I have an honest question for theists.

[Reforged]

If it was 100% conclusive, as in absolutely certain its accurate, then why wouldn't you be convinced? That'd be like:
RD: This is a stone.
MK: Na-uh.
RD: What? Look at it, feel it, experiment on it. Its a stone.
MK: I'm not convinced, I think its a sponge.
RD: WHAT!?
GC: I agree.
RD: Nobody asked you. -.-

... got sidetracked but you get the point.

Not really. I can present contradictions, and logical problems in Quran, but most believers would not be convinced, even if they were logically sound.

Any proof against God would be philosophical, and philosophical arguments seemed sound to people, but they didn't know for sure.

So if an argument against God was presented and proven, it's all together a different thing to put total trust in the argument, specially when philosophical arguments have been debunked. It may very well be sound but it's a different thing for us to be 100% convinced.

Look at the argument against the incompatibly between free-will and future knowledge of God. It seems like it's a sound argument, but believers are not convinced otherwise.

It's a one thing to have a concrete argument, it's another thing to be convinced.

But we're not talking about simply an argument or contradictions in a holy book, we're talking about undeniable, solid proof that God doesn't exist and you're telling me that even if this hypothetical proof existed and was shown to you and it was undeniable you still wouldn't be convinced.
I mean, wow. I'm sorry but thats pretty damning. If this is all a ploy so you don't have to imagine not basing your life around your belief system then could you cut this short and just say so? Not being rude, thats fine and if thats the case we'll leave it there but if thats the case and you just carry on diverting the conversation to avoid discussing it then all you're doing is wasting my time and yours.