No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

It has everything to do with it. The OP is very presumptuous; it’s not just an intellectual decision.

Wait, you have no right to not believe in a loving God? Does that extend to others, or just you? Do you or does anyone else have the right to believe in an unloving God? A loving non-God/an unloving non-God?

Can you re-iterate or direct me to a particular post or two (not a whole thread) that explains why you have no right to not believe in a loving God?

He was just saying that given the evidence of experience at hand, he “rightfully” could not disbelieve in God.
“Rightfully” merely meaning “in good conscience”, “justifiably”, “rationally”.

Ah ok fair enough. “Evidence of experience” though… I guess it would have to be his own experience since plenty of people do not find any evidence in their experience - unless they’re at fault in some way in identifying what constitutes evidence of experience. Either that or evidence is only provided to the experience of some and not others - like a kind of “chosen people”.

So is this evidence repeatable and verifiable to others/open to peer review? Or is it not supposed to be?

I think that some people have been given more evidence than others

The evidence is of the first person perspective type and so verification is not going to be easy
But as theists and atheists will never agree on what evidence is then it is somewhat academic
Though understanding the actual definition of the word in question would certainly help here

Exactly. Thank you.

Perhaps, or it could be that some people don’t live in their heads so much and are therefore more aware of what’s going on in their lives.

I understand the limitations of Wiki. I was just introducing a sample and common [as stated therein] definition of God.

As usual your thinking is limited, i.e. limited because you have to compromise your intellectual integrity [to the extent of making yourself a fool if you must] to defend your ‘illusion’ claimed as real [within empirical-rational reality].

Note the meanings of “ALL”;
dictionary.com/browse/all

  1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration):
    all the cake; all the way; all year.
  2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively):
    all students.
  3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree):

Note I had argued strongly from the philosophical perspective, the ultimate definition of a God MUST be [imperative] an ‘ontological God’ i.e. the greatest possible than which no greater can exist.

Another most critical quality attributed to God is ‘Absolute’;
dictionary.com/browse/absolute?s=t

  1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect:

  2. not mixed or adulterated; pure:

  3. complete; outright:

  4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:

  5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic:

  6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic:

  7. positive; certain:

Note you quoted somewhere a definition of God as ‘absolute.’
‘Absolute’ in reference to God as indicated above is “unlimited” unrestrained, and the likes e.g. totally unconditional, perfect.

So your views, i.e.
“Unlimited” is not the same as “all”
“Perfect” is not the same as “all”.

is WRONG!

Again you used the term ‘troll’ here.
OTOH, your behavior of accusing me [inflammatory] of being a “troll,” & lying [without proof] make you the real “troll.”

Don’t just make general wild cowardly accusations, give me the specifics.
Note your claim of my use of ‘omni’, ‘perfect’ is wrong but I have proven [above and elsewhere] you are the one who is wrong.
Your philosophical views are too shallow and narrow, suggest you read more widely and reflect more deeply.

You’re are shamefully a lackey of JSS. Don’t just make wildly cowardly accusations from behind JSS’ back, give me the specific and support it with argument or evidence.

I have proven beyond any doubt on a rational basis ‘God is an Impossibility’.
I welcome your counter to my argument here;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

This is my main point.
Theists need to more philosophical mature and understand the ultimate root cause of the emergence of the idea of God onto their consciousness is purely for psychological reason. On this point, they need to understand the mechanics of the why, how, what, when of theism.

Other critical points are;

  1. While theism has psychological utilities, theism is a double-edged sword with its pros and cons.
  2. As humanity progress into the future, the cons of theism are outweighing its pros as with the evident terrors, violence and all sort of evil acts committed by SOME [potential pool 300 million :astonished: ] evil prone believers.

Thus to prevent, mitigate or eliminate the above threat, we need to scrutinize theism from the psychological perspective and understand God per se is never real [as claimed by most theists] within an empirical-rational reality.

There is no issue if a belief in ‘God’ is kept and practice on a personal & private basis, even within groups of like minded people as long as it is not institutionalized and politicized that infringe on the rights of others.

But the better and wiser approach is for theists to understand the psychological existential issues and the mechanics behind theism [that has negative baggage] and that there are more efficient methods and practices that are more effective [without negative baggage] in resolving the same psychological existential issues.

That is what a schizophrenic and other mental cases can claim based on their experience.
There are so many such cases where these people are called upon to kill, be violent and do evils based on their experience of and with God.
Theists in general are within the same continuum with the schizophrenic [if 90%] in obeying from the experience with illusions but in a smaller degree [say 20%]. Note in the extreme Abraham was willing to kill his own son based on his experience with God. Most theists will carry out whatever commands if they hear any command from God.

Instead of all sorts of contorted statement, why not be like Ierrellus and acknowledge the fact, the basis of God has something to do with psychological groundings. Therefore one should study and understand as much as possible what this psychological ground is all about.

When one understand the basis of theism is purely psychologically but cannot give up theism - keep it private and personal, then [rationally] one should not insist [without proofs] to others God is real within an empirical-rational reality.

The main problem with theism is when theists insist God is very real within an empirical-rational reality to the extent God listens and answers prayers, delivered a holy book [via prophets] that contain evil laden elements which inspired a % of evil prone theists to commit the most heinous evil acts as a divine duty in the name of God [Allahu Akbar].

I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you’re delusional.

Seem like you are running out of arguments and resorting to Ad hominem.

Applying critical thinking note the meaning of delusional;

I have proven yours is a ‘false or unrealistic beliefs’ and you keep on insisting despite confronted with sound arguments and you have no proofs to support your belief.

Never said I needed them.

And you fit the definition perfectly.

You agreed with such a belief.

You are simply babbling and making accusations without justifiable supporting points.

@ Prismatic 567. Stop using a strawman again.

Yes, both atheist and theists. They all agree that Prismatic 567 is delusional and stubbornly ignorant, has a geat problem with logic, does not understand Kant and Hume.

They all have proven him wrong, and he is still stubbornly ignoring this fact, unsuccessfully searching for arguments, remaining unable to find any, not knowing what he is talking about.

Snark, did you mean to not address my below questions?

Sorry. There’s a lot going on.

Repeatable and verifiable correlations can be made with FMRI scans, but correlation is not verification. It could be that some people don’t live in their heads so much and are therefore more aware of what’s going on in their lives.

Such scans can show that there is greater awareness in specific areas of the brains of theists
Which simply means they believe in God or attribute certain inexplicable experiences to God