Myth, Fable or Imagination

[Willum]

So I am having trouble with the elementary.

If God is all powerful, omnipresent, and in short, the most profound thing in the universe, even the world, it should be trivially easy to quantitatively and definitively distinguish It from myth, fable or the imagination.

So that is the challenge really.

Can anyone show anything to quantitatively distinguish God from myth, fable, imagination or in other words, zero as in nothing?

And if It is indistinguishable, it must be identical, no?

[Thomas123]

Willum :it should be trivially easy to quantitatively and definitively distinguish It from myth, fable or the imagination

I assume from this that you consider these three things, myth, fable and imagination, to be ' not real'. Can you give the thread a typical example of each of these and explain your concept of ' not real' that is displayed within each one. In that way I think that people might be better able to direct their responses to your challenging enquiry.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to post 5 by Thomas Mc Donald]
[Replying to post 4 by Purple Knight]

Well, earl understood, so it is comprehensible.
In short, if your god is real, you should be able to distinguish it from something that is not real.
It should be one of the easiest things in the world to distinguish your real deity from one say, a child invented, or came out of a story book.
If you cannot, your deity does not exist.

I think I see what you're saying.

Real things definitely have definite qualities, and one should at least know what these qualities are if one is to claim a thing is real.

If I claim I have made a new discovery of a previously unknown animal species, but I cannot even tell you whether it is a fish or a frog or a mammal, then I'm just making things up.

If I later see a picture of a made-up animal in some storybook, I might well say, aha, that is my animal, it was real all along. I might do this for any made-up animal because even the picture of the animal I had in my head was never all that solid to begin with.

Do I have you right?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by Purple Knight]

[Replying to post 11 by Thomas Mc Donald]

Yes, you both understand the gist.
So, I guess you are stalling with an inability to provide anything that would distinguish God from the imaginary?

[1213]

…
Can anyone show anything to quantitatively distinguish God from myth, fable, imagination or in other words, zero as in nothing?
…

People seem to believe that scientific theory is correct, if it predicts results correctly. If things go as God has told in the Bible, can it be seen as something that quantitatively distinguish God from myth, fable, imagination…?

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213]

No. Who’s talking scientific theory?
Not me.
That would be a strawman.
The parameters of my topic are simple, to avoid them, redefine them, delay or otherwise obfuscate them, tells us you cannot meet them.

The honest person would admit their god is indistinguishable from a fantasy...

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 13 by Willum]

Willum: Yes, you both understand the gist.

That is exactly what we understand, ie the gist of it. If you are serious about this enquiry ,that you personally instigated, why not just comply with my simple request in Post 11. At least give us 3 examples to mull over.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by Thomas Mc Donald]

Because I've seen the trick before.
One picks apart the examples, which are only that, and unimportant, turns the topic into something about he definitions, and one runs fleeing from the actual topic, having safely obfuscated one's god into existence. Because for some reason, obfuscation and ambivilizing gods prove they exist - to some people.
I was 'serious' enough to create the topic, I don't see why I need to justify it further.
Just answer the topic.
It's been done before, you can do it!

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to post 12 by Purple Knight]

[Replying to post 11 by Thomas Mc Donald]

Yes, you both understand the gist.
So, I guess you are stalling with an inability to provide anything that would distinguish God from the imaginary?

I'm an atheist. I'm just generous to the religious at times, mainly because I believe the principle of logic least followed is charity.

Just a couple things...

While incredibly unlikely, it is possible that I would see the animal in a storybook and it really was the same as the one I saw. This is possible, even if I saw the thing and the artist was only making it up. However, I would say it is unlikely enough to be put aside for now, and you're onto something about a good guideline for distinguishing the fantastical from the true. In fact, this is a good first guideline.

What you're talking about is defining God. This is absolutely necessary if we are to have any productive discussion whatsoever about whether God exists or not. We absolutely need to know what thing exactly is being claimed to exist.

Your insight on this matter is exceptional, and I think it's a good idea to pin down what God is as much as possible.

To some people, it might be an all-powerful entity of any sort, not necessarily what we would consider good or loving, but because it is so powerful that whatever it does is automatically good. If any all-powerful being exists, the answer would be yes, there is a God.

Some people might worship tadpoles. Those exist, so there too is God.

When it's going to be difficult to defend is when you start ascribing specific traits and motivations to God. There is probably a lot of hesitation to pin God down precisely for this reason.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by Purple Knight]

THAT MAKES IT EVEN EASIER, actually.
You ascribe characteristics to anything, that is one way you prove or disprove it.

But that is not the topic.
This is more simple.
Show that God is distinguishable from fantasy, by any other name.

[Thomas123]

[Replying to Willum]

Willum: Show that God is distinguishable from fantasy, by any other name.

Thank You, Willum for your challenging question. It has given me an opportunity to consider these matters in the context of my own beliefs. I personally find your new phrasing 'fantasy and the like',easier than the triptych you started with in your opening post. You could reasonably state that they are the same. Thank you for that.

I am now contemplating the concepts of 'real' and 'distinguish'. I was during these strange times thinking about the distinctions between, family,neighbour and enemy, but that is for another thread.May I take a simpler example.
Sound Noise Music
Music:vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

Sound:vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.

Noise : a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes disturbance

You may recognise why I was having trouble with your original trypich of fantasy genres. Music ,by definition ,is not even the opposite of noise, which explains alot to me in itself.

Music is obviously real, as is sound, but how do you clearly distinguish between music and sound. Music appears to be a type of manufactured sound, made by humans using the reality of sound. Sound would seem to be an integrated real phenomena in our created world. It has definite evolutionary implications for all life. Was there no sound before we got ears.Was the world silent in its early ages before life.?