I'm afraid I don't quite understand. You can have discussions and debates about things that do not exist. What about bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? These things have been debated for a long time. "But I don't believe in those silly things!" You might say. It doesn't matter. Some people do. The point is that you can have a lengthy discussion about something that may or may not exist.I'm actually claiming nothing, it is a fact, God is, even in the act of attempting to deny, deride or disprove God, God is. If God were not there would be no discussion. Do you understand? This is not unproblematic an understanding to convey and I would suspect that you would have to have read the sources I have, considered the things I have to reach the same conclusions I have.
Also, you can't go out and just state something as "fact" and then provide no support to back it up. Why is the existence of God a "fact?"
Just because someone intelligent said/believed something, doesn't make it true.Which would include masses of Jung, many of his primary sources too.
Here's the thing....No one claims to know for certain whether or not God exists. The point isn't about certainty on either side. Anyone who claims to know for certain that God does exist or God does not exist is being a bit silly. Of course this isn't something you can prove.So far as the requisite further proof or explanation, I'm not sure I do, I mean maybe, sometimes, I do think that way but it is a little like a lot of open ended questions in relationships, how can one person be certain when another says to them they love them for instance? It is a case that for some there never will be sufficient evidence, while for others they do not need any to begin with. That's a basic question of belief, you do or you dont, you either can or you cant, you will struggle with that or you wont.
But that's not the point.
The point is taking a step back, and asking yourself what is most likely. Taking the bigfoot example, we look and have seen no decent evidence for the existence for bigfoot. Although we can never technically prove his nonexistence, we can make the conclusion that he does not exist based on lack of evidence. Technically, we can't know for certain whether or not he exists, but most deem it silly to entertain the idea that he does.
Can you elaborate on this bolded part a bit?A lot of the doubts, which are articulated frequently with haughty arrogance or even cruel malice rather than simple certainty, are a form of confirmation bias and category error, there is a hope and a wish which is easily confirmed and that experience it is hoped can be transmitted as quickly and widely as any countervailing opinion or belief.