evidence. I suggest you look it up. Our justice system often relies almost completely on circumstantial evidence and can still come to a reasonable verdict.

Answer 9

Yes. Providence.

Answer 10

Weapon's of mass destruction!!! LMAO hehe.....

If I surgically remove all your senses, you won't be able to prove anything exists lol,,,

Absense of proof is not proof of absense... Sherlock Holmes.

To prove God exists, first you have to define him. Theologians define God as undefinable by human perception, and so God becomes as detectable as a computer programmer is to the computer avatar.

Hence the concept of faith, or to understand by abstract reasoning, rather than scientific proof.