Do humans always accept proofs when presented to them?

[Mystic]

A lot of people argue on the lines of the following:

1. If there were proofs of a God, then everyone would believe in God.
2. Some people don't believe in God.
3. Therefore there aren't any proofs of God.

A lot of people argue similarly on the lines of the following (which is similar but not exactly the same):

1. If people were presented with proofs of God, they would believe in God.
2. Some don't believe in God.
3. Therefore they weren't presented with proofs of God.

I would say for these two arguments to be true. The following would have to be true as well. That for example, Sunnis would accept proofs that point to Shiism if they are conclusive, clear and decisive. However I believe such proofs exist. However people turn away from it. Even when a lot of people are presented evidence they turn away from it.

The human phenomenon as far as accepting truth goes, it seems, that we haven't over all reached a mass status where almost everyone is sincere towards the truth that if they were proven something they would believe.

One day we may get there - but till then - this sort of reasoning that people accept positive claims when it's proven to them seems rather naive of the situation humanity is in.

To be honest,  I'm not sure how people cannot see what they are and the signs of God in themselves, aside from not reflecting. But when people reflect, it should be obvious.

A lot of people here have reflected I believe - but - there is something else preventing them from believing. They see but then take their disbelief as proof of their blindness towards the light of God, to the extent they have become blind towards it despite it's clear indications and reminder.

[paulpablo]

A lot of people argue on the lines of the following:

1. If there were proofs of a God, then everyone would believe in God.
2. Some people don't believe in God.
3. Therefore there aren't any proofs of God.

A lot of people argue similarly on the lines of the following (which is similar but not exactly the same):

1. If people were presented with proofs of God, they would believe in God.
2. Some don't believe in God.
3. Therefore they weren't presented with proofs of God.

I would say for these two arguments to be true. The following would have to be true as well. That for example, Sunnis would accept proofs that point to Shiism if they are conclusive, clear and decisive. However I believe such proofs exist. However people turn away from it. Even when a lot of people are presented evidence they turn away from it.

The human phenomenon as far as accepting truth goes, it seems, that we haven't over all reached a mass status where almost everyone is sincere towards the truth that if they were proven something they would believe.

One day we may get there - but till then - this sort of reasoning that people accept positive claims when it's proven to them seems rather naive of the situation humanity is in.

To be honest,  I'm not sure how people cannot see what they are and the signs of God in themselves, aside from not reflecting. But when people reflect, it should be obvious.

A lot of people here have reflected I believe - but - there is something else preventing them from believing. They see but then take their disbelief as proof of their blindness towards the light of God, to the extent they have become blind towards it despite it's clear indications and reminder.

Proof doesn't necessarily equal belief because people don't always accept proof. 

I don't accept anything you have said to be proof.  You mainly babble about reflecting or something along the lines of "Obviously god would do exactly what my religion says god did."
You say things like obviously god would send down a messenger, give us a book to read, then you go off onto an emotional rant.

[Alex K]

My publisher sent me proofs the other day, and I rejected them because they had messed up several obvious things. So there's that...

[Cyberman]

Forget about "proofs"; think "evidence". Present some and we can evaluate it. Just don't go all butthurt and pissy if/when we tear it apart - that's what evidence is for.

[Cyberman]

My publisher sent me proofs the other day, and I rejected them because they had messed up several obvious things. So there's that...

I once applied for a job as a poof-reader. I didn't get it.

[Angrboda]

Mystic, you are blinded by your own opinion. That is a bad state from which to evaluate truths or proof. You think others are blind, but there is none so blind as cannot see the faults in their own view.

[Jackalope]

@OP:

No, they do not.

[Minimalist]

A lot of people here have reflected I believe - but - there is something else preventing them from believing.

Yeah.


Reality.

[Cyberman]

Yes, reality. That inconvenient thing that doesn't go away when you close your eyes.

[The Grand Nudger]

A lot of people argue on the lines of the following:

1. If there were proofs of a God, then everyone would believe in God.
2. Some people don't believe in God.
3. Therefore there aren't any proofs of God.

A lot of people argue similarly on the lines of the following (which is similar but not exactly the same):

1. If people were presented with proofs of God, they would believe in God.
2. Some don't believe in God.
3. Therefore they weren't presented with proofs of God.

I would say for these two arguments to be true. The following would have to be true as well. That for example, Sunnis would accept proofs that point to Shiism if they are conclusive, clear and decisive. However I believe such proofs exist. However people turn away from it. Even when a lot of people are presented evidence they turn away from it.

Who, who argues this?  You appear to be the only person expressing such sentiments.  

The human phenomenon as far as accepting truth goes, it seems, that we haven't over all reached a mass status where almost everyone is sincere towards the truth that if they were proven something they would believe.

One day we may get there - but till then - this sort of reasoning that people accept positive claims when it's proven to them seems rather naive of the situation humanity is in.

We may be there now, but you, being married to your ideology, refuse to acknowledge this.  You would be a prime example of the thing you criticize in others.  You believe in supernatural locks ffs.....

To be honest,  I'm not sure how people cannot see what they are and the signs of God in themselves, aside from not reflecting. But when people reflect, it should be obvious.

A lot of people here have reflected I believe - but - there is something else preventing them from believing. They see but then take their disbelief as proof of their blindness towards the light of God, to the extent they have become blind towards it despite it's clear indications and reminder.

What should be obvious?  What?  Yes, we know that you believe that something else™ " is preventing them from believing, a fairy curse..........you've told us.....this is why the irony is delicious. Go on, tell us more about how people cling to their absurd beliefs in the absence or even face of evidence and reason.