Yeah...the title is not very suggestive for what I'm asking but please bear with me.

As it happens, I'm suffering from a lung condition at the moment. It's pretty obtuse as all the tests I've done so far don't really show us much.

I've done the whole range, up to a biopsy...where the problem starts.

I do not want to get a biopsy.

Two of the three doctors that have looked into my case say it's necessary.

The third has diagnosed me with sarcoidosis based on existing results, though he says it cannot be absolutely 100% sure unless I do a biopsy, but he doesn't see it as necessary.

So here's my question:

Should I go with the simple path of accepting it's sarcoidosis...or go 100% sure with a biopsy? 

why don't you want a biopsy? I would always prefer to be as certain as possible with your health particularly if there's going to be any kind of treatment for this Sarcoidosis.

I'm not a doctor, but if 2 doctors are recommending you to get a biopsy, then go and get one. Because what if you actually don't have sarcoidosis?

Are the circumstances of a biopsy worse than the risk of it being something far worse than just sarcoidosis?