If I can't see it, then it must not exist...child thinking?

Question

I hear this argument from athesists, but can you think of other things that exist, that you cannot reach out and touch something tangible, like hatred, prejudice, etc.

Dogs hear what we can't, Bats see what we can't, and Bee's see a flower much differently than you and I...

If I have no valid "proof" of something, and my senses cannot detect it, is this by default a valid argument that it must not exist?

Answer 1

What happens then, if the senses which we 'scientifically' use in this 'proof test' are in turn illusions of our mind and don't really exist?

What is touch, sight, sound, taste and smell other than signals from our 'sense organs' going to the nerves and ultimately the brain - which is something man is yet to fully decipher? Why then rely on these 'senses' as instruments to prove that something metaphysical exists or not?

Answer 2

Actually, newly born children do NOT understand "permanence" -- they only note whether something is present or not. If it disappears, then it no longer exists.

After the baby gains some experience, s/he understand that an non-visible object actually still exists, and will actually go and look for it based on where it "should" be.

That being said, I would not equate atheism to "infantile thinking." I think the question they ask is a valid one: "If I cannot experience God through the five senses, is it reasonable to believe that he exists?" We should all be asking that question as part of our search.

But used as an argument that God must NOT exist, it possesses certain flaws:

1. It assumes what sort of proof is "valid" (only empirical).

2. It ignores the fact that human beings commonly experience and believe in intangible experiences.

3. It ignores the fact that human beings are wired for spirituality and that the "search for God" is part of the human experience -- suggesting that God can be found as well even if not articulated clearly in empirical terms.

4. It assumes that there is nothing mysterious about the universe, and that if we simply had all the right physical tools, we could clearly define anything and everything.

There are other problems; but in the end you can't empirically prove God DOES exist, and you can't prove He DOESN'T exist.

The intellectual argument is merely a tool that either makes the path easier or makes it more difficult -- removing or adding arguments for why one's experiences should convince them (or not) that God exists.

Answer 3

I've asked myself this question often enough to have a pretty fair answer. There are several ways that something can exist, but we use that same word for all of them. There is physical existence which includes anything that is made of matter, but there is also a mental type of existence for things like mathematics- including geometric shapes and numbers. Numbers don't really exist physically, but do we say that they are unreal? They exist as ideas, but not as physical realities. Another example is language. Sound is a physical reality and so is ink on a piece of paper, but the words are purely mental. Mental reality can be important, but it can also be very unreal unless we are careful to know what we are talking about. Mental realities can help us learn about the world, but mental realities can also tell some big lies. And then there's spiritual reality- emotions, intentions and those sorts of things. People might not ever do anything without having the right kind of "feeling" to make them do something, but emotional or spiritual realities can be even more unreal and more prone to error than mental realities. What to do? Take a deep breath and remember physical reality. What is real and sensible in the real, physical world is still the best guide to what is real. No matter how important our brains are to us for creating ideas about reality, the reality itself is always there to double-check our thoughts. There is no danger in any learning unless we try to make our mental and spiritual worlds more real than the real realness which is always in reality land. Here is another tip: written history is mental reality and it can change when we get new information, but the archeological record consisits of pieces of physical reality that don't change even if we change our ideas about what the artifacts mean.
Hope this helps.

Answer 4

Ok, for one, that is not how a child thinks. Children CAN believe in things they do not see or have tanglible proof on. To say that if you cannot prove something it can't exist, now that's an adults way of thinking.

Infants see it, it exists and when they don't see it then is doesn't exist. BUT, after 5mths old that is no longer true. And the age of a person doesn't change their ability to believe in things.

Answer 5

you can not touch the sky - it does exist
you can not touch the air - but you smell it

and if you have no valid "proof" of something, and your senses cannot detect it is not a proof it does not exist !!
Cause human mind are developed only like 6% so how do we expect to feel anything with a close mind like that !

Somethimes you have to believe to see

Answer 6

there is a difference between one of your senses not being able to detect something and not having any evidence. there is even a difference between none of your senses being able to detect something and not having any evidence. we have evidence of hatred and prejudice. and we have machines that can detect the frequenicies of sound you can't hear and the frequencies of light you cant see. i haven't heard of a God detecting machine.

Answer 7

genesis 1.26 our image is 2, 1 of the Almighty brain we humans have a tiny 1, a face that the angles have. isaiah 43:10

Answer 8

Do you believe in the tooth-fairy then? Or santa claus? Or vampires? Or leprechauns? Or the easter bunny? Or zeus? Or Thor? I could go on and on with this, seriously.

Answer 9

cant see
xrays
wind
radio waves
micro waves
the sound of my voice
yada yada yada
i cant think of more on the moment

Answer 10

You are right!! We can't see air yet we need it to live!!