Do humans always accept proofs when presented to them?

[Mystic]

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

I've done that to be honest in various ways through out the years. 

The topic is not really about all those proofs I've presented however. So I won't divert it to this issue.

[Cyberman]

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

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

/evidence

God is vodka?

Well, it is a holy spirit...

[Cyberman]

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

I've done that to be honest in various ways through out the years. 

The topic is not really about all those proofs I've presented however. So I won't divert it to this issue.

Do you recognise the fundamental difference between proof and evidence?

[The Grand Nudger]

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

I've done that to be honest in various ways through out the years. 

The topic is not really about all those proofs I've presented however. So I won't divert it to this issue.

You'd like to claim it, but not demonstrate it.  You haven't even managed to present proof, Mystic.  You have failed, and are now pointing to a mountain of your failures as though it indicated anything other than your inability to bring forward evidence...or proof.  Total nutball shit, right there.

[Red_Wind]

I've done that to be honest in various ways through out the years. 

The topic is not really about all those proofs I've presented however. So I won't divert it to this issue.

Do you recognise the fundamental difference between proof and evidence?

I don't he does :p

For OP:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...ific-proof

[houseofcantor]

That's not the strawman you're looking for. Those conjectures contradict omnipresence.

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.

There's an MRI for that.

What should be harder to understand is how that when it is shown repeatedly that electro-chemical stimulation produces euphoria identical to religious experience, rather than extrapolate from demonstrable physical processes, they choose to conjure some nebulous super being. That's not following hoof prints and thinking zebras, you guys are off in Griffon land.

[downbeatplumb]

Do humans always accept proofs when presented to them?

No.
People have cherished beliefs that they will defend with every brain cell and cling on to despite any and all evidence shown.
There is one way to get round this bias.
The scientific method.
How can you tell if your beliefs are likely to be wrong?
When all they have going for them are arguments, you can make an argument to support anything. So if that is all you have you have nothing.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Short answer to your thread title:

No, your belief in allah and islam proves that.

[Cecelia]

People generally accept good proof. I think that's a part that you're missing. If I give you proof that you are actually an Octopus, but it is not good proof, are you just going to accept it?

You say God is obvious, but God is not so obvious at all. When God speaks, only individuals listen. Never large groups of people from vastly different cultures and backgrounds. Not once. For God to be obvious, he (or she) would need to speak not just to the individual, but to all. Yet no god has ever done this. No god has ever given the same set of instructions to two cultures vastly different and vastly far apart.

First you would have to prove that there is a God. Then you would have to prove that it's YOUR god, and not some other god. That it's not Zeus, or Odin, or Akatosh, or Faerore, Nayru and Din. Then you would have to prove that what you say about your god is true.

It's not so simple that you can spout some philosophical bullshit that sounded good to you at the time, and constitute it as proof. That's not proof.

[Mystic]

People generally accept good proof. 

My experience as far the sunni-shia issue is for example, that is not the case. I think humans accept good proof for certain things but reject it for certain things for various reasons.