"red" is a defineable and measurable quality, (see optics) it doesn't matter if you can "see" it or not.
Dys,
True. It doesn't change the color, does it? So, just because I cannot explain God to you, it does not change the fact that He is God or the fact that I have felt His presence. I can measure the quality because I have experienced it.
But, you still cannot explain the color red, especially to someone that is color blind. :wink:
dyslexia wrote:"red" is a defineable and measurable quality, (see optics) it doesn't matter if you can "see" it or not.
So now you are saying red is a sound? Or would it be a feeling? If a person is blind, how would you describe red since optics do not apply?
Sturgis wrote:dyslexia wrote:"red" is a defineable and measurable quality, (see optics) it doesn't matter if you can "see" it or not.
So now you are saying red is a sound? Or would it be a feeling? If a person is blind, how would you describe red since optics do not apply?
Sturgis you silly goose "seeing red" is a figure of speech, while "red" is an optical definition of a spectrum of light, measurable, predictable and replicatable.
Aidan's approach is superior to that which says God, a presumed entity is....
Instead of denoting the nature of this God, it's better, by my perspective, to say such and such in my experience deserves to be called God.
She cites the statement of an "atheistic" Zen master, Bernard Tetsugen Glassman, as some kind of reference to "divinity" in human experience: "I felt the wind on me, I felt the birds in me, all separation was completely gone." This absence of separation, this realization of the fallacy of dualism (me vs. the rest), this awareness of the oneness of Reality, is a sense of the wholeness (or holiness if one prefers) of Reality (or God if one prefers).
"red" is still "red" whether or not someone "sees" it.(or for that matter if anyone sees it.
dys,
But, I am color blind. The spectrum of light does me no good, does it? You can measure it and replicate it all you want. I still will not experience seeing the actual color red. I have; however, experienced the feeling of God. But, I cannot explain it to you just as you cannot explain the color red to me.
Sturgis wrote:Questioner wrote:To someone not color blind you merely point to an apple and say this is red.
What if the apple is green? What I am driving at here, is that color is subjective. There is no set way to describe a color and to just point and say something is something is not necessarily proof. I could point at the apple which you see as red and I might say it is blue while another might claim it to be brown. Just saying it is, will not make it so and you still have not explained to me the color red. According to your logic, God exists for everyone and in exactly the way I say, because I say so...now that doesn't really work well for you now does it Questioner? So get back to the drawing board and find a way to
explain red, and I don't want some cheap dictionary definition either.
Alright. Allow me to explain it to you this way.
Red is R:255 G:0 B: 0. Or, C:0 M:99 Y:100 K:0, or L:54 A:81 B: 70
You want other methods of denoting red? Your example is nothing more than a clever dodge around a logical argument. Red IS. It exists. It is measurable, and definable (cheap dictionary definition indeed!).
Do NOT presume to utter the words 'God' and 'Logic' in the same sentence until such time as one has shown any relation to the other.
dyslexia wrote:Sturgis wrote:dyslexia wrote:"red" is a defineable and measurable quality, (see optics) it doesn't matter if you can "see" it or not.
So now you are saying red is a sound? Or would it be a feeling? If a person is blind, how would you describe red since optics do not apply?
Sturgis you silly goose "seeing red" is a figure of speech, while "red" is an optical definition of a spectrum of light, measurable, predictable and replicatable.
And the old gray mare ain't what she used to be Dys...I am still lost as you how you plan to use opticals to explain the color red to someone who cannot see.
Explain...if you can...red to me in some way other than optical. Use a manner in which red can be explained as a feeling which generates within a person. Be careful here, I am not talking about physical feeling.
ma, it doesn't matter one whit if you can or cannot see red, it still exists as a physical and quantifible reality.
Red is both "objective" event (the physical optical conditions which, together with an optical nervous sytem,) and a "subjective" event (the actual experience of redness). Take the first away (i.e, turn the lights off or inhibit the functions of the viewer's occipital lobe) OR block the viewer's capacity for experiencing red (e.g., by hypnosis) and there is no redness. The either-or approach is lame dualism.
dyslexia wrote: it doesn't matter one whit if you can or cannot see red, it still exists as a physical and quantifible reality.
And so does God...it says so in The Bible. Besides which I have seen trees and mountains at sunrise and forests at sunset...that is proof enough for me, and it generates a feeling within me that in all honesty red never does. Seeing God's works and hearing the sounds of the Earth and feeling the breeze fills me with a wondering awe and gratitude...the color red has yet to do that for me.
And would red exist if there was no science?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines God as:
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
So, you can use a dictionary definition to describe the color red or God. But, it does not make me see the color red, nor does it make me see God.
Dyslexia,
I agree with you that just because I can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Kind of like, just because you can't see God, it doesn't mean He isn't there either. :wink:
Come on, MA, the dictionary is not your theological guide.
JLNobody,
That's right, JL, but others in the debate would use the definition of the dictionary or a science book to explain it with numbers to try to explain the color red. I am just pointing out that it does not make someone actually see red (or God) because of what is written in the dictionary or any book.
If I am color blind there is no EXPERIENCE of redness; if there is no "red" object or the lights are off in my room there are no CONDITIONS for the experience of redness. BOTH conditions must exist for the phenomenon of red to occur. I certainly would not want to paint a picture of a red apple for a color blind person or if it would be "shown" only in a pitch black room.
this "red" thing as a metaphor is inane. that's it folks.
Why is it inane, dys? Your graphic does not make me see the color red. I am color blind. I cannot see the color red. You cannot see God. I have experienced God. If you are not color blind, you have experienced the color red. :wink:
Sturgis wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I suggest that you don't have the faintest idea whether a God exists, or if he does exist, what his nature is. Prove me wrong. Give even a plausibility argument that suggests I might be wrong.
I know that God exists and that is all that matters. I cannot prove to someone who doesn't really, truly and honestly want such proof. There have been experiences in my life which have more than done enough to prove to me the existence of God. Look at your own life, there are undoubtedly enough proof situations there, however you are choosing not to see or accept them for what they are.
I see no evidence at all in my own life, and you refuse to relate any of yours. You are simply weak enough to believe in an imaginary friend because it makes you feel better. You seem to have no ability to even give a plausibility argument to support the existence of God, which is not the hallmark of a correct theory. You people usually fall back on the old crutch that even if you showed us the evidence, we wouldn't accept it. That is merely a cover-up for the fact that you have zero evidence. You believe your childish belief because you need to, and the rest is rationalization.
