Before We Discuss Whether God Exists, I Have A Question

[SteveII]

You are simply saying you want to have a true belief. But because of the nature of the subject, certainty one way or the other is simply not possible. However, you don't want to grant your opponent that, so you (disingenuously) have set yourself up to be the one who looks like you are the only one with an open mind. In other words, the question of the existence of God is a probabilistic one, and to demand certainty is clearly unwarranted. 

Have you ever engaged Drich or GC? They seem to possess the certainty that you claim is not possible. The proposed question merely addresses whether we're addressing someone like you or someone like them.

There are people who are absurdly certain in both camps, so the question could be turned around; but let's face it, you're just less likely to be talking to a gnostic atheist than an agnostic one.

I think a Christian can have certainty based on personal experience. I think it is very plausible that certain experiences can result in a properly basic belief about the existence of God. However, that is internal to a person. I don't think that you can prove with certainty that God exists to another person.

---

You are simply saying you want to have a true belief. But because of the nature of the subject, certainty one way or the other is simply not possible. However, you don't want to grant your opponent that, so you (disingenuously) have set yourself up to be the one who looks like you are the only one with an open mind. In other words, the question of the existence of God is a probabilistic one, and to demand certainty is clearly unwarranted. 

Inherent in your question is the idea that some sort of proof is available. What exactly do you mean by proof? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold so they can claim--"see, no proof".

You are correct in saying that I want to have a true belief.  That is the crux of it.  Regardless of whether it is possible to know for certain, I still want my belief to be correct.  Not everyone does.  Which is why it is so hard to get Christians to say, "If god does not exist, I don't want to believe in him." It is my way of determing if you all really want to know.  If you don't, then you can't discuss the evidence honestly.  

Some people don't want to know if they have cancer AIDS.  Some people don't want to know if a loved one suffered in death, or if their spouse cheated on them.  

This isn't the only question that people sometimes don't want the answer to.  Just recently we offered a 23 and Me kit to Mr. A's dad.  He declined the offer because his nephew had taken the test and came back only 1/4  English.  Mr. A Senior's parents were both English so he expected his nephew to be around 1/2 English.  This leads Mr. A Senior to suspect, rightly or wrongly, that his mother had an affair.  He would rather not have proof one way or the other.  So he will not take the test and has asked Mr. A not to tell him his results.  He would prefer, as his says, not to know if his mother had had an affair.  It would disturb his memory of her.  I'm not going to discuss it with him.

Like theists who will not say that they want to believe there is no god, if there isn't one, they prefer believing one thing, without examining the other possibility.  And that's fine, as long as the don't want to discuss the possibilities with me.

But you are forgetting a major point. The Christian you are talking to already believes there to be a certain amount of evidence for their belief. You are not asking them to consider a new body of evidence they have yet to form an opinion on and seek a truth value. They have already committed to Christianity for some list of reasons. So when you want them to consider that God may not exist, you are asking them to reject things they already hold to be true. In other words, the question you are asking them is identical to "if what I already have reasons to believe is true turns out to be wrong, I don't want to believe it." That is not as straightforward as you make it out to be. 

I also think the subject does not lend itself to your little test. It would be fine for say politics or scientific theories where the stakes are lower. Also, you are not just talking about a position on a single question: does God exists? You have taken the person's entire worldview and ask them to reject it on the basis of a debate with you. That is not going to happen. So if they agree to your terms, I would suspect they don't understand your point or are not serious.