The Tasteless Man

In another thread, the existence of God was being discussed, and someone came up with the analogy that a faithless man denying the ability of others to perceive/detect God is as pathetic as a tasteless man denying the existence of taste. Taste can never be proven to the tasteless man, and because he never experiences it himself he flat out denies it is real, or so the analogy goes.

However, if this tasteless man happened to appreciate science, we could indeed make the existence of taste clear to him. Here's how:

The tasteless man knows of but four senses: touch, sight, sound, and smell. If we design an experiment in which it is impossible to tell the difference between different drinks using these four senses, and yet everyone but the tasteless man can tell the difference between the drinks with high degrees of accuracy anyway, we will have proven that a fifth sense--this supposed "taste" sense--exists which the tasteless man does not possess.

The above paragraph should be sufficient, but I'll outline a detailed way of actually performing this experiment anyway.

1) Acquire some apple juice and some orange juice (no pulp). Add water and chemically alter the juices so that their textures are not perceivably different, and make sure they have the same temperature. By doing this, no one, including the tasteless man, will be able to distinguish between the apple juice or the orange juice by their sense of touch.

2) Use food coloring to make the two liquids appear the exact same color, or simply blindfold the subjects in the experiment. Make sure the cups of juice are labeled Apple or Orange juice on folded slips of paper that are not in plain view. By doing this, no one, including the T.M. (tasteless man) will be able to tell apart the apple juice and the orange juice by sight.

3) Our sense of hearing is not a factor, as orange and apple juice sound the same.

4) Make sure all the subjects have clothespins pinching their noses shut. Also, when they taste the liquids, each subject is to hold his breath, stick out his tongue, and dip it into the juice, thereby preventing any possibility of smelling the juice via the mouth (apple and orange juice don't have a very powerful aroma anyway).

5) To perform the experiment, simply have a bunch of people (including the T.M.), under the contraints outlined above, dip their tongues in apple or orange juice at random. Ask them whether they think the liquid was apple or orange juice, and record their answers over as many trials as you wish.

Predictions:

1) If the T.M. is correct and there is no such thing as a fifth sense called 'taste' that relies on sensory organs in the tongue, everyone should identify the liquid as apple/orange juice correctly about 50% of the time (the same % probability of getting it right by random guessing).

2) If the T.M. is wrong, and taste does exist, the T.M. should get it right about 50% of the time (as in #1). However, everyone else should correctly identify the liquids at a rate consistently higher than 50%.

Results: In this experiment, the T.M. would probably guess correctly about 50% of the time, and everyone else would easily be able to correctly identify apple or orange juice 100% of the time (or very close to that) simply by tasting it.

Conclusion: The T.M. can now clearly see that everyone else has a special sense besides sight, hearing, smell, and touch, that allow them to consistently distinguish between apple and orange juice. The sensory organs responsible for this fifth sense must reside in the tongue.

The above it just one of MANY ways we could prove the existence of taste, even to someone who doesn't have taste, using science. A further conclusion can be drawn: if supernatural senses existed, like the ability to sense spirits or other supernatural entities, it should be possible to prove this using science (even to people who do not have these senses).

Nice work Spinky!

Thanks. This is why I think the scientific method is so valuable...using it, we can make even the tasteless, believe! Go science!

I'd just hand someone two cups of tea and ask them to tell me which one has sugar in it

Mr. Sprinkles...

You have not taken into account that taste is dependent on smell. How can the subjects of this experiment taste the liquid if their sense of smell is inhibited?


Zero Faith brings up the best point so far:

"I'd just hand someone two cups of tea and ask them to tell me which one has sugar in it"

Sugar has no aroma, so this would be the best answer in attempting to prove taste to the man who lacks the sense himself. But then the T.M. may question, "I cannot smell sugar, but how do I know others can also not smell it? Why should I assume that everyone lives by my standard?"

Now how do you prove that others can in fact not smell something? You could set up another experiment and have people smell samples of sugar and salt granulated to the same consistency (in order to appear the same). But, how does the T.M. really know that these people aren't just saying that they cannot smell the salt and sugar?

Thus, I still see no irrefutable proof of the sense of taste to one who has no experience of it firsthand.

You have not taken into account that taste is dependent on smell. How can the subjects of this experiment taste the liquid if their sense of smell is inhibited?

Click to expand...

Mmmm...good point. I just held my nose and ate a grape to test out your theory, and you are correct. Sense of smell is necessary for taste. For this particular experiment to still work then, we would simply have to keep participants from simply smelling the aroma of the juice. Perhaps they would keep the clip on their noses, and then take a sip and hold it in their mouth. Then the clip would be removed and they could slosh the juice around for a minute to taste it before they swallowed.

Sugar has no aroma, so this would be the best answer in attempting to prove taste to the man who lacks the sense himself. But then the T.M. may question, "I cannot smell sugar, but how do I know others can also not smell it? Why should I assume that everyone lives by my standard?"

Now how do you prove that others can in fact not smell something? You could set up another experiment and have people smell samples of sugar and salt granulated to the same consistency (in order to appear the same). But, how does the T.M. really know that these people aren't just saying that they cannot smell the salt and sugar?

Click to expand...

Sugar does have a smell though. Not when disintegrated in tea--it's not an awfully pungent aroma--but if someone were to have to distinguish between salt and sugar simply through smell, it could easily be done. Go test it out yourself right now--careful not to get your nose too close though!

As far as wondering if everyone is involved in a conspiracy to make this man believe he is deficient for not being able to smell sugar or whatever, I think that's taking it a bit far.

Thus, I still see no irrefutable proof of the sense of taste to one who has no experience of it firsthand.

Click to expand...

The proof is there, but the tasteless man has to be willing to accept it. One can claim that the experiment has been rigged, but what would be the point of that?

Ceridwen018 said:

Mmmm...good point. I just held my nose and ate a grape to test out your theory, and you are correct. Sense of smell is necessary for taste. For this particular experiment to still work then, we would simply have to keep participants from simply smelling the aroma of the juice. Perhaps they would keep the clip on their noses, and then take a sip and hold it in their mouth. Then the clip would be removed and they could slosh the juice around for a minute to taste it before they swallowed.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but then the same line of reasoning the T.M. used for whether or not other's ability to smell is the same as his is applicable. He might consider, "How do I know that others cannot smell the food while it is in their mouths?" As ridiculous as that sounds to us, it is a very plausible inquiry from one who questions the extistence of something he has no firsthand experience of. I understand that most people will simply accept that other's are not out to cheat. But the propensity of cheating is there, nevertheless. So we must take it into consideration.

Ceridwen018 said:

Sugar does have a smell though. Not when disintegrated in tea--it's not an awfully pungent aroma--but if someone were to have to distinguish between salt and sugar simply through smell, it could easily be done. Go test it out yourself right now--careful not to get your nose too close though!

Click to expand...

Then I mean to say sugar disintegrated into tea. Nevertheless...

Ceridwen018 said:

As far as wondering if everyone is involved in a conspiracy to make this man believe he is deficient for not being able to smell sugar or whatever, I think that's taking it a bit far.

Click to expand...

But this is exactly the point. This was the debate to begin with. Whether the sense of taste can be irrefutably proven to one who has not the ability. I am simply applying the same line of skepticism that denies any tinge of faith being used.

Ceridwen018 said:

The proof is there, but the tasteless man has to be willing to accept it. One can claim that the experiment has been rigged, but what would be the point of that?

Click to expand...

The "willing to accept it" means that he must ultimately surrender to the authority of those who have experienced taste firsthand. This is my point.

Originally, someone made an analogy comparing an atheist to someone who cannot taste denying that taste exists. I have made it apparent that even the atheists require some tinge of faith.

Perhaps, but then the same line of reasoning the T.M. used for whether or not other's ability to smell is the same as his is applicable. He might consider, "How do I know that others cannot smell the food while it is in their mouths?" As ridiculous as that sounds to us, it is a very plausible inquiry from one who questions the extistence of something he has no firsthand experience of.

Click to expand...

I agree, it is a very plausible inquiry. However, I think that this too can be overcome. Assuming that the tasteless man has a sense of smell--which, now that I think about it, I'm not sure how that would work...--but for the sake of example, our tasteless man shall have one. The tasteless man would need to analyze himself: Can he smell the food when it is in his mouth? The answer would be 'no'. Because our tasteless man's sense of smell is identical to the other 'tasteful' participants, he can draw his own conclusion that the other participants cannot smell the food when it is in their mouths, just like he cannot.

But this is exactly the point. This was the debate to begin with. Whether the sense of taste can be irrefutably proven to one who has not the ability. I am simply applying the same line of skepticism that denies any tinge of faith being used.

Click to expand...

Well, in all actuality, nothing can be 'irrefutably proven', but if our biggest issue is just that our tasteless man is a bit paranoid, I think we're doing alright.

"Because our tasteless man's sense of smell is identical to the other 'tasteful' participants, he can draw his own conclusion that the other participants cannot smell the food when it is in their mouths, just like he cannot."

But now we are saying that the tasteless man's sense of smell is the same as the 'tasteful' participants. How does the T.M. know this? We may know that we can't smell in our mouths, but how can we prove this to this incredibly skeptical man? He must accept our authority. Surrender is the final conclusion.

As a theist I very much understand and embrace the concept of surrender. Although, this does not mean that I sacrifice reason; only that my premise for anything rests upon the existence of an unchanging, eternal, supremely powerful and intelligent standard reality. Philosophically speaking, this is not so unreasonable at all. But further from this we may get into debates regarding specifics of this reality. Any specifics accepted by myself are admittedly done so by faith in the authority of scripture. I don't have a problem with people not accepting those specifics. I have a problem with people comparing the concept of God to things like 'pink unicorns', for example. There is no comparison. The word "God" implies an entire philosophy. If anyone wants they can replace the word "God" with the words "pink unicorn", but the same concept is nevertheless being portrayed. If I said, "God is a yellow cyclops", then someone could respond, "no, God is a pink unicorn", but what is the value of such argument? These are all attempts at describing specifics of a transcendental existence which, in concept, substantiates all things known and unknown to us. This is why the concept of God has remained so seemingly innovative despite that it has been around for at least thousands of years. Theories of 'big bang', 'chaos', etc, will come and go. God can be a pink unicorn, a yellow cyclops, a haze gray jackelope or something entirely different. The concept of God will remain in some form or another.

But now we are saying that the tasteless man's sense of smell is the same as the 'tasteful' participants. How does the T.M. know this? We may know that we can't smell in our mouths, but how can we prove this to this incredibly skeptical man? He must accept our authority. Surrender is the final conclusion.

Click to expand...

He need only accept the authority of science. Here's what we have to do: Generally speaking, we hook our tasteless man and our other tasteful participants up to machines which allow us to monitor brain activity. We then locate the area of the brain which controls the sense of smell. From this point, we can see that this area of the brain is not stimulated when the subject has food inside their mouth, therefore allowing us to correctly conclude that the sense of smell is not being used when food is inside the mouth, aka, the subject cannot smell the food.

This is why the concept of God has remained so seemingly innovative despite that it has been around for at least thousands of years. Theories of 'big bang', 'chaos', etc, will come and go. God can be a pink unicorn, a yellow cyclops, a haze gray jackelope or something entirely different. The concept of God will remain in some form or another.

Your entire post was excellent, a very good read.

Although those philosophies of god have been held for thousands of years, it is only recently that scientific theory has begun to show those long held philosophies are myths, just like invisible pink unicorns. So, in that way, the comparison is valid.

@Ceridwen

Do you really want me to keep refuting these ideas? It is not so hard. The conclusion will still remain that this man can never be sure and so he must ultimately accept the authority of other's by faith.

Perhaps the brain activity for smelling the food within the mouth is different from smelling it outside the mouth. LOL... on and on we go...

(Q) said:

This is why the concept of God has remained so seemingly innovative despite that it has been around for at least thousands of years. Theories of 'big bang', 'chaos', etc, will come and go. God can be a pink unicorn, a yellow cyclops, a haze gray jackelope or something entirely different. The concept of God will remain in some form or another.

Your entire post was excellent, a very good read.

Although those philosophies of god have been held for thousands of years, it is only recently that scientific theory has begun to show those long held philosophies are myths, just like invisible pink unicorns. So, in that way, the comparison is valid.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment...

I have yet to see how the concept of God has been shown to be myth by modern science. Can you please give me an example? Something that irrufutably proves God as a myth, not just some theory.
Also, if what you decide to present as evidence happens to be a theory, then consider whether this theory can support an 'end all', 'final conclusion' for existence itself. If we are ultimately led back to the argument of 'something coming from nothing', in an absolute sense, then please refer back to all my previous posts in refute of this idea.

Parapraktri, I think I see two problems: 1) you are misusing the word "faith". 2) you are mischaracterizing what it means to be a skeptic

1) If "faith" means "thinking that something is probably true, based on evidence and logic which indicates it is probably true," then yes, scientists/skeptics definitely have "faith". Based on the logic and evidence, it is far more likely that the T.M. is lacking a fifth sense than that the entire world is in on some looney conspiracy. Is there any way to prove this with a 100% degree of certainty? Of course not. There is no way to prove anything with 100% certainty (there's always a 0.00000000001% chance we're all living in the Matrix or something)....but we can provide evidence that makes us 99.999% certain. If that is your definition of "faith" so be it.

2) Skepticism does not mean "they're all out to get me--it's a conspiracy!!" It means requiring evidence/logic to back up claims. In this analogy, plenty of evidence and logic backs up the claim that other people have taste...but there is ZERO evidence or logic that there is some sort of massive conspiracy to trick the T.M. Skeptics are not big conspiracy buffs.

You say that ultimately we have to "surrender". I don't agree with that. I think ultimately, we have to be honest. Frankly, theists who say God exists with 100% certainty are not being intellectually honest. We cannot possibly "know" anything 100%. The trick is getting as close to 100% as possible with logic and evidence, and being objectively critical about which claims are strongly supported by logic and evidence, and which claims are not. It's not about having faith, it's about using your brain.

Mr_Spinkles said:

Parapraktri, I think I see two problems: 1) you are misusing the word "faith". 2) you are mischaracterizing what it means to be a skeptic

1) If "faith" means "thinking that something is probably true, based on evidence and logic which indicates it is probably true," then yes, scientists/skeptics definitely have "faith". Based on the logic and evidence, it is far more likely that the T.M. is lacking a fifth sense than that the entire world is in on some looney conspiracy. Is there any way to prove this with a 100% degree of certainty? Of course not. There is no way to prove anything with 100% certainty (there's always a 0.00000000001% chance we're all living in the Matrix or something)....but we can provide evidence that makes us 99.999% certain. If that is your definition of "faith" so be it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps also it is that we have faith that such evidence is sufficient in the first place. Also we must question the method that we used in obtaining any evidence. You premise is taking for granted that these things are completely reliable.

Mr_Spinkles said:

2) Skepticism does not mean "they're all out to get me--it's a conspiracy!!" It means requiring evidence/logic to back up claims. In this analogy, plenty of evidence and logic backs up the claim that other people have taste...but there is ZERO evidence or logic that there is some sort of massive conspiracy to trick the T.M. Skeptics are not big conspiracy buffs.

Click to expand...

The ultimate skeptic is the nihilist. Their philosophy is very conspiratorial. We all have differing degrees of faith.

Mr_Spinkles said:

You say that ultimately we have to "surrender". I don't agree with that. I think ultimately, we have to be honest. Frankly, theists who say God exists with 100% certainty are not being intellectually honest. We cannot possibly "know" anything 100%. The trick is getting as close to 100% as possible with logic and evidence, and being objectively critical about which claims are strongly supported by logic and evidence, and which claims are not. It's not about having faith, it's about using your brain.

Click to expand...

Well, the concept of God will end up being the inescapable conclusion. You say we can only know anything for sure up to 99 percent. I would say that any knowledge that is not 100 percent might as well be 0 percent. You can even keep adding zeros, but God is the one (1) that comes before them. So only with God can any percentage of knowledge have any value. If there is no 'God', i.e.: an eternal, unchanging, supremely intelligent and powerful Entity, then all other things lose value. For God is, in concept, from which all things have gained their value. I think that atheists are more or less denying the existence of a personal God. They see pain and suffering and have difficulty accepting a loving God. There are different conceptions of the same truth known as "God". Obviously an atheist is typically not one to entertain the conception of a personal God. At least try to understand the concept on an impersonal level.

Perhaps also it is that we have faith that such evidence is sufficient in the first place.

You are correct. Faith in the five proven senses is logically valid -- it can be demonstrated. That's the catch. You want faith in God to be valid, demonstrate how this faith can be used to predict outcomes -- demonstrate its effectiveness.

I can show you, through experiment, how faith in the five senses is different from some lunatic's faith in invisible pink unicorns, and explain why I believe in the former and not in the latter. Can you do the same with faith in God?

Also we must question the method that we used in obtaining any evidence.

Of course we do. That is the scientific method. To question a method, you use it on a known quantity and see if the obtained information agrees with what you already know.

You premise is taking for granted that these things are completely reliable.

Nothing is completely reliable. Don't be obtuse.

The ultimate skeptic is the nihilist. Their philosophy is very conspiratorial. We all have differing degrees of faith.

No, we do not. There are two types of faith. One type can be logically supported by demonstrating precedent (I have proven the effectiveness of my vision to read words in the past, because everyone else reads the same words I do. Thus, when I read this new book, I have faith that the words are as I see them). The other type cannot (I have not proven the effectiveness of faith in God because not everyone believes the same as I do, and I cannot explain why).

Well, the concept of God will end up being the inescapable conclusion.

Bull. I've noticed you smugly drop statements like this all the time without supporting them. I suppose that's how you go about converting the masses? Hammering them with the same unsupported, neatly packaged idea over and over until they no longer have the interest to resist?

I would say that any knowledge that is not 100 percent might as well be 0 percent. You can even keep adding zeros, but God is the one (1) that comes before them. So only with God can any percentage of knowledge have any value.

Says who? This is all nonsense. You're incredibly circular; you presuppose the existence of God (last sentence), then use it to prove that we're wrong in saying God doesn't exists. Know what? You're right. If God exists, then we're wrong in saying that he doesn't. I concede that.

If there is no 'God', i.e.: an eternal, unchanging, supremely intelligent and powerful Entity, then all other things lose value. For God is, in concept, from which all things have gained their value.

Again, you're taking us in circles. God gives all things their value, therefore, if God doesn't exist, all things have no value? That's ridiculous. You can't assume that God exists and then use that as a premise to prove he exists!

I think that atheists are more or less denying the existence of a personal God. They see pain and suffering and have difficulty accepting a loving God.

You have an incredibly narrow-minded view of atheists. We didn't all stare petulently out our windows at a grey, dreary sky and convert because life sucked. A lot of us merely expect evidence to believe in remarkable things. Could you imagine if someone talked down to you and said that you don't believe in aliens because you deny the utopia they could bring us?

Perhaps also it is that we have faith that such evidence is sufficient in the first place. Also we must question the method that we used in obtaining any evidence. You premise is taking for granted that these things are completely reliable.

Click to expand...

It is alright to take such things for granted in this elaborate metaphor, becasue in real life they are tested for accuracy and preciseness.

The ultimate skeptic is the nihilist. Their philosophy is very conspiratorial. We all have differing degrees of faith.

Click to expand...

There is a definite line between 'skeptic' and 'niilist'. Skeptics logically question that which they recognize as being in need of questioning. A nihilist doesn't seem to be able to reason and use logic, becasue they refuse to accept anything.

I would say that any knowledge that is not 100 percent might as well be 0 percent.

Click to expand...

That's not logical. If something has 0% probability, it means it has 0 evidence to back it up, and therefore basically doesn't exist. If something has, say, 76% probability, that means there is evidence to support the claim.

but God is the one (1) that comes before them.

Click to expand...

Which is humorous, because the concept of god is very close to 0% probability.

If there is no 'God', i.e.: an eternal, unchanging, supremely intelligent and powerful Entity, then all other things lose value. For God is, in concept, from which all things have gained their value.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how they would lose value. Who said they had value in the first place?

They see pain and suffering and have difficulty accepting a loving God.

Click to expand...

Well yeah!! Why would a loving god allow pain and suffering??

Zero Faith said:

Perhaps also it is that we have faith that such evidence is sufficient in the first place.

You are correct. Faith in the five proven senses is logically valid -- it can be demonstrated. That's the catch. You want faith in God to be valid, demonstrate how this faith can be used to predict outcomes -- demonstrate its effectiveness.

Click to expand...

So what you're telling me is that the five senses can be proven by the demonstration of the five senses. Is it necessary for me to point out the obvious flaw in that reasoning?
The sunshine demonstrates that the sun globe exists. Similarly, that anything exists demonstrates the existence of God. God is the reservoir of energy.

Zero Faith said:

I can show you, through experiment, how faith in the five senses is different from some lunatic's faith in invisible pink unicorns, and explain why I believe in the former and not in the latter. Can you do the same with faith in God?

Click to expand...

No, you can't show, through experiment, how faith in the five senses is different from any other type of faith. How can you prove the validity of the senses by the sense themselves? The senses will be producing an experiment that will be producing results that are received by the senses. I hope you are not trying to compare invisible pink unicorns to God. We have only been speaking of God as a concept. In order for that analogy to fit we would have to be arguing, specifically, a personal conception of God and attributes thereof. There is no special concept of "pink unicorn" that I know of.

Zero Faith said:

Also we must question the method that we used in obtaining any evidence.

Of course we do. That is the scientific method. To question a method, you use it on a known quantity and see if the obtained information agrees with what you already know.

Click to expand...

That's nice. And now you will prove the senses by the senses.

Zero Faith said:

The ultimate skeptic is the nihilist. Their philosophy is very conspiratorial. We all have differing degrees of faith.

No, we do not. There are two types of faith. One type can be logically supported by demonstrating precedent (I have proven the effectiveness of my vision to read words in the past, because everyone else reads the same words I do. Thus, when I read this new book, I have faith that the words are as I see them). The other type cannot (I have not proven the effectiveness of faith in God because not everyone believes the same as I do, and I cannot explain why).

Click to expand...

The one type that can be logically supported is based on the premise of the type which cannot. Therefore all faith is essentially the same. This is proven by the fact that you cannot prove the validity of the senses by the senses.

Zero Faith said:

Well, the concept of God will end up being the inescapable conclusion.

Bull. I've noticed you smugly drop statements like this all the time without supporting them. I suppose that's how you go about converting the masses? Hammering them with the same unsupported, neatly packaged idea over and over until they no longer have the interest to resist?

Click to expand...

*yawn*
I notice that you ignore a lot of things. The very reasons we are currently debating are showing how either God or non-existence is the ultimate conclusion. If you accept non-existence then we're done discussing. If you accept God then that is another thing. The word "God" implies a concept. It is not in any way similar to a 'pink unicorn'. The concept God implies is of an existence full in all qualities. At any point that science wants to step up and say that quality comes from non-quality, intelligent people will be here to refute such nonsense. "Nothing" is never observed and therefore must be concluded that when it is said that there is "nothing", it just means that our ability to perceive is imperfect. This is the bottom line.

Zero Faith said:

I would say that any knowledge that is not 100 percent might as well be 0 percent. You can even keep adding zeros, but God is the one (1) that comes before them. So only with God can any percentage of knowledge have any value.

Says who? This is all nonsense. You're incredibly circular; you presuppose the existence of God (last sentence), then use it to prove that we're wrong in saying God doesn't exists. Know what? You're right. If God exists, then we're wrong in saying that he doesn't. I concede that.

Click to expand...

LOL. I began the paragraph with, "I would say". I think that answers your first question. You may think it is all nonsense. But you take for granted the partial faith you have in existence by use of senses that cannot be proven of themselves.
Actually, only God has the authority to say that He doesn't exist.

Zero Faith said:

If there is no 'God', i.e.: an eternal, unchanging, supremely intelligent and powerful Entity, then all other things lose value. For God is, in concept, from which all things have gained their value.

Again, you're taking us in circles. God gives all things their value, therefore, if God doesn't exist, all things have no value? That's ridiculous. You can't assume that God exists and then use that as a premise to prove he exists!

Click to expand...

God is the ultimate conclusion of all knowledge. I have already addressed this. God means, "reservoir of value". We can understand that at some point in our tiny scope of history, that at some point (supposedly) there was no intelligent life. Ok, the first intelligent question is wherefrom this so-called intelligence came. Specifics may be up to speculation but in general we should accept that any quality does not come from the lack of itself. Cause and effect. This is very logical. The problem you have with God may be a personal conception of God. The concept of God in general is logical and the final conclusion of all knowledge. You can sit here til oblivion arguing that you cannot see, taste, touch, hear or smell God, therefore God does not exist, but then I can sit here and simply tell you that you cannot prove the validity of this ability to see, taste, touch, hear and smell.

Zero Faith said:

I think that atheists are more or less denying the existence of a personal God. They see pain and suffering and have difficulty accepting a loving God.

You have an incredibly narrow-minded view of atheists. We didn't all stare petulently out our windows at a grey, dreary sky and convert because life sucked. A lot of us merely expect evidence to believe in remarkable things. Could you imagine if someone talked down to you and said that you don't believe in aliens because you deny the utopia they could bring us?

Click to expand...

Here again you make an analogy that is terrible. There is no comparison with these so far, vague "aliens" with the conception of God. Atheists' intelligence is stolen by illusion. If the theists' intelligence is also stolen by illusion then it is all illusion and we shall convert to nihilists.

So what you're telling me is that the five senses can be proven by the demonstration of the five senses. Is it necessary for me to point out the obvious flaw in that reasoning?

Click to expand...

If you know of a sixth sense, please describe an experiment similar to the one I described that could demonstrate this to me. Otherwise, your denial of the five senses will appear only as a desperate strategy by your confirmation bias to give validity to an imagined reality.

Also, your analogy about the sun globe....we know the sun globe exists for a lot more reasons than "well, the light of the sun must come from something". We know a lot about the sun globe, its surface, what may lie underneath....so far, you have not been able to demonstrate any way of detecting god or discovering his/her properties other than "the universe comes from god as light comes from the sun". So now our definition of god is "something from which the universe comes"....which is utterly meaningless (and definitely not something we should be worshipping).

Mr_Spinkles said:

If you know of a sixth sense, please describe an experiment similar to the one I described that could demonstrate this to me. Otherwise, your denial of the five senses will appear only as a desperate strategy by your confirmation bias to give validity to an imagined reality.

Click to expand...

How can you be satisfied in this manner? We already know the premise you accept. I am not denying the five senses. I am simply showing that they are limited. The so-called "imagined reality" is the original one. This reality you know is a perverted reflection. How can it be proven so by playing the illusion? Just try to understand that no particular thing here ever lasts as that thing and has no real definition itself, but yet we think and speak as if they do. Why is this propensity there, intrinsically? Life can be accepted merely as an engaging of the senses, but why deny consciousness' natural propensity? It is there, why do you not regard it? Why is everything based upon sense gratification? The whole world is intoxicated because the gross senses are put before the subtle intellect. Consider these things, then step back and consider your self considering them.

Mr_Spinkles said:

Also, your analogy about the sun globe....we know the sun globe exists for a lot more reasons than "well, the light of the sun must come from something". We know a lot about the sun globe, its surface, what may lie underneath....so far, you have not been able to demonstrate any way of detecting god or discovering his/her properties other than "the universe comes from god as light comes from the sun". So now our definition of god is "something from which the universe comes"....which is utterly meaningless (and definitely not something we should be worshipping).

Click to expand...

Better put, God is the Energetic from which the energy emanates.
Well, you will worship one thing or another. You will never fail to act in your capacity to serve. You can engage in serving the senses or you can renounce and engage in serving God. In general these are your options. Everything fits into one of these two categories. There isn't so much difference in your propensities from God. You desire, whether you realize it or not, to be enjoyer. God is the Supreme Enjoyer. Yet I doubt you can account for that nature. Why is it that you seek to enjoy? Wherefrom has this desire come? You have been engaged here. Who is this intelligence that even Einstein addressed, acting behind universal affairs, that has engaged you here? So many questions and so much time to ignore them. "Let us put them off and engage these bodies a little more till oblivion. We have no proof of anything but what satisfies our senses." The whole world is asleep. God is just trying to wake folks up.