CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There is evidence of Jesus Christ who claimed to be God. And there are philosophical arguments for God. And there is evidence of God in science.
People choose to ignore this but, nevertheless, proof has nothing to do with faith in Christ. Blessed are those who live by faith so that the foolish may shame the wise.
No, there is not. There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a god/deity, for science can not explain the supernatural, which God is considered.
Here is my post to OliverJDH about the Miller and Urey experiment, which to me is the only somewhat evidence for abiogenesis:
"That experiment has been thoroughly disproved. Would you like for me to show you evidence for why? One thing is this: there was a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere of the experiment... but life requires oxygen... therefore, the lab results would not exist in the real world.
Thats mainly due to most educators having an old school and out dated on how everything on the internet is some how less valid to book sources. And considering its a doctoral thesis, I'm assuming she was dealing with a college professor, and consideirng most college professors are incompetant snobs that try to get good professors fired to make themselves look less bad, I wouldn't consider their opinion to be valid... But anyway, tell your teacher's wife that if she sends me the email of the professor I'll write him an essay on why wikipedia is a valid source :P
Actually that's not is not a fact. But even if it was, that's an argument from ignorance. A lack of evidence for something else is not evidence for God.
If life cannot come from non-life then it has to come from life... if everything that is natural has a beginning and an end then so does the universe, which means that something that is eternal and not of nature would have to create life.
If life cannot come from non-life then it has to come from life...
If that were true, then yes. But that life doesn't have to be a deity and certainly doesn't prove a specific deity.
if everything that is natural has a beginning and an end then so does the universe,
Hypothetically. However we could have to modify our definition and/or understanding of what is natural. The universe may follow a law that provides an exception, or perhaps something (naturally) bigger than the universe which follows that law.
which means that something that is eternal and not of nature would have to create life.
Again, not necessarily. You could be right, and let's just pretend for the sake of argument that you're right. It still doesn't prove a deity is that cause let alone which specific deity.
No, I don't think most people would know about it. Law of Biogenesis
No, I'm saying look at the evidence and say with an honest heart whether you truly believe that there is no intelligent designer... Discovery Institute
I'll trump your law of biogenesis with the primordial soup theory - evidenced by Miller and Urey in an experiment in the 1950s which produced amino-acids (building blocks for proteins and thus life) from Methane, Water, Hydrogen and Ammonia.
As for intelligent design - macroevolution and microevolution are well established scientific theories (in the same way that Einstein's relativity is a theory) with an abundance of evidence which I'll only share if pressed. There is no need for a designer, so why create one - especially when the designer must be more complex than the complex design itself?
Macroevolution is the theory of universal common descent depicted in the tree of life or tree of counsinship. This tree hasn't been put together randomly - it is the product of much fossil and more importantly molecular evidence.
Here is the gist of the molecular argument:
1. All forms of life carry ubiquitous genes.
2. Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the phenotype of any species - they all perform the same function irrespective of whether they are found in a bacterium or whale.
3. However, these genes might as well be redundant - other protein sequences could do the job just as well, so there is no need for all living creatures to have them. If creatures had evolved independently, they would not all be using the same ubiquitous genes - they would have developed their own protein sequences.
4. So the fact that ubiquitous genes are universal, when they are not required, suggests that they have been passed on hereditarily. Hence, all life has come from a common ancestor that first had these genes.
The evolution leading to the horse is a text book example of proof of macroevolution. A species is very broadly defined as "those which can produce offspring together" - and so before you denounce this evolution as "micro" not "macro" keep in mind that the ancestor of the modern day horse could not produce an offspring with a horse today - hence it belongs to a different species:
That experiment has been thoroughly disproved. Would you like for me to show you evidence for why? One thing is this: there was a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere of the experiment... but life requires oxygen... therefore, the lab results would not exist in the real world.
Oxygen has been a poison long before it was a chemical that sustains life - life does not require oxygen. It has been accepted for a while that some single-celled organisms today do not need life, and there is now modern examples of multi-cellular life that do not need oxygen:
The experiment has been "thoroughly disproved" only in as much that it now seems unlikely that the Earth's chemical composition at the time matched that of Miller's and Urey's glass containers. However, Miller and Urey did prove that the building blocks of life can be produced from an electric charge passed through the chemicals given - (it cannot be denied that amino-acids were formed) - this is clear evidence that biogenesis (which maintains life can only come from life) is false.
I should have made it clear that I am not toting the primordial soup theory as an accurate description of the origin of life - indeed more sophisticated theories have developed - however, as I've stated, the experiment does categorically prove that biogenesis is not accurate.
"They didn't want any oxygen in there because they knew if it had oxygen anything they created would oxidize... If you don't have oxygen, you can't have o-zone, and o-zone blocks UV light, and UV light destroys ammonia, and ammonia is one of the gasses. So if you don't have oxygen, life can't evolve and if you do have oxygen life can't evolve."
"And by the way, the earth has always had oxygen, even if you believe in the dumb geologic column, the lowest layers have oxygen (shows citation of Dr. Michael Denton, "The earth has always had oxygen- even more today. Oxygen is found in the lowest rocks.)
Philip H. Abelson, "What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it." from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
There are more quotes about it... but you simply have to watch that youtube video. It is clearly presented and well organized.
I have watched the video and it certainly is interesting. However, I am not disputing the existence of oxygen on Earth before the origin of life - I am also not suggesting that the primordial soup theory is an accurate description of the origin of life (as I mentioned before). It is simply proof that the building blocks of life can be created out of non-living chemicals, hence the theory of biogenesis which states "life can only come from living organisms" is disproven.
Again, as I stated before, more sophisticated explanations of the origins of life have been developed and continue to be developed - for example, the theory devised by Prof. Nick Lane.
Ultimately, just because we do not have a finalised theory on the origin of life is no reason to assume divine creation. Believing in a 'God of the gaps' (i.e. God exists because science can't explain everything at the moment) is unsustainable, as the history of religious belief shows us.
I'm not denying that. He didn't say straight up, "I am the Messiah" or "I am God" or anything like that. He used more subtle ways.
2. Despite the evidence for his existence, there is no evidence to suggest that any such claim of his was true.
Throughout the Gospels you can see many subtle claims to divinity. Like Matthew 16:13-28, in which Peter claimed for Jesus to be the Christ. John 3:13 makes no sense unless Jesus is claiming divinity because Elijah had already gone up into heaven. It is an allusion to Deuteronomy 30:12. When Jesus walks on water in Matthew 14:22-33, the original Greek words when He responds to His disciples is "Fear not, I am." This along with all His other quotes saying, "I am," like that of John 14:6, are all allusions to Exodus 3:14, which is a claim to divinity. Also, John 10, when Jesus claims that He is one with the Father, especially in verse 30. He also claimed to be the "Son of Man," which is an allusion to Daniel 7:13-14. Matthew 4, where the Devil tempts Jesus, He responds in verse 7 not to test the Lord your God. All are claims to divinity and there are many more.
I'm not denying that. He didn't say straight up, "I am the Messiah" or "I am God" or anything like that. He used more subtle ways.
"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
Throughout the Gospels you can see many subtle claims to divinity...
This is irrelevant (and, per the excerpt above, false). The point in question is, whether there exists any evidence to support his being a God, not whether he so declared himself.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I have scarcely encountered an argument which is so hilariously misconceived, in all my years of debate, as that which you have here proposed.
The law refers to closed systems. The Earth, to which your argument must apply (for the law certainly applies to the universe, into which there is no proven input of energy) is not a closed system, as the sun continuously replenishes the reserve of available energy which is available to us.
Rest assured; when the sun no longer nourishes the planet, all the Earth shall perish.
I shall render my rebuttal as an Aristotelian syllogism, if you prefer:
Law in question: "The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases".
Premise 1: The second law applies to closed systems... By definition
"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
Yet again a claim to divinity. Jesus also said the He and the Father are one in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." Therefore, he is God too. Also, you must remember that Christianity believes in the Trinity. It is a montritheism. Did you read the other verses that I gave you?
This is irrelevant (and, per the excerpt above, false). The point in question is, whether there exists any evidence to support his being a God, not whether he so declared himself.
He rose the dead. He cured the blind. He healed the sick. He turned water into wine. He walked on water. He......
The law refers to closed systems. The Earth, to which your argument must apply (for the law certainly applies to the universe, into which there is no proven input of energy) is not a closed system, as the sun continuously replenishes the reserve of available energy which is available to us.
You missed the entire point. Did you read the article I gave you? Dr. Cimbala said that the entire universe is one big closed system and that it had to have a beginning. I'm not talking about the earth.
By his own account, Jesus was no more a God than Hercules or Theseus. The distinction between a God and a demigod, ought to be observed.
Jesus also said the He and the Father are one in John 10:30, I and the Father are one.
To interpret this as meaning "I am God" is false. As Jesus went on to say in John 10:38:
"But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that theFather is in me, and I in him."
Jesus was clearly saying that he was made by the essence of God, and consisted of this essence, being neither God nor man, but the mediator between them (which is the entire effect of John 10).
Dr. Cimbala said that the entire universe is one big closed system and that it had to have a beginning.
That is so, but it is no object. For the refutation is made, merely by the scale of the source's proposition, much easier.
Refutation I, which is scientific.
For one, we may dispute the two premises, being:
I. That the perceived universe is, in its entirety, a closed system.
II. That the perceived universe obeys, in its entirety and including all manifestations therein, the second Law of Thermodynamics.
Neither fact being empirically proven, and the true extent and nature of the perceived universe and its constituents being unknown, we may reject these premises as too uncertain for the formation thereby of a logical or scientific conclusion.
Refutation II, which is logical
Taking the two premises, which were in Refutation I dismissed, as axioms, me may still deny that the conclusion is logical.
We accept that the perceived universe had a beginning, or point of minimum entropy. However, such a fact is insufficient to furnish the conclusion, that a sentient being, which is the God in question, supplied the energy. We may deny the conclusion by the force of the following points:
I. The sentient being in question must necessarily be exempt from the laws of physics. To have this property, it must have originated from a configuration space in which the laws of physics, or some of their number, do not apply.
II. The presumption of the existence of such a configuration space, makes the sentient being in question redundant, as in such a space, the universe could conceivably have been spontaneously generated, in the absence of the physical laws which would in our universe preclude such an event.
III. The very notion of sentience having originated in a configuration space in which the laws of physics do not apply, is inconsistent. For sentience is, in its essence, the ability to convert data into information (e.g, a communication into a meaning, a stimulus into a sensation). In the configuration space required for the entire premise to function, such a logical system is conceivably less likely to occur than many of the other scenarios which might have resulted in this universe (i.e, the ones in which the universe predates sentience).
By the very abstract and unverifiable nature of these logical points, we may by employing Occam's razor decide that refutation I is alone sufficient.
We have otherwise proved only that there was a point, prior to the big bang, when the second law of thermodynamics did not apply. Beyond that, we cannot by this argument prove a thing.
I'm not even going to debate with you anymore... there is no point. Pretty much every statement that you made I disagreed with... so I'll bid you adieu.
I really don't see why people need organized religion to guide their morals. I see religion as guiding these people mostly through making them feel guilty about sinning. Instead, it is possible to have a set of rules or a moral code separate from religion.
Also I don't see how your statement undermines mine in this debate.
I believe there is no certain proof nor certain disproof ever possible for God or anything much else for that matter. Almost everything is belief including so called scientific proofs. So the field is open. Why would anyone not believe in God is a reasonable question too. It seems clear that science, being human, is of material and temporal origin therefore cannot ever explain the origin of material or time. God can and so is a higher concept than science. This alone is good reason to believe in God. There are many more. Without God we will be forever left with unanswered questions.
people believe in gods because it is how they live. yes their religions have caused fairly large wars throughout history but without their religion they will all crumble to weak litte people.
I believe in a deistic god. Why? Just look at the world, okay? I don't have any faith in mankind, barbarians and hypocrites such as us need metaphysical principles to guide us and a maker to discipline us.
What evidence do I have? My evidence only comes in the form of arguments, I don't have any physical this-proves-that-god-exists proof. But it's irrelevant. Animals like us need control from a perfect, powerful being - real or otherwise.
We do not need a all powerful almighty being watching over us telling us what to do. we need to figure this out for ourselves.. People who want to bad are gonna be bad religion hasn't stopped most people from achieving their wicked goals
When you look at the bloody history, the present and the gloomy future ahead of us, then I can certainly say that we are not worthy of the universe or even earth for that matter. If not for a creator and some elaborate teleological philosophy, then lets just sterilize all of us - we would be doing everyone a favor.
The value of mankind must be presented on the whole of humanity, it should not be based on its individuals and so far, the collective has not done any favors. The fear of God keeps people on a leash, but sadly due to intense materialism and technological progression, this fear has diminished. Peace based on fear is still peace.
I don't think its just the fear of god. without god would we all just kill each other? There is some humanity in everyone, people have morals and they know to do the right thing. Look at Sweden, over 70% of people thier are atheists and their country is one of the nicest places to be. then wheres Iraq, a country torn apart by war simply because of religion. Religion stops you from killing people like you who believe the same thing, it hasn't stopped anyone from killing someone who is a different religion.
Can you cite the sources of your statistics, because what you're saying is just patently wrong? 70% of swedes belong to the church of Sweden.
I will give you that while the majority have been babtized and the like, they don't live a particularly religious life i.e they don't go to church, pray etc. But they don't identify themselves as atheists, they affirm belief in a higher power which in most cases is just pantheism or deism.
My country, Estonia, is considered one of the most atheistic if not the most atheistic nation in the world, but it's incorrect. While people may not belong to a mainstream religious institute, the people still have beliefs of a higher power, mysticism and general folk and paganistic views on nature.
I suggest you look up Nietzsche's Superman - I think you'd find the idea quite interesting. The idea was misappropriated by the Nazis, much to Nietzsche's frustration (he denounced all German nationalists as "fools" and "all too human"), so don't be put off by any comparisons to the Third Reich.
Religious moral frameworks are already flexible - slavery and homophobia, both of which are explicitly condoned in the Old Testament are not adhered to by modern day Christians or Jews because of a changing moral zeitgeist. Nietzsche merely embraces this change, and argues we shouldn't be afraid to adjust our perceptions of morality in order to better ourselves - that is essentially to say that we should create our own morals, rather than have morals handed down to us because it is we, and not some divine sentient being, who ultimately has to operate within the moral framework. I'm not saying I entirely agree with him, but I find the idea quite tempting and a better alternative to divine dictatorship.
This borders way too much on moral relativism - who gets to decide morality? The majority? What if the majority in the USA decides that atheists can't be citizens? What if the majority of the human population, as whole, decides that homosexuality is immoral?
The problem with man-made morals is that man is not obligated to follow them as long as he is stronger than the lawgiver. That's the whole point of the superman vs the slave morality of christianity - the supermen have no limits, nothing to stop them from reaching full potential and they can do as they please.
You have people who support abortion and people who think it is immoral - now what do you do? Arguing who is right is kinda like arguing who's a better singer - Madonna or Lady Gaga? It's a matter of taste.
To make moral decisions we need an absolute, objective morals because morals are only useful as long as they're unchanging. Today atheists have the right to life in the USA but in 10 years an ubermensch comes along and decides to take away that right. The whole point of objective moral values is that they're unchanging, eternal and outside the reach of men. These are the kind of breaks we need.
Surely the majority in any given time or place is more entitled to lay down the laws of morality at that time and place than a book written almost 2000 years ago (in the case of Christianity). Unless God does happen to exist, moral relativism hasn't gone away - we are merely following a previous ubermensch.
While I agree that the "superman" is a tad extreme, I would certainly endorse a secular moral framework (such as Bentham's utilitarianism) which could be debated in order to be continually improved - rather than a religious moral code which is unchangeable even in a world very different to that in which it was first conceived.
But if morals are merely nothing more than a constantly evolving cultural zeitgheist, then nothing is inherently immoral. Everything that came before us were moral and acceptable and it is unfair to apply modern standards to the past, because the past was a different place with different laws, different views and different mindsets.
Slavery was not immoral, because we have to look at slavery from the context of its time. If the majority approved it, then therefore it was moral. Screw black history month, because nothing immoral was done to them in the given context.
Same goes for the death-camps in Germany - the majority had spoken.
Salem witch hunts were again, moral for their time. It was acceptable and good and people had the moral obligation to kill women who they perceived to be witches.
Need I go on?
If you are going to be consistent, then you would, for example, lobby for the abolishment of abortion in the US, because the majority recognize themselves as pro-life and anti-abortion. The people have spoken in the given cultural framework, therefore abortion is immoral. Same goes for atheism and homosexuality.
How about abuse women go through in the Middle-East - can't condemn them, because again, they have decided on this practice and we really have nothing to appeal to when we condemn their actions.
My point is that while people acknowledge cultural and moral relativism, they still don't act like it. People still condemn and accuse each other of barbarianism and immorality even though they know they have nothing to appeal to on this matter.
PS:
Would gladly discuss utilitarianism and other ethical systems with you in another debate or something.
You are still trying to use "moral" and "immoral" in absolute terms, when I am claiming such terms do not exist. We can look at slavery and say "at the time, slavery was not considered immoral" but we cannot say "slavery was not immoral at the time". I hope that makes sense.
Nobody therefore has a claim to morality, and I can see why this might at first appear problematic. However, all that really matters is the individual's perception of morality. After all, even if there is a divine set of rules people will only follow them if they consider them to be moral - in the Qur'an music is forbidden and yet plenty of Muslims listen, sing and write music because they have assessed this law with their own inner moral compass and decided it is not worth following.
So, with reference to the abuse women go through in the Middle East:
We cannot condemn them using a universal morality, only a personal one - which true, doesn't hold much weight. But if we disagreed with a universal morality, we'd go ahead and do what we wanted anyway, so a universal morality isn't much use either. If our own inner moral compass tells us that abuse of women is wrong, we're going to do something about it. We don't need things to be inherently immoral.
P..S. I'd be happy to debate other ethical systems with you, though I'm not yet sure which I'd subscribe to...
Using morals in absolute terms or not is nothing more than a semantical techincality. For example, human rights to us are as self-evident as the inferiority of the black race was self-evident to the founding fathers. While we may acknowledge cultural relativism, we still behave as though these views are absolute.
The problems with moral relativism are unsolvable in my opinion. The Nurnberg trial, from a relativist viewpoint, was a farse. The Nazi officers were convicted of a crime that wasn't actually a crime in their cultural framework. The nazi officers even appealed to this technicality and claimed that the genocide was not illegal and was in complete accordance with the existing German jurisprudence of the time. It was also moral and the general views were very negative of the jewish people.
Therefore, will you condemn the Nurnberg trial? If you are intellectually honest you will, because otherwise you would be imposing your morality on someone else eventhough you said that nobody has a claim to morality. All you can say is that while you personally disagree with the nazi reasoning, you can't say that they are wrong and that the genocide is wrong.
In the Nurnberg trial, the judges appealed to higher principles and accused the nazis of crimes against humanity - so this gives you even greater ground to condemn the trial and demand compensation for the descendants of these officers given the unfair conviction.
Universal morals allow us to condemn these atrocities while subjective morals allow these moral crimes to hide behind the shield cultural and moral relativism.
I am essentially arguing that it is natural to impose our own moral views onto others, but that the morals we impose are valued only by those who adhere to the same moral framework. I am no more right in claiming genocide is evil than those who claim it is for the good - no one moral code is more moral than the other at an objective level - however, this will not stop me from opposing genocide.
The claim that we need a universal moral framework supposes that everybody will subscribe to this framework, but in reality they won't. In reality it makes no difference whether we have objective morals because they will be assessed subjectively. If it was universal law that theft was immoral, people who needed or wanted to steal would still steal because they assess this law subjectively and decide they are in the right.
The best we can do is therefore to devise a moral framework that we aim to impose on the rest of the world - we truly believe these morals are true and right, but we have no empirical reason to suppose so - in order to prevent genocide from happening.
I don't feel like I'm explaining myself very clearly, so here's an attempt to summarise:
1. Every individual decides what's moral for themselves regardless of whether there exists an object moral framework.
2. People will always fight against what doesn't fit into their own moral view - they do not need to appeal to an objective moral framework for validation.
3. The best any individual can do is to impose their moral view of the world onto others, in order to make the world a better place in their eyes - however, there is no empirical reason to suppose their moral suppositions are more moral than anybody else's.
4. True, this potentially allows for a great evil - but it is also a true reflection of the world. I have portrayed (what I believe to be) what is actually the case.
I never said that it proves deism, I implied that the idea of deism has much more pragmatic value than atheism merely because one can give us objective morality and the other can't.
That's why I ended my post with - real or otherwise. The idea of God can keep us from reverting into barbarians and objective, uncorruptable principles which we assign to a benevolet deity (real or not, it doesn't matter) are the fail-safes that are going to keep us disciplined.
If we have no objective moral values, we have no duties or moral accountability. In an atheistic/materialistic framework, why can't I, for example, abduct homeless people and use them for medical experiments ''for the greater good''? Objective morals would prevent us from doing so, subjective morals won't.
Assuming God doesn't exist, how does having a belief in God give us an objective morality? The morality is still made up by imperfect people. I think you always need to allow people to question the given morality.
Also, let's face it, our morality today doesn't come from religion, although it's certainly a natural progression from religion, it comes from the TV shows we watched as a kid, and, to a lesser extent, the TV shows we continue to watch. But there's a feedback mechanism here. We only watch the shows we want to watch, so those become the most successful, and the ones most TV networks want to carry. Sure, you can point out some TV shows with questionable morals (e.g. the Simpsons), but people can learn from bad examples as well as good.
I never said that it proves deism, I implied that the idea of deism has much more pragmatic value than atheism merely because one can give us objective morality and the other can't.
Ah, I had an inkling of this.
Well, really, there are several objective foundations for morality in atheism. I am not fully decided myself on which I subscribe to. But there's evolutionary morality, objectivist self interest, and the one I am inclined to here.
The only 100% certainty is that something is going on rather than nothing. All else is belief and belief is never 100%. Is that a chair I see over there or is it all a very lucid dream?
Nobody independently verifies every single one of their beliefs. Who are you, Rene fucking Descartes?
Let's follow in that line of reasoning:
You believe some things that are false, correct?
You are unaware of the falsehood of some of your beliefs, correct?
You hold them out of a misapprehension of evidence, correct?
God's factual existence notwithstanding, is it not possible that a) you hold beliefs far commoner than those you actively examine that might cause others to guffaw at you the way you do at theists? b) your evaluation of belief in god as unsupported is itself erroneous?
It's like babby's first skeptical inquiry on this website, I swear.
Why do people ignore the spell check, even though a squiggly line comes up so you don't even have to go through the effort of clicking one button?
Oh, and to answer your question, probably because they aren't content to wait for a naturalistic explanation for things and instead prefer to ascribe unexplained things to a supernatural agency by default. Also, culturally condoned, even culturally encouraged childhood indoctrination plays a big part in manufacturing more religious people.
You and another person are walking down a tunnel the tunnel is dark if each of you didn't have your handy dandy torches with you. Consider that you didn't light the torch or design what the torch was/is intended for but someone at the beginning of the tunnel did this.
for the same reason people believe in the big bang theory, theres no proof of the big bang happening, in fact, new scientific studies are coming out that DISPUTE the big bang.
People have belief in their god (s) because they're allowed to have faith, and with that faith they choose to believe in whichever god they please. It is not ignorant, it is not irrational, it is normal. There ya go captain.
Proof has two meanings. Certain proof and believable proof. Proof in the Law Courts is "beyond reasonable doubt" and so is just belief, not certainty. Proof in logic and maths are based on believable assumptions (axioms) and so this type of proof is still only a belief. Other uses of the word proof are also only belief when you analyze it. The only certain proof you have is that "there is something going on" rather than nothing. Only of that can you be certain. For this reason all so called "scientific proofs" are also just the beliefs of the current scientific majority and can change. There is no scientific certain proof of anything, this is just a popular public misconception. Even if God appeared on earth and stayed there, you could still say it was an impostor. So even the strongest evidence is still not certain proof. People believe in God because they can, it's not wrong or silly.
Some people find it comforting to believe in an entity who will protect them from harm, who will forgive them for all their faults, whatever they may be. I love when Im being patronized by Christians and they tell that the reason I would be in a bad mood is because I feel empty inside. And if I accept God in my life, that void will be filled. But they dont realize that it is themselves who feel empty.
