How is God distinguishable from an imaginary friend?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Can someone give me a consistent methodology for determining the difference between God and an imaginary friend?

Someone says that they have an imaginary friend who they talk to and who sometimes does things for them and who makes them feel happy and fulfilled and comforts them.

How is this different than God?

This is primarily an epistemological question. In order for me to believe in God, I need to be able to distinguish this "God" character from an "imaginary friend" character.


EDIT: Since there have been multiple cases of confusion regarding this, I am adding the following disclaimer:

Disclaimer: This thread is discussing the notion of a personal god, not a deistic god.

 

[ExodusMe]

God exists and the imaginary friend does not

Is this the epic conquest of what atheism has become? embarassing....

 

[archer75]

I think it's a fair question. Some people are inclined to make an "imaginary friend" in the place of God, a kind of magician whose tricks only sometimes work.

I think you'll get better responses than this, but for now:

-God is beyond our reason, understanding, and fantasy - we "see" only what is shown to us.
-an imaginary friend is controlled by / part of our ability to fantasize

Now, you might say "but the attributes of God you've mentioned could just as easily be those of a 'super' imaginary friend who has the attribute of being beyond imagining." Okay, true enough, but you just have to accept that our imaginary friends and our understanding of God are BOTH going to be limited by our minds - as is your conception of anything else.

I know these threads can easily go awry. My recommendation: don't look too hard for the answer to this on here. Instead, if you haven't (I don't remember any prior threads by you, so I have no idea), go to some services regularly. At least a month. Stay for the whole thing and meet people after. Participate as much as possible. I have had "good luck" recently attending Orthodox prayer services and liturgy in this way.

Then see if you want to reformulate your question or ask it in another context.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

God exists and the imaginary friend does not

Is this the epic conquest of what atheism has become? embarassing....

How do you distinguish that God exists and the imaginary friend does not?

What are the distinguishing characteristics of existence which separate "God" from "imaginary friend"?


Question: "How do you distinguish that God exists and an imaginary friend does not?"
Your answer: "God exists and the imaginary friend does not"

Do you see how you are not answering the question? I am looking for a method to determine and distinguish one from the other.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[RC1970]

Can someone give me a consistent methodology for determining the difference between God and an imaginary friend?

Someone says that they have an imaginary friend who they talk to and who sometimes does things for them and who makes them feel happy and fulfilled and comforts them.

How is this different than God?

This is primarily an epistemological question. In order for me to believe in God, I need to be able to distinguish this "God" character from an "imaginary friend" character.

The primary difference between the imaginary friend and God is "the person imagining". To imagine something would require that you know you are imagining something.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[ExodusMe]

How do you distinguish that God exists and the imaginary friend does not?

What are the distinguishing characteristics of existence which separate "God" from "imaginary friend"?


Question: "How do you distinguish that God exists and an imaginary friend does not?"
Your answer: "God exists and the imaginary friend does not"

Do you see how you are not answering the question? I am looking for a method to determine and distinguish one from the other.

That wasn't in your OP.

In any case, this essentially boils down to "prove God exists to me". There is no benefit to compare it to an imaginary friend. You are just trying to insult Christians.

 

[-V-]

A couple reasonable responses I've found:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-God-and-an-imaginary-friend
(see 6th post down, posted by Alexander Seinfeld)

Is God imaginary?

 

[Goonie]

Can someone give me a consistent methodology for determining the difference between God and an imaginary friend?

Someone says that they have an imaginary friend who they talk to and who sometimes does things for them and who makes them feel happy and fulfilled and comforts them.

How is this different than God?

This is primarily an epistemological question. In order for me to believe in God, I need to be able to distinguish this "God" character from an "imaginary friend" character.

Other people don't believe in your imaginary friend.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

T
In any case, this essentially boils down to "prove God exists to me". There is no benefit to compare it to an imaginary friend.

The question is not just "prove God exists to me" it is "How is God distinguishable from an imaginary friend?"

Is there a method for telling the difference?

You are just trying to insult Christians.

Not trying to insult. Just approaching it from a different perspective. If you have been insulted by my question then you are welcome to ignore it

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Other people don't believe in your imaginary friend.

Fair enough.

To push this a little farther then: If someone had an imaginary friend who they believed was invisible and powerful and comforted them at times and loved them and sometimes responded to their requests, would that person inadvertently be believing in God via their imaginary friend?

Is there any practical difference between "believing in God" and "having a god-like imaginary friend"?

 

[archer75]

Fair enough.

To push this a little farther then: If someone had an imaginary friend who they believed was invisible and powerful and comforted them at times and loved them and sometimes responded to their requests, would that person inadvertently be believing in God via their imaginary friend?

Is there any practical difference between "believing in God" and "having a god-like imaginary friend"?

I'd say that there is a difference. The imaginary friend, in this instance, would just be an unreliable friend (and also imaginary).

The idea of God is much more than what you describe about the imaginary friend.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

A couple reasonable responses I've found:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-God-and-an-imaginary-friend
(see 6th post down, posted by Alexander Seinfeld)

Is God imaginary?

Thanks for the reply.

With regards to the Quora answer, he runs into the classic definitional problem. God is a slippery individual to define. In certain contexts, Christians argue that God is an abstraction: the "unknowable, unimaginable creative force in the universe" or the "transcendent source of morality". But in other contexts, I see Christians argue that God is intensely personal. Many Christians imply that you can have conversations with God, that you can "trust" God, that God is a "person" with relational qualities. Many Christians even imply that they have heard God audibly. There are thousands of websites devoted to helping people talk to God. Many, many, many Christians claim that God can be known as a personal savior (in fact I would argue that is one of the central tenets of Christianity). I find this to be strongly at odds with the "unknownable, unimaginable" God of this Quora answer.

This "creative force" definition also sounds eerily similar to New Age "life force" or "energy" esotericism which Christians often rail against. But, to me, it's just different language for the same thing. And in fact, the New Age description of "God" or "energy" is at least consistent with their other beliefs. The "creative force" definition for God is, to me, strongly at odds with the Bible. In the Old Testament, God is seen talking to people in a very knowable, imaginable, relatable, personal way. There are hundreds of verses in the Old Testament in which God is seen speaking in direct quotes.

Your second link to gotquestions.org runs into a similar problem as before: building the concept of God as an intense abstraction which has almost no resemblance to the biblical God and who's only function is to create the universe 14 billion years ago for philosophical satisfaction. The gotquestions.org argument makes no effort to argue that the God that people believe in today is not just an imaginary creation of their minds.

 

[archer75]

@leftrightleftrightleft , I understand your (apparent) frustration with certain definitions that seems to contradict each other or not to mean much.

But what you're asking for on this thread is turning into a moving target.

At first you asked "How is this [a sometimes-helpful imaginary friend] different than God?"

Now your last post seems to be asking someone on this thread to justify particular claims that may have been made by particular people identifying as Christians - as if those claims were part of your original question, but I don't see how they were.

 

[-V-]

Thanks for the reply....

You're missing the entire point. The difference is that an imaginary friend has no rational origin, it is simply invented in the mind. The existence of God, however, is a rational conclusion based on evidence. That doesn't change simply because you personally disagree with the conclusion.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'd say that there is a difference. The imaginary friend, in this instance, would just be an unreliable friend (and also imaginary).

The question is how to distinguish between the imaginary friend and God.

Your answer: "There is a difference. The imaginary friend, in this instance, would be ... imaginary."

This is not getting to the heart of the problem. And to say that the imaginary friend is unreliable just brings up the can of worms which asks how reliable God really is to. That's going down the rabbit hole of efficacy or prayer which might belong in another thread.

But, let's continue to push this a little farther:

Lets say the person asks his imaginary friend to help him win his sports match, but then he loses the match. The person then says, "Oh my imaginary friend is very reliable, he just didn't respond to my request in this instance because of reasons X, Y and Z"

How reliable is a friend if you have to constantly explain away his unreliability?

The idea of God is much more than what you describe about the imaginary friend.

The whole point of this thread is to basically question your above assertion: "Is God much more than an imaginary friend?"

 

[archer75]

The question is how to distinguish between the imaginary friend and God.

Your answer: "There is a difference. The imaginary friend, in this instance, would be ... imaginary."

This is not getting to the heart of the problem. And to say that the imaginary friend is unreliable just brings up the can of worms which asks how reliable God really is to. That's going down the rabbit hole of efficacy or prayer which might belong in another thread.

But, let's continue to push this a little farther:

Lets say the person asks his imaginary friend to help him win his sports match, but then he loses the match. The person then says, "Oh my imaginary friend is very reliable, he just didn't respond to my request in this instance because of reasons X, Y and Z"

How reliable is a friend if you have to constantly explain away his unreliability?



The whole point of this thread is to basically question your above assertion: "Is God much more than an imaginary friend?"

What you're saying is "I don't see the difference between a silly imaginary friend and what I understand people, specifically Christians, to mean by the term 'God'."

Answer:

Part 1: "If someone has a conception of God that is nothing more than an unreliable imaginary friend of whom they ask favors, they are in fact thinking of an 'imaginary friend,' and your suggestion is correct: there is no difference between what they mean by 'God' and an imaginary friend."

Part 2: "If you're unwilling even to entertain the notion that what people (or some people, and most major branches of Christianity) mean by God - whether they are 'right' or not - contains much more than attributes that an imaginary rabbit helper would have, then you're never going to get anywhere. If you ignore everything everyone says that shows that these two notions - imaginary friend and God - are actually distinct (regardless of whether either is 'real), then there's no purpose in starting the thread because in effect, you'll just be talking to yourself."

While the replies that have been posted so far are, of course, not perfect, it appears you're treating those who respond to you as the...inverse of imaginary friends - they're real, but you ignore them.

Your basic question is not trivial and is, I think, worth pursuing. However, you will get nowhere (and by that I don't mean "you won't be convinced!") by insisting on a line of talk where you put up a child's picture of the "nice old man" God and muse about how this seems to be just an unreliable imaginary friend.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You're missing the entire point. The difference is that an imaginary friend has no rational origin, it is simply invented in the mind. The existence of God, however, is a rational conclusion based on evidence. That doesn't change simply because you personally disagree with the conclusion.

1) Perhaps you can weigh in on this comment I made in a previous post:

"If someone had an imaginary friend who they believed was invisible and powerful and comforted them at times and loved them and sometimes responded to their requests, would that person inadvertently be believing in God via their imaginary friend?"

Is there a way to distinguish the two?


2) I think you are still missing my point. And I believe the entire gotquestions.org article you posted is a red herring to the central question of whether or not God is distinguishable from an imaginary friend. The problem is that before you attribute God as a cause for something, you must first establish that God is not imaginary.

Think of it this way. Let's say that you come across someone lying on the road with a gunshot wound. A witness says, "Bob Smith shot her." Your natural response might be, "Who is Bob Smith?" or "Where did Bob Smith go?" You would not just say, "Oh yes, these injuries require a cause and this witness has put forward Bob Smith as the cause, therefore Bob Smith must exist as evidenced by these injuries." No, before you accept that Bob Smith shot her, you have to establish that Bob Smith actually exists. If Bob Smith cannot be identified, cannot be found and has no record of ever existing, then at what point do you conclude that the witness must be wrong? At what point does Bob Smith become indistinguishable from an imaginary Bob Smith? If the witness admits that Bob Smith is his imaginary friend, then you can see why Bob Smith is a very poor explanation for the evidence.

Similarly with God: if God is imaginary, then God is a poor explanation for the cause of the universe and other causes are much more likely. Other possibilities would include: quantum fluctuations, an old imploding universe, etc. Recall that the argument goes:
1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something else existed prior to the Big Bang.

Gotquestions.org has erroneously inserted "God" as that "something else" and ran with it. But there are other equally hypothetical explanations. At the end of the day, we just don't know what caused the universe to come into existence and that is the most honest answer you are going to get from anyone.

 

[archer75]

2) I think you are still missing my point. And I believe the entire gotquestions.org article you posted is a red herring to the central question of whether or not God exists. The problem is that before you attribute God as a cause for something, you must first establish that God is not imaginary.

(my bold type above)
It happened again: you're now bringing up another question - whether God exists.

Do you know that this kind of behavior on a thread makes it look like you're not even certain of your own position?