(August 3, 2011 at 8:44 pm)Salty Amy Wrote: Of course it can just leave him in the sun without sun-block than. See. Light is real. God never burned anyone for not believing him.
And if he just says, “That’s just the heat from the sun burning me, not the light.”? You didn’t prove to him light exists.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Can I hold you to that Statler, that you can't prove the existence of light without a human eye?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...jan_touch/
(shameless bump for a good idea)
Sure you can hold me to it. NASA printing books in brail does not prove to a blind person light exists lol. I could print the Bible in braile; does this prove to the blind person that it really happened? Get real; we are talking about proof here. Give me a logical proof that would convince a blind person light exists.
(August 3, 2011 at 8:54 pm)edk141 Wrote: You can't prove the existence of concussion waves, electricity (without shocking someone), ultraviolet, infra-red, RF...
In fact, since I can't prove the existence of anything without showing its effect to you directly, do I have to dunk your hand in a bucket of hydrofluoric acid to prove that it exists?
Are you admitting that you accept the existence of things you can't prove exist?
(August 4, 2011 at 12:39 am)FaithNoMore Wrote: No, because it would only be taking it on faith if I had no evidence that there were other colors. But as I said, my inability to function in society when colors are used to determine something while others have no problem doing so is plenty of evidence. Another example would be in high school I asked a question about a text we were studying in class. The teacher then replied that the text in red would answer my question, but to avoid sounding silly, I didn't tell her that I couldn't see any red text.
Yes, I understand why you would accept that evidence, but I also feel that a color blind person who was as skeptical as many atheists are would not believe in the existence of those other colors. That’s one of my points here. Atheists believe in numerous things that lack actual logical proof, but then chastise the theist for doing the same.
(August 4, 2011 at 5:33 am)Killman Wrote: So, by this logic, if I become a Christian, again, I will be able to see god? I never really saw too much of him before I was an Atheist. Perhaps I wasn't squinting hard enough.
Not see God, but see the overwhelming evidence and proof of His existence, just like I can see the evidence for light because my eyes function properly.
(August 4, 2011 at 8:54 am)Rhythm Wrote: He already put the point out. He was trying to pull a Yeshua and "teach us with a parable", scroll up, he edited it in last night..lol. We're all just having fun with how splendidly ignorant the parable was to begin with.
Yet you have not been able to logically prove light exists to someone who can’t see it? You sure do have an inflated ego don’t you?
(August 4, 2011 at 4:46 am)ElDinero Wrote: Has anyone asked what the point of this debate is? Just grant the point, see where it leads. Let's assume we can't prove to someone that light exists. So what?
Thanks for at least playing along; I summed my point up at the bottom of post 134 I believe. I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.
