Proof of Christianity

[Minimalist]

Drippy thinks his brain farts are "evidence" of god.

Drippy is like a precious resource around here.

[John V]

The problem with your analogy is that we can actually see colours. We cannot see your god.

Interesting. A person born blind cannot actually see the colors. Is that person reasonably skeptical of the existence of color? How would you prove the existence of color to such person?

[Esquilax]

Interesting. A person born blind cannot actually see the colors. Is that person reasonably skeptical of the existence of color?

Yes, actually. Without evidence, one really would be justified in being skeptical of things that seem obvious to you or I.

How would you prove the existence of color to such person?

Three boxes, each one a different color, but otherwise identical. Three objects with clear differences to touch so that the blind person could tell the difference. Have the blind person place the objects in the boxes, so that a sighted person can see which box contains which object. With the sighted person out of the room, have the blind person switch the positions of the boxes around without removing or altering the objects.

Since the boxes are different colors, the sighted person will be able to tell which box has which object despite the boxes being outwardly identical in every way except color. Now, the blind person might not know what color is, but we've definitely demonstrated an additional perceptual tool to them.

[John V]

Yes, actually. Without evidence, one really would be justified in being skeptical of things that seem obvious to you or I.

They've likely heard about color all their lives. Is that evidence of color? In your following example you seem to think so. Why do you say they're without evidence?

Three boxes, each one a different color, but otherwise identical. Three objects with clear differences to touch so that the blind person could tell the difference. Have the blind person place the objects in the boxes, so that a sighted person can see which box contains which object. With the sighted person out of the room, have the blind person switch the positions of the boxes around without removing or altering the objects.

Since the boxes are different colors, the sighted person will be able to tell which box has which object despite the boxes being outwardly identical in every way except color. Now, the blind person might not know what color is, but we've definitely demonstrated an additional perceptual tool to them.

Or more simply, just ask different passersby what object a color is and get the same response. That's all you're doing above, as the blind person must take the first sighted person's word regarding the colors of the boxes.

So, testimony from other people is sufficient to establish existence.

[downbeatplumb]

Yes, actually. Without evidence, one really would be justified in being skeptical of things that seem obvious to you or I.

They've likely heard about color all their lives. Is that evidence of color? In your following example you seem to think so. Why do you say they're without evidence?

Three boxes, each one a different color, but otherwise identical. Three objects with clear differences to touch so that the blind person could tell the difference. Have the blind person place the objects in the boxes, so that a sighted person can see which box contains which object. With the sighted person out of the room, have the blind person switch the positions of the boxes around without removing or altering the objects.

Since the boxes are different colors, the sighted person will be able to tell which box has which object despite the boxes being outwardly identical in every way except color. Now, the blind person might not know what color is, but we've definitely demonstrated an additional perceptual tool to them.

Or more simply, just ask different passersby what object a color is and get the same response. That's all you're doing above, as the blind person must take the first sighted person's word regarding the colors of the boxes.

So, testimony from other people is sufficient to establish existence.

This will blow you away.

The first thing to remember is that colour does not actually exist… at least not in any literal sense. Apples and fire engines are not red, the sky and sea are not blue, and no person is objectively "black" or "white".

What exists is light. Light is real.


You can measure it, hold it and count it (well … sort-of). But colour is not light. Colour is wholly manufactured by your brain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14421303

[Esquilax]

They've likely heard about color all their lives. Is that evidence of color? In your following example you seem to think so. Why do you say they're without evidence?

It's kind of a fine balance; there's a metric involved with apportioning belief to various things. Like, here:

Or more simply, just ask different passersby what object a color is and get the same response. That's all you're doing above, as the blind person must take the first sighted person's word regarding the colors of the boxes.

So, testimony from other people is sufficient to establish existence.

Not testimony alone, or at least, not for every claim. Claims vary in terms of believability, in accordance with what we know about the universe. I grant you, blindness and color is a more difficult example than most, but since sight can be demonstrated to a blind person fairly easily, the actual minutia of how that particular sense is perceived is fairly mundane. The claim of color doesn't really do anything to affect the life of the blind person you're proposing it to, nor does it really violate the laws of the physical universe, and so testimony might be enough to go on.

But at the same time, the reason I opted to go with the box test as opposed to just repeatable personal testimony was to remove as much subjectivity as I could; given enough time to familiarize themselves with the boxes by touch, any blind person could be shown that nothing differentiates the boxes aside from some additional perceptual thing they don't have, and the sighted person would be displaying knowledge that only the blind person should have, were they identical. It's a fairly objective test, and no, the blind person wouldn't be taking the sighted person's word for it regarding colors, because I propose using no references to color at all: just number the boxes. The sighted person will be able to identify what object is in what box by color, and relay that back using the numbers, or any other identifier one could imagine.

To the blind person, this guy has just walked into a room and correctly identified the contents of three identical boxes without opening them. The only way he could know that is if there was some difference between them that only sight could pick out.

[John V]

This will blow you away.

Actually I considered changing from color because of this perspective but decided not to bother. Substitute stars (other than the sun - better specify that) or something if you like, just so it's something we don't experience through senses other than sight.

[downbeatplumb]

This will blow you away.

Actually I considered changing from color because of this perspective but decided not to bother. Substitute stars (other than the sun - better specify that) or something if you like, just so it's something we don't experience through senses other than sight.

All those other things can be scientifically explained which god cannot.

[Rahul]

I can't smell. But I know it exists because if I squeeze out a warm feeling but silent fart in a car with other people riding with me only seconds later they attempt to throw themselves out of a speeding vehicle.

I used to love instigating that test on my friends without their permission when I was younger.

[downbeatplumb]

I can't smell. But I know it exists because if I squeeze out a warm feeling but silent fart in a car with other people riding with me only seconds later they attempt to throw themselves out of a speeding vehicle.

I used to love instigating that test on my friends without their permission when I was younger.

Pete Belton is that you?