a question to a religious person
Debate Rounds (3)
I will wait for the instigator's round 2 for them to expound the metaphor further (assuming that is the purpose of the question).
My opening thoughts, addressing the question purely literally, are that - regardless of being blind or not - a person may very well have several reasons for wearing a watch that does not tell the time. For example, it could be a compass, or a step-counter, or a tracking device.
no one knows why the blind man is wearing the watch or what it does
By "no one" do you mean that no entity within the bounds of our plane of existence in this universe knows why the blind man is wearing the watch or what it does?
Even if you could demonstrate that this were true for every single being that existed within our own universe (eg you asked them all, and they all said they didn't know - oh, and then you proved they were all telling you the truth of course), it is always possible that a being of higher dimensions to that of our own existence might have such knowledge. You would have no way to corroborate or refute this.
What % of knowledge of everything there is to "know" do you reckon humanity has achieved thus far? [That includes knowledge both within and outside of our own universe.]
I guess like your blind man's watch analogy, nobody knows nor could even begin to hazard a guess at that. Personally, I suspect it is not even a fraction of one over one trillion to the power of itself a trillion times...
Yet I'm sure we're still well placed to assume an infinite being doesn't exist, based on nothing more than our own human logic and the parameters by which we ourselves have deemed best to measure and understand this tiny fragment of our own galaxy.
it isnt true that anyone knows about the watch as far as we know.
how else would it be then beings on a planet, should we be born with enourmeous eyes?, and how big would they need to be
You have logically stymied yourself. It doesn't hold that no-one knows about the watch, because you as the proposer of the question know about the watch.
Unless the watch doesn't exist of course, but then it renders your question redundant. It is about as logically worthwhile as a sign that states "please do not steal this sign".
Now if it is the case that the watch is a straw man argument in place of God, then this too doesn't work. eg I could say to you that the blind man is wearing an invisible watch. I can't prove it, noone has ever seen it, but I just know it is there - and you just have to take my word for it. But that is entirely baseless, there is literally no evidence behind my proposition. In exactly the same way as there is no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
God does not suffer from this same void of evidence though. As there is recorded evidence of the man Christ who existed and appeared to eyewitnesses, who claimed to be the Son of God and performed public miracles to back up his claims. He in turn pointed back to even more ancient texts about God's interaction with humanity through the Jews and an earlier promise that a Messiah would indeed come to Earth for our salvation. All of these texts are historical evidence.
Now of course you can try and argue that this evidence has become corrupted over time, or that the information was outright false by the person who originally penned the evidence in the first place - that is a conclusion you need to decide upon based on reviewing the evidence. But the one thing you can never say is that there is no evidence. Because that is simply not true.
In fact, Atheism is the position with no evidence. Atheism is purely a stance taken by an individual human being based on their own internalised conclusions, and almost always it is an opinion which has been reached only after reading a book by another atheist who in turn was only merely voicing their own internalised conclusions (no-one is "born atheist", to use your own argument back at you from another debate).
The one thing the Atheist doesn't have is any written evidence. In fact, the Atheist has to go further and either ignore or refute the religious texts that DO exist (the actual evidence) and then stand on their own conclusion for which they have utterly zero written evidence to support it - and only their own opinion that the religious texts that do exist must all be totally false. Even though they have no actual evidence to directly disprove these texts.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.