The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mysery
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

How would an atheist prove the existence of color as an asthetic concept 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 759 times Debate No: 88847
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

ViceRegent

Con

Do atheists know that their physical senses are the only ones? What would they say to a blind man who said there are only four senses, denying the existence of the sense of sight. He demands evidence from you as to the existence of color as an asthetic concept. What would you say?
Mysery

Pro

I would read him a scientific explanation of the way eyes process vision and the way light creates color. If he still didn't believe me, I would leave him to his own devices because I don't really care. If this man wants to not believe in vision, that's his choice. It doesn't make my believes in vision any less valid.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

In other words, you cannot prove something to someone who lacks the a unity to believe? Now you know why we Christians think you atheists are fools when you ask for proof.
Mysery

Pro

Not really. It's perfectly reasonable for the blind man to not believe me. Why should he?

Except of course, for the fact that I actually have scientific documentation explaining how color and vision work.

http://www.aoa.org...
http://web.mst.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

The blind man would simply dismiss your "facts" as coming from a deluded man.

And did you say it is reasonable to deny reality? Yep, you are an atheist.
Mysery

Pro

It's reasonable to deny something if you have no proof of it. If nobody has taken the time to prove to this blind man that color and vision exist, there is no reason he should believe it. However, this is not really analogous to the existence of a God because we have scientific proof of vision and color and we do not have this proof of God. Because this analogy doesn't work, it is completely irrelevant whether or not I'm an atheist. We're not discussing God. We are discussing colors.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Where did you get the foolish idea that lack of evidence is reason to deny existence?

And the blind man says you have no evidence color exists.
Mysery

Pro

If I tell you I'm an AI created by Martians, debating with you to gain intelligence on humans, you have no reason to believe me. Could I be an AI? Maybe, but the chance is so low that it isn't worth your time investigating it. It makes much more sense for you to go on living your life, believing there are no Martian AIs.

Well, I do have evidence that color exists. That's what he asked me to find, and I did. I just proved it. Why do you get to decide the blind man's reaction? Can you provide a reason why the blind man might not believe me? If not, it's unreasonable to assume that he would reject my proof.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

I did not ask you for an example, but proof of your claim that it is reasonable to infer non-existence from no evidence. You failed to provide any. Indeed, your position is irrational. The only thing you can infer from non-evidence is that no answeR is possible. Like a good atheist, you failed Logic 101.

And the blind man says your "evidence" is merely evidence you are deluded. And he did not ask you to find evidence color exists, but to prove to him color exists. You failed. As I said, now you know why we Christians see your denial of reality is evidence you are mentally ill. And h
Mysery

Pro

I believe my example showed a very reasonable reaction to lack of evidence. Are you implying that this reaction was not reasonable?

In the blind man's experience, there is no vision. It makes no sense of him that color is real. The BOP is on me, so if I fail to prove that there is vision and color, he is reasonable in persisting with his belief that there is no vision or color. However, I did not fail.

Why do you get to decide what the blind man is saying? I believe the pages I cited do prove that color exists, and you have not actually refuted that with anything logical. You give no reason why my articles do not stand as proof; instead you persist in telling me that the blind man isn't convinced. You tell me that I am wrong, but you do not back up that claim.

You told me to prove the existence of color of a blind man. I did. You did not present any evidence that would convince someone to believe I didn't. I have won this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by godtraitor 1 year ago
godtraitor
See, that wasn't so hard. Thank you for finally admitting that your idea of God is just that, an idea, like that of love. It's not an actual existing entity that manifests in reality. It's an opinion, like that of the painting's observer.

Well sir, we definitely agree there: God is an imaginary concept that can't be shown or upon which any objective consensus can be reached.

God exists in your mind. How about you leave Him there?
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Does this fool really not understand the limits of science and how it can only deal with the material, that that which is outside of the material cannot be touched by science? Most atheists are not credentialed scientists and would not even know what a philosophy of science text book looks like. Nevertheless, they have been propagandized by their government school slavemasters to believe that their senses determine reality, which empisirism is a but a ting brach of epistemology. This is why they cannot use science to demonstrate they love their mother or that this is a beautiful painting. Does that mean they do not love their mother or that beautiful paintings do not exist? Only a fool would say so. Ironically, because these fool are so ignorant of science they do not understand that science requires nature to be uniform for it to have any meaning and that atheism provides only for a radially non-uniform nature, for athism can only offer time and chance acting on matter. Thus, to do science, one must presuppose the Christian worldview. This is why societies that were atheistic toward the Christian God were (and some still are) on the stoneages and it was Christians that invented modern science. Too bad the did not teach yout his truth in government schools.
Posted by godtraitor 1 year ago
godtraitor
You can dodge the challenge all you want but you're still standing there holding an empty sack. I'll issue it again. Be good Christian and dodge again, as you all are apt to doing:

Name for me a single testable experiment that a non-believer may perform to prove that the Christian God exists.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
How funny that this fool speaks of logic when the only thing he has said is irrational, saying we must be irrational to know things. ROFL
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
The blind man says you are delusional for believing color is real. Prove it is real? Where is your evidence that does not evidence you are irrational?
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
The blind man says you are delusional for believing color is real. Prove it is real? Where is your evidence that does not evidence you are irrational?
Posted by godtraitor 1 year ago
godtraitor
Reality as we know it is tangible and testable. Color exists in our reality. It is testable and consistent. The blind man's inability to sense it himself does not erase it from reality. Color doesn't belong in the same sentence as likes of Gods, Bigfoot, fairies, as to their level of deniability.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn"t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" - Sam Harris
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
In other words, for this person to prove color exists to a blind man, the blind man must engage in circular reasoning? ROFL. Did I not say atheists were irrational? Thanks for putting it in black and white.
Posted by godtraitor 1 year ago
godtraitor
A person must make an assumption or expectation of an outcome before the result is realised. That's the case for everything. A person must assume this Universe exists yet there is no proof of this. If a person wanted to, they could claim that this reality is all just a computer program like the Matrix and we are just part of it. This is completely unfalsifiable. So the blind man may deny anything he is told about sight, as he can never truly comprehend it. He can, however, test the claims made about sight using peer review and repeatable double-blind experiments. Whether or not he accepts the results is up to him, not the one trying to convince him.

With regard to the atheist being compared to the blind man, show me a single repeatable test that would show a non-believer that God exists. He must first assume that God exists in order to test the God hypothesis in the first place. The problem, obviously, will arise when he tests every God claim that has ever been made to be sure due diligence is met. Have you tested every God claim ever made? How can you be sure that you are not missing out on the actual God? When you prayed to Allah to ask if he existed, what answer did you receive? What about Zeus' argument did you find insufficient? Where did Odin go wrong in your mind? Ra?

Imagine the string test where every time the blind man asked someone to touch the "Red" finger, instead of a consistent finger, they touched all his fingers with no rhyme or reason to it. What then? Should the blind man go with the finger that the most people touched? Should he simply choose the finger he likes the best? Or maybe the man should realize that the people are full of BS and there is no such thing as a "God" finger.

I'm sorry. I mean "Red" finger........
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Notice what this dude says, the blind man, who denies color exists, has to assume color exists to name the colors in order for this fool to prove color exists. Beg the question anyone?
No votes have been placed for this debate.