Roller

Hello everyone!

I'm interested in the following: is there a difference between a blind man, if you try to explain sunlight to him and skeptic to whom you try to explain that there is a God?

Roller

Seraphim

To a skeptic, there is a possibility of what you say is true but till further evidence arises, that will remain as possibility only.

To a blind man, no matter what you say or do, what he knows is all there is to it. Such person is blind because he don't wished to see.

At least, my opinion.

tronvillain

Given that Roller was apparently talking about someone who was physically blind, your response makes no sense Seraphim.

Now, to my knowledge the vision impaired do not dispute the existence of sunlight.

Toto

A blind person has evidence of sunlight from his or her other senses (warmth). A blind person could also read (through braille or other methods) instruments that record sunlight. So a skeptical blind person could be persuaded of the existence of sunlight, just as we are persuaded of the existence of x-rays or other vibrations that we cannot see.

However, there is no known method of detecting the existence of god(s) that can be used to provide evidence for the skeptic.

This seems quite elementary. You must be new.

Seraphim

"Given that Roller was apparently talking about someone who was physically blind, your response makes no sense Seraphim."

My reply : It makes sense to those who make sense of it.

"A blind person has evidence of sunlight from his or her other senses (warmth). A blind person could also read (through braille or other methods) instruments that record sunlight. So a skeptical blind person could be persuaded of the existence of sunlight, just as we are persuaded of the existence of x-rays or other vibrations that we cannot see.
However, there is no known method of detecting the existence of god(s) that can be used to provide evidence for the skeptic"

My reply : In the above context, let see whether there is no proof of God or not.

Blind have proof of sunlight from his other sensors. What other sensors do a skeptic have which he or she uses to show that there is no god? Logic? Your logic most of the time based on specific religion and region, not the whole belief of the human race especially the Eastern societies whom built magnificient society with rich culture from this beliefs.
In that context, your sensors are impaired by your own lack of proper tools.

The blind can also read from recorded instructions about the sunlight. How many skeptics here can claimed to know he have read AND understood Eastern writing as well as the Western ones? The Gita, Buddhist scriptures, the Yin Yang principles etc? What most of you know is nothing more than the Bible and some information about other religions on the Net based on 3rd or 4th person views.
In that context, the skeptic are impaired with lack of information.

Since there is lack of Information and Tools in a specific study, thus that makes you assume that such study is illogical to follow since it will not lead anywhere.

In above context, are you the blind man or a skeptic?

Roller

Hello Toto!

Yes, I'm new See how many postings I have A blind person here is in a form of a skeptic. He could say that warmth can be coming from somekind of heater.

Well, yes, at the end, all comes down to believing, isn't it? How can we persuade a blind man of the existence of the x-rays?

To avoid confusion, I'm a skeptic I'm just trying to figure this one out.

Toto

I have studied a certain amount of Eastern philosophy and yoga. I have practiced a little meditation. I know people who have pursued meditation extensively who are staunch atheists.

So what is your point?

Dark Jedi

Exactly. Isn't "some kind of heater" an aspect of the sun, the source of sunlight?

This would merely be independant and verifiable evidence to the origin of the sunlight, thus lending credance to the possibility of the unsensed sunlight itself. It is applying the known attributes of the claimed phenomenon to the evidence presented.
Were you to feel colder in the presence of sunlight, all other aspects remaining unchanged, you would have to conclude that this 'sunlight' is not present, or does not have the properties claimed.

Synaesthesia

Sensory modalities are not the point. The key is the intepretive framework in which they can be understood.

I do have the proper tools with which to conclude that people who have invisible friends are probably deluded. Christianity was merely a test case.

Although I'm sure there's a lot of personal gain to be had from these religions, their views on the fundamental nature of the universe are simply too ambiguous to take seriously.

Toto

No, it doesn't come down to believing, unless you are lazy. It comes down to many repeatable observations and experiments. The blind person can read reports of experiments on x-rays, can read reports of instrument readings.

One person cannot do all of the experiments needed to know everything, but human society has a wealth of this data produced by many observations and experiments. We do not trust it out of faith, but because we know the method used to produce it. We repeat experiments because we know that errors and fraud do happen, but we know that on the whole, our data is a reliable guide to the world.

In contrast, there are no repeatable experiments that show evidence of god.