Do humans always accept proofs when presented to them?

[Cyberman]

I've heard on this site many times, if there were proofs of God, Atheists would have believed in them and there would be no Atheists. I've heard it many times. I've also heard many times people giving the notion that if Atheists were presented with proofs, they would believe.

That's because proof is undeniable. It leaves no room for doubt, at least reasonable doubt. Proof would defeat all opposition. Manage to prove this stuff and of course we would have no choice but to believe; except inasmuch as belief would be superceded by knowledge. The best you can offer is evidence, which demands examination and dissection. This is the seemingly insurmountable sticking point for the theistic position; because everything presented as evidence, if it ever is, never survives the scrutiny, and all you have left are logical acrobatics and other similar dishonest tactics. Which ought to be a major clue, because you never have to resort to such tricks to convince people of any other thing - even a rock.

[robvalue]

Any response to my claim that God is less obvious than gravity? Is that a reasonable conclusion?

[Angrboda]

There is no such thing as a bullet-proof argument, Mystic. All premises can be doubted. That is why your syllogisms fail. There is no belief that can come without any accompanying doubt.

[brewer]

That is dependent on the validity of the proof.

I have a picture of a UFO, therefore aliens. A shitty attempt at proof.

[Mystic]

I've heard on this site many times, if there were proofs of God, Atheists would have believed in them and there would be no Atheists. I've heard it many times. I've also heard many times people giving the notion that if Atheists were presented with proofs, they would believe.

That's because proof is undeniable. It leaves no room for doubt, at least reasonable doubt. Proof would defeat all opposition. Manage to prove this stuff and of course we would have no choice but to believe; except inasmuch as belief would be superceded by knowledge. The best you can offer is evidence, which demands examination and dissection. This is the seemingly insurmountable sticking point for the theistic position; because everything presented as evidence, if it ever is, never survives the scrutiny, and all you have left are logical acrobatics and other similar dishonest tactics. Which ought to be a major clue, because you never have to resort to such tricks to convince people of any other thing - even a rock.

What do you mean by undeniable? That the person would accept it no matter what? I think as I said, that is a naive understanding. It takes one the proof to be convincing and the second thing it takes is that the person accepts the proof. You seem only to concentrate that the former is needed and can be true or untrue, while assume the latter is a given. The latter is not a given. People don't always accept proofs when presented to them. 

It can be so clear, so manifest, but the person doesn't accept it for various reasons.

[Mystic]

There is no such thing as a bullet-proof argument, Mystic.  All premises can be doubted.  That is why your syllogisms fail.  There is no belief that can come without any accompanying doubt.

What about these statements you just said? Can they be doubted? And if so, isn't it self-defeating?

[robvalue]

Please, no.

Anything...

But this.

No.

[Angrboda]

There is no such thing as a bullet-proof argument, Mystic.  All premises can be doubted.  That is why your syllogisms fail.  There is no belief that can come without any accompanying doubt.

What about these statements you just said? Can they be doubted? And if so, isn't it self-defeating?

Now you're just being clever for the sake of being clever. Knock it off.

[Cyberman]

That's because proof is undeniable. It leaves no room for doubt, at least reasonable doubt. Proof would defeat all opposition. Manage to prove this stuff and of course we would have no choice but to believe; except inasmuch as belief would be superceded by knowledge. The best you can offer is evidence, which demands examination and dissection. This is the seemingly insurmountable sticking point for the theistic position; because everything presented as evidence, if it ever is, never survives the scrutiny, and all you have left are logical acrobatics and other similar dishonest tactics. Which ought to be a major clue, because you never have to resort to such tricks to convince people of any other thing - even a rock.

What do you mean by undeniable? That the person would accept it no matter what? I think as I said, that is a naive understanding. It takes one the proof to be convincing and the second thing it takes is that the person accepts the proof. You seem only to concentrate that the former is needed and can be true or untrue, while assume the latter is a given. The latter is not a given. People don't always accept proofs when presented to them. 

It can be so clear, so manifest, but the person doesn't accept it for various reasons.

Which is why I spoke of reasonable doubt. Sure, there would be people who would flat-out deny what has been proven; in this scenario, they would be the unreasonable ones. They would be the same as idiots who think the laws of physics are optional, and end up a greasy mess at the foot of the Eiffel Tower. This is why it's important to recognise the difference netween "evidence" and "proof" and not to think that the former automatically equates to the latter without having to put in the work.

So go ahead. Put some evidence on the table. Let's see something.

[Crossless2.0]

So go ahead. Put some evidence on the table. Let's see something.

Look within yourself, Stimbo. It's all there.

/evidence