Meh.



More meaningless nonsense.

Sigh. Same shenanigans, different day...



By YOUR own requirements of what being "real" means, God is not.

It's no skin off my nose if your account of the way things are in self-contradictory and incoherent. I just think it ought be brought to light, so another unwitting reader doesn't fall for it.



Call it my contribution to saving the world.

Then there is the notion of mistranslations, errors, etc, that Pan has brought into consideration concerning the Bible being both fake in one sense and real in another. I'm sure that that is grounding the notion that what the Bible says about God is not true - according to Pan. S/he, I suspect, has another notion in mind regarding what "God" is based upon some other translation of the Pentateuch, I presume.

Here's the problem with God-talk(much of the following is borrowed from another whose critical skill I admire).

God-talk is completely arbitrary and self-serving. The fact is that this word "God" suffers from an over-abundance of meaning and connotation with respect to the source which originally introduces it (i.e. the Bible), and a poverty of meaning upon logical analysis. In other words, the term "God" can pretty much mean everything and anything (quite literally), or nothing at all. And this is precisely how it has been and is used.

The above holds good, because as I've already stated there is no possible distinction to be drawn between a belief in God and God.

Indeed. What I've been trying to get at is that there are significantly different outcomes depending upon how one is using/defining "real".

I find that the real/imagined distinction quite simply loses it's forcefulness if we set out all of the other things that must be included in the imagined category. I mean, the reasoning that we've put to use in order to answer the question itself is in that category.

Another common criterion for "real" relies upon physical existence. Again, there are problems with that resulting from all of the things that are clearly not physical but obviously exist. This conception sometimes requires that in order to be real either the thing in question has physical existence or it's effects/affect do.

God certainly qualifies for being "real" in that sense of being real.

This is also a very useful way to think about it. I mean, we can quantify those effects/affects. We can then assess whether or not those effects/affects have helped to create a better world to live in or not.

Oh my, to the lengths one will go in order to hold on to their delusions of granduer.

Sigh.

I mean, what was the purpose for all that work you put into italicizing and bolding and separating things because of the terminological difference between "not real" and "fake"? Such zeal for something so so insignificant. In the given context, they are both opposed to "real".

God cannot be both real and not or real and fake. The Bible is real for the reasons you've given(being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence). God is not - for the exact same reasons.

A dime to a dollar says no criterion will be forthcoming.

Well Pan, based upon our past exhanges, I know how confused your notion of honesty is, but that is not the focus. I did read what you wrote. You wrote that the Bible was not real. Funny enough, you also have a very long history of quoting from this Bible that's not real as a means to support your thought/belief about God. All that is beside the point though. You, evidently, are not satisfied with my comments regarding what you've wrote.


You did write "truth just is... I can't change it, you can't change it, all we can do is "perceive" it."
You did write "God is real the Bible is fake"


Interestingly enough, you've still not provided an answer to the question "Is God real" along with an explanation of that answer. The only answer is either affirmative or negative, and that answer can only be explained by what you think it takes for something to be real(or "fake" in your account). You've answered in the affirmative, and oddly enough answered in the negative for the Bible by saying it is fake(not real).

The oddity arises because the Bible - without a doubt - can be touched, seen, heard, smelled, tasted, pointed at, exchanged between hands, read, argued about and all sorts of things like this. In short the Bible can be perceived by our physiological sensory apparati. The existence thereof is falsifiable and verifiable. These sorts of considerations lead to concluding that the Bible is most certainly real, in a very meaningful sense of the term "real".

These criterion for being called "real" do not apply to God though, but you've called God "real" and the Bible "fake"? That doesn't make much sense at all.

Perhaps you can explain yourself?

What is the criterion by which you compare/contrast different things so that some qualify as being real and other as being fake?

The real/imagined distinction points to whether or not something exists independently of our minds(or not). Not all imagining has equal ground though. Some is based in/on things that exist regardless of whether or not we think/believe or know about them. A unicorn fits here. It is a creature that exists only in the imaginary realm, but it is blend(an idea) based upon knowledge of horses and horned creatures. So, at least part of the basis of the unicorn exists independently of our minds, whereas unicorns do not. We can clearly see, hear, touch, smell, and taste(if you're wierd I suppose) horses and horned animals. These creatures are quite literally sensible. They are real. Unicorns are not, they are imagined.

What of God?

If this distinction is used to answer the question then it seems clear that God fits into the imagined side. However, so too does many other things such as thought/belief, knowledge, ideas, and reason. Oddly enough, we must use those things to answer the question itself. So, it seems to me that even if we conclude that God is not real but imagined based upon this, that conclusion alone does not relegate God into uselessness.

That is just one example of a real/not real distinction being applied to the question at hand, but there are many other meaningful distinctions that could also be applied.

Oh but I have, and that has already been addressed without subsequent refutation and/or attention by your good self. What you haven't said is more telling...

You haven't said what it takes/means to be real, which entails what being not real takes/means.

Here's the problem, as I see it...

The question is always ambiguous, and in many cases utterly meaningless. Prior to being able to have a meaningful answer, the question's content must be given meaning. This could be easily clarified by answering a few questions.

1. What is God? or perhaps What does "God" mean to you(the reader)?

When I see the word "God", I usually presume that we're talking about the God of Abraham; the one being described throughout the Bible. Other words apply others. Easy enough.

2. What does "real" mean?

This is the obvious sticking point. In order to meaningfully say whether or not God is real, we must first have an idea of what it takes for something, anything, to be real. So, it becomes clear that answering the question hinges upon whether or not God meets the criterion for being real.

What does it take for something to be real(or not)?

And you also said that the Bible is NOT real but God is.



So, if truth just is and God is then truth is God.



Yet there's a problem if I "dictate" what "truth" means when I use it?

I'm practically begging one of you kind folk who've invoked the term to kindly define it. You said "truth just is."

You figure truth has nothing to do with whether or not God is real?

I am asking you to justify and/or explain your claims about Truth. I am asking you to tie that into the question at hand. Seeking answers and seeking true answers are not the same thing. I agree that that there is a difference between truth and reality. How that difference is accounted for will affect how the OP's question is approached and/or answered.



What we are currently talking about is not at all off topic. I am asking you what you mean by the things you've already said. Unfortunately, straight answers are not forthcoming.

If you wish to discontinue this discussion without explaining yourself and/or directly addressing what I've said, then what was the point in saying anything at all? I mean, if another asks for clarification, then that should be forthcoming - to certain degree at least. All justification and/or explanation comes to an end somewhere. However, your explanation has yet to have begun.

I also question how truth can and/or cannot be "knowable".

It seems to me that by "truth" you mean reality; the way things are; or something to that effect/affect.

I think that reality is knowable, at least in large part. If by that I mean that we can form and hold true thought/belief about it. Whether or not we can know that our thought/belief is true all depends upon what the content is. For instance...

If I were to say "The capital of the US is Washington DC.", I can know that that is true because the capital is determined by humans. I can know that "2+2=4" for much the same reason. We named this quantity "2" and that quantity "4", and we can see for ourselves that when we combine(add) two sets of two we have one set of four.

On the other hand, we may never know whether or not there were twelve folk living in the area now called "Washington DC" during the year 239 BC. So, if by "truth" we mean fact/reality, then it is quite clear that some aspects of reality are unknowable.

I see. I suppose I'm wondering what I said to provoke this kind of response? I mean, I most certainly do hold that truth requires thought/belief to exist, as it is a property thereof(or not) and is presupposed within thought/belief formation. That is remarkably different than claiming that truth is only relevant to each person, or that truth is equal to thought/belief.

Truth(capitalized for grammatical reasons only) is correspondence to fact/reality.

That which corresponds is true, that which does not is not. That which is believed to correspond to fact/reality is called "true". So, to apply this to the discussion at hand...

What would make any answer to the question set ou in the OP true?

I say that any answer to that question is true if, and only if, it corresponds to fact/reality. What say you?

You're lost. Making up stuff doesn't make it so.





See above.

I am asking you to explain what you mean by "truth" and/or "the truth". What words could we replace "truth" and "the truth" with without losing any meaning?



Since you raised the notion of Truth, it is only reasonable to explain what you mean, and perhaps what that has to do with the OP's question. Right?

Whatever makes ya feel better.





I AM talking to you this time Pan!

I was not talking to you.

There are still several points that were already raised which you have yet to have given due attention.