No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

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.

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.