The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

How does one prove the existence of color to a blind man?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,313 times Debate No: 85159
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (72)
Votes (1)

 

ViceRegent

Con

Atheists are constantly demanding Christians prove the existence of God, but it is no more possible to prove to a spiritually blind man the existence of a spiritual reality than it is to prove to a physically blind mind the existence of color. It is not that evidence is lacking, for all of reality is proof of the existence of both God and color, but the blind man is literally unable to see it.
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

This is rather easy.

Simply show the blind man the existance of the vast wavelength of light. From Radio waves to gamma rays.

This is objective empirical evidence for the existence of light, even if the man can not subjectively experience it himself.

This is precisely what is lacking from the claims of anyone claiming to know the existance of a divine being and even more know his mind and his desires... They are entirely vacuous of evidence, they are merely nonesense sugarcoated with logical fallacies. Just as this false equivalence, this not a valid analogy.

Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

The blind man does not deny the existence of wavelengths, but color. As you did not address the point of the opening remark, but instead wrestled with straw men, your response merits no response.

But since you brought it up, please show how the senses, which are subjective, by definition, provide objective proof.

Prove claims as to the existence of God are vacuous of evidence.

Prove claims as to the existence of God are nonsense.

Prove claims as to the existence of God are logically fallacies.

Prove this analogy was a false equivalence?

Prove you are able to know anything you claim to be true is in fact true?
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Well, I will pour my thoughts on the subject a bit more, in a hope to satisfy your demands :)

It is not that us "Atheists" if you must use that term, or anyone who is interested in persuing truth for its own sake, does not try to see god, rather they are honest with themselves and realize that the man who is truly blind is the one who refuses to see reality as it truly is.


Stuck in self denial, comforted by irrationality and logical fallacies, the truly blind man lacks the courage to see reality as it truly seems to be - That is, any honest observation of reality and our natural world, points towards the fact that- god most likely does not exist

We have tried seeing and relying on the light of god, gods, and goddesses. - Ironically,that was called the dark ages.

But there there- Let me address the resolution directly and clearly.

How does one prove the existence of color to a blind man?

As I stated earlier the same that x-rays, microwaves, UV rays, IR radiation, radio waves and so on exist, even though we see any of them.

Just because you can't see them doesn't mean you can't measure their effects.

You can measure how the different wavelengths of visible light (which is just EM radiation in a particular narrow range of wavelengths) cause different optic nerve cells to fire when the light falls on particular cone-cells in the retina.

So, given that color is just a function of how the eye responds to mixtures of wavelengths, he can understand that color exists quite clearly.

He can even identify the visual cortex in the brain, and through various measurements, come to understand something of the way color perception works.

Even though he doesn't perceive it, he can measure and come to understand quite a lot about the perception of it through analogy and mathematical models, the same way understand that a bats or dolphins use echolocation,even though it's a sense we don't posess.

That is, not only is the existence of color easily demonstrated, a blind scientist could come to understand a great deal about the ways in which the different perception of color works in different animals even without anyone to tell him about its existence.

The point is, if something is a real artifact of the universe, we can probably test for it and therefore we don't have to take it on faith.



Let me further deconstruct the case.

1. The question itself, in fact, is framed in such a way as to imply that no evidence besides seeing is acceptable for the existence of light (color)

Step one to getting nearer the truth- Realize this is WRONG.

If we reduce “knowledge” to subjective,unverifiable experience.

That means that we would have no choice but to believe a Muslim saying “Hey, I spoke to Allah yesterday, and He told me that Jesus DEFINITELY wasn’t His son.”

...I have a funny feeling that CON would not take kindly to this idea and would not be willing to accept the inescapable logical conclusion.

:)


Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

It is not that blind men does not try to see color, rather they are honest with themselves and realize that the man who is truly blind is the one who refuses to see reality as it truly is.

Stuck in self-denial, comforted by irrationality and logic fallacies, the truly blind man lacks the courage to see reality as it truly seems to be - that is, any honest observation of reality and our natural world, points to the fact that color most likely does not exist.

The blind has tried seeing and relying on the wavelength colors provide.

Now, the blind man does not deny that things exist when cannot be seen. He denies color exists because you have not proved its existence. Focus on the debate, not your red herring.

Indeed, he can be made to understand how the Death Star destroys planets, but that does not make it real. Back to the debate, please.

To claim color can be measured as proof of its existence is to argue circularly.

And if it is so easy, why not do it?

And you cannot even know your birthdate without faith.

Now, about my five requests for proof for your claims that you dodged?
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

My points remain uncontested :)

Perhaps I should restate them. As clearly I have explained how one proves the existence of color to a blind man

As I stated earlier the same that x-rays, microwaves, UV rays, IR radiation, radio waves and so on exist, even though we can't see
any of them.

Just because you can't see them doesn't mean you can't measure their effects.

You can measure how the different wavelengths of visible light (which is just EM radiation in a particular narrow range of wavelengths) cause different optic nerve cells to fire when the light falls on particular cone-cells in the retina.

So, given that color is just a function of how the eye responds to mixtures of wavelengths, he can understand that color exists quite clearly.

He can even identify the visual cortex in the brain, and through various measurements, come to understand something of the way color perception works.

Even though he doesn't perceive it, he can measure and come to understand quite a lot about the perception of it through analogy and mathematical models, the same way understand that a bats or dolphins use echolocation,even though it's a sense we don't posess.

That is, not only is the existence of color easily demonstrated, a blind scientist could come to understand a great deal about the ways in which the different perception of color works in different animals even without anyone to tell him about its existence.

The point is, if something is a real artifact of the universe, we can probably test for it and therefore we don't have to take it on faith..
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Well, if all you can do is repeat yourself when you have been answered, then you lose the debate.

As I said, the blind man does not deny that things not visible exist, but that color exists. I can admit that x-rays exist without admitting invisible tigers exist.

And you tell the blind man that different wavelengths cause different optic never cells to fire and he says prove it. Pay special attention to proving that these differences are caused by COLOR. LOL

This dude is hilarious with his bad logic.

And again, this dude places his faith in his senses that they provide him an accurate understanding of reality, all without faith. ROFL.

So far, this dude is failing.
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Dear, con. Or perhaps as you'd like to be called " Dude"... :)
You have just conceeded! Even if you refuse to acknowledge or understand that you have, (voters I trust that you will).

I'll make this simple.

I stated

"
x-rays, microwaves, UV rays, IR radiation, radio waves and so on exist, even though we can't see any of them.Just because you can't see them doesn't mean you can't measure their effects"

And, just in the same way...You can measure how the different wavelengths of visible light ( which is excatly the same type of Radiation, as say X-RAYs, just in a different range of wavelengths.) cause different optic nerve cells to fire when the light falls on particular cone-cells in the retina.

So, in summary since, color is just how the eye responds to visible light of different wavelengths, he can understand that color exists quite clearly.

He can even identify the visual cortex in the brain..............understanding something of the way color perception works. Even though he doesn't perceive it

That, for the 3rd time, is how one does prove the existence of color to a blind man. Hopefully con will understand this time.
......................
Now con states.

"As I said, the blind man does not deny that things not visible exist, but that color exists. "

Alright, let's think. Con here is in denial that visible light is made up of different wavelengths, which is color. From higher energy blue to red, as any highschool physics student knows. Or he is in denial that that different optic nerve cells fire in response to different wavelengths of light( which can be proved experimentally by say FMRI machine) , thus detecting different types of visible light...which we have a name for... COLOR.

Sorry con, you gave it your best shot, but your attempts to prove your death cult of human sacrafice ( christianity) and your imaginery sky dad ( god) true quite simply fail miserably and are proven false by science, logic and reason.

Vote Pro if you value logic, reason and the unfettered pursuit of truth

:)

Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

It is like you are intentionally being obtuse.

The debate is not about your ability to explain to a blind man what color is so that he understands what you are talking about, but proof that thing you have described and he understands as color does exist.

Surely you understand that I can explain what a Death Star and a unicorn is without being able to proof they actually exist, right? Well, maybe not too the intentionally obtuse.

You are failing badly.
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

I win. It seems Con can do nothing more than whine and call me names. Haha. :)

I have refuted all of Con's arguments, and provided my own which are still standing.

So, this has been an interesting debate. Thanks.

Vote Pro if you value logic, reason and the unfettered pursuit of truth

:)


Debate Round No. 5
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
No, you lost the debate as to proving color to a blind man. So no need to run. But tell us how you know truth from fiction with something more than "I analyze" it.
Posted by Jedd 1 year ago
Jedd
'You are proving convincingly that you cannot prove the existence of color to a blind man'
You asked for ways to prove color to a blind man, we gave you ways. You asked for evidence, we gave you evidence.

'which makes your demand to a Christian for proof of the existence of God foolish.'
Are you disguising your plan of escape? Is this running away?

'And you, as an atheist, have no way of knowing what truth is.'
I most certainly do. I analyze the claim, weigh up the evidence, and think with my heart. On the other hand, I have no way of knowing what your BELIEF is.

'Your worldview has left you no idea, which is why no rational man embraces it.'
I am open to the truth. You just have to give evidence to prove spiritual reality to me, unless it's a mere claim. Spiritual reality is a claim, not a truth then.

'Indeed, by your own hand you have typed my rejection of your irrational evidence.'
And also your ignorance. Your rebuttals for the evidence are ten times more irrational.

'You have done nothing to change my mind.'
Just as your blind man would have said. Our blind man would not have been so ignorant.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
It is not for me to prove anything, for I have made no claim. I asked a question. You are proving convincingly that you cannot prove the existence of color to a blind man, which makes your demand to a Christian for proof of the existence of God foolish.

And you, as an atheist, have no way of knowing what truth is. You could not only be spiritually blind, but mentally deluted. Your worldview has left you no idea, which is why no rational man embraces it. Indeed, by your own hand you have typed my rejection of your irrational evidence. You have done nothing to change my mind.
Posted by Jedd 1 year ago
Jedd
1. The white and black shirt experiment. Black is absorbing much light hitting it, hence it's black, and thus absorbs more heat too, vice versa.
Your rebuttal: If he feels a certain temperature change, then he should assume it's because of color? This is a circular argument.

2. The blind man can be thought colors exist, like at a traffic light.
Your rebuttal: You are asking the blind man to assume clothes have specific colors, so you are illogical.

3. Everybody tells him that colors exist, the evidence is there to prove it, nobody is saying otherwise.
Your rebuttal: It is funny that to prove colors to him, he has to put his faith in ONE person.

4. A man who becomes blind later in life will admit the existence of color.
Your rebuttal: A man who, while sighted, embraces the existence of color, becomes blind and denies it exist is a greater fool that the blind man from birth who denies color exists.

5. There are no blind men who have not been blind their whole life who deny that colors exist.
Your rebuttal: But assume a blind man did deny color exists. Could you prove it to him that it did?

By Vice: I am still waiting for an atheist to put away all of the gobblygook and tell me how they would prove color exists to a blind man? Jeff, go to a class on logic at you local community college and then you too will see your arguments are irrational as I do.

And FYI, you keep saying you are still waiting for proof. What have YOU proven? It's not that atheists cannot place their 100% bet on anything, it's because we are open to the truth. When we are wrong, we acknowledge it and support the claim that has been proven (i.e. with evidence and observation). But on the topic of God, there is simply no evidence, physical nor contingent to prove he exists, the same way as you would say Allah existing as absurd.

And now, the evidence is placed before you. I am interested to see how you will dodge the evidence you have asked for and diagnose mental illnesse
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Jedd, what "evidence" was that?
Posted by Jedd 1 year ago
Jedd
We have given you all the evidence needed. You, like the blind man, simply chooses to ignore it, while being disrespectful. The blind man I am debating about has an open heart. Little wonder, the blind man in your perspective is just like you.
Posted by WaraiOtoko 1 year ago
WaraiOtoko
Well i mean youre just not comprehending what colour is. If your understanding of colour is that limited then what can i say. Also you focus on that one line and go off topic when the rest of my comment is on topic. You have not addressed if god can influence my life at all in the slightest if so, i dont care if he exists meander all he likes :) .
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
How ironic that this dude accuses me of going off topic when he has yet to tell me how he would prove the existence of color to a blind man. Oh wait, he said color does not exist if a blind man does not accept it. Nice. I will not waste time on this dude anymore.
Posted by WaraiOtoko 1 year ago
WaraiOtoko
Agreed. However you should address the statement. Also i enjoy the points you bring up in pro religion arguments but i wish you would stay more on piint and address arguments rather than spending alot of your text attacking the character of those who disagree with you. Its not like i dont want to belive in God, on the contrary i think itd spice up Our mundane and largely formulaic world.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
I never concern myself with the psychological pronouncements of the mentally ill.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
ViceRegentimsmarterthanyou98Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con displayed terrible conduct so conduct points to pro. The arguments themselves were hard to decipher just because there was a huge level of miscommunication between both sides