Not at all, they'll understand completely how you have been conditioned to apply special pleading to your beliefs so they are not held up to the same standard of analysis as anything we actually need to define objective proof for in order to gather information and form knowledge and understanding. That you employ compartmentalisation to protect your beliefs and use confirmation bias to cherry-pick explanations of reality that suit you, rather than intellectual honesty and integrity.

This is not an insult, this is a fact of the process of theist 'belief'.

You want to make hand-wavy declarations concerning things you've 'experienced' which defy explanation, therefore God. When the truth is they don't defy explanation at all because if there was even one thing, just one, which could objectively demonstrate the existence of the Paranormal, it would be global news and science would accede to this new, now proven theory which required incorporation into our understanding of The Universe.

There is, however, a shedload of evidence and reasoning which explains why you and your ilk believe what you do and are prone to interpreting things the way you do.

So which is more likely, rational and objectively-reasoned explanations which are derived from multiple sources of study and critical analysis, or that you actually experienced something for which there is no other answer than, ". . .therefore God."?