What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[Killman]

Someone is blind because he can't perceive light, if light was a myth he wouldnt't be blind he would be like everybody else. Do you think he doesn't understand he is different in a highly visual world? Really?

Sure he can realize he is different, but that does not prove light exists, perhaps his brain just functions differently than everyone else's. So how could you logically prove to him light exists? Hint: It can't be done.

---

Why is it you think that light cannot be proven to exist? You seriously have a problem with light? Is there a biblical position against the existence of light? Honestly though, if the only evidence we had of lights existence was the fact that we can see it, we would have sufficient reason to doubt it's existence. Don't be ridiculous.

It is not that light cannot be proven to exist, it can, but only to someone who can see it. You cannot provide proof to a blind person that light exists. You are like the blind man asking for proof of light when you ask for evidence proving God exists. There is no way to prove God exists to you until your blindness is first cured. That's the point I am making. So the blind man is completely justified in his own mind for not believing in light, even though he is completely wrong in doing so.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

The representation of the mathematical expression of electromagnetic radiation, and all supporting evidence, is in fact proof of light, even to the blind. Lights existence does not depend on the human eye, or we would have no reason to postulate on the visible spectrum vs the "invisible spectrum''. Is education compulsory where you come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords...oks&page=1

Get under the bridge troll.

[Statler Waldorf]

The representation of the mathematical expression of electromagnetic radiation, and all supporting evidence, is in fact proof of light, even to the blind. Lights existence does not depend on the human eye, or we would have no reason to postulate on the visible spectrum vs the "invisible spectrum''. Is education compulsory where you come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords...oks&page=1

Get under the bridge troll.

A person can make all sorts of mathematical expressions to represent things that don't exist, I am sorry, that is not "proof" to a blind person light exists. You're going to have to go the route of logic here if you are going to "prove" anything, which of course you won't because it's hardly one of your strengths. :-)

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure it is, it's just not proof to you. Because it doesn't begin and end with the word God. Not my problem.

[Statler Waldorf]

Sure it is, it's just not proof to you. Because it doesn't begin and end with the word God. Not my problem.

Your complete misuse of the word proof is downright scary. So if I show you a formula that represents the sun's motion as it revolves around the earth this is "proof" that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth? You will grant that? Of course not, because mathematical formulas do not “prove” the existence of anything, they must be verified through the empirical method. Unfortunately a blind person cannot use the empirical method when it comes to light because they cannot directly observe it. So your last chance is proof through logic, something you have not tried yet.

[Faith No More]

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.

Well, there is a difference between being skeptical and ignoring evidence. I am very skeptical, yet when evidence is presented, I will acknowledge it as will most atheists.

Could you give me an example of something that atheists believe that lacks logical proof? (And don't say evolution)

[Minimalist]

Could you give me an example of something that atheists believe that lacks logical proof? (And don't say evolutionTongue)

That's all he's got. Creationists think that all they have to do is pretend to poke holes in evolution and their bible bullshit becomes "true" by default.


Yet, ask him for evidence that all life appeared 6,000 years ago in the middle east and all you'll get is silence.

[The Grand Nudger]

The blind are somehow unable to get access to data regarding the orbit? We are not directly observing the invisible spectrum of light Statler, would you like to claim that it does not exist, or that there is no proof?