Helen & the Scissors

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
You are wrong. Christ is just as external to me as a tree, and equally if not more real.
So, you're saying that Christ is external to your mind, but you don't perceive him through the 5 standard senses? Is he located in space? If not, then how do you know that he is external to your mind, which is located in space between your ears?

To expect God to cooperate as a guinea pig in a controlled experiment isn't going to happen. He is not an errand boy to satisfy out wandering desires.
God doesn't have to cooperate in the slightest if he doesn't want to, and I never said he did, so bringing this up is a complete straw man, it has nothing to do with what I've said. The issue is what we are warranted to conclude given logic and certain evidence. If God doesn't want to provide us with certain evidence, that's perfectly fine, and we can then base our conclusions on that lack of evidence.

He is no more a mere product of my mind than is this keyboard on which I type.
You're merely re-asserting your claim, which does nothing to address the epistemological issues we've been talking about.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So, you're saying that Christ is external to your mind, but you don't perceive him through the 5 standard senses?

Correct. I don't see Him with my eyes, nor hear Him with my ears, nor feel Him with my hands, nor taste Him nor smell Him.

Is he located in space?

He transcends space, which He created and yet is omnipresent.

If not, then how do you know that he is external to your mind, which is located in space between your ears?


God doesn't have to cooperate in the slightest if he doesn't want to, and I never said he did, so bringing this up is a complete straw man, it has nothing to do with what I've said. The issue is what we are warranted to conclude given logic and certain evidence.

My OP is about what you are NOT "warranted to conclude."
 

5wize

Well-known member
You and Helen Keller are tied to chairs bolted to the floor six feet away from a table upon which sits a pair of scissors. Your hands are free and your chairs are close enough together so that by the sense of touch your are able to communicate some hope to Helen with regard to the existence of the scissors. But Helen thinks you are either hallucinating or lying. She demands empirical proof. Your inability to offer any is disparaged by Helen as indicative of your deception regarding the scissors. What do you do?
This whole thought experiment suffers the issue of god needing to use you, a failed spiritual build from birth, to tell another of His own failed spiritual creation something about the truth of God's spiritual nature and presence. Not a good position for team theism.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Elaborate. Or can you?
#46... But more specifically, Jesus is the dancing Leprechan you are asking to get off his butt and free/save you.... but the proof that that is going to work comes after the table, the chairs, the scissors, and the 2 people have all gone away. Kind of silly when you think about it.
 

5wize

Well-known member
No it doesn't. God doesn't need me. I need Him.
No, your thought experiment explicitly involved you convincing someone without your vision that scissors exists that the other person should know about. Problem is that the characteristics of these scissors imply that they can tell poor Helen themselves.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
No, your thought experiment explicitly involved you convincing someone without your vision that scissors exists that the other person should know about. Problem is that the characteristics of these scissors imply the that they can tell poor Helen themselves.

IMPLY? You mean you INFER. And fallaciously.
 

5wize

Well-known member
IMPLY? You mean you INFER. And fallaciously.
No, imply and used accurately to the scenario. This experiment is pretty simple. It's not hard to follow. It's just hard to defend as allegory to our relationship to god and each other. I don't possess any less capability than you to see what's on the table. You are adding things and attempting to say I am subtracting them. You possess no special vision.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
BINGO! (Unless he found you to be credible.)
Right. So I reject your claim of having a 'spirit sense' because you cannot demonstrate it to me. If you could see something with your spirit sense and then we could verify it with our normal, human senses, then we could believe you.

For now we just say that you may have a spirit sense but there is no reason to believe it without evidence.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
No, imply and used accurately to the scenario. This experiment is pretty simple. It's not hard to follow. It's just hard to defend as allegory to our relationship to god and each other. I don't possess any less capability than you to see what's on the table. You are adding things and attempting to say I am subtracting them. You possess no special vision.

Wrong. All believers have spiritual eyes. I, like you, was once blind, but now I see.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Right. So I reject your claim of having a 'spirit sense' because you cannot demonstrate it to me. If you could see something with your spirit sense and then we could verify it with our normal, human senses, then we could believe you.

For now we just say that you may have a spirit sense but there is no reason to believe it without evidence.

Correct. Just stop making the mistake of thinking your own lack of evidence proves anything.
 
Top