(October 7, 2015 at 6:34 pm)Evie Wrote: Empathy is love.

Shrek is love

(September 17, 2015 at 8:58 am)robvalue Wrote: 1) Both parties in the relationship exist, and are easily distinguishable from being imaginary.
2) Both parties have an independent intelligence.
3) Both parties directly communicate with the other party in a meaningful, observable way.

In this way, I can have personal relationship with any human, any animal that has some way to at least acknowledge my interaction with it, and arguably with an artificial intelligence. It seems to me that if these 3 criteria are not met, it is not a meaningful personal relationship. The only exception I can think of is where one party becomes unable to communicate at some point, such as a friend going into a coma. You could maybe argue that you can continue to have a personal relationship with them, based on your history together, even though they can't directly answer back.

However, it seems to me that most people's personal relationship with God/Jesus/Allah etc. satisfies not even one of these criteria.

i disagree a relationship with God

your right a relationship does have the above qualities , and also a relationship with God absolutely does have the above 3 qualities and if it does not have them then it is not a personal relationship . a relationship is not one sided , although some people may consider simply praying to be the equivalent of a relationship its not.

(October 11, 2015 at 3:51 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(September 17, 2015 at 8:58 am)robvalue Wrote: 1) Both parties in the relationship exist, and are easily distinguishable from being imaginary.
2) Both parties have an independent intelligence.
3) Both parties directly communicate with the other party in a meaningful, observable way.

In this way, I can have personal relationship with any human, any animal that has some way to at least acknowledge my interaction with it, and arguably with an artificial intelligence. It seems to me that if these 3 criteria are not met, it is not a meaningful personal relationship. The only exception I can think of is where one party becomes unable to communicate at some point, such as a friend going into a coma. You could maybe argue that you can continue to have a personal relationship with them, based on your history together, even though they can't directly answer back.

However, it seems to me that most people's personal relationship with God/Jesus/Allah etc. satisfies not even one of these criteria.

i disagree a relationship with God

your right a relationship does have the above qualities , and also a relationship with God absolutely does have the above 3 qualities and if it does not have them then it is not a personal relationship . a relationship is not one sided , although some people may consider simply praying to be the equivalent of a relationship its not.

A relationship with gawd has the above three qualities?  
You have scientific, measurable proof that gawd is not imaginary?  (Not personal experience, not from a book, something measured by machine.)
You have measurable proof of communication from gawd, that was witnessed by impartial observers, who can replay both sides of the conversation?
If you do, share!  And if you do, show the world.  You'll be famous.  You'll be rich.  You'll become a household name.  You'll prove ONE belief system right and all the others wrong.

(October 11, 2015 at 4:43 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(October 11, 2015 at 3:51 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: your right a relationship does have the above qualities , and also a relationship with God absolutely does have the above 3 qualities and if it does not have them then it is not a personal relationship . a relationship is not one sided , although some people may consider simply praying to be the equivalent of a relationship its not.

A relationship with gawd has the above three qualities?  
You have scientific, measurable proof that gawd is not imaginary?  (Not personal experience, not from a book, something measured by machine.)
You have measurable proof of communication from gawd, that was witnessed by impartial observers, who can replay both sides of the conversation?
If you do, share!  And if you do, show the world.  You'll be famous.  You'll be rich.  You'll become a household name.  You'll prove ONE belief system right and all the others wrong.

how can an experience be measured by a machine when no current machine is capable or recording it or detecting it . once upon a time we did not have a machine to detect DNA or microbes or sound waves but although we could not observe these things later as technology advanced it became possible .  im sure if someone did invent such a machine to measure thoughts and communication with God they would be famous and very rich . i dont know if i would be rich i would volunteer to do it for free . although really nothing would convince athiests that God exists i think not even a machine or a scientists stamp of approval they would just think its a hoax .

Hello Jenny

I'm glad you agree, although you missed out the start of my post where I said an independent observer can verify those conditions.

I assume you're saying an independent observer can't verify any of those three in your relationship with God? Or that the technology to do so doesn't yet exist?

And if not, do you think it's reasonable for such an observer to believe you really are having such a relationship?

no its not reasonable for someone who has not themselves experienced communication with God to believe such a thing is possible a person just has to experience it themselves nothing else in my opinion could be convincing . i would not believe had it not happened to me and i dont expect anyone to believe just because i say it happened ,even if their was a way to measure such communication i would be surprised if it convinced anyone .

Fair enough That's a very reasonable answer.

How do you communicate with God? What kind of communication do you receive back? Do you think there is any way at all you could demonstrate to me there's something to it?

For example, I presume God knows what I'm thinking, and I've challenged theists here to tell me what 4 digit number I have in my head. No one has even submitted an answer as far as I'm aware. That should be easy for God, right? He could tell you directly, or describe the number to you using whatever symbolic communication he uses.

(October 11, 2015 at 5:30 pm)robvalue Wrote: Fair enough That's a very reasonable answer.

How do you communicate with God? What kind of communication do you receive back? Do you think there is any way at all you could demonstrate to me there's something to it?

For example, I presume God knows what I'm thinking, and I've challenged theists here to tell me what 4 digit number I have in my head. No one has even submitted an answer as far as I'm aware. That should be easy for God, right? He could tell you directly, or describe the number to you using whatever symbolic communication he uses.

if God communicates to me what numbers you are thinking ill definately let you know , i just communicate with God through thoughts

OK cool You're the first theist not to immediately make an excuse about why they're not answering the question. I get tired of excuses, it's why I give up conversation with many theists.

If you get any communication at all you'd like to share with us, I'd be very interested.

(October 11, 2015 at 5:49 pm)robvalue Wrote: OK cool You're the first theist not to immediately make an excuse about why they're not answering the question. I get tired of excuses, it's why I give up conversation with many theists.

If you get any communication at all you'd like to share with us, I'd be very interested.

yes i will share it with you so you can have a good laugh about it and someday when it happens to you and everyone is laughing at you maybe youll remember me and wont feel so alone