What would you think of a person born blind who refuses to believe that stars exist? You can see them, and can explain their properties, but the person just refuses to believe that the universe is so expansive and filled with so many stars and thinks you are cracked.
2006-07-25 04:51:43 · 18 answers · asked by bregweidd 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Smart question...where do you come up with that stuff...they will only understand in parables like Jesus explained it to us...noticed how none of them have an intelligent answer as they think they so intelligent and all powerful
2006-07-25 04:57:19 · answer #1 · answered by truegrit 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There are many objective tests to see whether stars exist. It is not left up to individual feelings. A blind person who disbelieves in stars can perform any number of tests on the believers and see if they are describing exactly the same things and doing so under controlled circumstances. The sound of stars, the light stars, the heat from stars, the gravity of stars can all be tested. The blind person doesn't have to see them herself, she can still test. The claim there are stars is falsifiable. Tests can be done that, if stars didn't exist, would demonstrate that they don't exist.
Think of atoms, for instance. Even people with sight can't see them. Nobody can. But we know they are almost certainly there because we've performed so many tests which demonstrate it, made so many predictions ahead of time based on the theory of atoms which turned out to all be true.
This is not the case for the supernatural. All we have are millions of people who say they feel it somehow, even though what they feel varies. We can't test it. All sorts of excuses are given for why objective tests would fail to show that there is or isn't a supernatural. We can't falsify it, even if there weren't a supernatural we couldn't show it. The results we get with people's feelings and opinions would be the same whether the supernatural were really there or not.
Maybe the supernatural exists, we just can't detect it. But then, that could be said of anything. Before we believe in it we should ask for better evidence than that.
2006-07-25 12:14:24 · answer #2 · answered by thatguyjoe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question perfectly illustrates the kind of argument presented by the schizophrenic attempting to justify his delusions. There is no credible evidence to demonstrate the existence of either a spiritual plane of existence or of a supernatural agency like a deity.
However, we are expected to place our intellects in a deep dark pit and believe simply because we are told to BELIEVE! If that kind of pseudo-logic really works on people, then it's no wonder that so many people were so easily seduced by Hitler.
2006-07-25 12:01:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd think the person was a moron. However this is a false analogy, as stars can be scientifically verified beyond simple vision acuity. I.E. we can see the effects stars have on planetary bodies, as well as the radiation they emit. Religion has NO evidence that can be independantly verified.
2006-07-25 11:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by mike_castaldo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can prove the existence of stars without having to see them.
2006-07-25 11:54:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
But whether or not the person sees the stars, they are not going to change their dialy lives and actions based on it, so it doesn't matter either way.
A person changing their religious beliefs may very well change their daily lives based on the new 'info'. So the evidence usually needs to be more compelling and immediate.
2006-07-25 11:56:42 · answer #6 · answered by Rjmail 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nice analogy there
thing is .. that the evidence is much more difficult that telling a blind person that stars exist
a blind person knows that there is more to what they can see , they would never deny that , so ultimately proof is not needed
an atheist needs proof and until such time they would not accept simply the word of another person ( which i respect )
2006-07-25 11:55:26 · answer #7 · answered by Peace 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference here being that good, empirical evidence can be presented for the existence of stars that doesn't require anyone to see them. No one can seem to do this with religious ideas, as a matter of fact, religious ideas fall apart when examined empirically. But thanks for the non sequitur.
2006-07-25 11:54:33 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd think he was a fool. That's a pretty bad example; stars are very much like protons, neutrons and electrons in this regard. We can't see them, but we have means of detecting them. I have no problem thinking they are just as real as stars.
2006-07-25 11:57:24 · answer #9 · answered by ThePeter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A sensible outlook. To not take someone's word. However I can see and describe the stars. Can you see and describe god?
2006-07-25 11:55:27 · answer #10 · answered by You really_believe_that_shit? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋