How is God distinguishable from an imaginary friend?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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'."

Why did you insert the word "silly" into the quote. I have never said any of this was silly.

It's a serious philosophical question with serious implications.

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."

Thanks. I agree.

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.

Please define God.

Is your definition of God a personal god?
Is your definition of God a comforting god?
Is your definition of God a god who answers prayers?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

(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?

Sorry. I edited the post for clarity.

But, to be honest, this thread really is about existence. How do we distinguish imaginary (non-existing) things from real (existing) things?

 

[archer75]

Why did you insert the word "silly" into the quote. I have never said any of this was silly.

True. Your Bob Smith example - the part where you said what one wouldn't say - did edge into silliness, though. But anyway, if I misrepresented your position, sorry, I didn't mean to.

Please define God.

Since it's your thread and you're the OP, I think you should give a definition that you want to use for this thread.

"God" was in your original question. I don't like things where I have to give the answer and the question, so I'll refrain from defining the terms of your own OP for you. You may find others who are willing to do so.

 

[-V-]

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?

Yes. And that distinction has already been pointed out. Notice that the hypothetical person had the "imaginary friend" BEFORE believing in God. The origin of the imaginary friend existing is nothing beyond a desire to conjure one up. The origin of God existing is a rational conclusion based on evidence.

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.

Which they do by pointing out the rational argument of evidence leading to the conclusion that God exists.

Think of it this way. Let's say that you come across someone lying on the road with a gunshot wound. ...

And you yourself demonstrate the difference between an imaginary friend and God. The imaginary friend in your scenario had no evidence of its actual existence. God, on the other hand, is a rational conclusion of existing 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.

Why are those "more likely" other than because you say so?

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.

If "we just don't know", then you rest on faith no less than a theist does.

 

[archer75]

But, to be honest, this thread really is about existence. How do we distinguish imaginary (non-existing) things from real (existing) things?

I'm not sure this question is coherent. If a certain thing doesn't exist, you can't really distinguish it from anything else.

If you mean "how do we tell, in general, what's real and what's delusion?" - well, I agree, it would be nice to have an answer to that question.

 

[zippy2006]

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

Is the imaginary friend known to be imaginary, the product of imagination? If so, then the answers given are sufficient: one is the product of imagination and one is the product of rational inquiry. If you want to identify your imaginary friend, then you find the thing that is a product of imagination. If you want to identify God, then you find the thing that is a product of rational inquiry and deduction.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Since it's your thread and you're the OP, I think you should give a definition that you want to use for this thread.

"God" was in your original question. I don't like things where I have to give the answer and the question, so I'll refrain from defining the terms of your own OP for you. You may find others who are willing to do so.

To me, God is described as being personal, loving, caring, comforting, powerful, able to answer prayers and requests, able to be communicated with, all-knowing, etc. Do you agree with that definition?

Someone could also have an imaginary friend who they claim has all those attributes.

Hence the conundrum.

How do we distinguish between the imaginary (non-existing) and real (existing)?

For example, let's say Bob says he has a friend who has all those above attributes. How would I go about determining if Bob's friend was imaginary or not? What is the methodology that you would follow? Firstly, I would ask to see his friend. But Bob then claims his friend does not have a body and is invisible. Okay, well, can I talk to his friend? Bob says that I can talk to him but only if I open my heart and believe that his friend exists. Okay, well, that seems suspicious and I can't really bring myself to that kind of self-deception. Can Bob's friend do some action which both Bob and I can see? For example, can Bob tell his friend to move a chair or turn on a light switch or do something to show me that Bob's friend has some external existence beyond Bob's mind? Bob says that I can't ask his friend to do that. But didn't Bob say that his friend can answer prayers and requests? Ah, but only certain requests; not all requests. But, this friend can't even turn on the light switch? Seems like it should be exceedingly simple to do. Well, I ask Bob how Bob knows that his friend is in the room. Bob says he can feel his friend in his heart.

To any outside observer, it seems exceedingly clear that Bob's friend is just Bob's imaginary friend as in: the friend has no external existence outside Bob's mind.

From what I've seen with God, there is no distinction. There is no distinction in methodology to determine if God exists. At some point you just gotta have faith I guess...

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Is the imaginary friend known to be imaginary, the product of imagination? If so, then the answers given are sufficient: one is the product of imagination and one is the product of rational inquiry. If you want to identify your imaginary friend, then you find the thing that is a product of imagination. If you want to identify God, then you find the thing that is a product of rational inquiry and deduction.

It doesn't matter if it is known to be imaginary or not.

The question is how do I, as a third party observer, determine if the friend is imaginary or not? Perhaps refer to my Post #27 to see what I mean.

 

[archer75]

I'm just going to tell you, after reading post #27, that you're never ever going to get an answer that will satisfy you on this thread.

Indeed, in the Bob situation you described, Bob would be understood to be joking or mentally ill, imagining a sort of non-functional magician "friend."

As long as you reduce the idea of "God" to what is described there, you will never see a difference or any way to distinguish.

Again, there is more to it than that.

You might look into some actual (Christian) definitions rather than playing this straw man game which you will always "win."

 

[zippy2006]

How do we distinguish between the imaginary (non-existing) and real (existing)?

It seems that the question at the bottom of the OP is, "How do we know that God exists?"

What is the methodology that you would follow?

I would consider arguments for God's existence, prayer, miracles, historical data, etc.

Okay, well, can I talk to his friend? Bob says that I can talk to him but only if I open my heart and believe that his friend exists. Okay, well, that seems suspicious and I can't really bring myself to that kind of self-deception.

Why would it be self-deception? It's only self-deception if you know he doesn't exist, in which case you're not even honestly searching. Heck, every time you seek evidence for the existence of some thing you presume its existence. You say, "Supposing it did exist, x, y, and z would be true, therefore I will investigate x, y, and z." If you're talking to something then you think it might exist.

Can Bob's friend do some action which both Bob and I can see? For example, can Bob tell his friend to move a chair or turn on a light switch or do something to show me that Bob's friend has some external existence beyond Bob's mind? Bob says that I can't ask his friend to do that. But didn't Bob say that his friend can answer prayers and requests? Ah, but only certain requests; not all requests. But, this friend can't even turn on the light switch? Seems like it should be exceedingly simple to do.

There are thousands of accounts of miracles, many of them scientifically attested. Studying them would be a good approach to the question.

You provided 3 approaches to the question, and it seems to me that 2/3 are perfectly legitimate.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm just going to tell you, after reading post #27, that you're never ever going to get an answer that will satisfy you on this thread.

Indeed, in the Bob situation you described, Bob would be understood to be joking or mentally ill, imagining a sort of non-functional magician "friend."

Why would he be considered to be joking or mentally ill?

What distinguishes him from a theistic believer?

Bob is joking or mentally ill but theistic believers are rational and correct. Why the distinction? Please explain to me your thinking.

In fact, your comment that he is joking or mentally ill cuts right to the heart of the question I am posing in this thread. Why do you automatically think he must be joking or mentally ill? And why does belief in God not endure the same scrutiny?

As long as you reduce the idea of "God" to what is described there, you will never see a difference or any way to distinguish.

Again, there is more to it than that.

You might look into some actual (Christian) definitions rather than playing this straw man game which you will always "win."

So you're telling me that describing God as being personal, loving, caring, comforting, powerful, able to answer prayers and requests, able to be communicated with, all-knowing is a straw man?

You've said already that you don't want to offer a definition so I provided possibly the most Christian definition I could think of and you called it a straw man....

If that is a straw man then...I just don't know.

Sorry

 

[archer75]

Bob is joking or mentally ill but theistic believers are rational and correct. Why the distinction? Please explain to me your thinking.

I didn't say that theistic believers were rational and correct. For the record, I think there are lots of theists whose claims of "rational proof" of X are incoherent . And lots of atheists about whose claims I would say the same.

I understand I (slightly) misrepresented your position by adding the "silly" epithet above. But I think your quote above really misrepresents me in an extreme way. I never said that (any or all) theists were "rational and correct" [with regard to this matter].

I (personally) don't think there can be a purely rational "proof" for the "Christian God." A lot of Christians and other theists on here will disagree with that.

So you're telling me that describing God as being personal, loving, caring, comforting, powerful, able to answer prayers and requests, able to be communicated with, all-knowing is a straw man?

No, sorry. I meant the Bob thing was a straw man. I see that that was unclear.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It seems that the question at the bottom of the OP is, "How do we know that God exists?"

Indeed that seems the way it is headed. I think the imaginary friend part of it draws attention to the fact that God is claimed to be personal and existing here and now. If you had a friend in your house with you right now, should it not be exceedingly simple to prove to someone that your friend exists?

I would consider arguments for God's existence, prayer, miracles, historical data, etc.

If God exists right here, right now then you should not need complicated arguments.

Prayer and miracles would be very compelling if they could happen right now and right here in an unambiguous way. If God exists it should be exceedingly simple for you to show me where he is. Why is it so difficult? It seems about as difficult as proving that Bob's imaginary friend is real....it also seems about as difficult as proving that any other subjective mental construct "exists".

Most cases of prayer and miracles end up being lumped into the "historical data" category. I do not really care about the past. God is purported to exist right here and right now. So I should not need any historical data or past stories about prayers being answered or miracles occurring in order to be shown he exists.

Why would it be self-deception? It's only self-deception if you know he doesn't exist, in which case you're not even honestly searching. Heck, every time you seek evidence for the existence of some thing you presume its existence. You say, "Supposing it did exist, x, y, and z would be true, therefore I will investigate x, y, and z." If you're talking to something then you think it might exist.

Yes, to hypothetically say, "If this thing existed, x, y, z would be true" is very different from saying, "Let me believe that this thing exists and that is my proof."

The latter is self-deception rather than honest searching.

There are thousands of accounts of miracles, many of them scientifically attested. Studying them would be a good approach to the question.

Does God exist right here and right now?

If so, why should I need to go down this rabbit hole of previous accounts?

It's like someone asking for proof that your friend is in your house right now and you reference old stories about him from years ago as if that is proof that he exists now.

 

[zippy2006]

Indeed that seems the way it is headed. I think the imaginary friend part of it draws attention to the fact that God is claimed to be personal and existing here and now. If you had a friend in your house with you right now, should it not be exceedingly simple to prove to someone that your friend exists?

If God exists right here, right now then you should not need complicated arguments.

Let's have a look at your argument:

1. It is easy to prove the existence of a human being existing in your house.
2. God is like a human being.
3. Therefore it is easy to prove the existence of God existing in your house.

The problem is that (2) is incredibly weak. Premise (1) is true because human beings are material, finite, macroscopic, and easily seen, touched, heard, and smelled. But premise (2) fails in every one of those ways. God is not material, finite, macroscopic, or sensible.

Prayer and miracles would be very compelling if they could happen right now and right here in an unambiguous way.

Sure, a miracle would be more compelling if you could dictate the terms and observe the event yourself. That doesn't mean that miracles that don't fit that criterion are not compelling.

If God exists it should be exceedingly simple for you to show me where he is. Why is it so difficult? It seems about as difficult as proving that Bob's imaginary friend is real....it also seems about as difficult as proving that any other subjective mental construct "exists".

You have a bad argument and I explained why above.

I do not really care about the past.

Then you don't care much about God's existence.

God is purported to exist right here and right now. So I should not need any historical data or past stories about prayers being answered or miracles occurring in order to be shown he exists.

All you're doing is repeating a bad argument.

Yes, to hypothetically say, "If this thing existed, x, y, z would be true" is very different from saying, "Let me believe that this thing exists and that is my proof."

The latter is self-deception rather than honest searching.

It's also a strawman.

It's like someone asking for proof that your friend is in your house right now and you reference old stories about him from years ago as if that is proof that he exists now.

It's not like that at all. I don't see how someone honestly approaching the problem could even make such an argument.

 

[variant]

How is this different than God?

Religions involve a lot more masonry and some heavy philosophical work.

 

[xianghua]

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.

we have evidences that god exist:

the self replicating watch argument

so we cant compare it with an imaginary friend from a scientific prespective.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Let's have a look at your argument:

1. It is easy to prove the existence of a human being existing in your house.
2. God is like a human being.
3. Therefore it is easy to prove the existence of God existing in your house.

The problem is that (2) is incredibly weak. Premise (1) is true because human beings are material, finite, macroscopic, and easily seen, touched, heard, and smelled. But premise (2) fails in every one of those ways. God is not material, finite, macroscopic, or sensible.

I guess the problem is that it is hard to distinguish between a real immaterial, infinite, non-macroscopic, thing from an imaginary immaterial, infinite, non-macroscopic thing.

This is once again highlighting my problem.

There is a clear and easy method to determine if a human being exists. On that we agree.

And you said that God is not sensible. But millions of Christians claim that God is sensible to them. God seems to have certain sensible traits that are similar to human beings: he can be communicated with, he can take requests, he is relatable and personal, he is a comforter, he loves, etc.

And yet, there appears to be no clear, consistent methodology for determining if God exists here and now. And any time you try to pin him down, people say that he is "not sensible" while simultaneously claiming they can interact with him. Is the interaction only occurring in their mind? Because that's how it looks.

The God that is currently loving people, comforting people, communicating with people, etc. Where is he? What is he? How is he distinguished from an imaginary thing? How is he distinguished from an internal mental construct?

Your suggestion is to look at past miracles and stories. But God is supposed to exist here and now.

Sure, a miracle would be more compelling if you could dictate the terms and observe the event yourself. That doesn't mean that miracles that don't fit that criterion are not compelling.

I believe the question of past miracles and past stories would belong in a different thread. I am trying to focus this thread by focusing on the present evidence only.

If something exists right now there should be no need to reference evidence from the past.

I don't need a miracle. I need someone to turn off my lights. That should not be miraculous for a "person" to do. Why can't God just be a pal and turn off the lights for me? I just fundamentally don't understand why he can't do that.

Is it a "straw man" to ask him to do that? Why? Why is that an unreasonable request? Is should be easy for a personal, relatable, conscious, powerful being who exists right now, right here to do that. If he is so immaterial that he can't do that, then how is he distinguishable from something that just doesn't exist?

Does he just not want to do it? That is even more perplexing and very petty. Have you ever experienced times when your spouse gives you the silent treatment? That's what I'm getting from God. I'm asking him to turn off the lights and he's just straight up ignoring me. He isn't even courteous enough to tell me no and explain his reasons. He just exists...silently and unsensibly...indistinguishable from non-existence. He is indistinguishable from non-existence.

It's not like that at all. I don't see how someone honestly approaching the problem could even make such an argument.

I am honestly approaching the problem. I think I am approaching it too honestly by focusing it and not allowing for distractions away from the topic.

I'm not allowing the 'usual' arguments for God's existence because none of those arguments deal with the present. For example, the "something from nothing" argument only suggests that some god-like being may have been there to initiate the universe, it says nothing about a personal, relatable, comforting, loving, God who exists today. The morality argument could similarly be laid out by a god at the beginning of time but says nothing about a personal, relatable, comforting, loving, God who exists today; who takes requests today; who people can hear audibly and have conversations with today.

 

[archer75]

Regarding turning off the light...

You've picked something trivially easy, I assume to set a very low bar.

But consider that people ask for all kinds of contradictory things.

If we're going to live as distinct people in the world, it's very silly to expect God to act as a "magician" who takes care of daily tasks and other trivial wished, especially when other people will want things not consistent with our desires.

I hear you, generally. I think what you're saying is "I hear this, but that seems inconsistent with the world around me."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There are thousands of accounts of miracles, many of them scientifically attested. Studying them would be a good approach to the question.

I'd love to see the evidence of this, because if it can be shown that miracles actually happen, then I'd stop being an atheist.

So... let 'er rip...

 

[Ygrene Imref]

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

I doubt it.

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?

As others have said, which does seem exceedingly unsatisfactory, the one who has an imaginary friend knows it is imaginary. There is a subtle issue of connection that separates imaginary from reality.

That goes for all stimuli - since all stimuli can lie (and often does.)

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.

Unfortunately for your search, I think God comes to the person rather than the person making Him up - that is how you can tell He is real (or, something is real.) There is a lot of deception that exploits our alleged logic, reason and intelligence. Ego is one deception.

So, when one makes the effort to search out the "imaginary," making a call to it - and the "imaginary" answers back - then that is when you have to entertain something further rooted in reality.

The unsatisfactory answer I would give is if you seek this thing out, you will find it if it wants to be found (assuming it is not imaginary.) And, even then we have to be careful to make sure we are not making the imaginary into a totem of reality.