How is God distinguishable from an imaginary friend?

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Of my imaginary friends, none of them have brought about the existence of books for me to ponder through the historic work and efforts of other, foreign (primarily Jewish) people ...

My imaginary friends (such as they are) pretty much stay in one place--my mind, and they don't seem to make any forays from my mind into the 'real' world (which is kind of why I know they are 'imaginary').

 

[Petros2015]

Of my imaginary friends, none of them have brought about the existence of books for me to ponder through the historic work and efforts of other, foreign (primarily Jewish) people ...

True, imaginary friends don't generally influence the course of human history to this degree. I stood in a church and thought "Everything happens for a reason". Then I started following the reasons back and back and back. There I found a non-imaginary God. Jewish fishermen fish. That's what they do. They don't do things like this. It doesn't go on and grow and survive things like Diocletian persecutions, Islam, Communist persecutions, etc. Not unless they meet God, and God gives them an awful lot of help.

On a few occasions I have heard 'the voice' very briefly. I would describe it like a stone thrown into my stream of consciousness. On other occasions it was the gentle unfolding of a new understanding for something that was perplexing me or some insight into myself that I could not have seen when I needed it. Kind of like a student being taken aside after class and being shown what was really going on with a class of math problems, (if you substituted life for math problems). I don't think imaginary friends do these sorts of things.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Don't children with imaginary friends also usually claim to be able to see and hear said imaginary friend? Most people who believe in God (or gods) don't seem to claim to see and hear said God or gods; but rather take their existence as a matter of a faith rooted in some kind of larger religious or spiritual tradition. Claims of authentic, more experiential interaction tends to be rare.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Really? So when you walk into a room, you are incapable of distinguishing non-existant chairs from existing chairs?

You don't think it is possible to differentiate that which exists from that which doesn't exist?
The existant and the non-existant look exactly alike, in your opinion?

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.

Is the device you typed that post on real or imaginary?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see no reason to think that.

Maybe you could explain why?

Because an all-knowing god would value rational beliefs over gullibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Common sense...

In context of "he loves us so much" and "he doesn't want us in hell", coupled with the idea of him being all-knowing and all-good, and keeping in mind the idea of how important it supposedly is to know about his existance....

The question should actually be reversed... why wouldn't this god go out of his way to make his existance known to all?

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?

Same response as above... The question should be reversed.
Why wouldn't this god go out of his way to make his presence known to all?
Instead of just to some tribe in the stone age, during a time where "the gods" were responsible for pretty much everything (ie: when superstition was the NORM)

It's almost like he set it up deliberatly, to have the least credible case possible for his existance.

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

I think it's safe to say that his reference to "caught on camera" is just a metaphore to express the idea that not a single "divine act" has ever been documented in any verifiable and/or credible way. On camera or otherwise.

 

[anonymous person]

Because an all-knowing god would value rational beliefs over gullibility.

That itself seems to be an argument with implicit premises. What are they?

 

[anonymous person]

Common sense...

In context of "he loves us so much" and "he doesn't want us in hell", coupled with the idea of him being all-knowing and all-good, and keeping in mind the idea of how important it supposedly is to know about his existance....

The question should actually be reversed... why wouldn't this god go out of his way to make his existance known to all?



Same response as above... The question should be reversed.
Why wouldn't this god go out of his way to make his presence known to all?
Instead of just to some tribe in the stone age, during a time where "the gods" were responsible for pretty much everything (ie: when superstition was the NORM)

It's almost like he set it up deliberatly, to have the least credible case possible for his existance.



I think it's safe to say that his reference to "caught on camera" is just a metaphore to express the idea that not a single "divine act" has ever been documented in any verifiable and/or credible way. On camera or otherwise.

God is more interested in bringing people into a loving relationship with Himself seeing as How God is love, than having people acknowledge His existence. Since His aim is different than the aim you think He should have, His methods of self-disclosure differ from those you think should exist.

In addition, I would say that God has given you sufficient evidence that He exists. Which means that something other than evidence is at the heart of your atheism. Maybe something tragic has happened to you, maybe you have been mistreated, or abused or abandoned. Maybe you feel unloved. Maybe your dad doesn't love you or is uninterested in your life or what you become. Maybe your parents divorced. Maybe a loved one has died. Maybe a relationship has gone south. Maybe you love those things God has said should be forsaken.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That itself seems to be an argument with implicit premises. What are they?

The fact that "faith" is not a reliable pathway to truth.
An all-knowing deity would realise that rational reasoning would not lead to faith based beliefs.

Considering all other claims about this deity (benevolence, how important it is to "believe", etc), it would be simply inconsistent and self-contradictory for this deity to demand "faith" instead of simply providing rational evidence.

It's typical snake-oil salesmen strategy, actually...
First it asserts that you are unwell and then conveniently provides the "only" cure. But it never actually demonstrates that
a. you are actually unwell
and
b. that the provided cure actually cures anything

To me, it makes zero sense that an all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent deity who could EASILY make sure that there is rational and verifiable supporting evidence for his existance, doesn't provide such evidence and instead demands to "just believe" against all rational odds.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is more interested in bringing people into a loving relationship with Himself seeing as How God is love, than having people acknowledge His existence

That makes zero sense.
Being actually able to acknowledge his existance, seems like a pre-requisit to even being able to have a "loving relationship".

Otherwise, you might just as well have a "relationship" with the undetectable extra-dimensional pink unicorns.

How do you have a relationship with something that can't even be differentiated from something that doesn't exist?

Since His aim is different than the aim you think He should have, His methods of self-disclosure differ from those you think should exist.

Sounds like you are asking me to not care about finding it completely irrational and to "just believe it" instead, no questions asked.

Sorry, but my brain can't process that.

In addition, I would say that God has given you sufficient evidence that He exists.

I must have missed it.
Just like you likely missed the evidence for the existance of Shiva, Krishna and Visjnoe.

Which means that something other than evidence is at the heart of your atheism.

Nope. At the "heart of my atheism" is nothing more or less then not having been presented with a valid reason to believe the claims of theism.

Maybe something tragic has happened to you, maybe you have been mistreated, or abused or abandoned. Maybe you feel unloved. Maybe your dad doesn't love you or is uninterested in your life or what you become. Maybe your parents divorced. Maybe a loved one has died. Maybe a relationship has gone south. Maybe you love those things God has said should be forsaken.

LOL!!!!!!!

Right, right... because it's completely impossible that I don't share your faith-based beliefs without having been traumatised or such nonsense...

How condescending, arrogant and kind of insulting!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no...
I'm quite happy, come from a loving home, parents are both alive and not divorced, I haven't been abused, I'm not a cancer survivor nor has any tragedy befallen me like ...ever.
I'm also quite happy with my girlfriend with whom I've been together for 20 years (in 3 months) and with whom I have a lovely healthy son. I also own a booming start-up and it's lovely weather outside. Life has been good to me so far. I have nothing to complain about.

Maybe you should get of your high horse and not assume things. Instead, stick to facts.

 

[anonymous person]

That makes zero sense.
Being actually able to acknowledge his existance, seems like a pre-requisit to even being able to have a "loving relationship".

Otherwise, you might just as well have a "relationship" with the undetectable extra-dimensional pink unicorns.

How do you have a relationship with something that can't even be differentiated from something that doesn't exist?




Sounds like you are asking me to not care about finding it completely irrational and to "just believe it" instead, no questions asked.

Sorry, but my brain can't process that.



I must have missed it.
Just like you likely missed the evidence for the existance of Shiva, Krishna and Visjnoe.



Nope. At the "heart of my atheism" is nothing more or less then not having been presented with a valid reason to believe the claims of theism.



LOL!!!!!!!

Right, right... because it's completely impossible that I don't share your faith-based beliefs without having been traumatised or such nonsense...

How condescending, arrogant and kind of insulting!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no...
I'm quite happy, come from a loving home, parents are both alive and not divorced, I haven't been abused, I'm not a cancer survivor nor has any tragedy befallen me like ...ever.
I'm also quite happy with my girlfriend with whom I've been together for 20 years (in 3 months) and with whom I have a lovely healthy son. I also own a booming start-up and it's lovely weather outside. Life has been good to me so far. I have nothing to complain about.

Maybe you should get of your high horse and not assume things. Instead, stick to facts.

Maybe that's why you're an atheist. What would it profit you to have all that you do and lose your own soul?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Maybe that's why you're an atheist. What would it profit you to have all that you do and lose your own soul?

Personally, I don't have any reason to believe I have a soul.

 

[ExodusMe]

Under reformed epistemology our sensus divinitatis makes us aware of God's existence and occasions the belief "God exists". This is sufficient in distinguishing imagination & reality as our sensus divinitatis makes it plain to humanity that God exists & He created everything.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Under reformed epistemology our sensus divinitatis makes us aware of God's existence and occasions the belief "God exists". This is sufficient in distinguishing imagination & reality as our sensus divinitatis makes it plain to humanity that God exists & He created everything.

There's no evidence that a god given "sensus divinitatis" exists. I'm equally justified in saying that we have a sense that there is no god, but other powerful forces in the brain counteract it.

 

[ExodusMe]

There is evidence the sensus divinitatis exists. Greater than 90% of the population has believed in the existence of a deity for the entire history of the earth. It is more plausible that there is something wrong with your sensus divinitatis than there is no God.

Further, I don't have to offer proof. This is a de jure objection to Christianity. All I have to do is provide a model (see Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga....) as to why the belief in God (or Christianity specifically) is warranted and that is sufficient to answer the OP question.

This has nothing to do with the factual evidence for Christianity.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There is evidence the sensus divinitatis exists. Greater than 90% of the population has believed in the existence of a deity for the entire history of the earth. It is more plausible that there is something wrong with your sensus divinitatis than there is no God.

If your contention is that the sensus divinitatis is derived from an existent god, then the number of people that believe in a god is immaterial. It's a non sequitur to go from "lots of people have a sense that a god must exist" to "the sense that a god exists is god given". And if the sensus divinitatis isn't derived from an existent god, but through evolution, the effect can be argued to be the same.

Again, I can say that we have a sense that no god exists and that as we evolve as a race, more and more people will be able to counteract the powerful primitive forces that cause us to reject that sense. And I can point to evidence this is happening. And it would be just as much of a non sequitur as your argument.

Personally, I'm interested in rational models that explain things. Using the sensus divinitatis as part of a model is not rational.

 

[anonymous person]

Personally, I don't have any reason to believe I have a soul.

I believe you.

Trust me, I do.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I believe you.

Trust me, I do.

Excellent.

 

[anonymous person]

If your contention is that the sensus divinitatis is derived from an existent god, then the number of people that believe in a god is immaterial. It's a non sequitur to go from "lots of people have a sense that a god must exist" to "the sense that a god exists is god given". And if the sensus divinitatis isn't derived from an existent god, but through evolution, the effect can be argued to be the same.

Again, I can say that we have a sense that no god exists and that as we evolve as a race, more and more people will be able to counteract the powerful primitive forces that cause us to reject that sense. And I can point to evidence this is happening. And it would be just as much of a non sequitur as your argument.

Personally, I'm interested in rational models that explain things. Using the sensus divinitatis as part of a model is not rational.

How do you account for rationality?

 

[anonymous person]

That makes zero sense.
Being actually able to acknowledge his existance, seems like a pre-requisit to even being able to have a "loving relationship".

Otherwise, you might just as well have a "relationship" with the undetectable extra-dimensional pink unicorns.

How do you have a relationship with something that can't even be differentiated from something that doesn't exist?




Sounds like you are asking me to not care about finding it completely irrational and to "just believe it" instead, no questions asked.

Sorry, but my brain can't process that.



I must have missed it.
Just like you likely missed the evidence for the existance of Shiva, Krishna and Visjnoe.



Nope. At the "heart of my atheism" is nothing more or less then not having been presented with a valid reason to believe the claims of theism.



LOL!!!!!!!

Right, right... because it's completely impossible that I don't share your faith-based beliefs without having been traumatised or such nonsense...

How condescending, arrogant and kind of insulting!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no...
I'm quite happy, come from a loving home, parents are both alive and not divorced, I haven't been abused, I'm not a cancer survivor nor has any tragedy befallen me like ...ever.
I'm also quite happy with my girlfriend with whom I've been together for 20 years (in 3 months) and with whom I have a lovely healthy son. I also own a booming start-up and it's lovely weather outside. Life has been good to me so far. I have nothing to complain about.

Maybe you should get of your high horse and not assume things. Instead, stick to facts.

I have good reasons to think that your main misgiving with Jesus is not a lack of evidence for His existence or divinity, but a reluctance to acknowledge Him as Lord.

I have facts that support this. I have evidence that supports this.