And that's where we differ, because I'd say to not acknowledge the existence of God is to lie to oneself. Haha, well there you have it! That's all I was really going for.
For me, if I am uncertain of something, I assume the null hypothesis, unless indicated otherwise. If you had a button in front of you, and knew that there was a possibility that if you pressed the button, a car would fall onto you, would you press it? Why is God any different?
I don't think those two scenarios can be compared to one another. When done correctly, believing in God yields no negative consequences.
Well, okay, so I'm not saying believing in God has a negative consequence, but I am saying that...a better metaphor is Russell's teapot. Essentially, if you claim that God exists, then by the same logic you have no problem believing me if I tell you that a teapot is floating between Mars and Earth.
Haha, that's a very funny metaphor. But to be honest, I don't have a problem admitting that that's possible. However, I do feel as if my belief in God is based in evidence. That evidence being the impact on people's life when you can tell they're a godly person, or even all the nature around us. I accredit that to God's doing, and so that's my proof. Whether you believe it's credible proof is up to you. For me however, it's convincing.