I said it proves you are imagining it. If you cannot distinguish your god from an imaginary god then you must be imagining it.
How does it show it?
Whether you allege I or people in general are imagining God, my criticism still stands. If I'm unable to distinguish Barack Obama from my imagination to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean I'm imagining Barack Obama. It simply means that I currently have not met whatever subjective standards you've set forth as your goalpost for being personally satisfied.
Saying your god is an immaterial nonentity defines it out of existence, which again shows you must be imagining it.
How does it show it?
I suppose that you could somehow show that at least one of "material" or "entity" are necessary for existence, but I'll leave the logistics of that up to you.
As jdawg70 warned, Mooby retreats into solipsism.
No, I am not a solipsist.
In making those statements, Mooby, you are admitting you do not have and cannot provide a single fact about your god. Without a single fact to support your god’s existence, you must necessarily be imagining it.
Allow me to generalize your quote to more accurately reflect my world view:
In making those statements, Mooby, you are admitting you do not have and cannot provide a single fact
about your god. Without a single fact to support your god’s existence, you must necessarily be imagining it.
No, whether I have or can provide a fact to you in this post, whether about God or existence in general, has no bearing on whether I am imagining God or existence in general.
And, of course, it goes without saying that, yet again, you’ve evaded my question, “Is your god real or imaginary?”
No I haven't. I've answered it numerous times. But let me spell it out in bold for you so I can quote it next time you claim this:I am an agostic theist. I don't know; I believe so.
Examples of trend spotting that may or may not work:[. . .]
Part of looking at a trend is to first determine whether there's one there or not, whether the trend is short-term, long-term, cyclical, etc., and whether there's any obvious influencing factors or other similar things.
#1 and #4 are likely areas of no trend, while #2 has been cyclic for the last few 100k years. Facebook's trend should be compared to other Internet sites and fads, and is likely better understood as part of the larger trend of how the Internet has changed since its inception and where it's heading. The jury's still out on multiverse theory, maybe in a few thousand years we'll have a better perspective of where it fits into everything.
God appears to speak to us through liars, because no honest people appear to be in contact with him.
Where are you getting this information?
Say I'm a God who creates a multiverse; the expression of everything that can possibly be. I must be powerful, because I dunnit. If I don't intervene in one universe, then it means that nothing is supernatural in that universe. Or, to put it another way, God is nothing to that universe.
So you're saying if Yougod stays entirely outside a universe, then Yougod is effectively nothing as far as that universe is concerned. Well ok, but how does that prevent Yougod from being omnimax? After all, couldn't Yougod still affect the universe if you wanted?
All you’ve done is tell us what your god isn’t and what can’t be used to investigate it. You haven’t told us what it actually is and what can be used to investigate it.
Incorrect. Off the top of my head, I've named the following characteristics:
- Source of all being
In addition, I've equated God to the Being of Western metaphysics. In particular I see a lot of similarities to The One of the Neoplatonists, though I don't consider Neoplatonism a perfect analogue for my religious views.
But hey, why read my posts when you can just claim I haven't given any positive characteristics at all?
You’ve said you don’t believe your god is an entity, which means you don’t think it has a separate and independent existence.
No, I don't agree with the second part. I do think that God has His own existence.
You’ve said you don’t believe your god is a phenomenon, which means it cannot be observed or known through the senses. If your god isn’t a phenomenon then what is it? If your god cannot be observed or known through the senses then how do you experience it?
I don't think God can be observed through the senses on demand
. I think God has the ability to make himself available to senses, and in that way can
be experienced through senses. I said this back in Reply #55.
I mentioned taking an axiomatic approach to knowledge of God in Replies #68 and 84.
You complain that my request for a factual description of your god eliminates any deity that is not a material god, which implies that your god is not a material god. Is your god material or immaterial?
That's like asking whether the set of real numbers belongs to the set of rational numbers or irrational numbers. The answer is neither, because the set of real numbers is a higher set than the set of rational or irrational numbers.
Similarly, God is ontologically prior (comes before) material and immaterial. And this isn't just me talking; it's a core tenet of Christianity, as seen in the Nicene Creed: I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.