Actually, it is more along the lines of “what is true for all rational men and women”.
After all, what else is there for measuring the gap between what we think is true, believe is true and/or claim to know is true about God, and that which can, in fact, be demonstrated to be true for all of us.
Reason. The tool of both philosophers and scientists. Then, as I noted above, a rational understanding of God/No God will revolve around defending one or another “combination of definitions, analyses, arguments and accumulations of actual, factual empirical, material, phenomenal evidence”.
On the other hand, to me, folks like you seem considerably more content with being “cognitively satisfied” that what they have constructed “intellectually” about God in their head is quite enough. Emotion need not enter into it at all.
As though the invention of God does not revolve fundamentally around a fear of death/oblivion. Or around the trepidation that many feel in contemplating a world in which an omniscient/omnipotent transcending font is not around to establish and to confirm good from bad behavior. Vice from virtue. Sinners from saints.
And then to judge those behaviors so as to establish one’s fate for all of eternity.
Or around the agony of contemplating an existence that is essentially meaningless and absurd.
For mere mortals, religion in a nutshell.
Do you honestly imagine there are many men and women around who grapple with all of this only in order to feel “cognitively satisfied”?