RE: Do humans always accept proofs when presented to them?
December 27, 2015 at 11:46 am
(This post was last modified: December 27, 2015 at 11:47 am by Mystic.)
(December 26, 2015 at 3:52 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(December 26, 2015 at 1:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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 Manage to prove this stuff and of course we would have no choice but to believe; except inasmuch as belief would be superceded by knowledge.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.
