How is God distinguishable from an imaginary friend?

[-V-]

here 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.

So, as long as two people agree on a definition of God, and agree on using some test, then when they both conclude that God exists, you'll accept that God is real and not imaginary?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

So, as long as two people agree on a definition of God, and agree on using some test, then when they both conclude that God exists, you'll accept that God is real and not imaginary?

Yes, with a couple additional stipulations:

1. The test cannot lead to an "everything exists" conclusion. I believe the position of @ExodusMe leads to this conclusion in which anything and everything (every concept, abstraction, etc.) which people "feel" can be considered to "exist" because it is "properly basic". In other words, the test must be consistent so that, when applied to God, it shows existence but when applied to Vishnu, unicorns, etc., it shows non-existence. If you are comfortable with an epistemology which allows your god to exist while simultaneously allowing other contradictory gods to exist, then, as with @ExodusMe , I unfortunately don't have much more to say to you.

2. The test must be falsifiable or failable. This avoids arguments like "well, the universe couldn't exist without God". We only have one universe to work with, so we can't test the conditions of a different universe. It is impossible to test whether a universe can or cannot exist without God because we only have a sample size of 1.

 

[-V-]

Yes, with a couple additional stipulations:
2. The test must be falsifiable or failable.

So, are you saying it has to be a scientific experiment/test?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

So, are you saying it has to be a scientific experiment/test?

Is that what I said?

It doesn't have to be some scientific experiment conducted by people in white coats.

It just has to be a consistent methodology which anyone can follow which leads to the conclusion that God clearly exists as more than a mental construct within someone's mind.

I am not here to deny that God clearly "exists" as a mental construct within people's minds. But I can't have an epistemology where mental constructs are given equal "existence" as physical objects because that leads to utter absurdity. So, God must be more than just a mental construct. There has to be a way to distinguish between "God as a mental construct" and "God as more than a mental construct".

 

[-V-]

Is that what I said?

I didn't say that's what you said. I *ASKED* if that is what you meant.

It doesn't have to be some scientific experiment conducted by people in white coats.

It just has to be a consistent methodology which anyone can follow which leads to the conclusion that God clearly exists as more than a mental construct within someone's mind.

But how do you do that for ANYTHING? How do you demonstrate that anything you perceive is anything more than a construct of your mind? How do you prove that you are not just a brain in a jar somewhere, and everything you perceive is just electrical impulses sent into your mind making you perceive a world that isn't actually there?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I didn't say that's what you said. I *ASKED* if that is what you meant.

Sorry about that. Upon re-reading my response I can see how it could be interpreted as snarky. Apologies.

But how do you do that for ANYTHING? How do you demonstrate that anything you perceive is anything more than a construct of your mind? How do you prove that you are not just a brain in a jar somewhere, and everything you perceive is just electrical impulses sent into your mind making you perceive a world that isn't actually there?

Under the assumption that the external world exists (which is the assumption which we all share and should have been implicit in the conversation), how do you show that God is part of that external world rather than a mental construct?

I don't want to play a brain-in-a-jar philosophical game.

Are apples imaginary? No one would think twice about it. No, they aren't. They would show me photographs. They would show me an apple in the grocery store. Its such a foolish question that no one even asks whether apples are imaginary. It's well-understood since childhood that they aren't. No one would need to launch into some philosophical brain-in-a-jar thought experiment. They would just show me.

Is God imaginary? Suddenly, I've got to jump through 100 philosophical hoops and play some philosophical games to sort out the answer. And throughout all this, the fact that it is so difficult (or impossible) to answer this question makes me more and more suspicious that God is, in fact, a mental construct and nothing more.

Give me something that suggests otherwise.

 

[Ron Gurley]

An "imaginary friend" is a figment (pigment?) of Man's "mind".

Man is divided into 3 parts:
1. SPIRIT = (~God conscience/ spiritual Image = pneuma),
2. SOUL = (~psyche / personality / God Likeness = psyche) and
3. BODY = (~man's machine, controlled by brain bucket /CNS = sarx)

The Soul of Mankind (male and female) is also a DYNAMIC REACTION of its 3 parts:
1. MIND...the process of intellect...stored knowledge...its function is "thinking" / "reasoning"
2. WILL...your decision maker...your computer-reactor...your balancer
3. EMOTIONS...how you "feel"...natural reactions / intuitive responses

The TRI-UNE GOD is a pure and perfect SPIRITUAL PERSON!

John 4:24
God is SPIRIT (PNEUMA!), and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Romans 8:27
and He who searches the hearts (SPIRITS/SOULS) knows what the mind of the Spirit is,
because He intercedes for the saints (Believers) according to the will of God.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Imagine lotsa stuff.
Spiritually BELIEVE in God.

 

[-V-]

Is God imaginary? Suddenly, I've got to jump through 100 philosophical hoops and play some philosophical games to sort out the answer. And throughout all this, the fact that it is so difficult (or impossible) to answer this question makes me more and more suspicious that God is, in fact, a mental construct and nothing more.

It would probably be less difficult if, for one, you wouldn’t give seemingly contradictory responses.

For example, you say it doesn’t have to be a scientific experiment, but then you demand that it be falsifiable.

Falsifiable means “capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation”
What does falsifiable mean? definition and meaning (Free English Language Dictionary)

Or: “derived from experiment and observation rather than theory”
falsifiable

How is that not referring to scientific experimentation?

 

[ExodusMe]

Is God imaginary? Suddenly, I've got to jump through 100 philosophical hoops and play some philosophical games to sort out the answer. And throughout all this, the fact that it is so difficult (or impossible) to answer this question makes me more and more suspicious that God is, in fact, a mental construct and nothing more.

Give me something that suggests otherwise.

@leftrightleftrightleft if we apply the same standards you are using for God, then your belief in other minds gives the same philosophical issues as your accusation that God is just a mental construct.

How do you determine a person you are talking to is actually a person and not a highly sophisticated robot? By the same standards you cannot determine this. Your belief in other minds faces the same epistemic challenges as belief in God.

This is not to say that the question should not be asked. Christian's have a developed theory for the epistemic warrant of Christian belief, but to apply these high standards to God and not our other beliefs would be cherry picking.

Your problem is because you have been raised on some form of scientific verificationism or empiricism, which is to say that we should only hold beliefs that can be empirically verified. This belief is incoherent, because the belief itself cannot be empirically verified.

I have some other thoughts, but I'll let you reply before I continue.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

How do you determine a person you are talking to is actually a person and not a highly sophisticated robot?

Because of problem of hard solipsism, you can't with 100% certainty. This applies to everything of course, even a belief in a god.

The best we can do is to assume other people aren't robots based on the evidence I perceive we do have. I'm content not knowing for sure if other people aren't robots, or I'm a brain in a jar, or any other scenario where reality isn't what I assume it is.

Are you content knowing that you may be wrong about your beliefs?

 

[ExodusMe]

Because of problem of hard solipsism, you can't with 100% certainty. This applies to everything of course, even a belief in a god.

The best we can do is to assume other people aren't robots based on the evidence I perceive we do have. I'm content not knowing for sure if other people aren't robots, or I'm a brain in a jar, or any other scenario where reality isn't what I assume it is.

Are you content knowing that you may be wrong about your beliefs?

@ToddNotTodd Of course I am not content not knowing whether my beliefs are true or not. You do realize that you have to believe your beliefs are true in order for them to be beliefs, right?

If you are okay accepting that about your belief in other minds, then what is your problem @ToddNotTodd ? There should be no issue with a theist who believes God is speaking to them, or if they believe God can hear their prayers...

I am trying not to confuse the dialogue with @leftrightleftrightleft , so I will consider his response separately to my original response if he replies.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It would probably be less difficult if, for one, you wouldn’t give seemingly contradictory responses.

For example, you say it doesn’t have to be a scientific experiment, but then you demand that it be falsifiable.

Falsifiable means “capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation”
What does falsifiable mean? definition and meaning (Free English Language Dictionary)

Or: “derived from experiment and observation rather than theory”
falsifiable

How is that not referring to scientific experimentation?

I just want some methodology. And for it to be failable seems a given. What kind of test is it if it isn't failable? Seems common sense.

A "scientific experiment" can be applied very broadly. For example, when you look before you cross the road, this can be considered a "scientific experiment". You don't go into some philosophical argument about whether the cars on the road 'only exist in your mind'. You look, you see cars, you don't cross. You look, you see no cars, you cross. You were taught this way of thinking when you were 3 years old.

If someone says, "Are there any cars on the road?" can you imagine the look you would get if you responded, "Well, it depends whether the cars exist as only constructs of my mind since I am perceiving them. And you, the asker, might be just a construct of my mind as well. Who can know? There are so many assumptions that we must make and now you are asking for a scientific test to see if the cars exist or not? Empiricism is folly! Your assumptions are unfounded. You cannot test whether cars exist or not because for all I know, you might just be a robot!"

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

How do you determine a person you are talking to is actually a person and not a highly sophisticated robot? By the same standards you cannot determine this. Your belief in other minds faces the same epistemic challenges as belief in God.

I already answered this in Post #111. I will repeat it here for your benefit:

"I can 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?"

This is not to say that the question should not be asked. Christian's have a developed theory for the epistemic warrant of Christian belief, but to apply these high standards to God and not our other beliefs would be cherry picking.

These are not high standards. They are the lowest standards possible.

To determine if something exists external to the mind (under the shared assumption that external things exist!!!!) is usually quite easy especially if the person claims that they interact with the object regularly in a personal way and the object exists right here and right now.

This thread is not about me being skeptical of the reality of the external world. Both you and I accept that a priori. Now, given that a priori assumption, can we move on from that and discuss God?

Your problem is because you have been raised on some form of scientific verificationism or empiricism, which is to say that we should only hold beliefs that can be empirically verified. This belief is incoherent, because the belief itself cannot be empirically verified.

Given a truth claim, it is prudent to try to verify whether that claim is true before believing it just cuz.

Maybe that is my problem...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

@ToddNotTodd Of course I am not content not knowing whether my beliefs are true or not. You do realize that you have to believe your beliefs are true in order for them to be beliefs, right?

Depends on how you use the term "believe". I know lots of people that take the word to mean something they ultimately aren't sure of, but have at least some confidence in. That seems to be less than believing something is true, at least to me.

Personally, the problem of hard solipsism, since it isn't explorable, doesn't bother me at all. Since you can't do anything about hard solipsism, I'd suggest trying to let go of any issues you have with it.

If you are okay accepting that about your belief in other minds, then what is your problem @ToddNotTodd ? There should be no issue with a theist who believes God is speaking to them, or if they believe God can hear their prayers...

I don't have a strict belief in other minds. Just assumptions born of pragmatism.

I wonder about the pragmatism of believing a supernatural being is talking to me, but I don't have a problem with people believing a disembodied voice is talking to them. My only "problem" is when a theist insists they can convince me their beliefs about the supernatural are real.

This is Christian Apologetics after all...

 

[-V-]

I just want some methodology. And for it to be failable seems a given. What kind of test is it if it isn't failable? Seems common sense.

I'm not questioning whether or not it should be falsifiable. I'm questioning how you want it to be "falsifiable" without being a scientific experiment when "falsifiable", by definition, insists on scientific experimentation.

A "scientific experiment" can be applied very broadly. For example, when you look before you cross the road, this can be considered a "scientific experiment". You don't go into some philosophical argument about whether the cars on the road 'only exist in your mind'. You look, you see cars, you don't cross. You look, you see no cars, you cross. You were taught this way of thinking when you were 3 years old.

And this is more of the seemingly contradictory answers. As it should be a scientific experiment, but then you've changed the definition of "scientific experiment" to now include every decision we make about anything and everything.

When talking about the physical world, it's just taken as a given that our perceptions are trustworthy. But when we talk about our perceptions of God, suddenly, "oh, no, I can't just trust your perceptions, now you have to prove it to me."

 

[ExodusMe]

I already answered this in Post #111. I will repeat it here for your benefit:

"I can 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?"

These are not high standards. They are the lowest standards possible.

To determine if something exists external to the mind (under the shared assumption that external things exist!!!!) is usually quite easy especially if the person claims that they interact with the object regularly in a personal way and the object exists right here and right now.

This thread is not about me being skeptical of the reality of the external world. Both you and I accept that a priori. Now, given that a priori assumption, can we move on from that and discuss God?



Given a truth claim, it is prudent to try to verify whether that claim is true before believing it just cuz.

Maybe that is my problem...

1) A primary issue with the dialogue you have is you are constantly begging the question. You're point above is a another example. The criteria you proposed for the definition of a human is based on epiphenomenalism (the view that the human mind and brain are indistinguishable from one another). You didn't provide any evidence for this claim and you have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that epiphenomenalism is true.
2) We are talking about the human mind - are you seriously proposing that because something has DNA running in its veins it is therefore a human? I could probably configure a lego set with some DNA running in a tube and it would meet your criteria.
3) What is most absurd is that you never have performed this test on any humans and you never will, which would be the final nail, because you are not subjecting your own beliefs to the same criteria as what you are proposing to theists.

Either withdraw your claim or be prepare to cut open every friend you have in hopes of determining they are a robot or not.

I understand you are an atheist. Imagine for a second that God does exist. How absurd would it be for a bunch of atheists to be running around declaring God does not exist because I cannot see this immaterial being who exists external to our universe!

Please sympathize with me as I talk with you as it is very hard to take you seriously when you don't even evaluate your own beliefs with the same criteria you project on others.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm not questioning whether or not it should be falsifiable. I'm questioning how you want it to be "falsifiable" without being a scientific experiment when "falsifiable", by definition, insists on scientific experimentation.

And this is more of the seemingly contradictory answers. As it should be a scientific experiment, but then you've changed the definition of "scientific experiment" to now include every decision we make about anything and everything.

To check if a car is or is not coming down the road is a falsifiable test. You're the one that keeps throwing the word "science" around.

When talking about the physical world, it's just taken as a given that our perceptions are trustworthy. But when we talk about our perceptions of God, suddenly, "oh, no, I can't just trust your perceptions, now you have to prove it to me."

I absolutely do not trust your perceptions and only your perceptions.

If you and I were standing on a street corner and I was about to cross the street and you said, "Watch out, there's a car coming!" and I look and see no evidence of any car at all on the road, you can be quite certain that I would be highly skeptical of your perceptions. I would ask, "Where? I don't see it." If you responded with some vague philosophical argument about immaterial cars you can be quite certain I would proceed to cross the road.

I need more than just someone's idea or feeling or emotion when it comes to determining if something exists external to their mind**.

Do you think you see a car coming or is there actually a car coming that I can somehow verify?

Similarly, do you think God exists? Do you feel God exists? Or does God actually exist in a way that can be shown to be more than just a feeling or mental opinion?


**And since this thread keeps getting derailed, I will add this disclaimer: "This thread is working under the assumption that both you and I are making the a priori assumption that things exist external to our minds. Is God one of those things? That is the question. Please, no more brain-in-a-vat derails.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

1) A primary issue with the dialogue you have is you are constantly begging the question. You're point above is a another example. The criteria you proposed for the definition of a human is based on epiphenomenalism (the view that the human mind and brain are indistinguishable from one another). You didn't provide any evidence for this claim and you have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that epiphenomenalism is true.
2) We are talking about the human mind - are you seriously proposing that because something has DNA running in its veins it is therefore a human? I could probably configure a lego set with some DNA running in a tube and it would meet your criteria.
3) What is most absurd is that you never have performed this test on any humans and you never will, which would be the final nail, because you are not subjecting your own beliefs to the same criteria as what you are proposing to theists.

It was a hypothetical which you proposed. I offered a few examples of things that could be considered to make someone human, DNA being one of them. Never did I suggest that DNA was the only distinguishing feature of a human. Don't be absurd. I am saying this: if every categorical feature that we use to distinguish a human from a robot was tested and there was no distinguishing feature then the robot would be a categorically human by definition until shown otherwise.

And since it was some hypothetical which you dreamed up, I have absolutely no reason to go test every human I see because no one is making the claim that every human I see is a robot. However, there are many, many people claiming that this God-thing exists. That's what this thread is about. Stay on topic.

This entire human-robot thing is a red herring and is distracting from the topic of the thread.

Either withdraw your claim or be prepare to cut open every friend you have in hopes of determining they are a robot or not.

Lol.

I understand you are an atheist. Imagine for a second that God does exist. How absurd would it be for a bunch of atheists to be running around declaring God does not exist because I cannot see this immaterial being who exists external to our universe!

(Emphasis mine)

I have done no such declaring.

God could exist. Lots of things could exist.

It would be absurd for an atheist to not believe in God if God made himself exceedingly obvious. In the same way it would be absurd for a pedestrian to cross a busy street while saying, "There are no cars!". However, if God hid himself from any sort of verification or test and made himself inconspicuous to the point of being indistinguishable from non-existence then no, the atheists would not be absurd for thinking he does not exist. If God does exist, my first question for him is, "Why the (expletive) didn't you make yourself more obvious?"

 

[ExodusMe]

It was a hypothetical which you proposed. I offered a few examples of things that could be considered to make someone human, DNA being one of them. Never did I suggest that DNA was the only distinguishing feature of a human. Don't be absurd. I am saying this: if every categorical feature that we use to distinguish a human from a robot was tested and there was no distinguishing feature then the robot would be a categorically human by definition until shown otherwise.

And since it was some hypothetical which you dreamed up, I have absolutely no reason to go test every human I see because no one is making the claim that every human I see is a robot. However, there are many, many people claiming that this God-thing exists. That's what this thread is about. Stay on topic.

This entire human-robot thing is a red herring and is distracting from the topic of the thread.

Lol.

(Emphasis mine)

I have done no such declaring.

God could exist. Lots of things could exist.

It would be absurd for an atheist to not believe in God if God made himself exceedingly obvious. In the same way it would be absurd for a pedestrian to cross a busy street while saying, "There are no cars!". However, if God hid himself from any sort of verification or test and made himself inconspicuous to the point of being indistinguishable from non-existence then no, the atheists would not be absurd for thinking he does not exist. If God does exist, my first question for him is, "Why the (expletive) didn't you make yourself more obvious?"

Mind & robot discussion is completely relevant as you are repeatedly showing us that you do not subject your own beliefs to the same criteria you are subjecting theism. I am ready to drop it though, but you should consider researching an epistemic theory to answer this as it would be enlightening to your general inquiry in this thread. It should also be noted that your answer is bordering on verificationism which is completely dead/incoherent.

Alright, let's clarify things for a second.

You said "If God does exist, my first question for him is, "Why the (expletive) didn't you make yourself more obvious?""

Sounds like you are an agnostic then and I can hear the echo of Bertrand & Hitchens in your voice (keyboard strokes?). God: “Why didn’t you believe in Me?” Russell's reply: “Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!”

So this sounds like an argument from the absence of evidence.

The logic of the absence of evidence goes like this. We can deny the existence of something only if we should expect to possess evidence sufficient to know that something exists but in fact lack it.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO.....

To prove your position you must show that (a) the epistemic situation in which we find ourselves with respect to belief in God’s existence is either if God existed, then we would expect there to be evidence for it and if there were evidence of God, then we would expect to have knowledge of the evidence and (b) demonstrate that we lack sufficient evidence for knowing that God exists. You must also show that all the arguments for God are unsound and then argue that if God existed then we would expect to be in a position to know whether God exists.

Sounds like a pretty hefty burden

Read more: Is God Imaginary? | Reasonable Faith