Is there any test...?

[Willum]

So is there any test that can be made to distinguish God from an imaginary friend of the same name?

An imaginary friend with a popular name, of course.

Any way at all?

The debate topic is: There is none.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by FarWanderer]

Well, are you imaginary?
No, you demonstrate you are not with each well-thought-out reply.

[1213]

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

Yes, it seems to prove without a doubt, Jesus had an imaginary friend.

Interesting, have you really desired to do God’s will? Why? And why not anymore?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 42 by 1213]

Well, what person in their right mind would wish to do the will of the Old Testament God?
Look at his actions, they are deplorable.

But who in this world hasn't, and doesn't desire to follow a higher noble calling?

Anyway, your question does not forward the topic.

[marco]

[Replying to post 36 by FarWanderer]

Well, are you imaginary?
No, you demonstrate you are not with each well-thought-out reply.

Bishop Berkeley proposed that all is illusory; what we observe is simply the ideas from the mind of God, reality being non-existent. We're discussing something similar. Samuel Johnson thought he could disprove this idea by kicking a stone and crying "I refute it thus." Of course the stone he was kicking would still remain an idea and his sensation a reaction to the illusion. His invalid approach is called argumentum ad lapidem, or argument to the stone.


Another invalid test.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 44 by marco]

Sorry, needs more splanin'.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 35 by Tcg]

Are we playing solipsism games?

I'm not, are you?

Is there a test for determining between a real person that goes by "FarWanderer" and an imaginary person that goes by "FarWanderer"?

If there is, it wouldn't be any help in addressing the OP.

I am not sure there is any way to address anything in your world.

Imaginary friends do not grant prayers. If you are going to redefine them so that they do simply so that they can’t be distinguished from a god, then the whole question is meaningless to begin with.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 35 by Tcg]

Are we playing solipsism games?

I'm not, are you?

Is there a test for determining between a real person that goes by "FarWanderer" and an imaginary person that goes by "FarWanderer"?

If there is, it wouldn't be any help in addressing the OP.

I am not sure there is any way to address anything in your world.

There is no need for you to address anything in my world. The point of this thread is to answer the question the OP asks which is this:

"So is there any test that can be made to distinguish God from an imaginary friend of the same name?"

[marco]

[Replying to post 44 by marco]

Sorry, needs more splanin'.

Very well. When we see things and ascribe substance to them, this is simply our induced reaction as in a dream. We can feel things in a dream, experience pain and even react to what seems to be a physical world in a dream.
How can we determine that the world we experience is not an illusion? Descartes used the idea that he could think and so he existed.

But a critique of such a world would have to be made not by somebody who is subject to the restrictions of the world, but by an external observer. I can't see how this is possible unless one of us becomes a God.


Given that our virtual world has all the sorrow and joy of the world we think it is, then it seems that acceptance is our best strategy. Why kick the sides of our glass?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 48 by marco]

Well, the default is not to assume the "evil demon hypothesis," but to assume the world as we perceive it and see if there are any exceptions.

To assume the undefined or unprovable is a very difficult position to learn anything definitive about.

[marco]

[Replying to post 48 by marco]

Well, the default is not to assume the "evil demon hypothesis," but to assume the world as we perceive it and see if there are any exceptions.

To assume the undefined or unprovable is a very difficult position to learn anything definitive about.

I know this, Willum. I am simply attempting to answer your question, not upholding the proposition myself. We can happily propose theories, such as you do about Jesus being a kind of Romn plant, and build on them to see how well they stand up.