Can You Make Me See Red?

Momma Angel wrote:

Intrepid is right. Most of you are missing the point entirely.

Well, MA, not to sound sour... but you did start this thread proposing an actual assertion. In casu, you started this thread arguing that - I'm paraphrasing here -

"To these three", the blind, deaf and colourblind, "color, sight, and sound do not exist". You can not explain those things to them. "Those that do believe God exists" face "the same" thing.

Thats what you asserted. So of course, people are going to respond to that assertion. Especially since it's actually very easy to show that, eh, its incorrect. To these three, sight and sound do actually exist, even if they cant experience it the way we do. And they can actually be explained what it is, how it works, how it appears, even if they cant exactly experience it the way we do. So, no, the thing believers in God face is not at all the same thing, because none of that goes for the dilemma they face in trying to explain their experience.

In short, you started this thread with an assertion, and the assertion was wrong. OK, no biggie, happens to all of us. But to now say that it wasnt what you meant, anyway, and we're missing the point about what this thread really is about, is a bit, eh ... disingenious, then. If what you had wanted to say was something else, then you'll have to come up with a way of saying that, then, preferably in a way thats not instantly shown wrong, I suppose. :wink:

0 Replies

aktorist wrote:

Quote:
Intrepid is right. Most of you are missing the point entirely. You are thinking so far out of the flippin box you can't see it.

You keep thinking I am trying to prove God's existence with this. That is NOT what I am talking about.

But again, you can't compare abstract concepts with a non-abstract idea.

Red's existance is not the same as God, for Red can neither exist nor not exist, but God can.

But as for experience, that's not important. Experience has no ties with existance.

What am I going to do with you? Why do you keep trying to insist that I am tryin to prove God's existence? I am not. One more time, I am trying to point out that one cannot make another person experience God, just as one cannot make another experience the color red, see, or hear. That's it. No hidden agenda. Just that. Plain. Simple. Black and white.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ok, I thought I explained why in S&R twice but I will do it again.

Many ask for evidence of God. Well, someone's experience with God is their evidence. But, just as I cannot make you see red, hear, or see I cannot make you experience God.

No it isn't. Experience is not evidence.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

...just enjoying your tag nimh.

Its definitely my most popular yet ... :wink:

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

What am I going to do with you? Why do you keep trying to insist that I am tryin to prove God's existence? I am not. One more time, I am trying to point out that one cannot make another person experience God, just as one cannot make another experience the color red, see, or hear. That's it. No hidden agenda. Just that. Plain. Simple. Black and white.

If a God does exist, it should be possible to find some sign of him in the world. If one does exist, there should be several things that cannot be explained easily without the idea of a God. There is nothing like that, and hence no reason for me to believe in him, unless he is hiding. Your only pathetic defense is to say that your evidence is incomprehensible, which puts you in the same league with people who believe the martians are after them.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

What am I going to do with you? Why do you keep trying to insist that I am tryin to prove God's existence? I am not. One more time, I am trying to point out that one cannot make another person experience God, just as one cannot make another experience the color red, see, or hear. That's it. No hidden agenda. Just that. Plain. Simple. Black and white.

And the bolded part of your thesis is the part thats been disproven in this thread, ad nauseam.

(And thats wholly apart from the question Sozobe raised, namely, that even in your own words you were actually trying to point out something broader too - namely, that someone's experience of God can be brought up in any way as any kind of evidence of God.)

0 Replies

Quote:

What am I going to do with you? Laughing Why do you keep trying to insist that I am tryin to prove God's existence? I am not. One more time, I am trying to point out that one cannot make another person experience God, just as one cannot make another experience the color red, see, or hear. That's it. No hidden agenda. Just that. Plain. Simple. Black and white.

Experiencing God is different, for it involves something defined. God is defined. Red, on the other hand, is abstract. One can make another experience a table. That's because a table is an object. God is similar like that because God is a physical construct. And one can make another experience the south pole, for example. It will always be there.

But as for abstract, one can never make another experience something abstract. One cannot make another experience hot, cold, zero, numbers, length, vectors, et cetera. And red is the same. Your analogy of experience is faulty like that.

0 Replies

aktorist wrote:

Quote:
Can you describle the colour red to us?

Can you describe the number 0 to me?

It's different from God because god is not this abstract. God can have a state of existance/nonexistance.

But red can neither exist nor not exist.

No offense, but are you on another planet? Do you understand what this discussion is about?

0 Replies

Was going to edit my post to add,

nimh wrote:

And the bolded part of your thesis is the part thats been disproven in this thread, ad nauseam.

", could you acknowledge that, already?"

... but was too late..

0 Replies

This discuss is about experience. And one COULD make another experience a physical construct, like a table. But as for the abstract, it's different. This is why it's faulty.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Quote:

Can one explain MA's God, on the other hand, to those who can not experience him, feel him, the way she does? Nope

You have now got what Momma Angel was trying to get across! ;-)

0 Replies

One more time, my intent is not to prove that God exists. My intent is to show that just as trying to make someone experience red, sight, or sound, I cannot make you experience God.

Yes, sozobe, our evidence is our experience. I was speaking of the questions in the past on some of these threads. I was hoping, really hoping that some would see that asking us to explain our experience of God is well, like explaining red, sight, or sound.

My head hurts......

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Yes.

Intrepid, that point was acknolwledged back on page five ("I for one will concede that you can't communicate all experience through language without contextual reference") and has been acknowledged several times since. The only place that there is continuing discussion is how that point has any larger significance.

Momma Angel says that her evidence for the existence of god is her own experience of god. That is not evidence any more than nimh's experience is evidence of the existence of the shiny, sparkly things he saw.

What I have said repeatedly is that I personally don't require any evidence -- if people want to believe in a god, that's no skin off my nose, in and of itself. (What they DO with that belief is something else, but not quite what we are talking about here.)

I think it's fine to say, "I have no evidence, I have no proof, it is just my faith."

But if evidence is being proffered, ones own, private, uncommunicable experience is not evidence.

I do not dispute that. I don't think Momma Angel is trying to force anyone to think the way she does.

I believe in God. I do not feel that I am under any obligation to prove the existence of God to anyone. That is between me and God. I also don't think that I have to convince anyone that does not want convincing. I would, however, make the offer to those who are open.

I think Momma Angel is just trying to get people to open their minds to see things from her perspective....not an exercise in conversion.

Smile

0 Replies

But in the process, Angel uses much faulty logic.

For example, the experience of God vs. experience of abstract concepts.
They're different.

0 Replies

I was never one of those who was asking you to prove god. But from what I have seen, what you are being asked has been to provide some evidence, and your own experience is not it, anyway -- whether you can convey it or not. If some high-tech consciousness-sharing helmet was invented, and you could simply put it on someone else's head and they would be able to experience it exactly as you do, do you think that would actually change anything?

Your lack of ability to convey it is not the most important aspect -- even if it could be conveyed, it does not inherently have more value or prove anything any more than if nimh shared, via high-tech consciousness-sharing helmet, his experience of the sparkly things.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

nimh wrote:

Quote:
Can one explain MA's God, on the other hand, to those who can not experience him, feel him, the way she does? Nope

You have now got what Momma Angel was trying to get across! ;-)

Well, then starting an entire thread about how it was just like something else thats demonstrably not, in fact, anything like it, was, at the very least, a very unwieldy way to go about it...

But then, like many others, I suspect that she used the analogy for a reason, and that reason was about something slightly beyond merely "I just cant explain it / this feeling I got inside":

nimh wrote:

I think you make this (incorrect) equation for a reason - whether consciously or subconsciously. Your point here, I gather, is that even if there are those who can not experience something and it therefore does not exist to them, it may well exist - after all, sound does, even if the deaf cant hear it. So why wouldn't, say, God exist - even if [he doesnt seem to exist to those who have not personally experienced him?]

And its that implied equation we've all been addressing as well.

0 Replies

Experience is not evidence

Experience is not evidence

Experience is not evidence

Write that out one thousand times, MOAN. You are in fact providing an argument that experience cannot be evidence, because you assert that if one experiences something of which another is incapable, then that other cannot not be made to know anything of the nature of that experience. Therefore, you are arguing that evidence is by definition impossible.

But, of course, the point of this exercise is the point of all your exercises, to assert that your imaginary friend exists, and that we should accept that because you feel so strongly that it is true.

0 Replies

Intrepid, I think Eorl's observation about the difference between understanding and agreeing again comes into play here -- I can understand her perspective without agreeing with it. (And had as deep of an understanding of it before this thread as after.)

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Yes, sozobe, our evidence is our experience. [..] I was hoping, really hoping that some would see that asking us to explain our experience of God is well, like explaining red, sight, or sound.

And we've explained, again and again, how red, sight and sound can actually be explained - even often shown, and experienced, in alternate ways. What does that tell you about the difference between them and your (belief in) God?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
nimh wrote:

Quote:
Can one explain MA's God, on the other hand, to those who can not experience him, feel him, the way she does? Nope

You have now got what Momma Angel was trying to get across! ;-)

Well, then starting an entire thread about how it was just like something else thats demonstrably not, in fact, anything like it, was, at the very least, a very unwieldy way to go about it...

But then, like many others, I suspect that she used the analogy for a reason, and that reason was about something slightly beyond merely "I just cant explain it / this feeling I got inside":

nimh wrote:
I think you make this (incorrect) equation for a reason - whether consciously or subconsciously. Your point here, I gather, is that even if there are those who can not experience something and it therefore does not exist to them, it may well exist - after all, sound does, even if the deaf cant hear it. So why wouldn't, say, God exist - even if [he doesnt seem to exist to those who have not personally experienced him?]

And its that implied equation we've all been addressing as well.

Actually, I think that Momma Angel made a mistake in posting this in S & R. The very fact that it was posted in this forum has tainted what, I believe, she was trying to convey. I do believe that some of the reactions would have been different if it was not presented in a religious context.

0 Replies

Can You Make Me See Red?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know