Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2014, 03:32 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 02:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Red is the description... Dodgy

Red is the label (a description) we give to a particular band of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. We can't see microwaves or radiation, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that we do not have evidence supporting their existence. That particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum does exist, and we can demonstrate that and have evidence for it, even if the person in question cannot themselves perceive the phenomena personally. It can still be objectively measured. Same as how we can measure the pressure at the bottom of the ocean without having to stick your hand outside the submarine and checking.

This is also why the questions "is your red the same as my red?" can be sidestepped by simply determining if both people are perceiving the same electromagnetic spectrum; if they are, then they are seeing the same 'color', regardless of however their brain interprets that data or however they choose to label it.

Try again.

Fail. You cannot define and describe red by calling it red to a blind person. Red is perceived
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 03:40 AM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 12:41 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 03:32 AM)fmudd Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 02:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Red is the description... Dodgy

Red is the label (a description) we give to a particular band of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. We can't see microwaves or radiation, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that we do not have evidence supporting their existence. That particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum does exist, and we can demonstrate that and have evidence for it, even if the person in question cannot themselves perceive the phenomena personally. It can still be objectively measured. Same as how we can measure the pressure at the bottom of the ocean without having to stick your hand outside the submarine and checking.

This is also why the questions "is your red the same as my red?" can be sidestepped by simply determining if both people are perceiving the same electromagnetic spectrum; if they are, then they are seeing the same 'color', regardless of however their brain interprets that data or however they choose to label it.

Try again.

Fail. You cannot define and describe red by calling it red to a blind person. Red is perceived

No, you are fucking retarded.

[Image: visible.gif]

That is how you describe Red to a blind person, as the label we use to describe the perception of a particular chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is exactly how we would describe Infrared or Ultraviolet as well (just other pieces of the same continuum), as just two more wavelengths that you cannot perceive either. Stop being purposely obtuse, you're not impressing anyone.

If I had to use a childish analogy, which seems to be what you are pressing for: I'd tell them that sight like touching something at a distance but without actually touching it, and colors are like textures; in that they differentiate things when we look at them, but without there having to actually be a different physical texture. Visible light exists on a continuum between red and violet, a gradient; much like textures can. Have you ever been to a hardware store and seen different grades of grit on sandpaper? They make up another such continuum from a very rough texture to a very fine and almost smooth one, it's the same idea and could be described and demonstrated to a blind person as such. This is also how braille works, by adding a specific pattern of textures to paper that allows those trained in it's use to read without sight. We can see the text while a blind person cannot, however the same information can still be perceived by them; they just use texture instead of colors to differentiate the text from the rest of the page.

[Image: braille-system.jpg]


Sight is what we call how our eyes and brains interpret electric signals, in this case from photons picked up by our eyes as opposed to nerves in our skin as when we touch something. Sight is like sound, only with photons instead of sound waves; and color might be akin to changes in amplitude or frequency.

Is you imagination really this bad? Do you have trouble imagining what echolocation might be like? Is echolocation evidence for your god? Weeping

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
17-02-2014, 05:33 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
Except here are a few problems as to what is written above:

(1). Seems to me like the Blind person has to trust your results as there is NO way for a blind person to test what you have written.

(2). Suppose a Blind person says that you are making all of this up? The Blind person cannot see, so you cannot say they are denying reality.

Are they lying when they say there isn't a color RED?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 05:55 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(17-02-2014 05:33 PM)fmudd Wrote:  Except here are a few problems as to what is written above:

(1). Seems to me like the Blind person has to trust your results as there is NO way for a blind person to test what you have written.

(2). Suppose a Blind person says that you are making all of this up? The Blind person cannot see, so you cannot say they are denying reality.

Are they lying when they say there isn't a color RED?

Oh, so it's our fault because we're blind. We don't believe god exists because we aren't able to "see" him like christians can. We're still blinded by our sin and all that.
Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2014 06:19 PM by fmudd.)
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(17-02-2014 05:55 PM)meremortal Wrote:  Oh, so it's our fault because we're blind. We don't believe god exists because we aren't able to "see" him like christians can. We're still blinded by our sin and all that.
Rolleyes

Not just your fault because you are purposefully blind; it's also that your logic is flawed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(17-02-2014 06:04 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 05:55 PM)meremortal Wrote:  Oh, so it's our fault because we're blind. We don't believe god exists because we aren't able to "see" him like christians can. We're still blinded by our sin and all that.
Rolleyes

Not just your fault because you are purposefully blind; it's also that your logic is flawed.

Just because you don't understand what logic is doesn't make us wrong, it makes you ignorant.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 03:32 AM)fmudd Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 02:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Red is the description... Dodgy

Red is the label (a description) we give to a particular band of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. We can't see microwaves or radiation, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that we do not have evidence supporting their existence. That particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum does exist, and we can demonstrate that and have evidence for it, even if the person in question cannot themselves perceive the phenomena personally. It can still be objectively measured. Same as how we can measure the pressure at the bottom of the ocean without having to stick your hand outside the submarine and checking.

This is also why the questions "is your red the same as my red?" can be sidestepped by simply determining if both people are perceiving the same electromagnetic spectrum; if they are, then they are seeing the same 'color', regardless of however their brain interprets that data or however they choose to label it.

Try again.

Fail. You cannot define and describe red by calling it red to a blind person. Red is perceived

It is not. What YOUR brain has learned to call "red" is a chemical reaction in your eye's nerve receptors and a certain wavelength. Not all people (those who are colorblind) experience that wavelength the same way. Inasmuch as everyone's neurological system is very slightly different, what YOU would call "red" is not exactly what everyone else would call "red". Unfortunately, it's YOU that failed.Tthere is no (absolute) "red" *out there" (somewhere). Red is what (some) humans have agreed to call a similar learned experience.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-02-2014, 11:59 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2014 12:10 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(17-02-2014 05:33 PM)fmudd Wrote:  Except here are a few problems as to what is written above:

(1). Seems to me like the Blind person has to trust your results as there is NO way for a blind person to test what you have written.

(2). Suppose a Blind person says that you are making all of this up? The Blind person cannot see, so you cannot say they are denying reality.

Are they lying when they say there isn't a color RED?


For starters, read what Bucky said.


1. Really? You are that ignorant and unimaginative. See, this is what happens when you assume the conclusion; you fail to see any other possibilities. No way to test? Then how in the fucking hell do people that see, test for radiation if they cannot see it? Radiation must therefor be a worldwide scientific conspiracy because we can't trust them to actually know anything about it because they cannot see it!

The existence of electromagnetic radiation is an objective fact, and can be demonstrated to anyone with sufficient understating and education. 'Red' is merely the label we give to our learned and shared experience of a small spectrum of that electromagnetic radiation. Proving the existence of the 'red' spectrum to the blind is no different than proving the existence of ultraviolet and microwaves to those who can see.



2. The blind person can say whatever they want, but 'belief' and 'facts' are two different things. The blind person can claim we're making it all up, and they would be objectively, factual wrong. They are denying reality, simple as that. A blind person denying the existence of the color red is equivalent to a person with sight denying the existence microwaves or gamma-waves, simply because he lacks the ability to perceive them personally. They do exist, and a person with sight denying their existence would also be objectively wrong about reality.


Sodium Chloride (table salt) has a particular taste, even if some people cannot perceive it. Pressure still exists, even though some humans are born with non-functioning nerve endings and cannot feel pressure. Some are born blind and cannot perceive light, but it still exists. Some people are deaf, but sound waves that vary by amplitude and frequency still exist. A blind person can still feel the heat of the sun or a heat lamp, and a deaf person can feel a thumping bass or a passing train. Our inability to perceive something is not enough to deny it's existence in light of objective evidence that it does exist.


All of your questions stem form complete ignorance of how science knows anything. I strongly suggest you get yourself a real science education and stop asking these inane question before you dig yourself into an even larger hole.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 06:37 AM
Re: RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(13-02-2014 09:59 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 08:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tell your "friend" before you look for something, you have to know what you're looking for.
You oh, pardon me, "your friend" has not defined what a a god is, or what the word means.

Christian Friend: "I'll let you define God."

The flaw of that means ANYTHING can be done by some undefined all power wielding force.

If you actually put structure of defined Gods like YhWh, Zeus, or fsm the basis is clear of what they might do.

But my generic God answer has to be, repeated large area wide wide "messages" or "events" that allude to what he is.

The reason for multiple people, because personal experience completely unreliable and if it's an equal story from many people, it's more reliable. Then of course multiple occurrences so it is testable and notable as something that might not of been a natural occurrence misinformed by those who saw it.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 02:53 AM)fmudd Wrote:  The point is that science demands a label.

I'm saying god is without a label.

Yet when I demand that science provide a criteria for what you say would constitute god you can't.

Are we on with this "red" shit again ? FFS ! Dodgy

You demand science to prove something that doesnt exist, other than in your head, thats fucking special. Drinking Beverage

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes War Horse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: