Empirical proof helps us validate what we should and shouldn’t believe, but sometimes cold hard facts just aren’t available. Even when we don’t have solid proof, however, humans still tend to extend their sense of belief to certain phenomenon. From things we could never see with the human eye to life forms that have yet to be verified, here are the top 10 things we believe despite a lack of verifiable proof.


10. ALIENS: While conspiracy theories and UFO sightings abound, we don’t have verifiable proof that other life forms exist in the space beyond our own planet. Still, many people firmly believe that there is life on other planets, or that life did exist at some point inthe past. From video claims of inexplicable objects in the sky, to personal testimonials from people who say they’ve been taken into a spacecraft, we want to believe that there is more to life than what is on our own planet even if it has yet to be scientifically proven as fact.

9. ASTROLOGY: The notion of astrology is not a new one; people have been making major life decisions by the stars for centuries. Without any real proof that the way the planets and stars are aligned will actually shape a person, we believe that if we are born under a certain zodiac sign we are bound to a particular disposition and set of skills. Daily horoscopesand astrological charts have become a guiding tool for many people, who truly think that one’s birth date determines her fate and can help her make day-to-day decisions.

8. CRYPTIDS: Cryptids are animals whose existence has never been proven by science, such as Bigfoot or the infamous West Virginia Mothman. Enough sightings and amateur photographs exist that we consider it possible that these creatures really do walk or swim the Earth with us, even though they don’t exist in museums and aren’t officially acknowledged. Until the Loch Ness monster or another cryptid is captured, they will continue to be merely mystical creatures of which no proof exists.

7. GHOSTS: Anyone who claims to have seen a ghost might say that there is proof of spirit life, but skeptics would argue that any ghostly sighting can be explained away by lighting tricks or other logical reasons. At the end of the day, there may never be indisputable, tangible proof of ghosts. While ghost hunters have electronic tools meant to measure ghost activity, results are open to interpretation. Yet, we believe in ghostly encounters and phenomenon – that when things go bump in the night or move suddenly, a ghost can be the cause.

6. PHYSIC MEDIUMS: Psychic mediums purport to talk to people who have died and gone to “the other side.” Mediums convey details that they supposedly hear from the deceased to loved ones who are still alive. Despite any way to really measure how psychics come by the information they doll out, we believe that they are someone seeing and hearing signs from dead people. While psychic mediums offer a less than 100% accuracy rate, the desire to speak to our dead family and friends is so great thatwe overlook their mistakes and grant them the benefit of the doubt.

5. KARMA: Whether you call it karma, or just “WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND,” people have a common belief that the behavior you exhibit today somehow informs what happens to you down the road. With no more than anecdotal proof, we think that acting morally or fairly now will yield positive things for us in the future. Despite the simple fact that we can never prove that karma exists, it remains a principle that many people live by in the hopes that they can reap the benefits it promises.

4. INTUITION: Call it a gut feeling, or intuition, but we believe that sometimes a sixth sense provides us silent guidance. Intuition can tell us when to distrust someone, end a marriage, avoid a certain street, or steer us in any number of directions. With seemingly no logical explanation, our intuition helps us make decisions with confidence and allows us feel like we are making a decision based on a trusted power that is bigger than ourselves. We give intuition credit for showing us which way to go when we hit a fork in the road.

3 FATE: The phrase “EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON” is thrown around quite a bit, especially after something unfortunate happens. While we have no real reason to suspect that there is a sense of reason to life’s events, we tell ourselves that certain events – if not all of them – are fated to fall into place in precisely the way in which they do. The idea of destiny gives us comfort and helps us to pick ourselves back up after a disaster or hurtful life event.

2. RELIGIOUS TEXTS: Regardless of one’s background, most of us believe in an organized religion of some sort. Religions are taught through texts, such as the Bible, which arethought to spell out exactly how a higher power wants humans to live. We believe stories about people who lived for hundreds ofyears, completed fantastic feats, and even managed to overcome mortality – because they are a part of a religious text. Though noproof exists that these writings are a true reflection any higher power, people do their best to abide by the rules and morals outlined within religious books.

1. GOD: Easily the biggest leap of faith that humans take is believing thata higher power, or God, exists and somehow sees and guides our life. From thinking that an inner prayer is heard, to the belief that we will come face to face with a higher power after death, we think that God is not only real but everywhere. By definition, God cannot be proven through empirical evidence, and yet the notion of a higher power is something that ties us to some of the earliest people and each other.

Source- http://listverse.com/2012/11/04/top-10-things-people-believe-without-proof/

ok

in fact that number 9 I dey receive am daily

greatly written!

11. Jesus is white.

You might say some people blindly believe in the existence of a supreme being.. but that's really not the case.. the evidence around us of his existence are overwhelming.. maybe you should try asking some people why they believe in his existence .. and compare it to why some others don't believe in him.. come back to me with the results.. and I'll prove to you that number 1 shouldn't be on this your list.

Bauer1:
You might say some people blindly believe in the existence of a supreme being.. but that's really not the case.. the evidence around us of his existence are overwhelming.. maybe you should try asking some people why they believe in his existence .. and compare it to why some others don't believe in him.. come back to me with the results.. and I'll prove to you that number 1 shouldn't be on this your list.

would love to see you try. even the Bible knows it's all about faith, you believe because you can and you chose to. the only one that can empirically prove God's existence is God himself

All frailty of the human mind. We need to hinge our fears, shortcomings, desires, weaknesses and ignorance on tangible things. Alas, that's not possible so we invent inscrutable phantoms like god, karma and fate.

I believe that there is more to life than what is on our own planet even if it has yet to be scientifically proven as fact.

If I agree with all other pls and pls don't include him baba GOD

kilojoDesigns:


would love to see you try. even the Bible knows it's all about faith, you believe because you can and you chose to. the only one that can empirically prove God's existence is God himself

right.. faith.. what's the definition again.. is it blindly believing without some sought of evidence? nah.. Hebrews 11:1 defines it as "the "assured" expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld".. the assurance we have is based on what is around us and not just on the Bible.. the complex designs of everything around us testifies to the existence of a creator..

I don't know about the rest but I do believe that karma exists

Bauer1:
right.. faith.. what's the definition again.. is it blindly believing without some sought of evidence? nah.. Hebrews 11:1 defines it as "the "assured" expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld".. the assurance we have is based on what is around us and not just on the Bible.. the complex designs of everything around us testifies to the existence of a creator..

Testifies? Really? Complex designs around us is proof of complex designs. If there was a god, we'd have empirically established the existence of it and not need inference from complex designs. Your logic is not thorough, the "creator" can be anything and complex designs could form/derive/evolve from simpler designs without interference or direction of an outside force.

Ultimus:


Testifies? Really? Complex designs around us is proof of complex designs. If there was a god, we'd have empirically established the existence of it and not need inference from complex designs. Your logic is not thorough, the "creator" can be anything and complex designs could form/derive/evolve from simpler designs without interference or direction of an outside force.

Oh.. like a house in the middle of the forest evolved from the trees around it, without any interference, right?

Or like you just grew in mummy's Tommy without any interference?

Bauer1:

Oh.. like a house in the middle of the forest evolved from the trees around it, without any interference, right?

Or like you just grew in mummy's Tommy without any interference?

Like I said your logic is not thorough; while it sticks for things like houses, phones, whatever, it collapses when it comes to understanding biological organisms, physical and chemical interactions. A baby growing in the tummy is even an example to show you how complexity can form from simpler forms but it is not a very good example because you'll be pointing me to the mother's role in the baby's growth/development. However, I can refer you to how genetic material can form naturally in nature or how a system full of randomness like the early universe can self-generate ordered and interacting complex subsystems like galaxies and solar systems.

Ultimus:


Like I said your logic is not thorough; while it sticks for things like houses, phones, whatever, it collapses when it comes to understanding biological organisms, physical and chemical interactions. A baby growing in the tummy is even an example to show you how complexity can form from simpler forms but it is not a very good example because you'll be pointing me to the mother's role in the baby's growth/development. However, I can refer you to how genetic material can form naturally in nature or how a system full of randomness like the early universe can self-generate ordered and interacting complex subsystems like galaxies and solar systems.

can you?.. I'd like you to prove how the simplest of organisms came about.. (let's not talk about how they even developed yet and why they haven't evolved into something else for the past thousand years)

Ultimus:


Like I said your logic is not thorough; while it sticks for things like houses, phones, whatever, it collapses when it comes to understanding biological organisms, physical and chemical interactions. A baby growing in the tummy is even an example to show you how complexity can form from simpler forms but it is not a very good example because you'll be pointing me to the mother's role in the baby's growth/development. However, I can refer you to how genetic material can form naturally in nature or how a system full of randomness like the early universe can self-generate ordered and interacting complex subsystems like galaxies and solar systems.

and why will a house just appearing from a cluster of trees not be an apt analogy but galaxies, planets, etc. simply evolving into what they are now makes sense? to believe in a creator, a supreme being.. does it not require much less faith than believing that boom, things just appeared at random and are so well organised, with a well designed structure.. (you can see I can't even do without using the word "design"

Bauer1:
and why will a house just appearing from a cluster of trees not be an apt analogy but galaxies, planets, etc. simply evolving into what they are now makes sense? to believe in a creator, a supreme being.. does it not require much less faith than believing that boom, things just appeared at random and are so well organised, with a well designed structure.. (you can see I can't even do without using the word "design"

A house is not a universe, they stand in contradistinction to each other in physical structure and formative processes. There's no point comparing them.

No, it doesn't require faith to accept that this universe had a beginning that doesn't include a creator or celestial designer. Because not only is it unlikely, those of you touting designers and creators have a very hard time proving the existence of one.

Bauer1:

can you?.. I'd like you to prove how the simplest of organisms came about.. (let's not talk about how they even developed yet and why they haven't evolved into something else for the past thousand years)

The Miller Urey experiment.

This famous experiment shows how the building blocks of life can form naturally in the early settings of the earth. Although there's been many different versions of the experiment, they all point to the same conclusion. Even now, people use computer models and maths equations to try elucidate the process and it still agrees with the experiment.

......The argument isn't about evolution, maybe some other time.

Ultimus:


The Miller Urey experiment.

This famous experiment shows how the building blocks of life can form naturally in the early settings of the earth. Although there's been many different versions of the experiment, they all point to the same conclusion. Even now, people use computer models and maths equations to try elucidate the process and it still agrees with the experiment.

......The argument isn't about evolution, maybe some other time.

It's a good thing you mentioned the "infamous" Urey Miller experiment.. you know, when he first conducted that experiment with the "assumed" earth conditions at the beginning, alot of people were excited and optimistic, so many other experiments were conducted that even produced nucleic acids, they could possibly now create living organisms and thereby demonstrate in detail how Genesis unfolded through a series of spontaneous changes..
after Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists have set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth.. after thousands of experiments, are they still any closer to solving the mystery of life? not by a long shot. Realistically, the mystery encompasses more than how the first proteins and nucleic acids(RNA or DNA) molecules came into existence. it includes how they work together, since it is the partnership of these two molecules that makes life on earth possible.. at this point, I am inclined to quote British astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, who compared the likelihood of life appearing on Earth by chemical reactions "as equivalent to the possibility that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".

and is this not really about evolution? Hey bro.. you've got a long way to go.

Ultimus:


A house is not a universe, they stand in contradistinction to each other in physical structure and formative processes. There's no point comparing them.

No, it doesn't require faith to accept that this universe had a beginning that doesn't include a creator or celestial designer. Because not only is it unlikely, those of you touting designers and creators have a very hard time proving the existence of one.

the evidence of a creator is all around you.. you've just chosen to remain blind.. the reason most scientists have decided to refute his existence is due to the fact that they just can't stand being accountable to a far superior being whom they can't see.. like I always say, the gift of sight is not limited to the use of the eyes.. after all, you don't see the air, but you believe it's all around you.. cause you got evidence in the sense that you breathe it in and you're alive today.. I don't see God, but the things he created are testimonies enough for me.. and then there comes the Bible.. but that had better be a story for another day.

Bauer1:

It's a good thing you mentioned the "infamous" Urey Miller experiment.. you know, when he first conducted that experiment with the "assumed" earth conditions at the beginning, alot of people were excited and optimistic, so many other experiments were conducted that even produced nucleic acids, they could possibly now create living organisms and thereby demonstrate in detail how Genesis unfolded through a series of spontaneous changes..
after Miller and others had synthesized amino acids, scientists have set out to make proteins and DNA, both of which are necessary for life on earth.. after thousands of experiments, are they still any closer to solving the mystery of life? not by a long shot. Realistically, the mystery encompasses more than how the first proteins and nucleic acids(RNA or DNA) molecules came into existence. it includes how they work together, since it is the partnership of these two molecules that makes life on earth possible.. at this point, I am inclined to quote British astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, who compared the likelihood of life appearing on Earth by chemical reactions "as equivalent to the possibility that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".

and is this not really about evolution? Hey bro.. you've got a long way to go.

Miller Urey experiment has been criticized for a lot of things including it's assumption about the state of the primitive earth's atmosphere but one thing that hasn't been falsified (from repeated experiments that used the MU experiment as reference) is that simple things can naturally come together to form complex structures - which I can see you've mentioned as well. It is relevant today because it was the breakthrough that solve the conundrum of how animate structures came to be.

Be careful with your analogies. They seem to toggle between shortsightedness and superfluity. When you consider that the 5 elements present in genetic material are not the parts of a Boeing, maybe it'll start becoming clearer to you. The elements only need form the amino acids and gain the impulse to start copying themselves. Which brings me to the mystery of life. We don't know the specific point life started or it's trigger but we have done better than the creator assumption. We know the basic things that must exist for life to be, a demonstration is available as to how these elements can come together. By a long shot, it is a better argument than "a creator/designer did it". In this case, even your creator's explanation is violating the Occam's razor.

No, the argument is not about evolution. It is about how we don't need a creator for the complexity we see around us. The arguments against evolution is already tenuous. I mean, it has applications in the world today, how does someone argue against what has applications in the modern world?

Bauer1:

the evidence of a creator is all around you.. you've just chosen to remain blind.. the reason most scientists have decided to refute his existence is due to the fact that they just can't stand being accountable to a far superior being whom they can't see.. like I always say, the gift of sight is not limited to the use of the eyes.. after all, you don't see the air, but you believe it's all around you.. cause you got evidence in the sense that you breathe it in and you're alive today.. I don't see God, but the things he created are testimonies enough for me.. and then there comes the Bible.. but that had better be a story for another day.

1. Try not to attack the perspicacity of a person to make your point. I don't know if you've thought my thoughts or seen the things I've seen.

2. There you go again with the analogies. God can't be compared to air. You can see air (in it's condensed form), you can burn it, you can breathe, you can perform physical actions with it, it is universal. Although it bears different names across the world, it's physical (and chemical qualities) are constant and not confusionist. Same can never be said for your God. So they are not the same. Again, things around you are evidence for things around you. Inference is not evidence, it is an higher order thinking skill that isn't going to help you prove your God exists. If God exists, we won't have your inference, no we'd have a God.

Ultimus:


Miller Urey experiment has been criticized for a lot of things including it's assumption about the state of the primitive earth's atmosphere but one thing that hasn't been falsified (from repeated experiments that used the MU experiment as reference) is that simple things can naturally come together to form complex structures - which I can see you've mentioned as well. It is relevant today because it was the breakthrough that solve the conundrum of how animate structures came to be.

Be careful with your analogies. They seem to toggle between shortsightedness and superfluity. When you consider that the 5 elements present in genetic material are not the parts of a Boeing, maybe it'll start becoming clearer to you. The elements only need form the amino acids and gain the impulse to start copying themselves. Which brings me to the mystery of life. We don't know the specific point life started or it's trigger but we have done better than the creator assumption. We know the basic things that must exist for life to be, a demonstration is available as to how these elements can come together. By a long shot, it is a better argument than "a creator/designer did it". In this case, even your creator's explanation is violating the Occam's razor.

No, the argument is not about evolution. It is about how we don't need a creator for the complexity we see around us. The arguments against evolution is already tenuous. I mean, it has applications in the world today, how does someone argue against what has applications in the modern world?

Breakthrough that solved the conundrum? has anything really been solved? Even those carrying out the experiments agree they are no closer to solving the supposed "conundrum" today than they were years ago.. it's a goose chase.. but if you insist on pursuing it, be my guest.

and did you say applications in the modern world? yeah I agree.. the application is that everyone is accountable to themselves, so do what you like.. why should anyone care? a life without purpose.. no hope as it is..

Ultimus:


1. Try not to attack the perspicacity of a person to make your point. I don't know if you've thought my thoughts or seen the things I've seen.

2. There you go again with the analogies. God can't be compared to air. You can see air (in it's condensed form), you can burn it, you can breathe, you can perform physical actions with it, it is universal. Although it bears different names across the world, it's physical (and chemical qualities) are constant and not confusionist. Same can never be said for your God. So they are not the same. Again, things around you are evidence for things around you. Inference is not evidence, it is an higher order thinking skill that isn't going to help you prove your God exists. If God exists, we won't have your inference, no we'd have a God.

inference is not evidence? and practically everything in science is a function of inference? Bro there are more proof out there, it's just a matter of objectivity, and trying to see beyond what you think you know..
we may well continue this argument, but I don't see a conclusion which doesn't go round in circles anytime soon.. so, I'll leave you be.. but just have it in mind that God exists and if you just look, you'll find him.