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.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 63 by William]

Good grief... no.
Science is:
Observe, research, hypothesize, experiment, collect data, analysis, conclude... start over.

You're thinking of "the scientific method." I've read that the scientific method was invented for textbooks in the fifties. Science existed long before then.

If you insist that science be restricted to the scientific method, then it is unscientific to believe there's gold in California, since, at Sutter's Mill, the conclusion was reached before the hypothesis was formed.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 71 by wiploc]

What an intuitive statement.
Problem: I said any method is fine, read the OP.

[Tcg]

Probably. I think I didn’t do that. I gave the test and the other person told he has not done that. Still he seems to insist God doesn’t exist even though he has not done the test.

No. The other person did not say they hadn't done the test. Willum said:

"I have done so many things in the past, as former Christian, in the spirit of things, it is entirely possible I have done whatever you are using to dismiss the topic, and continue with your belief unchallenged."

Additionally, the test the OP asks about is one that would distinguish God from an imaginary friend of the same name. It does not ask for a test that would indicate god's existence.

So you've misrepresented what Willum said and have provided a test that not only isn't useful, but one that wouldn't address the OP even it were.

Yeah, I believe He wants righteous people.

I believe righteousness should include honestly representing what other posters have said.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 73 by Tcg]

Thanks for the explanation, I really had no idea what he was saying.

As a diversion though, do you ever wonder what pulling this kind of game does in Gods eyes? I mean assuming God were true.
I mean most Christian do this kind of logical legerdemain, it is obviously a sin, and I doubt anyone of them in history has ever asked forgiveness for it, do you think this is why so few people, even of the devout, go to Heaven?

[1213]

No. The other person did not say they hadn't done the test.

Ok, sorry, I assumed that he has not done God’s will, because he told person with right mind would not do that. But maybe he is saying that he is not person with right mind.

Well, what person in their right mind would wish to do the will of the Old Testament God?

[Tcg]

No. The other person did not say they hadn't done the test.

Ok, sorry, I assumed that he has not done God’s will, because he told person with right mind would not do that. But maybe he is saying that he is not person with right mind.

You are changing the subject. You've switched from your claim that he said he never did the test to some odd statement about God's will. And no, he has not claimed that "he is not person with right mind."

Beside this clear ad hominem, are you going to address what I actually said?

[Willum]

So, there is no way to distinguish God from an imaginary friend of the same name?

Doesn't that say everything anyone needs to know?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

It's a well known problem in debate that one cannot prove a negative. For example, none of us really supposes that Santa Claus exists. But one can only "prove" that something does exist by providing the thing in question. Attempting to prove that a thing does not exists amounts to trying to prove a negative.

There ARE ways of drawing well considered conclusions however. Because we have empirical observation.

People often confirm that God is there for them answering their prayers. When they get that promotion they have been praying for, or when their team wins the big game. Just as they prayed it would. And yet when a psycho comes into a classroom full of six year old's armed with a handgun and an intent to shoot each one in the head at point blank range, or when a tornado causes a brick church wall to collapse on and kill worshipers in the very ACT of praying to God... in other words when faith comes face to face with physical reality, physical reality inevitably prevails. And God is nowhere to be found at those moments of dire need. A God who is not there for his faithful believers at the moment of their immediate peril, and therefore fails to act at that moment of immediate peril, is in no obvious way different from a God who never existed to begin with.

In 1994 a tornado hit the Goshen Alabama Methodist Church during Sunday service, causing the walls of the church to collapse. Twenty people died including six children. Why would God allow the deaths of those in His own house of worship, including the most innocent, who were there in the very act of worshiping him, when all He had to do was to prevent the walls from collapsing? The problem is that when put to the test, make believe is invariably unaffected by the harsh realities of real life. If a wall falls on you, or a mad man shoots you in the head, religious faith does not serve as protection. Even for innocent children.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/03/us/pi ... holds.html

In 2012, after shooting and killing his own mother, a mentally unstable man went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and methodically shot 20 six year olds and their teacher in the head. A Supreme Being would really have come in handy that day. Did God just sit there and watch the whole thing? Or was he distracted, too busy fulfilling the mundane prayers of others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hoo ... l_shooting

The point is, in real life what we actually observe is that when the chips are down and faith is confronted by reality, reality will ALWAYS win out. When the chips are down and a Supreme Being would really REALLY come in handy, God, invisible unknowable but assumed by many to exist anyway God, invariably acts in exactly the same manner as a God who isn't there. In fact a God who refuses to act even in the face of the ultimate crisis of life and death for the most innocent of His followers is a God who corresponds in every way to A GOD WHO NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH! What exactly is the difference? This is as close to an empirical test for proving a negative, the actual non existence of God, as one might reasonably hope for. Because in these sorts of make or break tests, the result for the question "does God exist," invariably corresponds in every way to a negative finding.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 78 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am not "proving a negative," I am comparing two positives.
If there is no test that distinguishes the two, then they are identical.

Or perhaps we should say, if every test proves they are identical, then they are.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

Winning an argument with the pretty thing'd convince me not only does God exist, but don't it beat all, I'm it.

Other'n that, she's the closest thing I got me to one.