No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

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

Right. That’s why I said correlation is not verification.

It’s no problem at all. I’m just interested to get to the bottom of why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.

So correlation isn’t verification - what is verification that assures you so much that you have no right not to believe in a loving God of all possible things? If it’s not correlation then there must be some superior “evidence of experience” that doesn’t require correlation that you are going by in order to arrive at verification, no?

I have been following the research of the very famous Andrew Newberg,

His views on God and ‘spiritual’ experiences;

In his latest Book,
How Enlightenment Changes Your Brain

The concept of ‘enlightenment’ as per Newberg has positive potentials for humanity but theism per se is not an effective tool for ‘enlightenment’ in comparison to non-theistic spiritualities.
Theism is a double-edged sword, while at present there is a net-pros from theism due to the current psychological state of the majority theists, the trend towards the future is the cons of theism are outweighing its pros.

Newberg’s research links spiritual experiences to positive effects and behavior but does not answer WHY theists believe in a God with its positive & critical negative baggage?
My hypothesis of this ‘WHY’ solely in the direction of psychology [neuro-psychology] and we can get a better understanding from multi-disciplinary approach to the question.

Science by default cannot be multi-disciplinary beyond its Scientific Framework and System, thus what we need is philosophy-proper which is like a ‘symphony conductor’ getting all individual instruments to perform as a whole.

Yes, but there is nothing overt about it. it is, in fact, very subtle, very personal. It’s in the little things, like something greater than myself guiding events in such a way that they naturally unfold in a way that got me to where I am today.

I want to emphasize the subtle of it. I’m sure you’ve seen videos of people falling into fountains or bumping into walls because they were distracted by their cell phones. Primitive man had brains very much like our own but didn’t have all the distractions we have today. Accordingly, it seems quite natural that people today are generally unaware of the subtleties that lead to the belief in God.

God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Anyone can believe all they want regardless of whether it is possible or impossible.

At present, given the current psychological state of the majority of humanity, there are no more-efficient and optimal ideology than theism in dealing with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis within the human psyche. So at present theism is a net-pro [positive] for humanity, else there will be terrible mental angst within the majority. Thus theists need to continue to believe in a God and adopt theistic religion and spiritualities to avoid psychological torments.

But the empirical evidence of current facts [terrible terror, evils and violence] from theism [especially Islam] is trending towards a net-con [negative] for humanity.
Note, this evil for example, i.e. statistics of deadly attacks
[there are other types of evils from this theistic religion and other theistic religions].

32,210 Islamic terror attacks involving deaths.

thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

The main purpose of theism is to deal with a psychological existential crisis.
From the above, the trend is the cons of theism-in-general is outweighing its pros and thus humanity must take steps to find fool proof alternatives to replace theism to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

So the ‘bottom’ is not why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.
The ‘bottom’ is, due to the potential threats, it is optimal for humanity to replace theism with fool proof alternatives in the FUTURE not now.

I understand such a topic is very disturbing and uncomfortable to many theists at present.
But we need to discuss and take this issue now to develop effective strategies for the future.