Before We Discuss Whether God Exists, I Have A Question

[Seraphina]

Non of this relates in any way to the OP.


No. The stipulation was:


"Willing to consider", not "demonstrate non existence of".

OMG, he spoke to me!! 

---

But that is exactly the point of my question.  Discussing the existence of something when one person is emotionally invested in belief through faith and the other only wants to believe in it if it's actually true, is not a dicussion, it's a conversation attempt.  And with relatives, it's likely to lead to a guilt trip as well.  So, it's a conversation I'd really rather not have.  The point of my question is to avoid the the conversion altogether.

Not that I mind debate. I rather like it.  But that isn't what conversations with faithful relatives leads to.

But that's what I'm saying though. Of course we (well, at least myself) only want to believe in it if it's true. If I found out God didn't exist, trust me, there would be no reason for me to lie to myself. But the point is it's impossible to know with 100% certainty whether it actually is or is not true. 

There currently exists legitimate reasons to think that it is, and legitimate reason to think that it isn't. A person usually takes the position that is most convincing to them and makes the most sense to them. But without concrete proof they are only left to hope that they are right, and that's where the faith part comes in. It doesn't mean they want to believe in it even if it isn't true. It means they think it probably is, and fill in the uncertainty part with faith/hope. 

It's interesting for me personally to discuss the reason for whatever position a person takes on the issue, but I can see why it would be frustrating for either party to try to convince the other person when there is no concrete proof either way.

I can't make head or tails of what you're saying here. You're arguing in circles.

-Teresa