Maybe you should read what I said instead of misrepresenting my words...

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)?

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.

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.

No, you haven't...

Just read back to my post where you got the Bible bit, make your correction, then slink away. You know how I am about honesty...

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?

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

Maybe God is considered to be something like time. You can't literally point your finger at it. Once you understand the concept, you may come to believe that it is real and that it permeates all reality.
A game of connect-the-dots? Once you believe it, you will see it?



Interesting point. We know Newton's laws aren't always correct, yet they are extremely useful.

Bolded and italicised by me

Italicised above is one of your major flaws which you obviously are either lying about or misunderstand as indicated below.




Here you actually got it right. Kudos for cut-n-paste, eh?




I provided an answer and choose not to divulge my reasons. I don't follow your rules, remember?



You obviously either do undertstand the concept of "real" or you're in denial of the definition or wish to impose your definition (which I will not accept btw) "Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects"
By the mere existentence of being physical the Bible is real. By the mere existence of mistranslations, errors, forgeries, etc. it's fake.



Of course it doesn't make sense, you have a perception flaw which makes you think everyone thinks like you do. The fact that I used both words in a sentense should have clued you into the context. Maybe you just have trouble with literal meanings, I don't know...



Nope, I'm quite happy being a mystery.

Curious though: What's the literal translation of "Are you alone?"???
.

He must be real...i've heard his name mentioned a few times in my boudoir

*blink blink*

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.

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.

God is real. I don't follow your "rules", nor adhere to your "requirements", remember?

You should have just laid out your requirements earlier, you could have saved yourself some fluff for the response to this post...

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.

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.

Just stop it man.
I don't have "requirements" that entail you agreeing with me...

Meh.



More meaningless nonsense.

agree

What was before a big ol' bang near hear that can be measured?

Ask a geeky chemist what's in~ well what we know is absolute vacuum?
sez nothin'~ hmm, wadia mean nothin'?
just nothin'.
Space we see is fulla stuff, vacuum as two cent soapbox holla ta boot.
I so ha...almost said hate. I dislike when some wise cwacker neutrino makes a break on though what I was told was nothin', 'n messes me up.

In darkness as pixelation at high, how does it form shapes? Explode in times of great what have you?

question of real hits me~ last I noted, chronic exposure to God makes one feel good, transcendence being same and for Buddha, etc.

Best pick one for reason of life cuz leaving to chance don't work that well for bi-peddles with a large.
~sorry so long, twas just reminding myself. "smiles"

With so many TANGIBLE things IN this world to believe in, I just can’t wrap my mind around believing in an INTANGIBLE with the hope of reward BEYOND this world.

Just consider this. As a society, if we put as much thought and effort into the salvation of what's here and now, as we do into the mystical beyond, might we not prove our own salvation?