How is God distinguishable from an imaginary friend?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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"

Yikes. That's a slippery slope which blurs the lines between reality and unreality.

Is reality subjective? Is someone's belief in Vishnu also properly basic?

We need a consistent, standard methodology which allows us to determine things which are mental constructs and things which actually exist external to our minds.

 

[ExodusMe]

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

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?

You begin by stating "I didn't, and I don't see that the OP did either." as my claim that you are inferring that Christianity isn't true because God doesn't appear physically when you pray to Him.

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

As if I am trying to prove God exists. I am not. I am providing a rational defense for why it doesn't matter if God does not physically appear to us when we pray to Him.

You need to clarify your objection.

 

[ExodusMe]

How so?

You are begging the question because your question "How to distinguish God from an imaginary friend" begins by assuming God does not exist.

Unless you have a specific objection like "God must appear physically when you pray to Him" or something - which would be equally absurd but at least we would be going somewhere...

 

[ExodusMe]

@leftrightleftrightleft let's do a quick education on how epistemology works

When we evaluate beliefs we will realize there are certain beliefs that we can't 'justify'. These beliefs would include something like - the external world is real. If you think about this belief any attempt you make at justifying why the external world is real is going to be based on evidence from the external world (self-referential).

There is a branch of epistemology called classical foundationalism. This branch of epistemology classifies these beliefs that we cannot 'justify', but are still rational to hold as basic beliefs. Proper basicality is a function of
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.

It works like this... I see a tree outside and it is appearing to me as existing, so I believe there is a tree outside. My sensory vision has 'occasioned' the belief that there is a tree outside.

The same is true for our memory beliefs. I do not hold my memory beliefs based on the evidential basis of other propositions, but I hold them based on how my memory occasions beliefs like "I ate pancakes for breakfast", "I did a lot of work today", etc...

This also relies on the fact that your memory must be functioning properly. A person with dementia for instance, would not be rational in accepting their memory beliefs, because it is not "aiming at producing true beliefs".

Reformed epistemology is an additional branch of epistemology that holds that beliefs about God are also properly basic because they are occasioned by our "sensus divinitatis" (sense of the divine).

You see a beautiful vista and it occasions the belief "God made the world" - you are in extreme doubt about your future and the sensus divinitatis occasions the belief "God can hear my prayers".

From this, we can now understand that your question is fallacious in the following ways
1) it is begging the question by assuming God does not exist
2) it is a de jure objection to the rationality of Christianity, which is answered by reformed epistemology

And from reformed epistemology we can infer that your sensus divinitatis is not functioning properly and is not aimed at producing true beliefs. It needs to be regenerated by the Spirit of God. Pray to Him and He will heal you.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

@leftrightleftrightleft let's do a quick education on how epistemology works

When we evaluate beliefs we will realize there are certain beliefs that we can't 'justify'. These beliefs would include something like - the external world is real. If you think about this belief any attempt you make at justifying why the external world is real is going to be based on evidence from the external world (self-referential).

There is a branch of epistemology called classical foundationalism. This branch of epistemology classifies these beliefs that we cannot 'justify', but are still rational to hold as basic beliefs. Proper basicality is a function of
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.

It works like this... I see a tree outside and it is appearing to me as existing, so I believe there is a tree outside. My sensory vision has 'occasioned' the belief that there is a tree outside.

The same is true for our memory beliefs. I do not hold my memory beliefs based on the evidential basis of other propositions, but I hold them based on how my memory occasions beliefs like "I ate pancakes for breakfast", "I did a lot of work today", etc...

This also relies on the fact that your memory must be functioning properly. A person with dementia for instance, would not be rational in accepting their memory beliefs, because it is not "aiming at producing true beliefs".

Reformed epistemology is an additional branch of epistemology that holds that beliefs about God are also properly basic because they are occasioned by our "sensus divinitatis" (sense of the divine).

You see a beautiful vista and it occasions the belief "God made the world" - you are in extreme doubt about your future and the sensus divinitatis occasions the belief "God can hear my prayers".

From this, we can now understand that your question is fallacious in the following ways
1) it is begging the question by assuming God does not exist
2) it is a de jure objection to the rationality of Christianity, which is answered by reformed epistemology

And from reformed epistemology we can infer that your sensus divinitatis is not functioning properly and is not aimed at producing true beliefs. It needs to be regenerated by the Spirit of God. Pray to Him and He will heal you.

Thanks for the reply. However, you did not answer my question and border on gish gallop.

I will repeat the question:

Is someone's belief in Vishnu properly basic?

If yes, does this mean Vishnu exists?

If no, please explain why.

Thanks.

Note: I am looking for a consistent methodology to determine if something exists. Your method appears to me inconsistent because it gives the same weight to God as agreed-upon imaginary things such as other gods, and any other mental abstraction which people happen to believe exist.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You are begging the question because your question "How to distinguish God from an imaginary friend" begins by assuming God does not exist.

No it doesn't.

How does one distinguish an imaginary apples from a real apples? Is this begging the question that apples don't exist?!

Of course not! There is a consistent methodology that a third-party can follow to determine if apples exist as claimed by an individual. Both the individual and the third party can come to the same conclusion about the apples' existence or non-existence via an agreed upon set of tests so long as they have an agreed upon definition of what an apple is.

I see no equivalent for God. God seems to be an ill-defined subjective experience within people's minds. That is, indistinguishable from an "imaginary friend" or mental concept.

I am not begging the question. I'm looking for a method to determine how God can be found and verified to be more than a mental construct.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

And from reformed epistemology we can infer that your sensus divinitatis is not functioning properly and is not aimed at producing true beliefs. It needs to be regenerated by the Spirit of God. Pray to Him and He will heal you.

I have intense experiences of awe and wonder at the natural universe. I am amazed standing on a mountain-top looking at the expanse of Earth beneath me. I am awestruck listening to the power that music (simple vibrations of air!) can have on my brain sending chills down my spine. I have been floored by the power and immense logic of mathematics (symbols on paper can explain the world around us!).

In description and in situation, these all seem very similar to the experiences theists have of the "divine".

I just see no reason to ascribe such experiences to an unnecessary and ill-defined god-concept. In the same way that you do not ascribe such experiences to Vishnu or our alien overlords. You ascribe them to God, for reasons I do not understand. I call them mental processes.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I have intense experiences of awe and wonder at the natural universe. I am amazed standing on a mountain-top looking at the expanse of Earth beneath me. I am awestruck listening to the power that music (simple vibrations of air!) can have on my brain sending chills down my spine. I have been floored by the power and immense logic of mathematics (symbols on paper can explain the world around us!).

In description and in situation, these all seem very similar to the experiences theists have of the "divine".

I just see no reason to ascribe such experiences to an unnecessary and ill-defined god-concept. In the same way that you do not ascribe such experiences to Vishnu or our alien overlords. You ascribe them to God, for reasons I do not understand. I call them mental processes.

I know those feelings you describe very well. But, I got that a bit after I finished my thesis.

The sensations and dynamics of a faith experience is a completely different entity. I experienced both sides of the coin well after I was versed in math or science. But, it isn't always some dramatic "feeling," and we are supposed to ignore feelings anyway since they lie. My personal "terrestrial" philosophy discourages living on feeling and sensation, but I don't think this is unique.

Some people are completely saved, and live utterly "boring" lives - even if they are converts. No alleged demon has to haunt you to (de)convert, and no alleged angel must "touch" you to (de)convert. The "experience" is unique - which may sound like cultish bull, but if you were the parent of dozens of children, wouldn't you love them differently and uniquely? At the same tike, wouldnt you know (or try to know) each child's unique character? That is how the "experience" is. For you, He may need to choose another route than what worked for me, or your neighbor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe that's why you're an atheist.

As I told you multiple times now... I'm an atheist because I see no valid reason to accept the claims of theism.

How many times must it be repeated?

What would it profit you to have all that you do and lose your own soul?

You're going to have to define "soul" and explain what it means to "lose" it, before I can answer that question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Maybe that just means that the human brain is very prone to superstition. Just like the brains of most other animals, by the way.

It is more plausible that there is something wrong with your sensus divinitatis than there is no God.

Classic argument from popularity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What are those reasons?
So that I may correct you.

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

Which are...?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

But it wouldn't be fallacious to infer that "therefor, it can't be shown to be true".
At which point it would be rational to then not believe it - and irrational to believe it.

It means that you can't object to Christian belief on the basis of rationality

Except that you can, as I just stated above.

 

[ExodusMe]

@leftrightleftrightleft I just did the intellectual equivalent of using a stick of dynamite to blow up a frog and it is like you are still trying to find pieces of your argument lying around. There is nothing left man. It has been absolutely obliterated. With that said... I will entertain a few of your questions because I like talking about reformed epistemology (not because there is any substance to what you are arguing about).

 

[com7fy8]

Is your God contingent upon your brain or does he have some sort of external existence from your brain?

God is not a physical being. My brain is only physical. And God created my brain. So, yes He is external to it, but also in and through it so it functions as well as it does.

Can I prove this to you? No. But God can prove Himself to you. I have needed how God has corrected me so I have become able to experience Him, because He is so superior to us, in love's character. As much as I am still selfish and about myself, I fail to do well with God in His peace and how He would have me loving any and all people and being able to relate intimately with people, "without complaining and disputing" (in Philippians 2:14-16).

I did not get myself to become this way This is better than my own selfish nature could get me to imagine. And your character, too, is your dictator of what you are able to think and do; only God is able to deeply change us, deeper than our brains and our own ability to think.

But if your own ability to think is your god and imaginary friend . . . you are limited by yourself. This is why Jesus says,

"If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." (in Luke 9:23)

Jesus is not conceited. Even though Jesus is so superior as God's own Son, Jesus came to us and suffered like He did and died for our sins on the cross. And He is able to see how we really are, better than any friend can. And, of course, an imaginary friend can be so limited . . . to how the person is, who created that imaginary friend who can't give the person real correction of character.

So, God is so better

Does God exist in any way which can be verified to be more than just mental processes?

Well, He verifies Himself. It is better than how you need to have a person speak for oneself, rather than you trying to represent that person. But if you refuse to hear someone out, or if you are deaf . . . you can not listen to what someone has to say, plus you will be stuck with whatever conclusions you draw without actually relating with the person.

But in case you are deaf and unfeeling to God, because of your own nature making you so, God is able to get through to any person.

People can believe all sorts of things.

yes

And you and I have not been somehow superior to anyone else, as humans. We have been able to fool our own selves and not even know this. This can include how we fool ourselves into seeking what is not real proof of God. God proves Himself better than how we can humanly dictate that He proves Himself

It is like how academic people would not believe there was such a thing as a platypus. Even when they saw one, still they insisted that someone had sown parts of animals together to make the platypus. They needed to actually handle and dissect it, in order to know.

They had a point, not believing what other humans told them, though There are humans who indeed will try to fool us. Plus, we can fool our own selves and not even know this . . . while we are so worried about someone else cheating us. Our own worry, for one example, can deeply degrade us and abuse us and lie to us, so much more than any other humans have ever done; yet, ones keep trusting and even obeying their worry!!!!

This is why we need God.

And God is the Creator of the platypus and of us. So, there is a lot more to Him than humans can deal with . . . or imagine. So, asking me to prove Him is asking for what is inferior And so of course you can pick apart what I offer.

Before we can say that, we must determine that God exists and is not simply a mental construct.

Well, in case He does exist and you are managing to keep yourself from experiencing this, what am I supposed to do, more than offer all I have already experienced and found in the Bible? Why would you depend solely on humans for what we can do?

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

If someone else still does not have the spiritual ability to experience how God is, in His quality of love, how can I prove this to that person . . . if the person is so incapable?

There are people who always have been light blind; how can I prove to the person that light exists???? A person told me she is blind and does not dream; how can I prove to her that there are dreams????

God is so better than all which I was imagining, and I needed major correction, just to get started with Jesus. And now I need more and more, so I can find out how to please and share with God and love any and all people. And the Bible helps me see how much more and better God is and desires to share with us.

HOW does God respond to you? Be specific.

Well, He doesn't really respond, but He first gets through to me and corrects me, then guides me in His peace. I need how God makes me capable of submitting to Him in His peace > Colossians 3:15.

At a practical level . . . He confronts how I can be paranoid and lusting and self-righteously looking down on others and picking and choosing who is good enough for me to love. And He exposes me to how He is gentle and kind and sweet and pleasant and caring and compassionate and generously forgiving and creative in how He has me find out how to love people. And He can share this with me, spiritually.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yikes. That's a slippery slope which blurs the lines between reality and unreality.

Is reality subjective? Is someone's belief in Vishnu also properly basic?

We need a consistent, standard methodology which allows us to determine things which are mental constructs and things which actually exist external to our minds.

That's why people have science. So they can try to figure out all these things based on what they percieve as fact, but the simple fact is that we don't know fact until we are dead with God.

It's not a slippery slope for us, belief the ones who do not believe are the ones who are against it. Because if we are right, than unbelievers are headed for what God has in store for non-believers. Our beliefs are a challenge to them, their beliefs do not challenge us.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

@leftrightleftrightleft I just did the intellectual equivalent of using a stick of dynamite to blow up a frog and it is like you are still trying to find pieces of your argument lying around. There is nothing left man. It has been absolutely obliterated. With that said... I will entertain a few of your questions because I like talking about reformed epistemology (not because there is any substance to what you are arguing about).

I will repeat the question:

Is someone's belief in Vishnu properly basic?

If yes, does this mean Vishnu exists?

If no, please explain why.

Thanks.

Note: I am looking for a consistent methodology to determine if something exists. Your method appears to me inconsistent because it gives the same weight to God as agreed-upon imaginary things such as other gods, and any other mental abstraction which people happen to believe exist and have a "sensus vishnuis" or "sensus alienus" or "sensus zeusus".

I also want to add that the sensus divinitatis is essentially a form of ESP which "includes reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses". It can be lumped into the same category as claims of telepathy, psychic readings, Zener cards, etc.

When I have a "divine" moment of awe or wonder, I fully recognize that the experience is coming via my brain's interpretation of the physical senses. I experience awe and wonder because my eyes are seeing a mountain vista. I get chills down my spine because my ears are hearing beautiful music. If the mountain vista was not there, I would not have that moment of awe. If I was not listening to music, I would not have that moment of wonder. It is the physical, natural world interpreted via my physical senses and brain which inspires my awe and wonder.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

This post is very long, and it also requires a seemingly abstract thought experiment. However, it is my full philosophy on the idea of [a] God, and the dynamics of distinguishing it's existential reality.

Spoiler

In aa way, humans trying to determine the existential properties of a god is like a cell trying to determine the existential properties of the heart, or brain. These "superstructures" work to keep the entire body existent, but individual cells may not see the amazing network of structure at their dimensional level as "The Heart." It is just a bunch of other cells in a superstructure. And, despite seeing electromagnetic/potentials (musculoskeletal, nervous, reproductive, exocrine, endocrine) mechanical (cardio, reproductive, musculoskeletal,) and chemical (respiratory, renal, reproductive, lymph, endocrine, exocrine) evidence of an organized body system, the cell doesn't perceive or recognize the body system. In many ways, it cannot fathom that it is part of a superstructure, and certainly that superstructure is also a part of a whole (body.)

For the cell, there are certainly mechanical, electromagnetic, and chemical processes going on, and the cell isn't ignorant of the outside world completely (i.e. life "outside" the cell,) because they are instructed to accept from, and excrete certain chemicals to other cells. But, it would be hard for a cell to accept it is a part of a larger system that is not only organized, but conscious.

My point is made enough here, but not with as explicitly as I would like.

Spoiler

To the cell, it knows the outside world (other cells, processes) provides a balance of known parameters. To the cell, this is homeostasis, and it is "just the way it is." To a cell, this equilibrium constraint is an axiom, and they base their understanding of the entirety of the "known" outside world mostly on this principle.

You can see how this dimensional comparison between cells and humans can go very deep eventually mirroring exactly what we do.

We exchange acceptable goods and product between each other.

We do NOT consider our planet to be conscious, but we do consider it to be organized (despite us being a part of the earth as conscious beings.)

We recognize other "living things" around us.

We recognize the mechanic, electromagnetic, and chemical phenomena that occur "outside" of our planet, and we recognize it is organized and driven by certain axioms and laws (like numbers, and entropy.) Yet, we don't believe there is any life activity outside of our own superstructure. We are connected to the same agency of behavior as the dimensionally lower life known as cells. To be fair, I am calling a cell living, because it is the basic structure that can survive on its own.

It is fine to stop here. But, it continues...

Spoiler

Some of us have found a connection between our planet, and other alleged superstructure - even using axioms and laws drawn from foundations of physics and math to recognize order far beyond. Still, we don't make the connection that we are part of a conscious/living entity.


How would you, as *the "god"* of your body, show yourself to your cells - the most basic "animation" of life in your body? Wouldn't the best way be to be born consciously, and dimensionally, through/as a cell (if we had that ability?)

Certainly, you wouldn't have any of your "super" powers of "omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience." But, if you could pull that off, surely you would have a "link" between the primary functions of your body, and the individual, unique experience as a cell. Some people would call that a psionic ability; I believe Jean Grey can psychically heal herself, and I know for sure Deadpool's healing factor is psionic - he can direct his healing to a specific part of his body. If this is (comic book) art - something that someone used to convey a fantastical message of his/her own existentialism with his/her idea of the existential reality of the universe as a "prop" - then surely it isn't hard to make the connection between the "person" existing dimensionally "lower" in life, while being in complete control of the person.

It is sufficient to stop here. But, it continues on.

Spoiler

How would you let your cells know that they will be taken care of, and that they will have help to oppose what is seen as trouble for them? Is taking care of your body not a good way to teach your cells to expect strength and health no matter what happens (i.e. cancer, norovirus, measles, plague...)?

How DO you feel, as a human, when the cells in your body are "screaming for help," even deciding to go degenerate, because they are used to phagocytosis every hour - but you have been fasting? Doesn't it pain you - literally - to know that you as the "god" of your body is putting your body (creation) through the pain for a reason, but all that your body does is "cry about how they have no help"? I would think especially the case if you *know* you love and respect your body very much - even down to your very pores, nails, and hair. Yet, your cells pain you, even give up fighting when you know they are stronger.

How do your cells react when you workout for the first time in seven years? Gratitude (dopamine/endocrine/exocrine,) or sorrow (literal pain)? What happens when a champion bodybuilder does the same routine you did? Why?

I say all of that to say: the answer to the secrets of the universe may, in fact, be inside us. Every dimension up, or down, in creation is doing the same thing. The angels/principalities/archons are rebelling against their God, and our cells are rebelling against us (accepting poorly written genetic code and using it as a substitute because it cant read perfect code.) I wouldn't be surprised if hell is in shambles too.

I think God gave us philosophy (including science,) mathematics, food, literature - every art - so that we could come together with those pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, and understand the totality of Him. But, we are supposed to do it together; we can't do that if half of the pieces aren't even on the table.

I thought it was important to explain the philosophy I have in its detailed, but concise and compartmented forms for better absorption. As I said, it is a thought experiment, but my philosophy on the entire "God: Imaginary or..." question. I didn't begin as Christian, and I didn't grow up in a family that forced me to be a Christian. I had no pressure to "submit" to any philosophy. I was completely science and math focused: numbers, data, axioms, laws and results. I didn't actually become a Christian (despite calling myself one for a few years) until I finished university.

I don't think any side is any less intelligent for their belief; in fact, all facets make sense. That should imply that there is categorically something beyond even the best ideas of creation we can think of - in the way that a dozen chimpanzees can somehow bring a work of Shakespeare to print verbatim (physicists/mathematicians likely know this time interval would be measured in dozens of powers of ten.)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You begin by stating "I didn't, and I don't see that the OP did either." as my claim that you are inferring that Christianity isn't true because God doesn't appear physically when you pray to Him.

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

As if I am trying to prove God exists. I am not. I am providing a rational defense for why it doesn't matter if God does not physically appear to us when we pray to Him.

You need to clarify your objection.

I asked if you could show evidence that a god hears and answers prayers. You responded with an answer regarding your interpretations of your personal experiences, which lead to your insistence that it wasn't necessary to justify those experiences to anyone else, based on Plantiga's argument. I said that everyone could then disregard your original statements since they hold no weight for anyone else. You agreed with me.

My question is - why did you respond to my question at all, since anything you say about your personal experiences should be disregarded by any logical person?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And from reformed epistemology we can infer that your sensus divinitatis is not functioning properly and is not aimed at producing true beliefs. It needs to be regenerated by the Spirit of God. Pray to Him and He will heal you.

And from my extra special reformed reformed epistemology, I can conclude that you incorrectly believe that your sense of a god points to an existent god.

And since neither of us have to justify those beliefs because we can claim they're both properly basic, we're at a standstill, unable to communicate on the subject. We can try to converse, but I'm sure we both have our "defeater defeaters" working, so nothing changes our minds.

And in the end, everyone else looking at this thread sees two people unable to properly justify their positions to anyone else but themselves.

 

[anonymous person]

I think the Christian can justify his beliefs. This justification may not meet your criteria for justification however.

So we would need to discuss that.