3 ms·

That's all fine as long as you don't make the leap from "my imaginary friend is useful" to "my imaginary friend is real". I would however assert an unnecessary

That's all fine as long as you don't make the leap from "my imaginary friend is useful" to "my imaginary friend is real". I would however assert an unnecessary semantic overloading -- why use a word (God) that has so many assumptions built into it? Invent a new word, and confuse fewer people.

bad_user 16y ago
> That's all fine as long as you don't make the leap from "my imaginary friend is useful" to "my imaginary friend is real". You seem to assume that the later is a bad outcome. Also you can't really have a useful "imaginary friend" if don't believe he's real, or do you? > why use a word (God) that has so many assumptions built into it? Invent a new word, and confuse fewer people. Because God is word with a clearly defined semantic and definition ... the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe All unanswered questions about the Universe or God start with the most important question ... considering the law of Action-Reaction, how did it all started? Which has the nice property that has the answer to all unanswered questions. And if you're going to answer that with "some superior, omnipotent being (whose existence we can't comprehend) did it all", then it's philosophy 101 ... there can't be two unsurpassable beings each of which is God So why have another word with a watered-down meaning for it?
10ren 16y ago
I realize you're speaking generally rather than addressing the comment you're replying to, but I did say "the idea of God".
Gormo 16y ago
Not to get all solipsistic, but we can only validate our ideas against our experience of reality, not objective reality itself. If the imaginary friend is part of your experience of reality, and indeed something that you seek to experience because of its usefulness, what's the significance of the distinction you made above?

bad_user 16y ago

> That's all fine as long as you don't make the leap from "my imaginary friend is useful" to "my imaginary friend is real". You seem to assume that the later is a bad outcome. Also you can't really have a useful "imaginary friend" if don't believe he's real, or do you? > why use a word (God) that has so many assumptions built into it? Invent a new word, and confuse fewer people. Because God is word with a clearly defined semantic and definition ... the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe All unanswered questions about the Universe or God start with the most important question ... considering the law of Action-Reaction, how did it all started? Which has the nice property that has the answer to all unanswered questions. And if you're going to answer that with "some superior, omnipotent being (whose existence we can't comprehend) did it all", then it's philosophy 101 ... there can't be two unsurpassable beings each of which is God So why have another word with a watered-down meaning for it?

10ren 16y ago

I realize you're speaking generally rather than addressing the comment you're replying to, but I did say "the idea of God".

Gormo 16y ago

Not to get all solipsistic, but we can only validate our ideas against our experience of reality, not objective reality itself. If the imaginary friend is part of your experience of reality, and indeed something that you seek to experience because of its usefulness, what's the significance of the distinction you made above?