How is God distinguishable from an imaginary friend?

[anonymous person]

It is the orthodox view that the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ, was God's chief means of engaging in self-disclosure.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It is the orthodox view that the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ, was God's chief means of engaging in self-disclosure.

I see a "was" in that sentence. What about now? it seems like a god that wants us to believe for good reasons would be giving unequivocal demonstrations in self-disclosure now.

 

[Radrook]

An imaginary friend didn't create the universe.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

An imaginary friend didn't create the universe.

Correct.

I created the universe.

 

[Radrook]

Correct.
I created the universe.

Are you also Napoleon Bonaparte?

 

[anonymous person]

I see a "was" in that sentence. What about now? it seems like a god that wants us to believe for good reasons would be giving unequivocal demonstrations in self-disclosure now.

I see no reason to think that.

Maybe you could explain why?

 

[variant]

I see no reason to think that.

Maybe you could explain why?

Well God in the orthodox view doesn't shy away from rather impressive demonstrations of both it's existence and power.

It just does so in the era of video tapes.

 

[least]

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.

Does the imaginary friend have scars on his hands? My God does. This is a historical fact. Some may find it ridiculous to believe he rose from the dead, but consider all those testified of the event with their own blood. That's the method I go by.

 

[anonymous person]

Well God in the orthodox view doesn't shy away from rather impressive demonstrations of both it's existence and power.

It just does so in the era of video tapes.

Why do you think that?

 

[variant]

Why do you think that?

Because I have read the Bible and I don't have any video evidence.

 

[anonymous person]

Because I have read the Bible and I don't have any video evidence.

Why does your not having any video evidence of God demonstrating His power and existence lead you to think that the biblical accounts of Him doing so are false, or that God no longer demonstrates His existence and power to people in an impressive manner in this day and age?

 

[CrystalDragon]

Why does your not having any video evidence of God demonstrating His power and existence lead you to think that the biblical accounts of Him doing so are false, or that God no longer demonstrates His existence and power to people in an impressive manner in this day and age?

I think it's because in the Bible God showed his presence with pillars of fire and giant celestial doves and the like, and nothing like that happens now.

 

[variant]

Why does your not having any video evidence of God demonstrating His power and existence lead you to think that the biblical accounts of Him doing so are false, or that God no longer demonstrates His existence and power to people in an impressive manner in this day and age?

Because it is obvious that God doesn't have a problem demonstrating it's power in the Bible in obvious and dramatic ways.

What has changed is that we have better communications today and such an event would easily be caught on camera for all to see. And now that never happens.

I shouldn't have to explain to you why this would lead one to be skeptical of the accounts before we had means to document them.

 

[anonymous person]

Because it is obvious that God doesn't have a problem demonstrating it's power in the Bible in obvious and dramatic ways.

This itself is an argument in need of substantiation. Why think God demonstrating power in obvious and dramatic ways means that God has no problem with doing so? Why not think that God did so reluctantly and as a last resort and would rather have not had to do so?

What has changed is that we have better communications today and such an event would easily be caught on camera for all to see. And now that never happens.

No doubt, we have better means of communicating today than existed 3,000 or 2,000 years ago.

But why think merely having these means would equate to having undeniably divine acts caught on camera?

And why think that not having a divine act caught on camera means that no such events never occur?

 

[anonymous person]

I think it's because in the Bible God showed his presence with pillars of fire and giant celestial doves and the like, and nothing like that happens now.

Why think that because God did something in the past, He must do it now?

Why think you are in a position to say that God never manifests Himself to people in miraculous fashion?

 

[variant]

This itself is an argument in need of substantiation. Why think God demonstrating power in obvious and dramatic ways means that God has no problem with doing so? Why not think that God did so reluctantly and as a last resort and would rather have not had to do so?

I have no idea as to God's "reluctance" as you put it, as the source says nothing of the sort.

No doubt, we have better means of communicating today than existed 3,000 or 2,000 years ago.

But why think merely having these means would equate to having undeniably divine acts caught on camera?

And why think that not having a divine act caught on camera means that no such events never occur?

If an eye can catch it, a camera can. And, there are more cameras than ever. Unless you think that any of the events of the Bible could happen and be kept secret.

I don't think anything I am saying is even slightly controversial. If you believe the biblical account, God made himself obvious and visible quite a bit.

 

[Chriliman]

One difference between imaginary friends and God is that imaginary friends don't correct your beliefs that are wrong, if anything they tell you your beliefs are true no matter what.

In my experience, I've been wrong a lot, but never would have realized my error if God wasn't there to help me see the truth through His word and creation.

 

[anonymous person]

I have no idea as to God's "reluctance" as you put it, as the source says nothing of the sort.

Why do you think Jesus was not at times, reluctant to perform miracles and demonstrate His divinity? The accounts we have clearly demonstrate that on several occasions He would not do exactly that which you claim He had no problem doing.

In addition, I can think of a number of things I do which nontheless I do reluctantly. I see no reason to think God's demonstrating His power and existence was always something He preferred to do. Do you have any reason for thinking this?

If an eye can catch it, a camera can. And, there are more cameras than ever. Unless you think that any of the events of the Bible could happen and be kept secret.

You're right. There are more cameras than ever. And yet much of what occurs in our lives is never recorded on camera.

I don't think anything I am saying is even slightly controversial. If you believe the biblical account, God made himself obvious and visible quite a bit.

No doubt, the miraculous is recorded throught the old and new testaments.

No doubt many who were privy to these events denied they were acts of God even while observing them.

I see no reason to think that there is something that God could do in the way of demonstrating His existence and power that could not be explained away by those who did no want to acknowledge it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

Well the big difference is that there is scientific evidence that the Christian God created the universe, imaginary friends don't create anything.

 

[variant]

Why do you think Jesus was not at times, reluctant to perform miracles and demonstrate His divinity? The accounts we have clearly demonstrate that on several occasions He would not do exactly that which you claim He had no problem doing.

In addition, I can think of a number of things I do which nontheless I do reluctantly. I see no reason to think God's demonstrating His power and existence was always something He preferred to do. Do you have any reason for thinking this?

And then there are the times he isn't so reluctant. Regardless, he does objective demonstrations with regularity.

And, It would be more convincing if I were there, which is even pointed out in the Bible itself.

No, I'm supposed to have "faith" while other people get evidence.

You're right. There are more cameras than ever. And yet much of what occurs in our lives is never recorded on camera.

The expectation would be that if large scale miracles still occurred they would be documented.

No doubt, the miraculous is recorded throught the old and new testaments.

No doubt many who were privy to these events denied they were acts of God even while observing them.

I see no reason to think that there is something that God could do in the way of demonstrating His existence and power that could not be explained away by those who did no want to acknowledge it.

I've never explained away anything like what happened in the Bible, I've just never seen any such thing.