No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Since the idea of God emerged >10,000 years ago till now there are no convincing proofs for the existence of a God. Many theists concede their belief in a God is based on faith.
I have demonstrated here ‘God is an Impossibility.’

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of defending their theism with all sorts of contorted arguments and to the extreme of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism? Abraham was willing to kill his own son upon hearing a command from God. Many theists are willing to commit all sorts
of abominable acts in the name of their God on the belief they are carrying out their divine duty to please God. Why?

Since there are no strong evidence to prove God exists as real within an empirical-rational reality, I believe the reason why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God.

Views?

To the theist evidence is less important than faith or faith alone is all that is needed as evidence while to
the atheist evidence is more important than faith and this is primarily why the two sides can never agree

You might want to note (or want to avoid noting) that Wiki’s definitions are a bit corrupt, as usual.

  • “Omnipotent” does not mean “unlimited power”. It means “All-power” or “Every-power” (just as with the other omni’s).
    “Unlimited” is not the same as “all”

  • “Omnibenevolent” doesn’t mean “perfectly good”. It means “All-good” or “Good in every way”.
    “Perfect” is not the same as “all”.

There are good reasons for those distinctions.

People who write Wiki articles quite often have little idea of what they are writing.

And now you lie. You didn’t demonstrate anything other than the fact that you will stubbornly preach your sermon regardless of all of the proof that you have no idea what you are talking about (aka “troll”). No one agreed with you on that thread, not even the atheists.

You didn’t prove anything concerning God at all. You only proved that you have no understanding of proofs/logic or language or the entire God topic.

I think that you’re being a pedant. As usual.

Perfect = without a fault
Good in every way = without a fault

Absolutely right.

Prismatic’s main problem is logic.

Wrong.

When you bother to look into what constitutes a “fault”, you will find it to be a subjective issue. The same is true with the concept of “perfect”. There is no absolute or universal form of “perfect” any more than there is for “long”. Perfectly matching What standard or ideal?

Good, in this case is referring to beneficial. Beneficial and perfect are different concepts. Something can be perfectly beneficial, meaning that the benefits could not be better matched. “Omnibeneficial” does not mean “perfectly beneficial”. It means “all-beneficial” or more appropriately, “beneficial in every way”. The concept “perfect” is not involved.

The concept in theology is that attending to God is of benefit above all else (because God is Reality itself).

And I have to get into pedantics because the misuse of the words is being used to bedevil and favor someone’s particular religious sermon. "The devil is in the details".

That’s not what the word “troll” means.

What do you think the word “troll” means?

Yes, good and bad are value judgments. Good = that which benefits me. Bad = that which harms me.

Yes, the word “perfect” means nothing other than “every element within some set of elements is judged as good”. This is the same as “not a single element within some set of elements is judged as bad” or in plain terms “without a fault”.

The word “all” on the other hand simply means “every single element within some set of elements”. This is different from the word “perfect”. However, “good in all ways” means “every single element within some set of elements is judged as good” which is the same as the definition of the word “perfect”.

The word “universal” simply means “relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.” That’s how Google defines it. So if everyone shares the same standard or ideal, then whatever they judge as good or bad is universally good or bad. The word “universal” does not mean “independent from human judgment”.

There are relevant and irrelevant details. Pedants are people who focus on irrelevant details. So when I say you’re a pedant I don’t simply mean that you’re focusing on details. What I mean is that you are focusing on irrelevant details.

It cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. Psychologically, a belief in God’s existence has comforted many. This may not be the God of the three Os, but a more personal, intimate acceptance of what makes the universe keep going. Physically, there is no real need in an organism that exists without the possibility of an external source of being met. If Man had no need of God, God would be irrelevant to the human condition, The existence of God is based on the strong belief that meaning and purpose are exemplified in how we see the universe. The subjective belief becomes an intersubjective belief when we discuss it with like-'minded people. This is probably the only source of objectivity that we can have, barring some miracle in which a sense of reality is imposed on us from outside us as some claim to have happened to them.

No. “Perfect” means "an exact match to a standard or ideal". “Perfectly good” would mean that something was exactly matching whichever “good” was being referenced; “perfectly good for this”, “perfectly good for that”.

Apart from the fact that Prismatic567 hasn’t demonstrated squat in spite of his arrogant claim to the contrary, experience has demonstrated to my satisfaction that I do not have the right to NOT believe in a loving God.

Experience has got nothing to do with your right to think or believe whatever you
want to because every one has that right regardless of what they think or 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.