Is God Real?

[Gary Childress]

]

Are you 'trying to' suggest that the Universe, Itself, and the Mind, Itself are only sometimes 'real' and sometimes 'not real'?

No.

[Age]

]

Are you 'trying to' suggest that the Universe, Itself, and the Mind, Itself are only sometimes 'real' and sometimes 'not real'?

No.

GREAT, because since they are BOTH God, in one sense and another, this MAKES God ALWAYS REAL.

Which, by the way, BOTH senses of God here, FIT IN PERFECTLY with EVERY description of thee One God;, and WITH BOTH 'senses' PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, that God is ACTUALLY True AND REAL.

[Atla]

I don't see him as wanting to pose as "better" than everyone else so much as I see his words as a manifestation of a feeling of unconnectedness to others. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I sort of see it. Call my 'assumption' a "vibe" or a way of "understanding" his behavior or even a "misunderstanding" of his behavior, but that's the notion I get.

Of course he feels an unconnectedness to others, he's so autistic that he isn't capable of understanding even the simplest sentences that children would easily understand. He probably hasn't talked to anyone his entire life.
He compensates by being a pathological liar, by insulting people, and by channeling the God he invented, maybe he even hears God talking in his head. Pretending to know all the answers, but of course he hasn't provided any proof for any major claim he ever said. He's dumb as a rock. So yeah of course he's posing as better than others.

[Age]

I don't see him as wanting to pose as "better" than everyone else so much as I see his words as a manifestation of a feeling of unconnectedness to others. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I sort of see it. Call my 'assumption' a "vibe" or a way of "understanding" his behavior or even a "misunderstanding" of his behavior, but that's the notion I get.

Of course he feels an unconnectedness to others, he's so autistic that he isn't capable of understanding even the simplest sentences that children would easily understand.

ONCE AGAIN, this one can ONLY RESORT TO talking ABOUT 'me' TO "others".

And this is BECAUSE 'it' can NOT refute what I SAY and CLAIM here and can NOT back up and support 'its' OWN CLAIMS here, WHEN I QUESTION and CHALLENGE them.

Also, WILL you PRESENT ANY example of some SIMPLE sentence that I am NOT capable of UNDERSTANDING, YET, to you, children would EASILY UNDERSTAND?

If no, then, ONCE AGAIN, you have FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here.

He probably hasn't talked to anyone his entire life.

LOL MY 'entire life', TO you, is ONLY six years.

AND, you do NOT appear to even KNOW and COMPREHEND what is involved IN 'talking'.

He compensates by being a pathological liar,

you ONLY CLAIM 'this', but you have NEVER SHOWN WHERE I have, SUPPOSEDLY, 'lied', let alone EVER even coming CLOSE to PROVING 'this'

by insulting people,

If i have probably NEVER talked to ANY one, in my ENTIRE life, then HOW, EXACTLY, could I have 'insulted' ANY person?

ALSO, this is ANOTHER CLAIM of YOURS where you have NEVER EVER SHOWN ONCE that I have EVER done such a thing as 'this'.

AND you NEVER WILL because you NEVER COULD.

and by channeling the God he invented,

SO, to 'you', 'I' INVENTED the 'Thing', which created Everything.

Now, what would that MAKE 'Me'?

maybe he even hears God talking in his head.

Is that the God 'I' invented, the One 'you' INVENTED and/or ARE IMAGINING, the One that created Everything, or one of the OTHER Ones, which 'you', adult human beings, keep going on about?

Pretending to know all the answers,

NO 'pretence' here. AND, NOT even such claim EVER made, well NOT by 'me' anyway.

but of course he hasn't provided any proof for any major claim he ever said.

I ONLY DO, WHEN ASKED, and you have NEVER ASKED. This is BECAUSE you ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE otherwise. Thus, what 'you' ARE ACTUALLY DOING and SHOWING here "atla" IS PROVING one of my so-called 'major' CLAIMS, which I have SAID here, IRREFUTABLY True.

He's dumb as a rock.

Is this one of those 'insults', which 'you' CLAIM 'I' DO?

So yeah of course he's posing as better than others.

LOL This would be one of the WORST ATTEMPTS at 'TRYING TO' FORMULATE a so-called 'argument' ever PRODUCED here.

'God', from the definitions and descriptions that I have provided here, IS VERY REAL.

'you' do NOT like this Fact, and, you do NOT BELIEVE this Fact, but because you can NOT refute this Fact, you have absolutely NOTHING left but to just talk ABOUT 'me' AGAIN, INSTEAD.

[Atla]

I don't see him as wanting to pose as "better" than everyone else so much as I see his words as a manifestation of a feeling of unconnectedness to others. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I sort of see it. Call my 'assumption' a "vibe" or a way of "understanding" his behavior or even a "misunderstanding" of his behavior, but that's the notion I get.

Of course he feels an unconnectedness to others, he's so autistic that he isn't capable of understanding even the simplest sentences that children would easily understand.

ONCE AGAIN, this one can ONLY RESORT TO talking ABOUT 'me' TO "others".

And this is BECAUSE 'it' can NOT refute what I SAY and CLAIM here and can NOT back up and supports 'its' CLAIMS WHEN I QUESTION and CHALLENGE them.

He probably hasn't talked to anyone his entire life.

LOL MY 'entire life', TO you, is ONLY six years.

AND, you do NOT appear to even KNOW and COMPREHEND what is involved IN 'talking'.

He compensates by being a pathological liar,

you ONLY CLAIM 'this', but you have NEVER SHOWN WHERE I have, SUPPOSEDLY, 'lied', let alone EVER even coming CLOSE to PROVING 'this'

by insulting people,

If i have probably NEVER talked to ANY one, in my ENTIRE life, then HOW, EXACTLY, could I have 'insulted' ANY person?

ALSO, this is ANOTHER CLAIM of YOURS where you have NEVER EVER SHOWN ONCE that I have EVER done such a thing as 'this'.

AND you NEVER WILL because you NEVER COULD.

and by channeling the God he invented,

SO, to 'you', 'I' INVENTED the 'Thing', which created Everything.

Now, what would that MAKE 'Me'?

maybe he even hears God talking in his head.

Is that the God 'I' invented, the One 'you' INVENTED and/or ARE IMAGINING, the One that created Everything, or one of the OTHER Ones, which 'you', adult human beings, keep going on about?

Pretending to know all the answers,

NO 'pretence' here. AND, NOT even such claim EVER made, well NOT by 'me' anyway.

but of course he hasn't provided any proof for any major claim he ever said.

I ONLY DO, WHEN ASKED, and you have NEVER ASKED. This is BECAUSE you ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE otherwise. Thus, what 'you' ARE ACTUALLY DOING and SHOWING here "atla" IS PROVING one of my so-called 'major' CLAIMS, which I have SAID here, IRREFUTABLY True.

He's dumb as a rock.

Is this one of those 'insults', which 'you' CLAIM 'I' DO?

So yeah of course he's posing as better than others.

LOL This would be one of the WORST ATTEMPTS at 'TRYING TO' FORMULATE a so-called 'argument' ever PRODUCED here.

'God', from the definitions and descriptions that I have provided here, IS VERY REAL.

'you' do NOT like this Fact, and, you do NOT BELIEVE this Fact, but because you can NOT refute this Fact, you have absolutely NOTHING left but to just talk ABOUT 'me' AGAIN, INSTEAD.

Again you completely failed to even remotely grasp what was actually said. Why you expect others to spend years teaching you how to talk human, is a mistery. You think we have all that free time? You think we'll do it for free? You think we're actually interested in doing that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is God something more than a product of the human mind?

If so, then what is "God"?

If not, then is it really "God"?

Define Reality

I'm using the term 'real' as the opposite of 'imagined'. For example, I take it that a horse is (or can be 'real') but a unicorn is not 'real'. The next question is, 'can' a unicorn be real? I don't know the answer to that but if we say the same of 'God' (can be real) then what does that mean? Does that mean God was not real but now is real? Does it mean that God is sometimes 'real' and sometimes not 'real'?

What can be imagined essentially is not an opposite to what is real.
What can be imagined is not currently real but possible to be real subject to evidence.
What can be imagined can be imaged, is empirical and can be hypothesized.
So it is a matter of bringing the empirical evidence to confirm the possible as real within a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

God is merely a thought without any empirical elements, thus is merely an 'idea' that is empty, i.e. a thing-in-itself, an intelligible object.
An intelligible object by definition cannot be real because it can never be sensed empirically to be verified and justified empirically.

The intelligible God is something like the idea of a square-circle which can be thought but never be real.
God being an intelligible object of thought is a non-starter for any consideration of real-ness.

Therefore God cannot be real,
As argued, it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Nevertheless the idea of God when reified is a very necessary and critical illusion for psychological sake to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.
God is a very useful illusion. Humans rely on illusions for many other useful psychological purposes.
For the Abrahamic, the illusory God has salvific values.

[Agent Smith]

It's not unless it's necessary and then it's not! How now, ye picks frem the rabble, this conundrum?!

[Gary Childress]

Define Reality

I'm using the term 'real' as the opposite of 'imagined'. For example, I take it that a horse is (or can be 'real') but a unicorn is not 'real'. The next question is, 'can' a unicorn be real? I don't know the answer to that but if we say the same of 'God' (can be real) then what does that mean? Does that mean God was not real but now is real? Does it mean that God is sometimes 'real' and sometimes not 'real'?

What can be imagined essentially is not an opposite to what is real.
What can be imagined is not currently real but possible to be real subject to evidence.
What can be imagined can be imaged, is empirical and can be hypothesized.
So it is a matter of bringing the empirical evidence to confirm the possible as real within a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

God is merely a thought without any empirical elements, thus is merely an 'idea' that is empty, i.e. a thing-in-itself, an intelligible object.
An intelligible object by definition cannot be real because it can never be sensed empirically to be verified and justified empirically.

The intelligible God is something like the idea of a square-circle which can be thought but never be real.
God being an intelligible object of thought is a non-starter for any consideration of real-ness.

Therefore God cannot be real,
As argued, it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Nevertheless the idea of God when reified is a very necessary and critical illusion for psychological sake to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.
God is a very useful illusion. Humans rely on illusions for many other useful psychological purposes.
For the Abrahamic, the illusory God has salvific values.

Some may brave what is real and some may brave what is an illusion. But I brave what is nothing. And nothing is a difficult thing to be brave when faced with.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm using the term 'real' as the opposite of 'imagined'. For example, I take it that a horse is (or can be 'real') but a unicorn is not 'real'. The next question is, 'can' a unicorn be real? I don't know the answer to that but if we say the same of 'God' (can be real) then what does that mean? Does that mean God was not real but now is real? Does it mean that God is sometimes 'real' and sometimes not 'real'?

What can be imagined essentially is not an opposite to what is real.
What can be imagined is not currently real but possible to be real subject to evidence.
What can be imagined can be imaged, is empirical and can be hypothesized.
So it is a matter of bringing the empirical evidence to confirm the possible as real within a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

God is merely a thought without any empirical elements, thus is merely an 'idea' that is empty, i.e. a thing-in-itself, an intelligible object.
An intelligible object by definition cannot be real because it can never be sensed empirically to be verified and justified empirically.

The intelligible God is something like the idea of a square-circle which can be thought but never be real.
God being an intelligible object of thought is a non-starter for any consideration of real-ness.

Therefore God cannot be real,
As argued, it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Nevertheless the idea of God when reified is a very necessary and critical illusion for psychological sake to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.
God is a very useful illusion. Humans rely on illusions for many other useful psychological purposes.
For the Abrahamic, the illusory God has salvific values.

Some may brave what is real and some may brave what is an illusion. But I brave nothing. And nothing is a difficult thing to be brave when faced with.

One must 'brave' whatever [real, illusion or nothing] is optimal within existing conditions to optimize one's well-being and that of the group and therefrom humanity.

[Gary Childress]

What can be imagined essentially is not an opposite to what is real.
What can be imagined is not currently real but possible to be real subject to evidence.
What can be imagined can be imaged, is empirical and can be hypothesized.
So it is a matter of bringing the empirical evidence to confirm the possible as real within a human-based FSK of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

God is merely a thought without any empirical elements, thus is merely an 'idea' that is empty, i.e. a thing-in-itself, an intelligible object.
An intelligible object by definition cannot be real because it can never be sensed empirically to be verified and justified empirically.

The intelligible God is something like the idea of a square-circle which can be thought but never be real.
God being an intelligible object of thought is a non-starter for any consideration of real-ness.

Therefore God cannot be real,
As argued, it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Nevertheless the idea of God when reified is a very necessary and critical illusion for psychological sake to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.
God is a very useful illusion. Humans rely on illusions for many other useful psychological purposes.
For the Abrahamic, the illusory God has salvific values.

Some may brave what is real and some may brave what is an illusion. But I brave nothing. And nothing is a difficult thing to be brave when faced with.

One must 'brave' whatever [real, illusion or nothing] is optimal within existing conditions to optimize one's well-being and that of the group and therefrom humanity.

Yes. I agree.

[bahman]

Is God something more than a product of the human mind?

No. We are the product of God's mind.

If so, then what is "God"?

If not, then is it really "God"?

The creator.

[Gary Childress]

Is God something more than a product of the human mind?

No. We are the product of God's mind.

Meh. As far as I know, I'm the product of my mother and father.

If so, then what is "God"?

The creator.

As far as I know, I was "created" by my mother and father.


¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[bahman]

Is God something more than a product of the human mind?

No. We are the product of God's mind.

Meh. As far as I know, I'm the product of my mother and father.

If so, then what is "God"?

The creator.

As far as I know, I was "created" by my mother and father.


¯\_(*_*)_/¯

By the creator, I mean the creator of whatever existed at the beginning.

[Gary Childress]

No. We are the product of God's mind.

Meh. As far as I know, I'm the product of my mother and father.

The creator.

As far as I know, I was "created" by my mother and father.


¯\_(*_*)_/¯

By the creator, I mean the creator of whatever existed at the beginning.

OK. Thank you for the clarification.

[Dontaskme]

By the creator, I mean the creator of whatever existed at the beginning.

The 'whatever' question can only refer to an uncertain specification. That's all 'God' questions can do. They can only speculate, never KNOW. Such questions answer nothing.
The questions that answer nothing, are absolutely unknowable. And since all questions regarding the beginnings or endings of existence, can only arise to whom there appears to be a sense of separation, this sense of separateness is illusory, therefore such questions are unanswerable, simply because no such separation exists in existence whatsoever...whatever exists, is unknowing, and that's all that can be known.


.