Can You Make Me See Red?

I guess nobody wants to explain what the colour red looks like to someone who does not know what colour looks like because they have never seen it.

0 Replies

Me too!

Momma Angel... can something exist if it has not been experienced?

Have you ever been to the South Pole?

If not, does it exist?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

(Yeah, I was going to go into that but thought it muddied the picture -- no person, no matter how deaf, is completely without sound.)

My point there is that there are lots of observable, scientific, replicable ways to discover that this thing exists, whether one can personally experience it or not.

Does that then mean if science can't prove it, it doesn't exist?

0 Replies

Quote:

In the case of Charlotte, Sandy, and David, these things do not exist to them because they have not experienced them.

Yes they do. They have evidence. Just like atoms.
Or are you a phenomenalist?

(I bet I posted this link so many times.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism

0 Replies

Quote:

I see what you are trying to say in it's simplicity. It is being taken to a much different level. Perhaps because you have hit on something that people cannot answer in the same way that you cannot answer why you belief in God. I think you have made your point. I know that others will not agree with me on that.

Attaboy, Intrepid, declare victory before someone points out that it's not as simple as MA's analogy would have us believe.

0 Replies

<scrunches eyebrows, looking for the trick...>

Uh, yeah. "Science" is broad, of course. But it should be scientifically provable.

0 Replies

aktorist wrote:

I already picked the covert one. And that was just obvious.

The thing that is tacitly implied is what I am picking up.

The difference between a chair and God is that I can continue to check if that is true. If there is a chair, then I can touch it whenever I want. But for God?

Not to mention that God makes no manifestations in the progress. That's not evidence, and makes it true for nobody.

The title of this thread is not how to prove that there is God. It is Make me see red.

0 Replies

sozobe Wrote:

Quote:

Me too!

Momma Angel... can something exist if it has not been experienced?

Have you ever been to the South Pole?

If not, does it exist?

Woo Hoo! Give that woman a cupie doll! Yes, it can exist if it has not been experienced! You go girl!

0 Replies

And that part of it was conceded back on page 2 or something. Since then it's been "And...? Relevance? In Spirituality & Religion why?"

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
I see what you are trying to say in it's simplicity. It is being taken to a much different level. Perhaps because you have hit on something that people cannot answer in the same way that you cannot answer why you belief in God. I think you have made your point. I know that others will not agree with me on that.

Attaboy, Intrepid, declare victory before someone points out that it's not as simple as MA's analogy would have us believe.

Victory? Damn, I didn't even realize that this was a contest. So you think that my comment to Momma Angel was a victory cry.
Intrepid <I'll take questions for $400.00 Alex>

0 Replies

aktorist,

Ya gotta get with the program sweetie! We are not trying to prove God's existence in any way. We are trying to make someone experience red, sight, or sound.

0 Replies

Quote:

Perhaps because you have hit on something that people cannot answer in the same way that you cannot answer why you belief in God.

It's a simple difference.

It's between faith and evidence. Whereas there is only faith that one is correct about the experience, there is evidence that one is correct about the experience.

0 Replies

well, Soz, see ya. You're on your own.

0 Replies

No, I'm out of here too. Hopeless.

0 Replies

exactly

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

aktorist,

But my point is, my experience with God is truth. It is a truth that I cannot make you experience. I can't make you experience red, sight, or sound.

Ack. But there's the difference.

We all probably "experience" the colour red, or sound, in different ways. Even the deaf experience sound, as Sozobe has already repeatedly explained - just in a different way. A thing that is verifiable, such as sound, or the colour red, will never be experienced by everyone in the same way, but all of us can, in some way or other, experience it - at the very least, the way I can experience Kamchatka, vicariously, through satellite photos and temperature measures.

Then there's your experience of God. Since there is no way whatsoever that God manifests himself in verifiable reality, that experience is indeed simply not available to the non-believer, in any way. And that, therefore, is where your comparison between God to the non-believer and sound to the non-hearing, strands. There's no parallel between the two. Apples and oranges. Because your experience of God truly is all in your mind.

A more logical comparison, therefore, would be with what I experienced when I did mushrooms. True, the sparkly colours and funny, twisted shapes things took on can not be verifiable in any way, and thus not be experienced either directly, or through other media, or vicariously through evidence of their appearance, by those who weren't tripping with me - by those who were not in my head. Yet my experience with shiny, sparkly things "is truth", the same as your experience with God is truth. Its just that it doesnt say anything about that which you or I experienced - be it shiny, sparkly things of twisted shape, or God.

0 Replies

sozobe,

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.

0 Replies

You can't SEE red if you're color blind. Simple. But you can EXPERIENCE it, for there IS manifestation.
Don't connect this with truth, now. Because it has no connection with truth. You don't need to experience something for it to exist. But it doesn't mean that "anything goes." Because there needs to be some evidence before we should conclude anything. But the reliability of the Bible is questionable. And so are those who claim to experience God.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

<scrunches eyebrows, looking for the trick...>

Uh, yeah. "Science" is broad, of course. But it should be scientifically provable.

No trick here honest. I'm curious how you are perceiving this is all.

So how do you scientifically prove experience then?

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, someone's experience with God is their evidence.

Not only that, but you need evidence that what they say is true.
You can't just make yourself gullible like that.

Whereas for color, it makes profound manifestations, it isn't the same for God.

0 Replies

Can You Make Me See Red?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know