God Is An Imaginary Friend For Grown-Ups

[Neo-Logic]

Would you consider the God of Spinoza an imaginary friend?

You know it's hard to argue when the other side continually redefines things, but without much cause or support.

Before, God was some kind of a supernatural being. A divine entity. Now with Spinoza god and Pantheism belief of god redefined as to include natural sciences to describe an abstract God. What a crock of ********. It's like Intelligent Design - religion trying to get in science's pants in the form of unconsentual rape.

Per my title, I liken all Gods to be imaginary friends of people. They're our gre-gre, our pet peeve, security blanket, appeal to tradition, appeal to antiquity, circular logic, etc. Not that these are bad things - I'm sure God provides warm fuzzy feelings and comfort to those who seek it, but doesn't change the fact that the idea of God is dangerously close to what imaginary friends are.

 

[Willamena]

However, there is only one definition of science. Applying scientific method for testing of theories to produce reproducable results.

Okay... we can go with that.

How do you design an experiment to produce reproducable results? (Hint: the word "fixing" comes to mind)

 

[sandandfoam]

You know it's hard to argue when the other side continually redefines things, but without much cause or support.

Before, God was some kind of a supernatural being. A divine entity. Now with Spinoza god and Pantheism belief of god redefined as to include natural sciences to describe an abstract God. What a crock of ********. It's like Intelligent Design - religion trying to get in science's pants in the form of unconsentual rape.

Per my title, I liken all Gods to be imaginary friends of people. They're our gre-gre, our pet peeve, security blanket, appeal to tradition, appeal to antiquity, circular logic, etc. Not that these are bad things - I'm sure God provides warm fuzzy feelings and comfort to those who seek it, but doesn't change the fact that the idea of God is dangerously close to what imaginary friends are.

I couldn't be bothered.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Still that definition (of science) is in no way mutually exclusive of religion's definition.

It can clearly be a sub-set.

It can fit both definitions.

It can. and so what?

Well if we're arguing simply the semantics then sure, I'll give it to you. :bow:

One corner of the definition of religion would shove science in there somewhere ... in a dark corner with dripping water and creepy noises.

BUt if we're arguing value, then science and religion would mix about as well as oil and fire.

 

[Willamena]

Before, God was some kind of a supernatural being. A divine entity. Now with Spinoza god and Pantheism belief of god redefined as to include natural sciences to describe an abstract God.

Have you considered that it's only in your mind that those are two separate things?

 

[Father Heathen]

Can you have air in a vacuum?

I hope you're going somewhere with this.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Okay... we can go with that.

How do you design an experiment to produce reproducable results? (Hint: the word "fixing" comes to mind)

I believe the scientific method leads to eventual reproducable results or findings that supports the hypothesis, but goes through many trials and errors. One begins with a hypothesis, proceeds to experiment, will fail many times, make revisions to hypothesis as each element proves the original wrong or neccessitates revision, and repeat until the end result matches the revised hypothesis and is reproducable.

I hope I didn't screw the scientific process up just now ...

 

[blackout]

You know it's hard to argue when the other side continually redefines things, but without much cause or support.

Before, God was some kind of a supernatural being. A divine entity. Now with Spinoza god and Pantheism belief of god redefined as to include natural sciences to describe an abstract God. What a crock of ********. It's like Intelligent Design - religion trying to get in science's pants in the form of unconsentual rape.

Per my title, I liken all Gods to be imaginary friends of people. They're our gre-gre, our pet peeve, security blanket, appeal to tradition, appeal to antiquity, circular logic, etc. Not that these are bad things - I'm sure God provides warm fuzzy feelings and comfort to those who seek it, but doesn't change the fact that the idea of God is dangerously close to what imaginary friends are.

That of course would be YOUR god concept.

So we can safely conclude from all of this that
YOUR god concept is (what you consider to be)
dangerously close to what imaginary friends are.

It sure took alot of debate to come to such a repeat testable conclusion.

But that's what we're here for. :cover:

 

[Neo-Logic]

I hope you're going somewhere with this.

HAHAHAHAHA. Your two arguments is hilarious to me, for some reason.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Have you considered that it's only in your mind that those are two separate things?

1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick
consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard
of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going
to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear
exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be
especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from
noticing that he is continually changing his standard of
evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in
exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent
complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

 

[Willamena]

I hope you're going somewhere with this.

Only that God was not compared to wind but to air, that is more an ether (substance) than a movement (energy).

 

[blackout]

Well if we're arguing simply the semantics then sure, I'll give it to you. :bow:

One corner of the definition of religion would shove science in there somewhere ... in a dark corner with dripping water and creepy noises.

BUt if we're arguing value, then science and religion would mix about as well as oil and fire.

That would rather be a "value" judgement... would it not?

On what repeat testable scale did we weigh that?
and in what beaker did we heat them at what temperature
to determine this value/non-mixture thingy?

 

[Willamena]

I believe the scientific method leads to eventual reproducable results or findings that supports the hypothesis, but goes through many trials and errors. One begins with a hypothesis, proceeds to experiment, will fail many times, make revisions to hypothesis as each element proves the original wrong or neccessitates revision, and repeat until the end result matches the revised hypothesis and is reproducable.

I hope I didn't screw the scientific process up just now ...

lol

The scientific method, if done well, leads to results that, if supportable, are supported by other tests and other people's results. One doesn't design 'repeatability' into the experiment without cheating.

 

[Neo-Logic]

That of course would be YOUR god concept.

So we can safely conclude from all of this that
YOUR god concept is (what you consider to be)
dangerously close to what imaginary friends are.

It sure took alot of debate to come to such a repeat testable conclusion.

But that's what we're here for. :cover:

We've all gone through so many different sub-categories that I think we got derailed from original topic at hand. My argument, as my original post implies, is not what GOD is in form or theory. My argument lies on trying to argue on what the role of GOD is. By the role that GOD plays, and if you agree with my definitions of the role of GOD as per my original post, you can see why I argue that imginary friends are similar to GOD concept.

And as we encourage children to move away from imaginary friend to be more socially active, shouldn't we take a dose of our own medicine? (If you agree with my role/duty of GOD in civilization)

 

[Willamena]

1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick
consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard
of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going
to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear
exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be
especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from
noticing that he is continually changing his standard of
evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in
exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent
complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

Seriously, I wasn't demanding either "new," "higher', "more difficult" or otherwise standard. I was using common sense.

 

[blackout]

And as we encourage children to move away from imaginary friend to be more socially active, shouldn't we take a dose of our own medicine?

Eh. What the hell.

If a person LIKES their imaginary friend(s)
I say keep 'em.

(I've since moved up to imaginary lovers.:flirt
Can I get a sexy nurse over here to give me a dose of that medicine?

Come on now... you can admit it.....

 

[Neo-Logic]

Seriously, I wasn't demanding either "new," "higher', "more difficult" or otherwise standard. I was using common sense.

I'm not talking about you in general. I'm talking about the argument and that form comes up quiet a lot.

We can't continually keep re-defining something that we claim is so supernatural that men have written about it, seen it, heard it, experienced it, just because science or logic gets closer to matching it in fundamental ways.

For example: the Bible says "God created Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th" Okay great sounds pretty spiffy. Then God slipped and gave men science. Damn! Okay, we discovered geology and found that 6 days isn't enough for planets to form. Well, now some argue that "6 days" in the BIble may not have been the same 6 days as on Earth or our time. Ok fine.

Now some argues oh, God isn't an entity, it's now an abstract thing and encompasses even science. Then we have intelligent design.

AHHHHHHHHHHH *pulls hair out*

 

[Neo-Logic]

I am officially going to BED. God told me to do it. Really ...

I shall replace this reply with something meaningful when I play "catch-up-with-thread" tomorrow ...

 

[Manipulated]

We've all gone through so many different sub-categories that I think we got derailed from original topic at hand. My argument, as my original post implies, is not what GOD is in form or theory. My argument lies on trying to argue on what the role of GOD is. By the role that GOD plays, and if you agree with my definitions of the role of GOD as per my original post, you can see why I argue that imginary friends are similar to GOD concept.

And as we encourage children to move away from imaginary friend to be more socially active, shouldn't we take a dose of our own medicine? (If you agree with my role/duty of GOD in civilization)

We should encourage imagination as it is greater than knowledge. You are hinting that man can in fact live without a God of our imaginations, impossible.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not talking about you in general. I'm talking about the argument and that form comes up quiet a lot.

Okay. I was explicitly implying that the definition of "supernatural" needs re-evaluation.

We can't continually keep re-defining something that we claim is so supernatural that men have written about it, seen it, heard it, experienced it, just because science or logic gets closer to matching it in fundamental ways.

Redefining it isn't an issue; finding a definition of it that we can accept as "real" is much more important. It's been my experience that those who have have a similar definition, and science's definitions are superfluous to that.

For example: the Bible says "God created Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th" Okay great sounds pretty spiffy. Then God slipped and gave men science. Damn! Okay, we discovered geology and found that 6 days isn't enough for planets to form. Well, now some argue that "6 days" in the BIble may not have been the same 6 days as on Earth or our time. Ok fine.

Now some argues oh, God isn't an entity, it's now an abstract thing and encompasses even science. Then we have intelligent design.

AHHHHHHHHHHH *pulls hair out*

It may help if you take some time to learn what myths are about. There's this fellow named Joseph Campbell who wrote extensively about them....

Myth is metaphor. "6 days" is part of the story. It is an image that, taken in context, presents us with a broader picture. That's all. That's all it need be.