Who would a valid proof of God's existence annoy the most?

Neither, in order to prove something exists you have to be able to accurately define it, a proof of the existence of God would therefore also prove His/Her/It's nature, more importantly it would also prove what God wasn't. Any religion who's concept of God didn't match up to the demonstrated qualities would therefore stand refuted and it's clergy out of a job, so they are the ones who would be outraged beyond belief, as would their devout followers.

Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but if belief in God no longer required Faith due to the emergence of valid proof, it could by definition no longer be called belief.It would be knowledge at that point. In a scientific context a belief is a hypothesis, once proven you no longer call it a hypothesis. That said this group would have had their hypothesis proven and therefore would not be annoyed unless they were troubled by their religion's text insistence that faith is required for their salvation. I do not think this would occur as religion due to its very nature has proven impervious to any contradictions scientific discovery has illuminated. Text would simply be reinterpreted..

Those who feel that Belief must be a matter of fiction would have been proven wrong. If someones perception of reality was suddenly forced to include the proven existence or the supernatural, regardless of their perception of God at that point, I do not imagine "annoyance" would accurately describe their reaction. Perhaps fear, confusion, or disillusionment would occur as they examined their philosophical outlook and strove to incorporate this new knowledge.

Faith or fiction, faith as I understand it is a desire to believe in the teaching from others 'trust or belief of another' maybe even hope. Belief is a psychological premise considered to be true. Who would God's existence annoy the most? the one who disagreed with the answer that was presented.

Such a proof would be a Copernican Revolution bigger than any that could ever occur in the history of man, even in the future, because all revelations after that would come from from that proof.

Would that "annoy" anyone? Hardly. Galileo did not "annoy" anyone except those who didn't believe him. In the end, it was not annoyance that made the Church accept the most revolutionary idea in its own history.

I think it would annoy those who feel belief is a matter of fiction. Their viewpoint would be effectively

discredited. Those who believe it is a matter of faith would feel validated-their argument would be proven correct.

The second one. You have obviously never been to R&S; they enjoy verbally mutilating each other in the name of being right. They wouldn't look legitimate proof in the eye without lashing out.

The term proof or evidence belong to the scientific realm. Your question is flawed.