can God exist in imagination?

[blü 2]

What does that mean @blü 2 ? I believe I gave an account on post 67 that might be took in consideration.

Describe a real God to me.

Tell me what real entity I'm looking for.

Give me sufficient descriptive information to determine whether any real suspect is God or not.

 

[MatthewA]

That comes by faith. I believe though that the real God would be the one who created humankind; and I believe that is only found in the account of Genesis that depicts God creating mankind. I refuse to sit here and debate with you. And you have the right to not accept this information and reject it. It is fine by me. Going to take a shower here and either go read or watch some tv. You all have a good rest of your morning/afternoon/evening.

 

[Link]

God has a size? How big is God? Can you put some numbers on it?

Everything in imagination is a possible existence, there sheer size won't make them come to this reality. God's reality is so big not only does he cover all possible life and existence, he covers this one too, hence you can see exists and has to do and is impossible not to.

 

[Link]

For God to be real, God must exist as an entity in reality, which is to say, in nature.

The question here if God is real, are we looking at the real thing when we recall it. I'm proposing we are and it can't be otherwise, because it's the necessary being.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe that the God of Israel is real.

Can you make up in your own imagination of what God is, looks like, and what not? Sure of course you can.

However the God of Israel can be found in the bible; and the account of what God is ; is also found there, so people can know the truth about what God looks like.

According to the bible God is love, a consuming fire, and spirit.

I do not believe we can see spiritual things with our physical eyes. It takes faith to believe, that the living God is real and true.

Here are many scriptures from the bible about the God of Israel if anyone here is interested in looking.

Living God - Thompson Chain Reference -
God - Thompson Chain Reference -

Can isrealites imagine their god just as we could today?

What would make them different if god was not real (real?) but a figment of our imagination?

 

[Link]

Why would those be the only two options?

Because of God being necessary and ontological argument being a sound argument.

 

[Valjean]

If God is real, unlike other things, he cannot be imagined to exist but only seen to exist. That it is impossible to imagine him as possibly not existing if God is real.

Imagine: to create a picture in your mind.

Anything can be imagined. I can dream of unicorns, leprechauns, or the flying spaghetti monster. Are they real? Yes-- they are real in my dreams; in 2nd-state consciousness. They are subjectively real.

Are they objectively or metaphysically real? -- No, but they can be subjectively "real" to the imaginer.

I can imagine myself existing or not existing, but God if real, cannot be imagined not to exist if he is real.

How can one imagine himself existing or not existing without being an extant imaginer? A non existent entity cannot imagine itself. "Cogito ergo sum."

God if he exists, would a be a proof of himself existing, because he would be the necessary being.

No, a thing is "proved" when there is tangible evidence of it. A thing may exist, but till there is empirical evidence, it can't be accepted as objectively real.

We cannot see God as impossible, in my view, which means he definitely exists and is the Necessary being and we are looking at the Living One.

This doesn't follow, logically. It's backwards and circular sleight-of-hand.

 

[blü 2]

The question here if God is real, are we looking at the real thing when we recall it. I'm proposing we are and it can't be otherwise, because it's the necessary being.

I'm not in a position to recall it as a real thing, never having encountered it as a real thing.

As for Anselm, it seems to me that the word 'greatest' in this context is incoherent since it leaves unanswered the question, The greatest what, exactly? What is the test, in other words, that will tell us which candidate, if any, is in fact the 'greatest'? Best looks? Tallest? Best weightlifter? What?

Grateful for your clarification.

 

[Link]

I'm not in a position to recall it as a real thing, never having encountered it as a real thing.

As for Anselm, it seems to me that the word 'greatest' in this context is incoherent since it leaves unanswered the question, The greatest what, exactly? What is the test, in other words, that will tell us which candidate, if any, is in fact the 'greatest'? Best looks? Tallest? Best weightlifter? What?

Grateful for your clarification.

You would have to accept objective greatness or that greatness can be objectively measured for ontological argument of Anselm to work. And he is right, a being that is not seen as necessary is less great then a being that is necessary. The Necessary being and greatest are synonymous, and proven to exist when we recall it being necessary.

 

[Link]

Imagine: to create a picture in your mind.

Anything can be imagined. I can dream of unicorns, leprechauns, or the flying spaghetti monster. Are they real? Yes-- they are real in my dreams; in 2nd-state consciousness. They are subjectively real.

Are they objectively or metaphysically real? -- No, but they can be subjectively "real" to the imaginer.
How can one imagine himself existing or not existing without being an extant imaginer? A non existent entity cannot imagine itself. "Cogito ergo sum."
No, a thing is "proved" when there is tangible evidence of it. A thing may exist, but till there is empirical evidence, it can't be accepted as objectively real.
This doesn't follow, logically. It's backwards and circular sleight-of-hand.

It happens everything can exist in imagination except God who can only be seen to exist by virtue of his sheer size that proves he is the necessary being.

 

[Clara Tea]

An animal is a soul with animal body. A rabbit a soul with a rabbit body.

An Angel is a soul with light/smokeless fire body.

A human is a soul with a human body.

I hope you understand this time.

Someone once asked if their beloved dog would go to heaven. After research, came to the conclusion that the bible said that dogs were filthy and would not ascend to heaven. I wonder if animals have souls or if souls are only put into humans. Why just humans? Because the human body has a huge brain, one that is capable of doing the things that a soul wants to do.

We are given freedom of choice to allow a good soul to do good and to allow a bad soul to do bad. Bad souls are then sent to hell, while good souls go back to join God in heaven.

A dog's brain might be too small to accommodate the needs for a soul.

A Kia Soul might go to heaven (it would give us something to drive around in once we get to heaven).

 

[Link]

Someone once asked if their beloved dog would go to heaven. After research, came to the conclusion that the bible said that dogs were filthy and would not ascend to heaven. I wonder if animals have souls or if souls are only put into humans. Why just humans? Because the human body has a huge brain, one that is capable of doing the things that a soul wants to do.

We are given freedom of choice to allow a good soul to do good and to allow a bad soul to do bad. Bad souls are then sent to hell, while good souls go back to join God in heaven.

A dog's brain might be too small to accommodate the needs for a soul.

A Kia Soul might go to heaven (it would give us something to drive around in once we get to heaven).

I believe even atoms let alone animals choose between good and evil, but what they are choosing is between submitting to the holy spirit or the devil and there is between levels too like humans.

 

[Link]

@blü 2 if greatness being objective bothers you, just think of sheer size life wise, that would prove it having to be necessary. So perfection (in case of Descartes) and greatness (Anselm) are not the only way to conclude he is necessary, thinking of all possible life and the sheer size of God's life and that proves he is necessary as well.

 

[Clara Tea]

Yeah I know, and I have no photos, sorry.

God might be invisible. If so, I could post some blank paper on my refrigerator as proof.

 

[Valjean]

The question here if God is real, are we looking at the real thing when we recall it. I'm proposing we are and it can't be otherwise, because it's the necessary being.

So God -- or unicorns -- are subjectively real to the imaginer, but only to the imaginer. Where is the evidence of an objective reality?

Because of God being necessary and ontological argument being a sound argument.

Why is God a necessary being?

Arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity have been around for thousands of years, but in the past couple of hundred years we've begun discovering observable, testable evidence supporting a natural, unguided explanation of the phenomena previously attributed to God/s. "Goddidit" is no longer a tenable "explanation" for most of the things previously attributed to God.

Is there any real, measurable, testable, predictive, reproducible empirical evidence of God?

 

[Clara Tea]

Are you suggesting ways to objectively demonstrate God?

He suggested using math to prove God. Math didn't seem to apply to the problem, in your opinion. That made me think of the infinite nature of God and the various ways that the field of mathematics deals with the infinite. Infinity is difficult for the human mind to grasp. Counterintuitive conclusions about infinity that are found in mathematics might help resolve some of the issues that we have about God.

What we think is the answer, sometimes isn't the answer, and sometimes math proves that. This leaves open the question of the existence of God.

 

[Link]

So God -- or unicorns -- are subjectively real to the imaginer, but only to the imaginer. Where is the evidence of an objective reality?
Why is God a necessary being?

Arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity have been around for thousands of years, but in the past couple of hundred years we've begun discovering observable, testable evidence supporting a natural, unguided explanation of the phenomena previously attributed to God/s. "Goddidit" is no longer a tenable "explanation" for most of the things previously attributed to God.

Is there any real, measurable, testable, predictive, reproducible empirical evidence of God?

God can't be compared to unicorns, unicorns don't cover all existence nor are the greatest nor are sheer perfection, so none of them are candidates for being necessary. God being necessary means he exists and can only be seen to exist and it's impossible to imagine him otherwise.

 

[Link]

Why is God a necessary being?

In terms of greatness, it's more great to be that.
In terms of perfection, it's a perfection.
In terms of sheer size, it's that big.

 

[Link]

He suggested using math to prove God. Math didn't seem to apply to the problem, in your opinion. That made me think of the infinite nature of God and the various ways that the field of mathematics deals with the infinite. Infinity is difficult for the human mind to grasp. Counterintuitive conclusions about infinity that are found in mathematics might help resolve some of the issues that we have about God.

What we think is the answer, sometimes isn't the answer, and sometimes math proves that. This leaves open the question of the existence of God.

Set theory. God is the absolute in terms of positive qualities and existence. There is no set of life of positives including this one, which won't be included in him. Since our reality life can't be divorced from God's, it's proven he exists (his sheer size comes to this one too).

 

[Clara Tea]

So God -- or unicorns -- are subjectively real to the imaginer, but only to the imaginer. Where is the evidence of an objective reality?
Why is God a necessary being?

Arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity have been around for thousands of years, but in the past couple of hundred years we've begun discovering observable, testable evidence supporting a natural, unguided explanation of the phenomena previously attributed to God/s. "Goddidit" is no longer a tenable "explanation" for most of the things previously attributed to God.

Is there any real, measurable, testable, predictive, reproducible empirical evidence of God?

Writhing on the floor and talking in tongues (ljsldfjlsdk) to God, and getting a response from God. There, if that doesn't prove it, what does?

I can also provide an argument from my ignorance, if you want.

If I get elected leader of the universe it is because I am a person of principles. And, if you don't want to vote for me, I could change to different principles if you want.