Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 02:47 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(31-12-2014 01:56 PM)unfogged Wrote:  When the point goes overhead does it really make a "whoosh" sound?

I don't know; is that how it sounds to you?

Cute. Nobody suggested showing the color chart to the blind person. Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you just have no clue.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(15-02-2014 03:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

I originally asked for a description of red for a blind person.

Since then, I have been called names, cursed at, accused of being stupid, childish, obtuse, and given a link to a color chart in no less than six (6) forum posts.

Is this how you describe red to a blind person?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 03:59 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 01:49 PM)fmudd Wrote:  Did you miss me? *sadface*

You can't define or describe the color red to a blind person with a color chart. That is the point being made when I responded to your chart.

Did you know that scientific studies have shown that when people who are formerly blind gain/regain sight the concepts of color/shapes/people they had in their mind while blind are widely different than what they eventually see? It's the same thing when a believer tries to explain God to a nonbeliever.

Showing a color chart to describe color to a blind person makes perfect sense to the sighted.

Fallacy of the false analogy.

Many of us are former believers, former deeply religious people, and in fact deeply involved in some ways (still) with some religious people. So to use the analogy of a "former blind" person" doesn't work. AT ALL, as we KNOW perfectly well, if not more than most, how religious people think of the gods and experience them.

Do try a bit harder next year though. Good luck with that.

Thumbsup

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
31-12-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 03:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-12-2014 01:49 PM)fmudd Wrote:  Did you miss me? *sadface*

You can't define or describe the color red to a blind person with a color chart. That is the point being made when I responded to your chart.

Did you know that scientific studies have shown that when people who are formerly blind gain/regain sight the concepts of color/shapes/people they had in their mind while blind are widely different than what they eventually see? It's the same thing when a believer tries to explain God to a nonbeliever.

Showing a color chart to describe color to a blind person makes perfect sense to the sighted.

Fallacy of the false analogy.

Many of us are former believers, former deeply religious people, and in fact deeply involved in some ways (still) with some religious people. So to use the analogy of a "former blind" person" doesn't work. AT ALL, as we KNOW perfectly well, if not more than most, how religious people think of the gods and experience them.

Do try a bit harder next year though. Good luck with that.

Thumbsup

You have a convenient way of arguing; the supposition for this thread is to describe God. That's why we asked to describe the color RED to a blind person.

To me, what came out of the this thread is that there are clear differences in how the sighted and the blind discuss and describe the color RED. Inherent in everything said is that the color RED is discussed and described differently. Using a color chart works for the sighted but not the unsighted.

What is clear is the ridicule when discussing ideas in this "thinking" forum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 04:29 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 04:20 PM)fmudd Wrote:  
(31-12-2014 03:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Fallacy of the false analogy.

Many of us are former believers, former deeply religious people, and in fact deeply involved in some ways (still) with some religious people. So to use the analogy of a "former blind" person" doesn't work. AT ALL, as we KNOW perfectly well, if not more than most, how religious people think of the gods and experience them.

Do try a bit harder next year though. Good luck with that.

Thumbsup

You have a convenient way of arguing; the supposition for this thread is to describe God. That's why we asked to describe the color RED to a blind person.

To me, what came out of the this thread is that there are clear differences in how the sighted and the blind discuss and describe the color RED. Inherent in everything said is that the color RED is discussed and described differently. Using a color chart works for the sighted but not the unsighted.

What is clear is the ridicule when discussing ideas in this "thinking" forum.

Buck up. The "ridicule" is irrelevant IF you have something to say. Your analogy STILL FAILS. No one can "describe" a god. In fact every brain that has LEARNED what that concept means to itself is different in at least some ways. There is no coherent definition of the word "god" so there are countless "meanings" of it. The highest forms of (European) Christian mysticism (the contemplative "vision") is (as St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila said) was essentially "nothing" (the Dark Night of the Soul, the "Cloud of the Unknowing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing ),
both of which approach Eastern Tao mysticism. There is no way to "describe" mystical experience of "whatever". If there were, it would fail it's definition.

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
31-12-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 04:20 PM)fmudd Wrote:  You have a convenient way of arguing; the supposition for this thread is to describe God. That's why we asked to describe the color RED to a blind person.

I can't describe the qualia of red to a blind person; I can't even describe that to another sighted person. What I can describe is how light is divided into different wavelengths and how those different wavelengths affect the cells in the eyes and are thus distinguished by the brain. I can also use devices that analyze the light waves to determine the "colors" that are present and so demonstrate that there is an objective, measurable phenomenon behind what sighted people are talking about.

The same is true for sound. If I take a dog whistle I can show that dogs are reacting to something that, for me, does not appear to exist. I can show glass being broken without apparent cause. I believe that ultrasonic sounds exist even though I can't experience them directly because it has a reliable, tangible effect on the real world.

When believers describe god there is no such consistency. There is some overlap, especially within specific religions, but that is better explained by indoctrination than any measurable "thing". Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc all say they just know because they feel it deeply. There are conditions under which I feel a profound sense of peace and even a "oneness" with the world around me. The feeling matches what theists describe but I have no way to measure that consistently and demonstrate it to be caused by any external agent. Until you can do that for your god I see no reason to accept the claim that you are talking about anything that is more than misattributed brain chemistry.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
31-12-2014, 04:52 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 04:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Buck up. The "ridicule" is irrelevant IF you have something to say. Your analogy STILL FAILS. No one can "describe" a god. In fact every brain that has LEARNED what that concept means to itself is different in at least some ways. There is no coherent definition of the word "god" so there are countless "meanings" of it. The highest forms of (European) Christian mysticism (the contemplative "vision") is (as St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila said) was essentially "nothing" (the Dark Night of the Soul, the "Cloud of the Unknowing" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing ),
both of which approach Eastern Tao mysticism. There is no way to "describe" mystical experience of "whatever". If there were, it would fail it's definition.

As far as I am concerned; the link posted has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

We are in agreement; I agree that no one can accurately describe God as God is experienced personally; unlike science which you hold up through standardization and repeatability and has clear language, metrics, measures, KPIs, etc.

I was pressed to describe God. I used the analogy of describing the color red to a blind person to illustrate the challenges of describing a personal experience in words.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 04:52 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 04:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(31-12-2014 04:20 PM)fmudd Wrote:  You have a convenient way of arguing; the supposition for this thread is to describe God. That's why we asked to describe the color RED to a blind person.

I can't describe the qualia of red to a blind person; I can't even describe that to another sighted person.

Yup.

(31-12-2014 04:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  What I can describe is how light is divided into different wavelengths and how those different wavelengths affect the cells in the eyes and are thus distinguished by the brain. I can also use devices that analyze the light waves to determine the "colors" that are present and so demonstrate that there is an objective, measurable phenomenon behind what sighted people are talking about.

Let us agree to call that RED and move on shall we.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 05:01 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 01:49 PM)fmudd Wrote:  Did you miss me? *sadface*

You can't define or describe the color red to a blind person with a color chart. That is the point being made when I responded to your chart.

Did you know that scientific studies have shown that when people who are formerly blind gain/regain sight the concepts of color/shapes/people they had in their mind while blind are widely different than what they eventually see? It's the same thing when a believer tries to explain God to a nonbeliever.

Showing a color chart to describe color to a blind person makes perfect sense to the sighted.

Not that simple. You see the difference is that god is given attributes, traits, etc, that needs evidnece. Red is just something on the spectrum. It exist to most of us because many can see the color. If anything a blind man can't describe red, but the can describe what a color is.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2014, 05:01 PM
RE: Evidence which would constitute God's Existence ...
(31-12-2014 04:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I can't describe the qualia of red to a blind person; I can't even describe that to another sighted person. What I can describe is how light is divided into different wavelengths and how those different wavelengths affect the cells in the eyes and are thus distinguished by the brain. I can also use devices that analyze the light waves to determine the "colors" that are present and so demonstrate that there is an objective, measurable phenomenon behind what sighted people are talking about.

The same is true for sound. If I take a dog whistle I can show that dogs are reacting to something that, for me, does not appear to exist. I can show glass being broken without apparent cause. I believe that ultrasonic sounds exist even though I can't experience them directly because it has a reliable, tangible effect on the real world.

When believers describe god there is no such consistency. There is some overlap, especially within specific religions, but that is better explained by indoctrination than any measurable "thing". Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc all say they just know because they feel it deeply. There are conditions under which I feel a profound sense of peace and even a "oneness" with the world around me. The feeling matches what theists describe but I have no way to measure that consistently and demonstrate it to be caused by any external agent. Until you can do that for your god I see no reason to accept the claim that you are talking about anything that is more than misattributed brain chemistry.

I have two questions then, why do you insist on (1) God being external and (2) why do you think you can use scientific instruments to easily describe a personal experience?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: