Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God Doesn't Make Sense. To us.

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Yes.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound, and human minds can transduce a perception of sound into similar kinds of information we can get from light. Human echolocation is well-documented, for example. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Yes.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound

I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.

I am not sure if atheism is lack of belief in god, but atheists do lack common sense.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:59:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Yes.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound

I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.

I am not sure if atheism is lack of belief in god, but atheists do lack common sense.

Lack common sense. Ya kidding yourself ain't ya.
You believe in something that can't ever be proven, wich is fair enough. common sense would say stop there. But you go a step further , and live your life according to the thing that can't be proven. Pull your head in.
Looncall
Posts: 451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 7:01:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Yes.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound

I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.

I am not sure if atheism is lack of belief in god, but atheists do lack common sense.

Bah, have you never heard of instruments?

People were unaware of gamma rays until suitable detectors were made, for example.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 7:14:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Yes.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound

I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.
That's not true, Riwaaz. Eyes are only one organ of light detection. But the sun's heat is light too, and you can detect it on your skin. The sun emits radio-waves which are also light, and which you can listen to, for example at the link right.

You can also transduce light into sound, and sound into light (see second video right.)

So we can confirm that objects exist without having to see them, and that light exists even if we had no eyes. So we are much better at testing and correlating claims than you have credited.

What does this mean?

It suggests that if the ideas describing God don't make sense then the root cause may be in the minds who first described the ideas, and not the minds evaluating them.

I am not sure if atheism is lack of belief in god, but atheists do lack common sense.
Is common sense always truth, or is it sometimes ignorant and unquestioned tradition?

How can you check your own thought for falsehood before accusing other members of folly?

Finally, I didn't raise this earlier, but since you're being belligerent, this statement:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist.
Is factually incorrect. All science has said is that our observable universe is of finite mass and size, and has a beginning.

If you don't understand the difference, please ask.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 7:26:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Are you saying we can never hope to understand God with our limited minds?
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 5:03:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 7:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Yes.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound

I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.
That's not true, Riwaaz. Eyes are only one organ of light detection. But the sun's heat is light too, and you can detect it on your skin.

I can feel the warmth of sunlight, but I can't feel sunlight.

The sun emits radio-waves which are also light, and which you can listen to, for example at the link right.
You can also transduce light into sound, and sound into light.

Are you derailing this thread? See #1.

So we can confirm that objects exist without having to see them, and that light exists even if we had no eyes.

I never said that light (like god) won't exist if we had no eyes.

What does this mean?

It suggests that if the ideas describing God don't make sense then the root cause may be in the minds who first described the ideas, and not the minds evaluating them.

I am not sure if atheism is lack of belief in god, but atheists do lack common sense.
Is common sense always truth, or is it sometimes ignorant and unquestioned tradition?

How can you check your own thought for falsehood before accusing other members of folly?

Finally, I didn't raise this earlier, but since you're being belligerent, this statement:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist.
Is factually incorrect. All science has said is that our observable universe is of finite mass and size, and has a beginning.

Here you go.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound,

Solid objects do not reflect light, do they? How do you know when I've presumed everyone is born blind?

Draba : See, the sunlight contains heat, it is real, light is real.

Riwaaz : Call it heat, what light?

Human echolocation is well documented

I can tell if somebody claps in the room or out of the room. This is echolocation. But I didn't see anything, not imagined it. Bats have this ability inherently better. It boils down to precision.

You are fighting a lost battle.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 5:13:31 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 7:17:35 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Blind people dream.

Ssshhhh. Keep silence. Most scientists are done scratching their heads as to why we dream.

By the way, what do they see in their dreams? Are they able to discern the visual information a dream has to offer?

I remember two incidents now -

One of a man, who accidentally lost his eyesight at the age of 3-5.

He could barely walk when, after three/four decades he got his eyesight retrieved.

Second, I read somewhere in the newspapers that in the era when people had B&W tvs, their owners had b&w dreams, mostly. I don't know if it's true. But here's food for thought.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 5:18:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 7:26:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Are you saying we can never hope to understand God with our limited minds?

janesix, what I am actually saying is that we can never understand God if we limit our minds.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 5:23:54 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 7:01:25 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

Yes.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound

I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.

I am not sure if atheism is lack of belief in god, but atheists do lack common sense.

Bah, have you never heard of instruments?

People were unaware of gamma rays until suitable detectors were made, for example.

Where have I said that light doesn't exist if you are blind?

If you are blind, To You, light doesn't exist.

And we don't know how gamma rays taste like, do we? With every sense of ours, there is a kind of pleasure associated.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 5:36:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 5:13:31 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 7:17:35 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Blind people dream.

Ssshhhh. Keep silence. Most scientists are done scratching their heads as to why we dream.

By the way, what do they see in their dreams? Are they able to discern the visual information a dream has to offer?

I remember two incidents now -

One of a man, who accidentally lost his eyesight at the age of 3-5.

He could barely walk when, after three/four decades he got his eyesight retrieved.

Second, I read somewhere in the newspapers that in the era when people had B&W tvs, their owners had b&w dreams, mostly. I don't know if it's true. But here's food for thought.

everyone over the age of 50 dream in black and white.
Blind people dream and see just the outlines of whatever they dream about. Blind from birth people see what we can explain as solid shapes.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 5:59:45 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

"All of us" doesn't make sense. Why does it have to be all? I am a god? Doesn't mean you also want to be a god... you can just be you. Subjectivity needs to be carefully analyzed ... why does the spiritual have to be the same for everyone? Even if all of us are immortal... it doesn't mean we are the same - immortal.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

God makes perfect sense.

Science does so far less often.

Infinity cannot be limited. If it is limited it is not infinity, though it may be as close to it as makes no detectable difference.

Why not ask a person born blind?

Or even better one who was born blind but ho suddenly received sight.

I have, though admittedly not many. and the answer to your question is invariably no.

I have yet to meet one who has gained sight they never had before who has not declared how unimaginable reality is when you first see it.

The problem is that even our imagination has to have terms of reference.

The nearest explanation I can come up with would be for you to call someone you have ever met or seen on the telephone and try to describe them from what you can hear.

I doubt you will get past male / female, and you may not even manage that, despite having a frame of reference for what each sounds like.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 8:32:45 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Or even better one who was born blind but ho suddenly received sight.

I have, though admittedly not many
Not many you lying bastard, how many of those people even exist, how many in the UK but you've spoken to more than ONE?
Put your straight jacket back on.
And you actually wonder why no-one believes a word you say, simple as.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 1:08:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 5:03:10 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 7:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.
So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :
Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?
Yes.
Solid objects reflect both light and sound
I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.
That's not true, Riwaaz. Eyes are only one organ of light detection. But the sun's heat is light too, and you can detect it on your skin.
I can feel the warmth of sunlight, but I can't feel sunlight.
Sure you can. Your skin reacts to it in many ways you may not be aware of. [http://ec.europa.eu...] Eyes themselves evolved from skin photoreceptors -- essentially, clever freckles. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] Skin does a lot more than you realise.

The sun emits radio-waves which are also light, and which you can listen to, for example at the link right.
You can also transduce light into sound, and sound into light.
Are you derailing this thread? See #1.
No. I'm disagreeing with your analogy on grounds of it being factually incorrect.

I could also point out something else you should know: that analogy isn't proof.

So we can confirm that objects exist without having to see them, and that light exists even if we had no eyes.
I never said that light (like god) won't exist if we had no eyes.
I said we can confirm it without eyes.

But transcendental and metaphysical god-claims are constructed to be neither confirmed nor refuted, and false analogies about light and eyes don't legitimise bad epistemology.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound,

Solid objects do not reflect light, do they? How do you know when I've presumed everyone is born blind?
Solid objects do indeed reflect light. And without eyes you could tell because you can transduce light into sound or other sense. See my comments above.

Draba : See, the sunlight contains heat, it is real, light is real.
Riwaaz : Call it heat, what light?
You know light is energy transmitted through photons, yes? Heat is light, X-rays are light. Radio is light. Also light in the visible spectrum. But did you know that light can be absorbed at one frequency and retransmitted on another? So visible light can be retransmitted as heat.

You are fighting a lost battle.
Riwaaz, your argument is built on a poor analogy based in turn on falsehoods. Your case is flawed and you have no other.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 1:19:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

Go ooon...

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Go ooon...

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

No

It's over, curtain closed, sun set, fat lady has sung, profound discussion over.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 2:55:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 8:32:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Or even better one who was born blind but ho suddenly received sight.

I have, though admittedly not many
Not many you lying bastard, how many of those people even exist, how many in the UK but you've spoken to more than ONE?
Put your straight jacket back on.
And you actually wonder why no-one believes a word you say, simple as.

Those who understand what being a follower of Christ actually means believe me because they know I cannot lie.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 3:30:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God makes perfect sense.

Science does so far less often.

What do you think science is?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 3:39:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 2:55:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:32:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Or even better one who was born blind but ho suddenly received sight.

I have, though admittedly not many
Not many you lying bastard, how many of those people even exist, how many in the UK but you've spoken to more than ONE?
Put your straight jacket back on.
And you actually wonder why no-one believes a word you say, simple as.

Those who understand what being a follower of Christ actually means believe me because they know I cannot lie.

Lying is the least of your problems. You are a failed husband of 4 marriages, a failed father and a failed Jehovah's Witness's member. You were disfellowshipped and shunned by the JW elders which is condemnation and everlasting damnation. They refuse to reinstate you even after 11-15 years of expulsion.

You are a pathological liar claiming Jehovah and the Hoky Spirit guides you. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses have admitted in their disclaimers they were never inspired by Jehovah or any angelic revelations or divine inspirations. They also admit they were not inspired by Jehovah and hence not infallible. That shatters the myth Jehovah is actually the guiding force behind his witnesses or ex Jehovah's Witnesses such as you who also happen to be disfellowshipped and shunned by the very group who found you unworthy.

Watchtower Quotes About Having NO Divine Inspiration.

"This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses [Joel 2:28-29] does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, ..." (Watchtower May 15, 1947, 157)
"... Because it [Watch Tower Society] is not infallible and has never claimed to be, from time to time corrections are necessary." (Watchtower Oct 15, 1954, 638)

'the New World Translation has endeavored to put God"s Word as contained in the original Greek into these languages with the "correct words of truth" in each language. No claim of divine inspiration is made for these translations in modern-day language.' Watchtower Nov 15, 1969, Article: "Between-the-Lines" Translations of the Bible, par. 23.

"True, the brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers." (Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1981, page 19)

"The Governing Body consists of a group of anointed Christian men ... They are not inspired of God and hence are not infallible." (Jehovah's Witnesses Unitedly Doing God's Will Worldwide brochure [1986], 26) [2]

"Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration" (Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom [1993], 708)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 7:59:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 3:30:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God makes perfect sense.

Science does so far less often.

What do you think science is?

That depends on who the scientist is.

In a very real sense it is like religion, in fact for all too many it is a religion, and scientists are their gods.

Science is simply a tool which can be as easily abused as used, and far too many abuse it.

Far too many abuse religion as well.

It can just as easily be a power for good as it can a power for evil.

They both should be a search for truth but all too often neither is.

Again it applies to both science and reigion, but some use it purely to boost their ego, some purely for gain, some for fame. Far too few use either for truth.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 9:04:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 7:59:36 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2016 3:30:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God makes perfect sense.

Science does so far less often.

What do you think science is?

That depends on who the scientist is.

In a very real sense it is like religion, in fact for all too many it is a religion, and scientists are their gods.

Science is simply a tool which can be as easily abused as used, and far too many abuse it.

Far too many abuse religion as well.

It can just as easily be a power for good as it can a power for evil.

They both should be a search for truth but all too often neither is.

Again it applies to both science and reigion, but some use it purely to boost their ego, some purely for gain, some for fame. Far too few use either for truth.

You are grossly ignorant on what science is.

Science is a method for developing our understanding if reality. Nothing more. One cannot "use" science for power or anything else, the minute one attempts to do so it is no longer science.

Science is not about truth, it is about explanatory and predictive power. The minute one believes they have "discovered truth" they are no longer appealing to science. Science relies on the fundamental principal that nothing is beyond question.

Scientists are nobody's gods, not unless you have departed from the discussion of theology and inventing a new meaning of the word.

And regarding your original assertion, science is about making sense of reality. To say that science does not make sense is incoherent and only puts your ignorance of the subject on full display.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 9:50:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.

So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :

Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?

If infinity does not exist a beginning spawned from nothing from nowhwhere, for no reason. That doesn't make sense to US.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 10:42:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 9:04:27 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:59:36 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2016 3:30:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God makes perfect sense.

Science does so far less often.

What do you think science is?

That depends on who the scientist is.

In a very real sense it is like religion, in fact for all too many it is a religion, and scientists are their gods.

Science is simply a tool which can be as easily abused as used, and far too many abuse it.

Far too many abuse religion as well.

It can just as easily be a power for good as it can a power for evil.

They both should be a search for truth but all too often neither is.

Again it applies to both science and religion, but some use it purely to boost their ego, some purely for gain, some for fame. Far too few use either for truth.

You are grossly ignorant on what science is.

Not, it seems, as much so as you.

You only know what it is in theory.

I know that and what it all too often is in practice.


Science is a method for developing our understanding if reality. Nothing more. One cannot "use" science for power or anything else, the minute one attempts to do so it is no longer science.

What is reality other than truth?

You cannot have ether without the other.

Many do use science for power. Edison to name but one.

The eternal obsession of all scientists is obtaining funding for their projects, hence as all the scientists I have ever know would tell you the results must be made attractive to their funding source or they cannot work.

In the end it is all down to money since most funds for scientific research are provided by the commercial and financial sectors.

Yes I have known scientists, mostly post graduate researchers it has to be admitted, one of which is still working on the recent Mars project "Curiosity" as a Planetary Geologist".

She became a friend whilst I was studying with the Open University.
I am nothing like as ignorant as you would like to think.


Science is not about truth, it is about explanatory and predictive power. The minute one believes they have "discovered truth" they are no longer appealing to science. Science relies on the fundamental principal that nothing is beyond question.

Scientists are nobody's gods, not unless you have departed from the discussion of theology and inventing a new meaning of the word.

A god is simply someone you look up to, admire trust, obey, accept the ideas of.


And regarding your original assertion, science is about making sense of reality. To say that science does not make sense is incoherent and only puts your ignorance of the subject on full display.

There are may ways n which science does not make sense, evolution being one of the foremost.
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 1:09:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 3:30:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God makes perfect sense.

Science does so far less often.

What do you think science is?

The atheist propaganda machine, obvs.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 3:33:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 9:04:27 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:59:36 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2016 3:30:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:20:01 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God makes perfect sense.

Science does so far less often.

What do you think science is?

That depends on who the scientist is.

In a very real sense it is like religion, in fact for all too many it is a religion, and scientists are their gods.

Science is simply a tool which can be as easily abused as used, and far too many abuse it.

Far too many abuse religion as well.

It can just as easily be a power for good as it can a power for evil.

They both should be a search for truth but all too often neither is.

Again it applies to both science and reigion, but some use it purely to boost their ego, some purely for gain, some for fame. Far too few use either for truth.

You are grossly ignorant on what science is.

Science is a method for developing our understanding if reality.

Virtual reality is not science, okay.

Nothing more. One cannot "use" science for power or anything else, the minute one attempts to do so it is no longer science.

Science is not about truth, it is about explanatory and predictive power. The minute one believes they have "discovered truth" they are no longer appealing to science. Science relies on the fundamental principal that nothing is beyond question.

Scientists are nobody's gods, not unless you have departed from the discussion of theology and inventing a new meaning of the word.

And regarding your original assertion, science is about making sense of reality. To say that science does not make sense is incoherent and only puts your ignorance of the subject on full display.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 3:58:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 1:08:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2016 5:03:10 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 7:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:29:36 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:01:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Modern Science tells us that physical infinity doesn't exist. There are limits of everything or let me put it this way - things themselves are limited.
So is human brain. To help this thread progress with diverse opinions , I would like to ask a question :
Can we imagine to visually perceive something if all of us were born blind?
Yes.
Solid objects reflect both light and sound
I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.
That's not true, Riwaaz. Eyes are only one organ of light detection. But the sun's heat is light too, and you can detect it on your skin.
I can feel the warmth of sunlight, but I can't feel sunlight.
Sure you can. Your skin reacts to it in many ways you may not be aware of.

It doesn't help me to imagine some sort of light. You are talking about skin, I am talking about vision.

[http://ec.europa.eu...] Eyes themselves evolved from skin photoreceptors -- essentially, clever freckles. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...] Skin does a lot more than you realise.

The sun emits radio-waves which are also light, and which you can listen to, for example at the link right.
You can also transduce light into sound, and sound into light.
Are you derailing this thread? See #1.
No. I'm disagreeing with your analogy on grounds of it being factually incorrect.

I could also point out something else you should know: that analogy isn't proof.

So we can confirm that objects exist without having to see them, and that light exists even if we had no eyes.
I never said that light (like god) won't exist if we had no eyes.
I said we can confirm it without eyes.

But we were talking about vision, sure we could confirm it without eyes, but that doesn't help you get an idea of what light really is.

The only way to confirm it is light, is to sense it. After all, that's what makes it light, when you hear the word light - an image instantly comes in your mind, something is burning, something is growing. If you have no taste buds, any amount of laboratory tests and written materials can not help you feel the sweetness of sugar.

But transcendental and metaphysical god-claims are constructed to be neither confirmed nor refuted, and false analogies about light and eyes don't legitimise bad epistemology.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound,

Solid objects do not reflect light, do they? How do you know when I've presumed everyone is born blind?
Solid objects do indeed reflect light. And without eyes you could tell because you can transduce light into sound or other sense. See my comments above.

Light after transduction is not light. As simple as that.

Draba : See, the sunlight contains heat, it is real, light is real.
Riwaaz : Call it heat, what light?
You know light is energy transmitted through photons, yes? Heat is light, X-rays are light. Radio is light. Also light in the visible spectrum. But did you know that light can be absorbed at one frequency and retransmitted on another? So visible light can be retransmitted as heat.

If heat, x-rays and radio are light then what is the need for so many different names?

You can't see light, you can't sense it.

You are fighting a lost battle.
Riwaaz, your argument is built on a poor analogy based in turn on falsehoods. Your case is flawed and you have no other.

You say light doesn't cease to exist if we are blind, which is true. How can you be so sure that consciousness doesn't exist without brain?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 8:19:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 3:58:51 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/14/2016 1:08:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2016 5:03:10 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 7:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.
That's not true, Riwaaz. Eyes are only one organ of light detection. But the sun's heat is light too, and you can detect it on your skin.
I can feel the warmth of sunlight, but I can't feel sunlight.
Sure you can. Your skin reacts to it in many ways you may not be aware of.
It doesn't help me to imagine some sort of light. You are talking about skin, I am talking about vision.
Then you do not mean light, Riwaaz. You mean sight. You mean to say: how can you imagine sight without sight.

And my answer to that would be: ask blind people who learn to explore their environment with clicks.

It may look like I'm being obstructionist, but I'm not. The most important quality of reality is that it's objective. Real things interact with other real things in disparate ways, and do so in ways that anyone can observe and predict. So all you need to do is find signature interactions using whatever tools and methods are at your disposal, and you've found evidence of the thing.

The problem with your argument is that you're taking a thing you claim to be real (a god), and insisting that it doesn't interact with anything in ways anyone can notice.

That creates two problems:
1) If some people claimed to have noticed then by your assumption, they're deluded and nobody should listen to them;
2) You've just given a thing you want to be real, precisely the necessary and sufficient properties of an unreal thing. So you haven't proven existence; you've simply damaged language.

So we can confirm that objects exist without having to see them, and that light exists even if we had no eyes.
I never said that light (like god) won't exist if we had no eyes.
I said we can confirm it without eyes.
But we were talking about vision, sure we could confirm it without eyes, but that doesn't help you get an idea of what light really is.
What our eyes show isn't what light really is. It's merely the signal of a sense reaching our brain. That signal doesn't correctly show (for example) the full spectrum of light, doesn't show the visible spectrum correctly, doen't display its correct frequency-intensity, doesn't reveal the electromagnetic character of light, or its wave phase and doesn't even (normally) eveal that what we perceive as 'colour' is actually the composition of many frequencies.

The only way to confirm it is light, is to sense it.
No, that's in correct. As I mentioned above, the way to confirm that light is one thing and not several is to observe its behaviour, and correlate it. We can do that directly (e.g. using our eyes) or indirectly (e.g. using machinery), but to actually understand light, we need to observe it under as many different conditions as possible, with every disparate means at our disposal.

That's why (for example), Newton's work with a prism was so insightful. He discovered it was possible to 'split' light into composite frequencies and recombine them again. That revealed a property of light nobody had previously known.

After all, that's what makes it light, when you hear the word light
No, what makes it light is its observed behaviour, not our language or intuitions about it. If we try to make language or intuitions define reality then we're like worms insisting that earth must be soil all the way down because that's all we can burrow in.

Solid objects reflect both light and sound,
Solid objects do not reflect light, do they? How do you know when I've presumed everyone is born blind?
Solid objects do indeed reflect light. And without eyes you could tell because you can transduce light into sound or other sense. See my comments above.
Light after transduction is not light. As simple as that.
That's not the point, Riwaaz.

The information in light is transportable. We can know what information it was, even if we can't see it.

For example, you can convert light into physical bumps and back into light again. That's precisely what happens on a DVD. Detected light is converted into microscopic 'potholes' on the spiral track on a spinning metal surface. A laser sensor can 'read' the bumps and a processor detecting the laser's signal can convert the bumps back into the light and sound of your favourite movie or TV program. But it could also convert the bumps into other things.

So the bumps have recorded the information we wanted from the light. And the bumps can be used to restore that information in various forms.

Information in light is transportable.

Draba : See, the sunlight contains heat, it is real, light is real.
Riwaaz : Call it heat, what light?
You know light is energy transmitted through photons, yes? Heat is light, X-rays are light. Radio is light. Also light in the visible spectrum. But did you know that light can be absorbed at one frequency and retransmitted on another? So visible light can be retransmitted as heat.
If heat, x-rays and radio are light then what is the need for so many different names?
To correctly capture different uses for light, and accurately record our historical ignorance. :)

You can't see light, you can't sense it.
You are fighting a lost battle.
Riwaaz, your argument is built on a poor analogy based in turn on falsehoods. Your case is flawed and you have no other.
You say light doesn't cease to exist if we are blind, which is true. How can you be so sure that consciousness doesn't exist without brain?
Because of what happens to observations of consciousness when brains are damaged.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 9:02:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:19:11 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/15/2016 3:58:51 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/14/2016 1:08:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/14/2016 5:03:10 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/13/2016 7:14:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:43:49 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
I thought you are smart enough to realize that - if we don't have eyes, there is no way to know that light exists.
That's not true, Riwaaz. Eyes are only one organ of light detection. But the sun's heat is light too, and you can detect it on your skin.
I can feel the warmth of sunlight, but I can't feel sunlight.
Sure you can. Your skin reacts to it in many ways you may not be aware of.
It doesn't help me to imagine some sort of light. You are talking about skin, I am talking about vision.
Then you do not mean light, Riwaaz. You mean sight. You mean to say: how can you imagine sight without sight.

And my answer to that would be: ask blind people who learn to explore their environment with clicks.

It may look like I'm being obstructionist, but I'm not. The most important quality of reality is that it's objective. Real things interact with other real things in disparate ways, and do so in ways that anyone can observe and predict. So all you need to do is find signature interactions using whatever tools and methods are at your disposal, and you've found evidence of the thing.

The problem with your argument is that you're taking a thing you claim to be real (a god), and insisting that it doesn't interact with anything in ways anyone can notice.

That creates two problems:
1) If some people claimed to have noticed then by your assumption, they're deluded and nobody should listen to them;

Or they might be the ones gifted with sight among blind men.

2) You've just given a thing you want to be real, precisely the necessary and sufficient properties of an unreal thing. So you haven't proven existence; you've simply damaged language.

So we can confirm that objects exist without having to see them, and that light exists even if we had no eyes.
I never said that light (like god) won't exist if we had no eyes.
I said we can confirm it without eyes.
But we were talking about vision, sure we could confirm it without eyes, but that doesn't help you get an idea of what light really is.
What our eyes show isn't what light really is. It's merely the signal of a sense reaching our brain. That signal doesn't correctly show (for example) the full spectrum of light, doesn't show the visible spectrum correctly, doen't display its correct frequency-intensity, doesn't reveal the electromagnetic character of light, or its wave phase and doesn't even (normally) eveal that what we perceive as 'colour' is actually the composition of many frequencies.

How can you say that the signal is a manipulated / altered one? I'm genuinely interested.

As I mentioned above, the way to confirm that light is one thing and not several is to observe its behaviour, and correlate it. We can do that directly (e.g. using our eyes) or indirectly (e.g. using machinery), but to actually understand light, we need to observe it under as many different conditions as possible, with every disparate means at our disposal.

Using machinery... how?

That's why (for example), Newton's work with a prism was so insightful. He discovered it was possible to 'split' light into composite frequencies and recombine them again. That revealed a property of light nobody had previously known.

You think so?

The VIBGYOR sunlight spectrum of thief Newton can still been seen in Indian temples made in BC, along with amazing pinhole cameras . These rainbow colours were given to the 7 Chakras of the human body as early as 9000 BC. Thief Newtons laws of motion were lifted from the Sanskrit texts of 4000 BC and Aryabhatta"s written work in 2700 BC in Sanskrit.

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in...

After all, that's what makes it light, when you hear the word light
No, what makes it light is its observed behaviour, not our language or intuitions about it. If we try to make language or intuitions define reality then we're like worms insisting that earth must be soil all the way down because that's all we can burrow in.

You mean, ' if we can't observe something, it isn't there'. And hey, you are free to define reality. Shall I put a dedicated thread for your response?

Solid objects reflect both light and sound,
Solid objects do not reflect light, do they? How do you know when I've presumed everyone is born blind?
Solid objects do indeed reflect light. And without eyes you could tell because you can transduce light into sound or other sense. See my comments above.
Light after transduction is not light. As simple as that.
That's not the point, Riwaaz.

The information in light is transportable. We can know what information it was, even if we can't see it.

If we can't decipher it, we can't know it. I won't say ' ggkd50gosy' is information.

For example, you can convert light into physical bumps and back into light again. That's precisely what happens on a DVD. Detected light is converted into microscopic 'potholes' on the spiral track on a spinning metal surface. A laser sensor can 'read' the bumps and a processor detecting the laser's signal can convert the bumps back into the light and sound of your favourite movie or TV program. But it could also convert the bumps into other things.

So the bumps have recorded the information we wanted from the light. And the bumps can be used to restore that information in various forms.

Information in light is transportable.

Draba : See, the sunlight contains heat, it is real, light is real.
Riwaaz : Call it heat, what light?
You know light is energy transmitted through photons, yes? Heat is light, X-rays are light. Radio is light. Also light in the visible spectrum. But did you know that light can be absorbed at one frequency and retransmitted on another? So visible light can be retransmitted as heat.
If heat, x-rays and radio are light then what is the need for so many different names?
To correctly capture different uses for light, and accurately record our historical ignorance. :)

OK. Tell me the relationship between heat and light.

You can't see light, you can't sense it.
You are fighting a lost battle.
Riwaaz, your argument is built on a poor analogy based in turn on falsehoods. Your case is flawed and you have no other.
You say light doesn't cease to exist if we are blind, which is true. How can you be so sure that consciousness doesn't exist without brain?
Because of what happens to observations of consciousness when brains are damaged.

Why didn't you say, ' light doesn't exist independent of brain because of what happens to observations of light when brains are damaged'?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)