Can one imagine what doesn't exist?

[shnarkle]

Just how does one look at nothing?

There is a claim that all gods are imaginary, and it is nothing more than a baseless claim. It is basically a contradiction due to the fact that the product of one's imagination is nothing more than an idea or a concept. Ideas or concepts are not gods.

The fact that gods don't exist should be more than enough proof that they can't be imagined. How do we know this? Because what you are imagining is literally nothing more than an idea, and it isn't even an idea of God, but what you are claiming to be God. To claim that an idea is a god is to redefine the meaning of the word "idea".

Furthermore, not only is there no proof for God's existence, there quite simply can't be. This is especially true when it comes to the biblical God, who despite the protestations of the faithful and the skeptic alike; can't be imagined.

To claim that God can be imagined is to claim God exists, even if as nothing more than an idea. Again, ideas are not gods; they're ideas.

The authors have simply pointed out a fundamental, and quite self evident fact, which is that worshipping the product of one's imagination makes whoever is imagining it, an idolater, and idolaters don't worship or believe in God, but in these imagined ideas. It stands to reason that one doesn't have to be a so-called "believer" to be an idolater.

Even asking for proof of God's existence necessarily renders those making this request idolaters due to the fact that they have some criteria upon which to base their ideas. In other words, they have their own ideas of what passes for a god. By definition, this renders them just as much a theist as the theist, except for the fact that they're both idolaters. So while many an idolater may believe they're actually a theist, the atheist is just as much an idolater for the exact same reason.

No atheist who comprehends what it truly means to be an atheist would ever ask for proof for the existence of God. The only thing more incoherent and contradictory than a Christian who believes in the existence of God is someone claiming to be an atheist who asks for proof of what simply can't exist in the first place.

God is not a "what" or a "thing". God is not anything, and to ask for proof that nothing exists is pointless. By definition, nothing doesn't exist.

How often does one need to be reminded that nothing doesn't exist? How often do atheists seem compelled to point out that the only gods that do exist are imaginary, and why are they unable to see that even those gods don't exist?

More importantly, why are they unable to see the double standard they've set between their ideas, and those of other theistic denominations?

To point out that you don't believe in God is to spotlight that you don't believe in some idea. It doesn't prove you don't believe in God at all due to the fact that you have some idea which you associate with this term "God", and you don't believe in that idea. So what? Hindus have 330 million deities. Do you believe each and every one of those ideas don't exist as well? Of course not. We all know these ideas exist as well as the fact that these ideas are not gods.

The fact is that these ideas do exist, and many of them exist in the atheist's mind which only goes to show they don't believe in some ideas,i.e. those ideas that they believe are gods. They can't help conflate these ideas with gods which is exactly the same thing theists do. The theist believes in their idea as if it were a god while the atheist doesn't believe in this idea, yet still insists that this idea is actually an imaginary god. It isn't. It's an idea, a concept.

As crazy as it is for atheists, skeptics, and agnostics to ask for proof of God's existence, it is just as bewildering to hear their refrain that there is no proof for God's existence. To point out that there is no proof isn't just redundant, it's idiotic. One needs to point out that God CAN'T exist.

Again, by definition; whatever exists can't be God. The theist and the atheist alike must seek to recognize this logical fact. When they do, they will immediately see that these labels are also just as pointless.

The concept of God is not a god, imaginary or otherwise; it's a concept.

 

[Windmillcharge]

The fact that gods don't exist should be more than enough proof that they can't be imagined. How do we know this? Because what you are imagining is literally nothing more than an idea, and it isn't even an idea of God, but what you are claiming to be God. To claim that an idea is a god is to redefine the meaning of the word "idea".

So you can prove a negative?

You also make a false assumption.
That the supernatural does not exist.
The 'gods' are there in peoples lives, minds, spirit because the supernatural is very real.

Talk to people who practice other religeons many of them have expeiences that can only be accounted for by the supernatural.

Why do people long for a being, super hero, magical person who can protect?
We know in ourselves that there is more to life than what we experience, none of us expect to die, eternity and a knowledge of 'God' is in all of us.

Why else do atheist take such delight in blasphemy, if there is no God, saying 'Oh God' is as meaning less as saying 'Oh supercalifragalisticexpalidostious!'

 

[shnarkle]

So you can prove a negative?

I don't have to as that isn't the point of my post. Did you even read it? Did you notice that I'm referring to ideas? Ideas exist, don't they? The problem is in not noticing that ideas exist only as ideas. They are real ideas, but that doesn't mean that what you conceive of in your mind has a referent anywhere else in the created world. The rock you imagine in your head doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. This doesn't mean that rocks don't exist. I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that you have no referent for what you imagine. The bible authors point this out as well, and point out that it is idolatry. So far from proving a negative, I'm pointing out that you're an idolater.

You also make a false assumption.
That the supernatural does not exist.

The post has nothing to do with the supernatural. The post is explicitly dealing with "ideas".

I begin this argument with the assumption that gods don't exist, but it really doesn't matter because the point is that regardless of whether one is a theist or an atheist, both have some idea of the definition of "God" which they use to come to their own conclusions of whether God exists or not.

The question gives the atheist the benefit of the doubt. In other words, I'm addressing the atheist on their own terms, and proving how asinine it really is to ask for proof of God in the first place. You can't prove a negative. However, the biblical authors also point out that whatever you do imagine about God isn't God at all; it's idolatry.

 

[Windmillcharge]

Ideas exists as does the supernatural.
How do you differenciate between an idea, like the spagetti monster and the reality of Jesus.

 

[brakelite]

It isn't my idea of God in which I believe. It is the God revealed in scripture. Now while the scripture doesn't set out to 'prove' the existence of God, it does describe the ways in which He dealt with His people, and also described the character of His Son. By this we can know who and what God is like. So the faith we have in God isn't blind, but based on several factors... Revealed history... His promises that we experience the answers to... Fulfilled prophecy... The testimony of others... And His own word. You trying to convince us that God is merely an imaginary dream we cooked up to feel good? You don't know who you are taking to. Wet don't have to prove God any more than I have to prove my mother. We are living the life. A life that cannot be lived without God. That is all the proof we need.

 

[shnarkle]

Ideas exists as does the supernatural.

So what? Where do I deny that ideas exist? Supernatural is essentially just very natural; i.e. super + natural.

How do you differenciate between an idea, like the spagetti monster and the reality of Jesus.

An idea is an idea, while Jesus was a human being. Ideas are not human beings, and human beings are not ideas.

 

[shnarkle]

It isn't my idea of God in which I believe. It is the God revealed in scripture.

And the God revealed in scripture is revealed using words written on paper. Those words are essentially just symbols, each with their own meaning. The only way to comprehend what these words mean is to conceptualize them in your mind. The bible points out that there were "witnesses" who met Jesus. There are those who "testify" that they also met the resurrected Jesus, and their testimony is provided so that you may believe. Believe what? Their testimony?

Their testimony is still just words written on paper. They believe what they saw, but what they saw isn't exactly clear because it is being transmitted via symbols, and symbols are not what they are substituted for. In other words, even if you are completely sure of their meaning, it is still just the meaning of the symbol, and the symbol isn't anything more than the meaning you have associated with it. When it comes to God, there is no referent, and the biblical authors point this out repeatedly just so you don't wander off into the error of idolatry.

Now while the scripture doesn't set out to 'prove' the existence of God, it does describe the ways in which He dealt with His people, and also described the character of His Son.

"God" is a Given, but it is also a Given that this word has numerous meanings, and a number of them indicate the reality, which is that God simply can't exist. For example, "God is "incomparable". What do we have in the world that exists that we can compare to this word "God"? Nothing. We have nothing to compare with God. We can't even compare God to nothing. It's just a concept, and God is not a concept.

By this we can know who and what God is like.

To know what God is like is to make a comparison which is to contradict what the bible expressly points out is impossible. We can only make comparisons with what exists, and our own ideas.

This knowledge is exclusively through the intellect. The biblical authors point out that one must train their mind up in the ways of God, and this is a great idea. One of the benefits of training the mind up in the ways of God is that it gives one a better grasp of reality; one that is not dependent upon using the intellect as a mediator.

This isn't to say we no longer use our intellect; we just don't use it to mediate reality. As Paul, points out the only mediator is Christ. So whatever aspect of reality is grasped apart from the intellect cannot be rationally comprehended. Nor can it be put into words without introducing the error of an additional mediator to reality.

In other words, the word is not what it means, but only a symbol of the meaning associated with it. It is, by definition a substitution, and therefore it cannot be what it is substituted for. This is especially the case with symbols which have no referent in the objective world. In biblical terminology this is the created world. God is not a work of creation, and to objectify God is literally to become an idolater.

So the faith we have in God isn't blind, but based on several factors... Revealed history...

The problem with this analysis is that it fails to take into account that history is not only subjective, but it will never set you free. That takes the truth, and history is anything but true. Ask any police officer or attorney who is prosecuting a case with multiple witnesses who all have different accounts of what happened. Case in point, the biblical authors themselves. We can say it's true, but we're all going to emphasize differing aspects of each account, which results in a significantly different picture of reality. Here again, it's just a reflection of reality, and reflections are not what they reflect.

His promises that we experience the answers to... Fulfilled prophecy... The testimony of others... And His own word. You trying to convince us that God is merely an imaginary dream we cooked up to feel good?

Nope. You're missing my point completely. You haven't begun to even address what I posted. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I have presented a clear and concise argument pointing out that ideas are nothing more than ideas. They're real ideas, and yet the idea I have of my dog is not my dog. I have conceptualized as many aspects of my dog as I possibly can into an abstract construction of my own mind. That idea is NOTHING close to who or what my dog actually is. Mind you, this is an idea that I have a referent for in the objective world.

I have presented an idea to you, but you're not even able to look at what I've presented because of your own ideas which bear absolutely no resemblance to what I've posted. Again, we're now dealing with two sets of ideas which exist as ideas, but which are also mutually exclusive propositions. This leads to literally an incomprehensible level of confusion on your part, and yet you believe you have comprehended what I've posted. Are you seeing the problem yet?

If we add in the biblical fact that there is no referent for God in the created world, the problem is exponentially greater.

You don't know who you are taking to.

Very true! One can never completely know who they are talking to without becoming the known person. This is one of the reasons Paul corrects himself when he states, "we know God, or rather are known of him" We are objectively known, but "God" is synonymous with omniscience, and an "all-knowing" God, BY DEFINITION, cannot be known. It's the difference between the knower and what is known.

Wet don't have to prove God any more than I have to prove my mother.

I agree. I even pointed this out in the OP.

We are living the life. A life that cannot be lived without God. That is all the proof we need.

It isn't proof. It isn't a proof either. It's a Given, but again this isn't saying much of anything. In fact, it's saying nothing exists, which is a contradiction in terms. Nothing doesn't exist, but it is a counterweight to "something", and is necessary for us to convey this idea. Again, it's only an idea.

It is pointless to ask for proof of nothing. It is a Given that nothing can't exist.

 

[Windmillcharge]

So what? Where do I deny that ideas exist? Supernatural is essentially just very natural; i.e. super + natural.


An idea is an idea, while Jesus was a human being. Ideas are not human beings, and human beings are not ideas.

Jesus is more than just a human being, read the gospels to find out.

 

[shnarkle]

Jesus is more than just a human being, read the gospels to find out.

Sadly, this is the claim made by those who have yet to comprehend what they've read themselves. If reading the gospels was all that was necessary, everyone who has bothered to read them would understand and receive the kingdom. Alas, this isn't the case as what they read wasn't mixed with faith.

Yes, Jesus is more than just a human being, and you're not addressing what I actually posted. Did you notice how I not only addressed what you posted, but refuted it? I did that because I believe in the golden rule. I addressed your questions because I would like it if others would address mine. Do you believe in the golden rule? Do you believe that your questions are important? Do you believe that you would appreciate it if your questions were respectfully addressed or would you prefer that they be ignored in the same manner in which you ignored mine?

 

[Windmillcharge]

So what? Where do I deny that ideas exist? Supernatural is essentially just very natural; i.e. super + natural.

The supernatural is anything but natural.
It is what cannot be measured or examined by science.

 

[shnarkle]

The supernatural is anything but natural.
It is what cannot be measured or examined by science.

You're contradicting yourself. I will concede that the supernatural is beyond science, but even that is a contradiction in that we cannot grant existence to nothing. The supernatural is nothing more than a word with a meaning. There is no referent for the supernatural. It is simply a word used to identify what cannot be identified or explained. It isn't even a "what" or a "thing". Even that is our own assumption.

In a nutshell, it only exists as an idea. As I pointed out already, ideas only exist as ideas.

 

[Windmillcharge]

You're contradicting yourself. I will concede that the supernatural is beyond science, but even that is a contradiction in that we cannot grant existence to nothing. The supernatural is nothing more than a word with a meaning. There is no referent for the supernatural. It is simply a word used to identify what cannot be identified or explained. It isn't even a "what" or a "thing". Even that is our own assumption.

In a nutshell, it only exists as an idea. As I pointed out already, ideas only exist as ideas.

Except where it makes its self know by interacting with this universe, as can be seen in Jesus.

 

[shnarkle]

Except where it makes its self know by interacting with this universe, as can be seen in Jesus.

It? know? How does "it" make itself know through interacting with this universe? And how can this be seen in Jesus?