How is God distinguishable from an imaginary friend?

[Chriliman]

Can you describe precisely how God helped you to see the truth? Did he communicate with you in some fashion? Did you sense him in someway? Was there any indication that your interaction with him was not just a mental event occurring in your own head?

How was your interaction different than someone just reasoning with themselves in their own mind? (For example, I can have a conversation with myself in my own head quite easily. If I call that "voice" in my head "God", is that somehow distinguishable from your experience?)

Thanks

My description won't do it justice, it's something that you have to experience first hand. I'd losely compare it to the feeling of realizing the right answer to something you've been trying to figure out for the longest time and once you know the answer, everything else begins to fall into place and make sense and it becomes a joy to continue seeking out what's true and right, knowing you're on solid footing.

 

[least]

Step back for a moment and view this from an outsider perspective.

Even if Jesus rose from the dead, I do not see how that proves the existence of this "God" concept. Do you see why I can say that?

Jesus may have rose from the dead due to some advanced alien technology. To me, as an outsider, the alien theory seems just as likely as this "God" concept. In fact, in some ways, it seems more likely because aliens are well-defined physical entities with a location in time and space whereas God is an ill-defined concept which, thus far, seems indistinguishable from a mental construct.

So, for this conversation, Jesus plays no role. I want to see how God can exist (and is existing) right here and right now. I do not want historical references.

So, how can you and I distinguish God from something that exists purely as a mental construct in our minds?

Thanks

We can only go by the evidence and testimony that we have received. Here is what we know: Jesus lived and he was crucified. Next, we know that by the multitude, men and women of the first century gave their lives testifying to what they saw: Jesus rose from the dead. So, we have historical fact (Jesus lived and was crucified) and we have testimony (people were willing to die testifying that he arose). You and I must determine how we will respond to that evidence.

If he rose from the dead, then it supports his claim that he came from heaven, was one with the Father, and many other claims to deity.

If he was resurrected by the technology of aliens, then he or those who recorded the event, and those who gave witness to it are all liars. Now out of all the people aliens would choose to swoop on and resurrect, why this man who made such false claims?

A third option is to just flat deny the resurrection and say that it was made up. You have the evidence and so you must decide according to your own judgment. Or you can go with the alien theory. Neither of those do you any good, because what then becomes of salvation?

I am compelled to go with the evidence that validates the gospel record. As such, I have something tangible to point to that helps me distinguish God from an imaginary friend.

"Behold," [me pointing to Christ], "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

Now my argument is no disrespect to those who may be outsiders, that is, unbelievers. It is merely my answer to your question.

 

[Radrook]

Just to clarify: are you a theist or a deist? Do you believe that God interacts with us in some way? If so, how?

At the present time God interacts with Christians via his holy spirit which he uses to strengthen, enlighten us and guide us.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I addressed why these responses do not answer the thread question in previous posts. See Post #37 and Post #14.

The key here is that I am interested primarily in the fact that God is purported to exist and interact with humans here and now. Today. For this thread, I am not concerned with past stories or origin arguments.

I am interested in how God can be distinguished from a mental construct when people interact with God today.

Thanks

Millions of people claim to have experienced and are experiencing a relationship with the Christian God only one person claims to have had a relationship with your imaginary friend and even people that claim to have an imaginary friend don't claim to have an actual relationship with it once they become adults.

 

[RDKirk]

In my case, others have seen the evidence at the same time I have.

 

[com7fy8]

Can you describe precisely how God comforts you and provides companionship?

First, we need His correction which we can read about in Hebrews 12:4-11. This scripture tells precisely what happens because of God's correction.

Then, as God's correction makes us more and more real in His love, we experience His comfort while we are having compassion for other people. It is a package deal, of how we enjoy His comfort while we are ministering God's comfort to others > 2 Corinthians 1:1-4.

And we have His companionship by means of the Holy Spirit sharing God's own love with us "in our hearts" > Romans 5:5; also see 2 Thessalonians 3:5. And this comes more and more while we are about being pleasing to our Father, by being gentle and quiet in His love >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

We need to be first interested in pleasing God and seeking to please God, not only to try to use Him for making us feel good.

How do you interact with God?

I be quiet and see what He does with me. And I go by what the Bible says to expect because of God living in us. The Bible is talking about how we become and live because of how our Father corrects us and changes us to become like Jesus.

One feature about Jesus is He is not conceited > even though He is so superior, He does not look down on people who are so less than He is, plus Jesus has hope for any person, at all. And He showed this by dying on the cross for any and all people > 1 John 2:2. So, in our interaction with God we find ourselves being corrected and challenged and changed to love and have hope for any and all people. There is constant exposure to how God is, in us, and this example has us also becoming more and more all-loving and gentle and kind and humble, not conceitedly looking down on anyone, but we have compassion, also > Hebrews 5:2

If I were to observe you while you interacted with God, would there be any precise feature that could distinguish your interaction from the interaction of a person with an imaginary mental construct in their head?

In order to fully enjoy God's companionship and comfort, we ourselves need to follow His example of how He is all-loving.

"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

Therefore, one feature of a Jesus person, versus someone make-believing a friend, could be how the Jesus person is loving any and all people, and not only trying to use Jesus for company and something to keep one's imagination busy. God is all-loving and so generously forgiving, but He expects us to follow this example

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

So, God is not conceited, but willing to share with us humans who have been so selfish. But we need His correction of His love's perfection (1 John 4:17) so we can truly benefit from how He forgives and loves us. And we find this in the quietness and rest (Matthew 11:28-30) and gentleness of His love.

And so, a feature of a person successful in this is how the person does not keep giving in to anti-love things like arguing and complaining (Philippians 2:14-16). Also, the person puts away things which are not loving and deeply quiet >

"Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice." (Ephesians 4:31)

And this makes the person deeply strong so the person can love any and all people and not allow wrong people to have power to decide how the person is and what the person does. It is wise not to allow evil people to have power to decide if you are a loving and caring and forgiving person or not.

 

[ExodusMe]

@leftrightleftrightleft what is it about your imaginary friend that you need help distinguishing if it is God or not?

Your attempts to attack our beliefs about God are futile. God and imaginary friends are distinguishable because God does not exist purely in imagination. Beliefs about God include "God created the world", "God planned for my life to turn out this way", "God allowed me to experience such and such circumstance", "God can hear my prayers", "God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ", "God is speaking to me through his word", etc... etc.. etc... etc...

A similar question would be; can you distinguish between a robot and a human mind?

If a person is skeptical enough, they will not be able to receive a sufficient answer. How do I know you are not a super advanced robot that looks like a human? You're skepticism has made you irrational to the most obvious belief about reality. God created everything that began to exist.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The OP has a de jure objection to the rationality of belief in God. Reformed epistemology is a model that shows that it is rational to believe God exists.

The OP is a simple question about evidence. It has to do with how an external person can differentiate between someone who's delusional and someone who isn't. You're conflating it to something that it doesn't explicitly imply.

Your objection to the sensus divinitatis is that the only reason to believe the sensus divinitatis exists is because 'people have a predilection for a belief in God'. That is not the argument for the sensus divinitatis provided in WCB.

The sense that a god exists is either correct or incorrect. My objection is that instead of providing evidence for the belief, the WCB allows theists to hide behind the idea of a properly basic sensus divinitatis.

WCB classifies the sensus divinitatis in the same way we classify memory beliefs. The circumstances we experience as humans occasion beliefs about God in us. We see a beautiful vista and it occasions the belief "God made this" - you are in extreme doubt about your future and the sensus divinitatis occasions the belief "God can hear my prayers".

This means that theistic belief in respect to the model (coined Aquinis/Calvin (AC) model in WCB) is properly basic- (i.e. you don't need justification for theistic belief).

The WCB is merely a personal statement intended to make the believer feel justified about their belief. It's purpose can't be to impart truth to anyone else. It actually can't relate to any external person, even other believers, because there's no limitiation on what the sensus divinitatis entails. Two people can have contradictory views about a god, both derived from the sensus divinitatis, and both will be justified in their beliefs under the WCB if they've done their "due dilligence" in confronting any potential defeaters.

You don't accept memory beliefs, or your belief that your friends have minds and are not robots, or your belief in the external world - we don't need to provide justification for our beliefs about God either.

I assume an external world based on evidence that exists beyond my assumption.

Further, our beliefs about God are properly basic in the following ways
1) belief can be properly basic for a person in the sense that it is indeed basic for him (he doesn’t accept it on the evidential basis of other propositions)
2) he is justified in holding it in the basic way: he is within his epistemic rights, is not irresponsible, is violating no epistemic or other duties in holding that belief in that way.

Which means it's worthless to anyone else, and therefore worthless to bring up in conversation.

It's also worthless as a means to discern actual truth. As William Lane Craig says, his belief in a god gives him a "defeater defeater", which seemingly means that any argument against his beliefs, however logical and reasoned, can be dismissed out of hand.

Personally, I hold nothing that "sacred" that I need this kind of shield to hide behind.

This should pretty much answer the OP and obliterate this thread GGKTHXBAI

Lol. Not even remotely close.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

God does not exist purely in imagination.

I take it that you can demonstrate this?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

My description won't do it justice, it's something that you have to experience first hand. I'd losely compare it to the feeling of realizing the right answer to something you've been trying to figure out for the longest time and once you know the answer, everything else begins to fall into place and make sense and it becomes a joy to continue seeking out what's true and right, knowing you're on solid footing.

How is this not just a mental phenomenon occurring in your brain?

I have taken some math courses in university and I understand the feeling of "getting it" upon understanding a mathematical proof. I have a distinct memory of complete awe when my math teacher showed us the proof for Euler's equation. Everything fell into place. It was incredible. But all my awe and wonder were mental phenomena. And the equation itself is just symbols and logic which I happen to apply meaning to. It was an entirely subjective mental experience.

I also know the feeling of love for my wife. Similar to you, my description won't do it justice, it is something you would need to experience first hand. This is of course a subjective mental phenomenon. It occurs only in my own brain. If my brain were to cease to exist, the love that I feel would also cease to exist because the love is contingent upon my brain.

Is your God contingent upon your brain or does he have some sort of external existence from your brain? Does God exist in any way which can be verified to be more than just mental processes?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

@leftrightleftrightleft what is it about your imaginary friend that you need help distinguishing if it is God or not?

It is a theoretical question. I personally do not have an imaginary friend. I'm just wondering epistemologically is there a way for me to distinguish a theist from a person who has an imaginary friend.

Thus far, this thread seems to indicate that there is no way to do so.

Your attempts to attack our beliefs about God are futile.

I do not intend to attack

God and imaginary friends are distinguishable because God does not exist purely in imagination.

"God does not exist purely in imagination" is precisely the assertion I am questioning in this thread.

Beliefs about God include "God created the world", "God planned for my life to turn out this way", "God allowed me to experience such and such circumstance", "God can hear my prayers", "God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ", "God is speaking to me through his word", etc... etc.. etc... etc...

(Emphasis mine)

People can believe all sorts of things. Beliefs and opinions are mental processes. Mental constructs. Mental abstractions. Beliefs do not exist externally to the mind. Beliefs are contingent upon the mind.

Did God create the world? Before we can say that, we must determine that God exists and is not simply a mental construct. There are many hypotheses about the Big Bang.
Did God plan for my life to turn out this way? Before we can say that, we must determine that God exists and is not simply a mental construct.
Can God hear my prayers? Before we can say that, we must determine that God exists and is not simply a mental construct.
Etc.

I don't see a way to distinguish "God" from a mental construct that people have created.

A similar question would be; can you distinguish between a robot and a human mind?

If a person is skeptical enough, they will not be able to receive a sufficient answer. How do I know you are not a super advanced robot that looks like a human? You're skepticism has made you irrational to the most obvious belief about reality. God created everything that began to exist.

That is a great question for another thread.

I can, however, tell that there would be a huge number of tests that could be performed on the robot. There would be a consistent methodology which can be applied by any third-party to test the robot. If we agree on what the definition of "human" is then we can test the robot and see if it fulfills all the definitions. Does it have DNA with the same structure and chromosomes as a human? Is it composed of organic molecules? If it passes all the tests then we are forced to conclude that it is, categorically, human. If there is no categorically-distinguishing feature between the robot and the human then the robot is human by definition.

What I am struggling to see is if there is any categorically-distinguishing feature which separates God from a subjective, mental phenomenon (i.e. an imaginary friend). Or does God belong in the same category as other mental constructs/feelings/emotions such as love, awe, fear, etc?

 

[ExodusMe]

It is a theoretical question. I personally do not have an imaginary friend. I'm just wondering epistemologically is there a way for me to distinguish a theist from a person who has an imaginary friend.

Thus far, this thread seems to indicate that there is no way to do so.



I do not intend to attack



"God does not exist purely in imagination" is precisely the assertion I am questioning in this thread.

(Emphasis mine)

People can believe all sorts of things. Beliefs and opinions are mental processes. Mental constructs. Mental abstractions. Beliefs do not exist externally to the mind. Beliefs are contingent upon the mind.

Did God create the world? Before we can say that, we must determine that God exists and is not simply a mental construct. There are many hypotheses about the Big Bang.
Did God plan for my life to turn out this way? Before we can say that, we must determine that God exists and is not simply a mental construct.
Can God hear my prayers? Before we can say that, we must determine that God exists and is not simply a mental construct.
Etc.

I don't see a way to distinguish "God" from a mental construct that people have created.



That is a great question for another thread.

I can, however, tell that there would be a huge number of tests that could be performed on the robot. There would be a consistent methodology which can be applied by any third-party to test the robot. If we agree on what the definition of "human" is then we can test the robot and see if it fulfills all the definitions. Does it have DNA with the same structure and chromosomes as a human? Is it composed of organic molecules? If it passes all the tests then we are forced to conclude that it is, categorically, human. If there is no categorically-distinguishing feature between the robot and the human then the robot is human by definition.

What I am struggling to see is if there is any categorically-distinguishing feature which separates God from a subjective, mental phenomenon (i.e. an imaginary friend). Or does God belong in the same category as other mental constructs/feelings/emotions such as love, awe, fear, etc?

You are begging the question. You have already assumed a conclusion in your question.

What you are asking about is a persons prayer life; whether there is a distinguishable difference between a person praying to God and them speaking to an imaginary friend.

If all you are talking about is mental events, then there is no distinguishable difference between any thoughts we have concerning life.

The difference is that God hears our prayers and he answers them.

Is there a distinguishable difference between you talking to a friend and you talking to an imaginary friend if your friend does not respond to you?

There is no significance to your question. You also haven't clarified your assertion. It seems like you are attempting to show that God does not exist because people praying aren't talking to a physical being. That is fallacious and absurd.

When people talk about an immaterial being that created the entire world - they are talking about God. God does not need to have a physical body present to exist. In fact, that would be impossible, because he created the universe. How could he exist in the universe before it exists?

My only resolve is to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about and your attempt at disproving the existence of God is pathetic because He does not have a physical body present when you pray to Him.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The difference is that God hears our prayers and he answers them.

I take it you can provide evidence this is true?

 

[ExodusMe]

I take it you can provide evidence this is true?

Yes, the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true and has provided sufficient evidence to me.

Again John 9:25

He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes, the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true and has provided sufficient evidence to me.

Again John 9:25

He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I should have said:

"I take it you can provide evidence this is true, that anyone else could examine."

 

[ExodusMe]

That is not necessary per reformed epistemology. Belief in God is properly basic. It would be incoherent for me to provide justification for beliefs about memories, or my belief that you have a human mind and are not a robot, or my belief that the external world is real - the same is true for beliefs about God. The sensus divinitatis occasions my belief "God can hear my prayers", "God created me", "God created the world"

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That is not necessary per reformed epistemology. Belief in God is properly basic. It would be incoherent for me to provide justification for beliefs about memories, or my belief that you have a human mind and are not a robot, or my belief that the external world is real - the same is true for beliefs about God. The sensus divinitatis occasions my belief "God can hear my prayers", "God created me", "God created the world"

Ok. So everyone else should disregard your statement as having no weight for them.

Gotcha.

I guess my question then is, why bring it up at all?

 

[ExodusMe]

Ok. So everyone else should disregard your statement as having no weight for them.

Exactly, but it would be fallacious to infer that, therefore, it is not true (like the OP).

Gotcha.

I guess my question then is, why bring it up at all?

It means that you can't object to Christian belief on the basis of rationality (i.e. get over it and object to something factual about Christianity).

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Exactly, but it would be fallacious to infer that, therefore, it is not true (like the OP).

I didn't, and I don't see that the OP did either.

It means that you can't object to Christian belief on the basis of rationality (i.e. get over it and object to something factual about Christianity).

I didn't. I realize that people believe all sorts of things based on what I would consider terrible reasons. I usually only respond to specific claims theists make.

But my question to you still stands. Why bring up things that no one should put any weight to?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You are begging the question. You have already assumed a conclusion in your question.

How so?

What you are asking about is ... whether there is a distinguishable difference between a person praying to God and them speaking to an imaginary friend.

Yes that is what I am asking about.

If all you are talking about is mental events, then there is no distinguishable difference between any thoughts we have concerning life.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this sentence. Perhaps you could clarify.

The difference is that God hears our prayers and he answers them.

That is thoroughly debatable. God basically ignores me and my requests. He is very good at pretending to not exist actually.

Is there a distinguishable difference between you talking to a friend and you talking to an imaginary friend if your friend does not respond to you?

HOW does God respond to you? Be specific.

Please avoid vague or metaphorical language like, "The Holy Spirit moved within me" or "God lead me to this conclusion" or "God's hand was upon me".

There is no significance to your question. You also haven't clarified your assertion. It seems like you are attempting to show that God does not exist because people praying aren't talking to a physical being. That is fallacious and absurd.

When people talk about an immaterial being that created the entire world - they are talking about God. God does not need to have a physical body present to exist. In fact, that would be impossible, because he created the universe. How could he exist in the universe before it exists?

I guess part of the problem is how can an immaterial being exist. What does it even mean for something to be "immaterial"? Are mental constructs immaterial?

My only resolve is to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about and your attempt at disproving the existence of God is pathetic because He does not have a physical body present when you pray to Him.

Note: I do not respond to ad homs on forums.