Seems subjective to external confrimation, no?
No. Even someone who doesn't believe in eating meat can confirm it is there. A scale can weigh the steak, a thermometer can confirm it's temperature. You can take a picture of it and show it to others.
Faith... and Trust: The Same Things?
by AGuest 452 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
PSacramento
Yes, his expereince at being Napoleon would be real for HIM ( how real only He can say of course), but that wouldn't make him Napoleon.
Yes I agree.
what matters is if there is a way to say: he properly isnt napoleon and cofty had a sandwhich. I claim its possible to do that, and the same machinery applies to god.
I think I agree.
To me, and speaking about God, the evidence of someone seeing God would be the effects of that vision and the effects of KNOWING God would be different, but there would be some evidence, something tangiable on that person.
Even if we were not there and Cofty had his sandwhich (BLT), and we decided NOT to tkae his word on it, there shoudl be some evidence of it in his stomach or intestines, correct? because it was a material substance.
God then, if a person KNOWS Him, must show SOME evidence of that knowledge in an immaterial way, yes?
-
PSacramento
As for red, the experience of the color is by far the less convincing argument. Our blind friend can make experiments just as well as we can and Establish red exist far better than newton could.
He still would not KNOW the colour red.
-
PSacramento
No. Even someone who doesn't believe in eating meat can confirm it is there. A scale can weigh the steak, a thermometer can confirm it's temperature. You can take a picture of it and show it to others.
Yes, of cours ebecause it is a material object, less so with something immaterial of course BUT that wasn't the point, the point was that Cofty said :
Here is the most important point - everybody else in the room can confirm precisely the same data.
I would submit that the "most important point' was that HE KNEW because HE ATE IT not because others can confirm it existed.
-
bohm
Psac: it would show evidence towards god as well as evidence towards an alternative neural mechanism for generating the experience, just as napoleons experience would be evidence (the word being used in its weakest sence) towards him being napoleon or able to imagine he is napoleon without it being true, correct?
Also, yes, he would not have experienced red. What im getting at is this is another question than red existing.
-
EntirelyPossible
A person blind since birth has no POR, red doesn't exist for them so, even soemthing as objective ( for us) as the color red is subjective to a blind person.
Red exists, they just can't see it. For instance, if they are crossing the street at a redlight, red STILL objectively exists and they count on it, in fact, to not get hit by a car.
In regards to God, for someone that has direct expereince with God, His existence is undeniable, much like our colour red.
Not true, red can easily be defined as a wavelength of light that falls in between certain wavelengths and the blind person can accept that and do experiments. Can't do that with God voices in a head.
-
EntirelyPossible
He still would not KNOW the colour red.
Depends on "know". Astronomers see red in the form of redshift that I never do. Interior designers see red in ways they and I never do. I see it as a color that means "stop" and a color I really shouldn't wear.
I would submit that the "most important point' was that HE KNEW because HE ATE IT not because others can confirm it existed.
So if someone knows, because their dog told them, that killing women that weren't virgins is what they should do, does that make it the most important thing be they KNOW they heard the voice?
-
PSacramento
Psac: it would show evidence towards god as well as evidence towards an alternative neural mechanism for generating the experience, just as napoleons experience would be evidence (the word being used in its weakest sence) towards him being napoleon or able to imagine he is napoleon without it being true, correct?
I don't know if we would see an "alternative neural mechanisim" , if we are made in His image we wouldn't need that or maybe it would awaken a part of the brain not normally used or underused, that would be an interesting experiment.
Also, yes, he would not have experienced red. What im getting at is this is another question than red existing.
The point is that red existes regardless of one's ability to see it or understand it, yes? but it does exist.
The difference is that the majority KNOW red and only a small minoroty don't know it, with God it would be the reverse BUT if that was the case with red ( only a small percentage know it while hte vast majority don't), red would still exist, wouldn't it?
-
EntirelyPossible
The point is that red existes regardless of one's ability to see it or understand it, yes? but it does exist.
See, I don't think that is the point. You can PROVE red exists without seeing or experiencing it. None of us can see light in the extreme wavelengths yet we can prove it exists.
-
bohm
My point was if the experience of god is evidense of god, the same must go for napoleon experience.
Red would exist if nobody had seen it, like the three flavors of quarks did in the fourties.