Today I had a debate on the web with an atheist. It was really funny, so I will recap it just for you!
Me:
Here is another question you might work on: How would you go about proving to a blind man that the color red exists? I am a former atheist who experienced God, so I am convinced, but I doubt I can convince anyone who can't or won't see. If God did speak to you and if he also performed a miracle before your eyes, wouldn't you think it was a trick?
Atheist:
Even experience of God sounds pretty suspect, unless you can clarify what the experience was like (specifically) and what exactly God necessarily is based on your experience. Oh and how does it compare to others' hallucinations of other gods that contradict the belief system you have adopted as a result?
Me:
If one of us can see color and the other can see black and white, I might see red and you might see gray. Which of us is hallucinating? Perhaps both of us. Perhaps neither of us. I think the best way to test reality is to ask: Does my belief work for me? Am I happy? If not, then you are probably hallucinating.
Atheist:
The practical results of two people seeing, consistently, two different colors, would be nil. So God is not analogous to such a case, esp. if God is resulting in you believing in deity and even adopting other religious practices and beliefs.
And again, I ask you, what was your experience of God like. What are you convinced of? What is God? And what religious beliefs have you adopted as a result? I think the answers to these questions would reveal that something different is going on.
Me:
I believe there is more to reality than what you can observe and measure. I believe this because every measurement taken has a margin of error. Yet, we know the elusive perfect measurement exists along the line of real numbers. It is as if everything we try to measure has an essence we can't quite pin down. I see that as evidence of something spiritual, since it is nonmaterial. I believe God is the essence within all things that can't be measured with infinite precision.
And feel free to answer my original question. How does a person with sight convince a blind man that the color red exists? This question is metaphorical, of course.
Atheist:
I think I already have. If your answer is metaphorical to God, as you say, then the metaphor is a bad one, unless you explain how God is analogous to something as simple as a color--a simple part of vision, when someone has no vision at all. Clearly a blind person has not only never seen red, but never seen colors at all! So all you say to them is that two things might feel the same, or a single thing may feel the same, but look different.
Me:
The bind man's reply might be: Just because two things feel the same does not prove they are different. You have failed to prove that colors exist!
(Now here is where the Atheist comes undone! I edited his foul language.)
Atheist:
I'm not DEBATING a blind person, just takling(sic) to them. What the hell is wrong with you anyways? F**k off and die.
Me:
LOL! Made you think!
Atheist:
No. You asked me how I would explain sh** to a blind person about how sh** LOOKS. If a blind person is not going to believe my descriptions then that's a whole other story. I answered your f***ing questions now admit the fraud that you are.
Me:
LOL! Doesn't atheism teach you civility? Guess not. If it makes you feel better, you can believe I am a fraud, but that would be a leap of faith. While you are deluding yourself, why not believe in Zeus?
(Here is where he completely loses his pea soup!)
Atheist:
Atheism isn't a f***ing religion, so no it doesn't teach me jack f***ing sh**. It is a lack of belief in super duper magical invisible beings and other related lies--nothing more and nothing less. An atheist won't necessarily refrain from calling dishonest idiots as they see 'em. IMO it's not very good for civil society to be silent as people dishonestly represent themselves then change their questions and refuse honest points (like you!). I'm doing a service by telling you to f*** off n die!
Some atheists will be more polite, some won't. We aren't a cult like that where we all try to be identical with each other so that after we die we float up to dog heaven or whatever it is you somehow came to believe because you saw a color no one else sees and you can't describe it to anyone.
Give me a break! You can't even admit what your so-called "experience of God" was like other than your claim that you can't tell us any more than we can tell a blind person what red is, which was a lie!
Me:
OK, the leap of faith you are making now is that I must be a fraud and a liar. There is no empirical evidence to support this. Class dismissed. :-)
___________________________________________________The End.
The "class dismissed" comment was a sarcastic remark the Atheist had made at the end of his video that feebly attempted to disprove the existence of your god and mine, so I thought I would throw it back at him. (I am such a stinker!)
If you happen to be an atheist, I would strongly recommend that you do not make this fella or anyone like him your poster boy. He does nothing for your cause except stir up a lot of hate--which is not good for theists or atheists.
Live and let live, I always say. There is room for all of us.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 72
Yet, why would a blind person need the concept of "red"? It is meaningful to you who enjoys the rush of excitation that comes with redness. The blind person can find that thrill in the senses they experience.
They want to understand because they know they're missing something.
"It is faith that relies not on proof, but on the lack of (any) evidence to justify itself."
If your religion says so.
The color red, along with any color, can be proven.
Red is any of a number of similar colors evoked by light consisting predominantly of the longest wavelengths of light discernible by the human eye, in the wavelength range of roughly 630–740 nm.[2] Longer wavelengths than this are called infrared (below red), and cannot be seen by the naked human eye. Red is used as one of the additive primary colors of light, complementary to cyan, in RGB color systems. Red is also one of the subtractive primary colors of RYB color space but not CMYK color space.
Like the atom, just because you can't see it does not mean you cannot scientifically prove it. You can explain the concept of red, and any color, to a blind person, and they can understand the significance of it. Your god, on the other hand, cannot be demonstrated scientifically and can only be experienced personally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red
"Like the atom, just because you can't see it does not mean you cannot scientifically prove it."
Now here is a straw man. Atoms are matter. Red is a color or component of matter. That is why I chose it. Each individual is in his/her own inertial frame of spacetime. The tensor you described, electromagnetism, is the same to all observers, but its components, including any colors, will not be the same to all observers. (See Einstein's General Relativity Theory. He was not a Bible Thumper, but he believed in Spinoza's god as I do, as many physicists do. He came up with his theories by asking himself, "If I were God, how would I design the universe?)
Oh, and yes, science can show that the red you see is the same red that I see!
As a side note, if I was a god, I would certainly have designed the universe to be a heck of a lot safer than it is.
You are basically right that evidence doesn't work on those who refuse to accept it or even acknowledge it. And logic will not work on those who refuse to consider it.
But what if one of us is colorbilind?
You are basically right that evidence doesn't work on those who refuse to accept it or even acknowledge it. And logic will not work on those who refuse to consider it.
Yes, that was the main point. The whole seeing red thing was a metaphor. If the blind man says, "I need to see atoms or I don't believe in them," then there isn't much you can do, especially if he refuses to get eye surgery.
According to Michio Kaku, Einstein used to ask himself, "If I were God, how would I solve this problem?" The result was Special and General Relativity, the photoelectric effect, etc.
Just because Einstein asked a rhetorical question, does not mean that he came up with Special or General Relativity because of a god! Are you saying that the theory of Relativity would not have come to be if Einstein hadn't asked himself that question??? And, if so, then what's your point?? Are you saying that a god inspired Einstein? Or, that without a god, we wouldn't have relativity? As I said before, if I was a god, I would have designed the universe to be much safer than it is. But so what? I didn't design the universe. Neither did Einstein! In fact, in all of science, there is simply no need to inject a god as an explanation to anything. This doesn't deny a god, but it does say that no god was needed for the creation of the universe or for anything in it ever since.
(Playing devil's adocate:) But am an A-xray-ist. I only believe what I can see!
Just because Einstein asked a rhetorical question, does not mean that he came up with Special or General Relativity because of a god!
This statement is a leap of faith on your part if you have no evidence o back it up. Even if you do, then you have faith in the evidence.
Are you saying that the theory of Relativity would not have come to be if Einstein hadn't asked himself that question??? And, if so, then what's your point?? Are you saying that a god inspired Einstein? Or, that without a god, we wouldn't have relativity?
At the very minimum Einstein's belief in his god got his thought processes going and sparked his imagination.
As I said before, if I was a god, I would have designed the universe to be much safer than it is. But so what?
It's your assertion. So what?
I didn't design the universe. Neither did Einstein!
Is it your "belief" that someone said that Einstein or you designed the universe?
In fact, in all of science, there is simply no need to inject a god as an explanation to anything.
This is faith, not science. There is much science has yet to explain.
This doesn't deny a god, but it does say that no god was needed for the creation of the universe or for anything in it ever since.
What came before the singularity? Nothing? Let's assume that is true. The whole universe came from nothing--how miraculous! Or is there a megaverse filled with infinite universes? Was our universe born of the megaverse? Assume that is true. If there are infinite universes, then the probability is close to one that at least one of those universes has anything you can imagine--inluding a god. It could be this universe.
Perhaps God did not "create" science, but I'm of the beleif he used it.
A faith is a very personal issue and science cannot be used to disprove something that goes deep into my soul and thinking brain. I cannot prove God exists nor would I try, but trying to disprove His existance with science isn't going to work either.
I agree that science, generally speaking, cannot be used to disprove a god. That is not how science works. If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, then it is the burden of that person to support that claim. The burden of proof does not lie with science but on those that make a claim that something exists that has not been proven.
But, simple logic can and has many, many times over, demonstrated that certain gods cannot exist since the characteristics of those gods are contradictory. For example, an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god cannot possibly exist - there are too many logical contradictions. Yet, I have no problem with folks who wish to "believe" or "have faith", except when they try to justify their belief and/or prove their god by science or logic!
2) Nowhere did I mention Christianity.
The fact is, all I was saying that God could neither be proven to someone who does not believe and that Science in itself does not disprove the existence of God.
Sorry, but you do not get to make the rules for the rest of us. Where I come from, God is the null hypothesis. If you are offering an alternative hypothesis, then the burden is on you to show that the consensus (Christians, Jews, Taoists, Hindus, etc.) are wrong.
I see evidence all around me to support my belief. Can I make you see it too? Not if you can't or won't.
I take it you're not a student of quatum mechanics. Classical logic and science doesn't cut it anymore. It was my studies at the quantum level that got me thinking that all those contradictions you mentioned are possible.
Religion began as a way for primitive humans to understand their surroundings. They attributed things they saw, experienced, or thought to exist to gods, demons, and other, non-physical beings.
Science studies what exists and posits hypotheses to explain things that aren't understood. If experiments and evidence bear out the conclusions of the hypotheses, they become theories. Nothing in science, unlike modern religion, is ever proven to be absolutely true or correct.
Hamlet "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy."
I strongly agree with you here! Science isn't a religion but that does not stop humans from treating it as such. They get really pissy when you point out science's shortcomings.
Gary: You take it wrong! I am most certainly a student of quantum physics, quantum mechanics, quantum chromodynamics, cosmology, astrophysics, and many other sciences.
Why specifically do you think that science and logic don't cut it anymore?
What specifically are your studies at the quantum level that got you to "thinking that all those contradictions you mentioned are possible."
I am quite curious as to your answers! I am sincerely so, I assure you. I've been searching for the truth of things for close to 50 years now. I was a "believer" for many years, but now I find that there is so much that I have been taught to believe that is just plain wrong.
Gary (aka: William Pinn) J. Oct 3, 2009, 5:26pm EDT
Science studies what exists and posits hypotheses to explain things that aren't understood. If experiments and evidence bear out the conclusions of the hypotheses, they become theories. Nothing in science, unlike modern religion, is ever proven to be absolutely true or correct.
"I strongly agree with you here! Science isn't a religion but that does not stop humans from treating it as such. They get really pissy when you point out science's shortcomings. "
Gary: what exactly are science's shortcomings? Please explain. And how exactly do you think that humans treat science as a religion?
And what exactly is your evidence or logic behind your statement that "They get really pissy when you point out science's shortcomings."?? Who is the "they" that you refer to??
If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, then it is the burden of that person to support that claim. The burden of proof does not lie with science but on those that make a claim that something exists that has not been proven.
Sorry, but you do not get to make the rules for the rest of us. Where I come from, God is the null hypothesis. If you are offering an alternative hypothesis, then the burden is on you to show that the consensus (Christians, Jews, Taoists, Hindus, etc.) are wrong.
I see evidence all around me to support my belief. Can I make you see it too? Not if you can't or won't.
Sorry, but Science DOES get to set the rules for ANY of the rest of us that are talking about science! If you don't want to play by the rules of science, then you are free to do so - but you won't be playing science, you'll be playing some other game. If you want to debate about evidence, scientific evidence, then you must accept the rules of science. If you want to talk about other kinds of evidence, like a vision of some kind that you had, then you are free to do so,... but you cannot claim that that kind of evidence is scientifically valid.
James A was simply explaining to you what a scientific theory is and what a hypothesis is. And he is quite correct. What exactly is your problem with that? Science is what it is.
Gary, I'm sorry, I really am, but you have the burden of proof quite backwards. Where you come from and what the people there believe does not make them right. If you want to use logic and reasoning, then you must accept the rules of logic and reasoning. No one sets the rules of logic, they simply are, period. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. No one invented logic, but many folks have discovered that logic. If you choose to engage in logical fallacies, then you are free to do so, but do not claim that you are using logic.
Finally, you say:
I see evidence all around me to support my belief. Can I make you see it too? Not if you can't or won't.
I would love to see the evidence you claim to see! Now, please be sure to specify whether your evidence is scientific or logical. You are free to believe what you choose, but if you claim that there is scientific evidence involved, then you have to play by the rules of science. Else you are free to play whatever game you wish - I won't have a problem with that at all. And if you claim that some kind of reasoning or logic supports your belief, then you must play by the rules. Else, just say you don't want to play by the rules, and I will have no issue with that.
But I can't prove God to you ( generic 'you') by the measure of My proofs. You have to seek your own./// And of course, if someone chooses not to believe in God , for whatever reason ( Atheism IS a religious preference and choice---the choice to NOT believe in God)--- then such a person will neither see , hear, feel, nor accept proof---of ANY color. Hi Gary/ William. Lonnie
What I stated is the scientific method. The burdon of proof is on the party who introduces the alternate hypothesis: there is no god.
You certainly achieved that objective.
On a tangent, I have often wondered if everyone does see things the same way - my "red" could actually appear purple to my child, for instance, but they would learn it as "red" because I teach them so - we could all being seeing differently.
So you interpret the evidence differently? Funny how we don't all see the "color red" the same way.
Further, though I do not agree that the atheist should have lost his cool, I can clearly see why he/she did so. Based only on what you have posted, Gary, I think the atheist won this debate hands down, only because it appears clearly that you indeed were not comprehending the atheist's points.
Which points did I fail to comprehend? The four-letter ones?
And this is what led to the atheist's frustration level and ultimately his loss of cool.
Believe what you like. You are entitled to your faith.
It matters not whether one is a sore winner. What matters are the logical arguments used.
Your reference to the color red again is irrelevant and closely constitutes the logical error of using equivocation. Whether you and I see the color red the same way has no bearing on whether you and I agree on the winner of the debate! We are not talking about red or color here.
I certainly would be entitled to my faith, IF I had faith. I do not! Faith, by definition is a belief held without supporting evidence. Faith is also a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary.
There is no contradiction between winning a debate and being a sore winner. Being a sore winner has no bearing on whether that winner is a winner.
I did not notice you give the evidence you claim caused your change. What was it?
If a person wanted proof that the color red existed, I imagine it would be done the way that we show that other colors we cannot see exist. Red is light with a certain wavelength. Even if the blind man could not see the color himself, he could certainly understand that answer. We have similar issues with some animals able to see in the ultraviolet and infrared. We have observed their behaviors where they react to those colors, and we have been able to create tools able to detect those wavelengths. So the only real question would be "do others consistently see that vibration of the light spectrum as being red". There would be very simple ways of testing that, including showing the same thing to different people to have them tell you the color they see. That does not mean the blind man actually experiences color, but he can recognize that it exists, both through logic and through scientific tests. We could jury rig a gadget which would translate colors into heat, and the blind man wuold be able to recognoze the colors from that.
So you may need a better example.
I even offered the evidence that changed my mind within my post. Go back and read it again. I think you are a perfect example of how people see what they want to see or don't see what they don't want to see.
And a metaphor works only if it works. :-) I am merely pointing out that yours does not work, so you need a new one. If you cannot find one, then perhaps your attempt to create a metaphor is misplaced.
Scientists are quite willing to believe pretty much anything if there is evidence for it. That is pretty much the definition of a scientist.
Many religious people, on the other hand, operate on "faith" -- that is, they have a closed mind to the evidence. They not only will refuse to see anything which conflicts with their beliefs, but will even refuse to see things in their own beliefs which are self-contradictory.
This hardly seems like "proof of a god", but perhaps this is what you meant.
Take pi, which is a "real" number. No matter how many decimals you take it, you will never get to the "perfect measurement" but you will always be able to locate the next digit.
I admit I do not see how this would either prove or disprove the existence of a god. It merely shows the operation of mathematics.
Exactly what do you think defines God, or a god?
No need. I checked my post and my statement regarding the evidence is still there.
And a metaphor works only if it works. :-) I am merely pointing out that yours does not work, so you need a new one. If you cannot find one, then perhaps your attempt to create a metaphor is misplaced.
My metaphor did not work because you took it literally even when it was followed by a statement of clarification of what it represented? Again, you are perfect example of someone who sees what he wants and does not see what he does not want.
Scientists are quite willing to believe pretty much anything if there is evidence for it. That is pretty much the definition of a scientist.
But they often have different opinions as to what the evidence shows. Their evidentiary standards can vary also. It has something to do with them being human and not demi-gods.
Many religious people, on the other hand, operate on "faith" -- that is, they have a closed mind to the evidence. They not only will refuse to see anything which conflicts with their beliefs, but will even refuse to see things in their own beliefs which are self-contradictory.
You are describing yourself here. Which religion do you practice?
If a metphor does not work, it does not work.
You asked how a blind man could be convinced of the existence of the color "red". I demonstrated how a scientist would go about doing so.
So, using your metaphor, it appears that it IS possible to prove the existence of something to someone who cannot himself personally experience it. Your metaphor makes the opposite point of the one you want, so I suggest that you find a new one.
I even offered the evidence that changed my mind within my post. Go back and read it again. I think you are a perfect example of how people see what they want to see or don't see what they don't want to see.
You seem be the perfect example of how people see things that aren't there! Please be patient with me and tell me specifically what your experience of god was. If it is in your original post, then I submit that it is invisible.
You say you experienced god. How so? You never did answer the atheist's question as far as I can see. If you wish me to "see" it, please help me. I an not refusing to see it. In fact, I really do wish to see it. If you don't wish me to see it, then please say so,... and I will move on.
This hardly seems like "proof of a god", but perhaps this is what you meant.
Take pi, which is a "real" number. No matter how many decimals you take it, you will never get to the "perfect measurement" but you will always be able to locate the next digit. I admit I do not see how this would either prove or disprove the existence of a god. It merely shows the operation of mathematics. Exactly what do you think defines God, or a god?
Ah, I see you have opened your eyes to my post and found the section you missed. To answer your question, a spirit is defined as nonmaterial. If we exclude from the universe all that can be construed as matter, energy and spacetime, what is left? An infinitesimal point. A simple spirit of the simplist order as mentioned by Thomas Aquinas. Yet all things contain infinite sets of such points. All points can fit inside the one point, so the one point, the simple spirit has infinite power and capacity. All perfect measurements are points along a line of real numbers. Every circle has a perfect center, but no one can measure it with exactitude. It eludes us. The center of the circle and all the other points are the essence of the circle and the universe. Science can never pin down reality with infinite precision because reality is more than what we can observe and measure. Reality has a spiritual essence that can be theorectically shown with mathematics.
I did not miss it before. It is merely that it does not appear to back up your claim in any way. It was merely the closest shadow of a claim which I could find.
>>To answer your question, a spirit is defined as nonmaterial.<<
I did not ask about a spirit, but rather about a god. From your definition I assume that means that vacuum is god, unless you left something out of your definition.
Well this comment fails to back up your claim that I failed to back up mine. LOL!
I did not ask about a spirit, but rather about a god.
A god can't be a spirit? O....K.
From your definition I assume that means that vacuum is god, unless you left something out of your definition.
No, a vacuum would be space. Part of my god would be the essence of space, the part no scientist could ever measure with infinite precision.
If we exclude from the universe all that can be construed as matter, energy and spacetime, what is left? An infinitesimal point.
If we exclude matter, energy , and spacetime, we are left with NOTHING, not even a point. This is because there would be no universe left!! Spacetime IS the universe. If you were to study cosmology, you would begin to understand. What you are saying is similar to saying If we remove all the matter and energy from a balloon, and then remove the balloon itself, we are left with a point. That is a logical absurdity. The word "absurdity" is not intended to connote anything personal, it is simply what it is called.
In any case, the fabric of spacetime and everything in it IS the universe. According to astrophysicists and cosmologists, if you don't have spacetime, there is no universe to host a point, line, or anything else. Without spacetime, you have nothing, zip, zero, nada. I am beginning to understand that your much of the problem I have with your arguments is due to your misunderstanding of science and lack of knowledge. You certainly lack the knowledge of what spacetime is, else you would not have made your statement about a point being left over.
Has anyone ever observed nothing? Nothing, like the point, is just another imaginary concept that is used to solve real problems. According to calculus, if nothing is the limit, and the limit exists, then nothing and the point are the same. They are also equally elusive.
This is because there would be no universe left!!
Exactly. If you were to ponder the origin of the universe, you would have to start with nothing or the infinitesmal point.
Spacetime IS the universe.
It is a subset of the universe.
If you were to study cosmology, you would begin to understand.
Well, so far I have only gotton as far as general relativity. I wouln't mind having a more intuitive understanding of Christophal symbols.
What you are saying is similar to saying If we remove all the matter and energy from a balloon, and then remove the balloon itself, we are left with a point. That is a logical absurdity.
Can you explain why, or is this another leap of faith? I find your assertion surprising, since it is made in the face of the Big Bang theory which starts with a point or singularity and postulates that the "balloon" rapidly expanded and still is.
The word "absurdity" is not intended to connote anything personal, it is simply what it is called.
By whom? By what authority?
In any case, the fabric of spacetime and everything in it IS the universe. According to astrophysicists and cosmologists, if you don't have spacetime, there is no universe to host a point, line, or anything else. Without spacetime, you have nothing, zip, zero, nada.
There is some disagreement as to how the universe began. The rapid expansion of spacetime is one theory. Paul Davies wrote an article about it. You might find it on the web. String theory postulates that our 4 dimensions of spacetime were once curled up to something the size of the Planck length. Not quite nothing but pretty close...like my idea of a point.
I am beginning to understand that your much of the problem I have with your arguments is due to your misunderstanding of science and lack of knowledge.
LOL! That must be it! You feel better now, don't you? Let's see, have taken advanced courses in computer science, calculus, statistics, chemistry, physics. I took one year of biology. I recently finished a continuation course at Stanford on GR theory. Currently, I am taking courses in microbiology, quantum physics, organic chemistry and meteorology. Like you I have a strong interest in science and math. If it makes you feel better to believe you are smarter, go ahead. I prefer to live by Socrate's motto:
"I know next to nothing, but at least I know I know next to nothing." That is why my education never stops.
You certainly lack the knowledge of what spacetime is, else you would not have made your statement about a point being left over.
Gary, did you know that spacetime can be warped, curved, distorted, can expand and contract? Are you familiar with Lorentz equations? If there is enough gravity or velocity, space can theoretically shrink to a point and time can stand still. Feel free to study special and general relativity.
If you wish to comment, I posted it on Gather also. Just use this link
Now I have done it---okay hit me with your comeback I stepped into the big one--big time.!