'God'/'Jesus' - Invisible/Imaginary Friends For Adults

[I AM ALL I AM]

Imaginary friend

Imaginary friends and imaginary companions are a psychological and social phenomenon where a friendship or other interpersonal relationship takes place in the imagination rather than external physical reality. Imaginary friends are fictional characters created for improvisational role-playing. They often have elaborate personalities and behaviors. They may seem real to their creators, though they are ultimately unreal, as shown by studies.

Imaginary friends are made often in childhood, sometimes in adolescence, and rarely in adulthood. They often function as tutelaries when played with by a child. They reveal, according to several theories of psychology, a child's anxieties, fears, goals and perceptions of the world through that child's conversations. They are, according to some children, physically indistinguishable from real people, while others say they see their imaginary friends only in their heads. There's even a third category of imaginary friend recognition: when the child doesn't see the imaginary friend at all, but can only feel his/her presence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_friend

G'day.

1. Are 'God' and 'Jesus' invisible/imaginary friends ? Please present your reasoning with your answer.

2. What difference is there between children with imaginary friends and adults that believe in 'God'/'Jesus' ? Please present your reasoning with your answer.

3. Should those that have invisible/imaginary friends be stopped from being in charge of countries and making decisions for the nation, including international relationships ? Please present your reasoning with your answer.

4. "Some child development professionals still believe that the presence of imaginary friends past early childhood signals a serious psychiatric disorder." Does a belief in invisible/imaginary friends as an adult show "a serious psychiatric disorder" ? Please present your reasoning with your answer.

5. Are those that do not have invisible/imaginary friends the ones with "a serious psychiatric disorder" ? Please present your reasoning with your answer.

[Crazee]

Just because we don't hear anything, doesn't mean there's nothing to hear. Just because we don't see anything, doesn't mean there's nothing to see.

If a kid can see something I can't see, I think it would be rude to tell him it wasn't real.

[earendil]

But if the friends were real..then the one who thought they were imaginary...would be insane.

Giving the context dealt with imaginary friends. And it wouldn't make the person questioning them insane. It would make them wrong but not insane if a friend is provided as evidence to itself. And that really means establishing the reality of said friend in question and not relying on a Carl Sagan Dragon position / appeal to ignorance.

Ha ha...I understand you perfectly...but the original poster never considered the possibility. He _assumed_ only one viewpoint. So congrats on your seeing the appropriate question.

My response was merely to highlight the one-sidedness of the OP.

[Moses Yoder]

I didn't ask if you can prove that I had a grandfather. I asked you to do it. I have even given you my real name to start with. What does Jackelantern mean? Does that have anything to do with your real name?

I could do it if I had access to the means of doing so.. However, I am not that stupid and I understand how the human reproductive system works. Your argument would require people to actually ignore understanding how people are actually born. And giving your name could likely not be enough info to investigate with since new names are invented all the time to which cut of lineage links. So do us a favor, if you need to argue for ignorance to make a case of imaginary friends, it just shows how weak of an argument you have. Your argument is equivalent to a flatearther saying you can't prove the Earth is an oblate sphere because you haven't measured it yourself, and that all the evidence, including your own, is evil propaganda from RE fundamentalists. And the wort part of this discussion is the fact that you know you are using a dishonest argument for an appeal to ignorance. Hence you are wasting everyone's time. Yes we understand that Christians need the Carl Sagan Dragon, or the invisible horse that can't speak for itself in the invisible stable. Such religions thrive on intentional ignorance and taught delusion.

And I didn't make any assumptions about you considering I used the term "IF" based on how you wrote your post. And sorry, odd numbers aren't perfect.. However, it can be argued that an odd number is one that believes that their imaginary friend is real...

Once again, you simply assume I was not born as a test tube baby, and did in fact have a grandfather. I only have one imaginary friend. How many do you have? Lets see, there is radiometric dating, modern science, evolution, and all your dead relatives. Plus apparently you believe the Earth is round.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 50:

Once again, you simply assume I was not born as a test tube baby, and did in fact have a grandfather.

Test tube or not, it's a rather well understood phenomenon that at least the vast majority of humans have grandfathers. There's nothing in that notion to draw suspicion. "My friend, who I can't show exists, doesn't like how you're a-carryin' on", devoid of any confirmation beyond one's incredulity or mere utterance, does raise some concerns as to the credibility of the claimant.

I only have one imaginary friend. How many do you have? Lets see, there is radiometric dating, modern science, evolution...

That we can date things or study them is hardly an exceptional phenomenon. Where claims can be tested or repeated, there's greater confidence in such. "My friend, who I can't show exists, expects you to worship him in the manner I proscribe" raises concern.

...and all your dead relatives.

I sometimes think of and talk to my dead friends and relatives, though fully understand that I do so for my own comfort. I don't tell folks they must live according to my dead relatives' wishes or face some wrathful punishment upon their own deaths.

Plus apparently you believe the Earth is round.

I believe it to be more round than flat, yes. I do not tell folks that if they reject this belief of mine that the planet is gonna get upset about it.

(clarity edit)

[McCulloch]

I believe I am a better woodworker than most of the people here, but I would be hard pressed to prove it. I suppose that is more evidence that I belong in a loony bin.

Someone here has to be the best woodworker among us. That person, is likely to be confident in their woodworking abilities. In principle, we could determine who is the best woodworker. I could possibly be you. It certainly is not me. On the other hand, we cannot apparently, even in principle, prove the existence of imaginary friends.

Two, my religion makes me feel good about myself, and makes me want to help others. I see it as a good thing. I can understand if religion is making people do bad things, we should punish the people for doing bad things. But if my religion is good for me, and makes me want to do good things, why would I be punished for it?

I, for one, do not want to punish you for your religion. If it makes you a better person, then that is great. I suspect that you would be just as good a person without it, but I could be wrong. In the play, Harvey the character, Elwood P. Dowd, who did have an imaginary friend, said, "Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, 'In this world, Elwood, you must be' - she always called me Elwood - 'In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. " His imaginary friend did make him a better person. That did not make it real.

Three, please provide proof that I had a grandfather.

1. All humans who have lived in the last 5,000 years, have or had human parents, one male and one female.
2. You are less than 1,000 years old, thus your parents also had parents.
3. QED

How does this relate to the proposition that God is an adult version of an imaginary friend?

There is nowhere in the Bible where it says God hates homosexual people, nor does it give us reason to do so. Or, on the other hand, prove me wrong and show me where in the Bible it says "God hates fags."

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Apparently, homosexuality is a bad thing, something that those who are afflicted with it must be sanctified of before inheriting the kingdom of God. How does this relate to imaginary friends?

[servant]

For the author’s original question to be taken seriously, I submit he first must prove he is not a figment of our imaginations. How do I know I AM ALL I AM is not just a random source of computer code that accidently put a bunch of random words together on a computer that some how pooped these deep intellectual questions out.

A current photo holding today’s newspaper along with a driver’s license, social security number, or birth certificate will suffice. This information must also be able to be traced back to an IP address.

[Filthy Tugboat]

For the author’s original question to be taken seriously, I submit he first must prove he is not a figment of our imaginations.

How do you propose he could prove that? If he were imaginary, couldn't you imagine him doing anything a normal person could do to prove they are ho they say they are?

How do I know I AM ALL I AM is not just a random source of computer code that accidently put a bunch of random words together on a computer that some how pooped these deep intellectual questions out.

Fine, you don't. So what? Why is this relevant to answering what is there to be answered?

A current photo holding today’s newspaper along with a driver’s license, social security number, or birth certificate will suffice. This information must also be able to be traced back to an IP address.

Why? Again, if he's imaginary, you could imagine him doing those things. If he's not, you are requesting a serious breach in his privacy. And to top it all off, none of that is necessary to answer the question.

[David 2.0]

1. Are 'God' and 'Jesus' invisible/imaginary friends ? Please present your reasoning with your answer.

As far as I know God is invisible.
Jesus is long gone, so he is probably invisible as well.

So, yes to invisible.

As far as imaginary goes?

I think that is what the debate is all about.

I tend to feel that the bible may be mainly a work of imagination.
Not one hundred percent sure, but one would hope so. (Otherwise I am screwed.)

Are imaginary numbers real?

[McCulloch]

Otherwise I am screwed.

This is the fallacy known as the argument from consequences. [argumentum ad consequentiam] This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

Are imaginary numbers real?

The definition of the real numbers:

• Let R denote the set of all real numbers. Then:
• The set R is a field, meaning that addition and multiplication are defined and have the usual properties.
• The field R is ordered, meaning that there is a total order ≥ such that, for all real numbers x, y and z:
  • if x ≥ y then x + z ≥ y + z;
  • if x ≥ 0 and y ≥ 0 then xy ≥ 0.
• The order is Dedekind-complete; that is, every non-empty subset S of R with an upper bound in R has a least upper bound (also called supremum) in R.

does not include the imaginary ones.

[David 2.0]

David 2.0 wrote:

Otherwise I am screwed.

This is the fallacy known as the argument from consequences. [argumentum ad consequentiam] This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view

Perhaps, or it may have been a bad attempt at humor.
(Or are you trying to be funny? I can never tell with you?)

David 2.0 wrote:

Are imaginary numbers real?

The definition of the real numbers:
Let R denote the set of all real numbers. Then:
The set R is a field, meaning that addition and multiplication are defined and have the usual properties.
The field R is ordered, meaning that there is a total order ≥ such that, for all real numbers x, y and z:
if x ≥ y then x + z ≥ y + z;
if x ≥ 0 and y ≥ 0 then xy ≥ 0.
The order is Dedekind-complete; that is, every non-empty subset S of R with an upper bound in R has a least upper bound (also called supremum) in R.
does not include the imaginary ones.

Ha!
I got you.
Fell right into my trap!!

I was using the "real" definition of "real".

Try again?