Do humans always accept proofs when presented to them?

[abaris]

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.

I've yet to find anyone saying Some people don't believe in god, therefore there aren't any proofs of god.

The reasoning is very different as you should well know, following this board. The evidence is piled up against the existence of any scripted, humanocentric god. Therefore that god concept is out of the window, unless he tried his hand as dinosaur god first, to move on to critter god, before graduating to mammal god. And then he specialised in being primate god until he finally found his one true passion in reveiling himself to a half nomadic bunch of desert dwellers some 3000 years ago. Oh, and in your case it's actually only some 1400 years with another bunch of half nomadic desert dwellers.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

[robvalue]

No, I've never heard anyone using arguments like this.

The fact that theists can't even agree on the very basic facts about what "God" is supposed to be would be a more important point to address. Most can't even give me a definition that means anything at all. Usually it's creator of the universe, plus incoherent word salad.

http://youtu.be/qahB7mYhLxs

Imagine if we were telling you about our mate Jim, but we all told you contradictory stuff about him and he never turned up to verify any of it. What would you think?

Bottom line: what theists consider "proof" and "evidence" are generally very different to what sceptics think they are. Proof is more accurately used in regard to abstract concepts, and evidence deals with reality. By the time the theist has finished trying to argue for God, it usually sounds like an incredibly ill-defined abstract concept with no evidence of its existence; just fallacious arguments and hand waving. The fallacies are pointed out, and the theist either can't or won't accept 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.

[Fake Messiah]

 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.

And which God are "we" feeling inside? Xenu? Poseidon? Krishna? Thor? Allah? Medusa?...

[Anomalocaris]

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.

You are truly a fool, and let us hope you would not one day cross paths with someone who can easily talk any fool like you into strapping on a bomb in order to go to fool's heaven.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I've never personally felt God... but my lady apparently can. She spent like half an hour calling his name while I was down on her last night.

Is that what you're talking about, theist-boy?

[Mermaid]

It's not about proof. It's about logic and critical thinking.

[robvalue]

Just because theists all use the same name, it doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing, if any of them are real. Millions of people all saying different things means either it's not the same thing, or none of them have any accurate information.

Proof have certainly not been presented. Credible evidence has also not been presented.

What surprises me the most is how some theists seem really bothered by people not sharing their belief in God. Why does it matter what we believe?

[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.

[robvalue]

People who are scientifically minded will generally say evidence. Proof is not something science deals with. But people may have used it informally to mean evidence.

I'm sure people have said if there was good evidence, most sceptics would believe it. That is indeed true. I've not seen any credible evidence.

As I said, if you're talking about proof, you're saying God is abstract.

But seriously, until you have a coherent definition, it's all moot. Theists do not all mean the same thing, clearly.