Can You Make Me See Red?

Quote:

Nice try. But, you still have not made each person experience the things that they have never experienced. I say it is impossible.

Dys, I don't have a problem distinguishing anything. What I am trying to tell you is that just because you do not experience something does not mean it isn't so.

You don't need to experience something for something to exist. Evidence is enough. For example, do you "experience" atoms? Do you experience the war in Iraq?

But there's reliable evidence. And one we can test again and again.

0 Replies

Quote:

Therefore, God exists. He he.

I am God. What do you say to that?

0 Replies

aktorist wrote:

Quote:
For these three individuals a certain thing DOES NOT exist in their reality.

If you are saying that that which does not affect them are nonexistant, then by that definition, it is existant. It may not affect them directly, but the photons sure are hitting other people's eyes, and they say it because they observed it. And they can pass the reliable information to the blind. Same thing with air waves.

How do the blind know that they are being told the truth? How can they envision what they are being told?

Quote:
Just as you cannot explain the color red, sight, or sound from your experience with them, no one can explain God to you as they have experienced Him. Now, you cannot tell these three people that these things do not exist because you have experienced them so, you cannot really tell someone that has experienced God that He does not exist.

It's simple that those who claim to experience God are just hoaxes.

How do you prove this?

Quote:
It is not a matter of science in these scenarios. It is a matter of each person's experience. I just thought maybe if everyone could look at it in a little different light it might help us all understand each other just a bit.

Sound and light are different things because God is a theoretical construct. I think you are confusing what is a theoretical construct to a physical construct. Even to the blind and deaf, they can experience light and sound. They can feel light and sound. Because the photons and waves are still there as much as the quarks are still there. You cannot see atoms, can you? But there's evidence.

Maybe we cannot experience quarks, but we have evidence. And we can confirm that evidence anytime we want.

It is not the same with God.

0 Replies

People, people, people. I am not talking science here! I am not talking physical anything. I am talking experiences. I am talking about experiencing something that someone else has not experienced and trying to explain that experience to them.

You are all thinking on too high a level here. It's experience that I am talking about.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Farmerman,

Nice try. But, you still have not made each person experience the things that they have never experienced. I say it is impossible.

Dys, I don't have a problem distinguishing anything. What I am trying to tell you is that just because you do not experience something does not mean it isn't so. :wink:

It's a completely invalid premise. If there were signs in the world that God existed - things that would be hard to explain except by his existence - then someone could present them as evidence that he existed. There are, however, no such things. It is not at all in the same category as explaining color to a blind man. You just wish it were. Moreover, if it were as personal and description defying as you say, why would you start a thread asking people why they don't believe in God. Why in the world should we? There is no sign that one exists.

0 Replies

god sees red when he tries to interpret ma's rationale.

0 Replies

Quote:

How do the blind know that they are being told the truth? How can they envision what they are being told?

From reliable sources. And many are saying it. And people don't need to envision particle-wave duality, do they?

Quote:

How do you prove this?

I can't, but there is no evidence that they are right.

Quote:

People, people, people. I am not talking science here! I am not talking physical anything. I am talking experiences. I am talking about experiencing something that someone else has not experienced and trying to explain that experience to them.

You are all thinking on too high a level here. It's experience that I am talking about.

People don't need to experience anything for it to exist. But there needs to be a level of evidence. What about particle-wave duality? What about quantum tunneling? Perhaps people never really directly experienced those? But there's evidence.

0 Replies

aktorist,

But those things do not make make Charlotte experience red, Sandy see, or David hear. You are still thinking on too high of a level here.

Basic experiences. Just basic experience. Passing on that experience to someone else. How do you do it?

To them (and this is the important part) THESE THINGS DO NOT EXIST and science cannot prove that they do to these three individuals (Caps for emphasis only.)

0 Replies

MA

Quote:

Nice try. But, you still have not made each person experience the things that they have never experienced. I say it is impossible.

. That sums up the differences between us. I can provide each of the kiddies with the evidence for the spectral differences and this evidence can suffice for each ones limitations. The fact that each cannot "experience" a particular piece of the spectrum that is "redness" is not an automatic call for a "special friend".
Youve painted yourself into a corner by poor logic. You are not only unable to separate the "experience" from the "measurement" of red, you then use this bifurcation as a sort of proof for your religious argument.
I am blind to atoms, My eyesight is unable to see at or below the 0.01 Angstrom level, we therefore create tools that allow us to see at these magnifications. No Problems.

Youre certainly a sweet case here. You believe in a God who wants you to remain ignorant--thats what it sounds like to me.

0 Replies

Farmerman,

Not at all. Like I said, I think you are all thinking on too high a level here. I am talking about sharing basic experiences with someone who has not experienced something before.

I cannot make you feel God anymore than you can make me see red if I am colorblind. You can explain it away scientifically, yes, but you cannot make me see the actual color red.

That is all I am trying to get across here. Basic, very basic.

0 Replies

Quote:

But those things do not make make Charlotte experience red, Sandy see, or David hear. You are still thinking on too high of a level here.

Construct a machine to react to photons. Or use a light-sensitive chemical.

Did you ever experience quarks? Did you ever experience quantum tunneling? I bet you didn't.

But the evidence is there. The key word is evidence.

Quote:

Basic experiences. Just basic experience. Passing on that experience to someone else. How do you do it?

Yes, basic experiences do not just constitute reality.

Phenomenalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism) is already faulty, and we already know that.

But the key word is evidence.

0 Replies

oy .

0 Replies

Your point is quite clear MA. What do you think it proves?
In what way does it matter?
You have touched on a rather hot point of philosophy, but ultimately it is impotent as a theistic argument.
The distinction remains: There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of sound and color, and ways within technology to demonstrate these things to those unable to perceive them.

0 Replies

Momma, are you asking us to dumb down? This is the way we think - <shrug>

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

oy .

vey.

0 Replies

Well... hello there soz. Tell us what you think.

0 Replies

I see red. I don't see ultra violet. From the two statements, nothing can be proven or disproven regarding the existance of ultra violet light. It does, though. The evidence is overwhelming. Well, that's already been said 6 or 8 different ways, but once more won't hurt.

No, littlek, this analogy doesn't compare apples to oranges. It compares apples to bathtubs.

0 Replies

What seperates photons from god is evidence.
Angel is tell us what we already know.

That phenomenalism shouldn't be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism

But already, we aren't phenomenalists. There's no point in arguing that.

The difference, though, is evidence.

You can test for photons anytime. And everywhere, humans are experiencing color. But not God.

0 Replies

Ok then, roger.

And, my sister and I with perfect vision, can't see eye to eye on any color. I say tomahto red and she says berry! I say violet and she says periwinkle.....

0 Replies

Oh, hi.

I appreciate that it's a foray into metaphorical thinking for Momma Angel, it has some potential, but ultimately doesn't work. As Doktor S. says, if we are talking about some objective reality that can or can not be perceived by individuals, there are other ways to measure that objective reality.

Personally, I'm not interested in making people who are religious provide proof of god -- it's kind of pointless to me, especially if they acknowledge that it's a simple matter of faith, proof doesn't enter into it.

I dislike the obvious point of the analogy that people who don't believe in god are blind/ deaf/ colorblind -- what does that make people who don't believe in unicorns?

But whatever. <shrug>

0 Replies

Can You Make Me See Red?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know