Do humans always accept proofs when presented to them?

[robvalue]

Further thoughts:

Going back to Jim, I think it would reasonable to conclude that if Jim exists at all, at best only one of us knows him well enough to speak accurately about him. And since none of the people provide any evidence, it's impossible to tell who this is, if anyone. They all just say, "Everyone else is wrong."

Here's another issue: how obvious is it that there is a god? If God wanted it to be obvious, then you'd expect almost everyone would believe in him. Yet they don't; so it is reasonable to conclude God does not want it to be obvious, or else there is some competing power he can't control.

Hopefully we would all agree that the force of gravity is a fact. How obvious is this fact? Virtually everyone believes it, once it's been pointed out to them. It's incredibly obvious. So probably close to 100% believe it. Let's say 99%, to be generous for this example.

How obvious is God, if it's real? Well, a lot less than 99% of people believe in it. I don't have the exact figures, but let's be really generous and say 95% of the world believe in something roughly equating to a god. That still makes God significantly less obvious than gravity, even if it is a real thing. And I've fudged the figures in god's favour here most likely.

If you just say God is the creator of our reality, we can have a discussion. If you insist on piling on a paragraph of extremely vague extra properties, without demonstrating how you can possibly know any of them to be true, then I don't know what you're talking about anymore. I can't believe in something if I don't understand what it is.