Blind

[BarryDesborough]

I can envisage experiments that would convince a blind person that there is such a thing as vision - proof that some people, "the sighted" can gather correct information from the environment without using touch, smell, taste or hearing.

Is there any comparable way of convincing a "spiritually blind" person of the existence of a spiritual dimension?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there any comparable way of convincing a "spiritually blind" person of the existence of a spiritual dimension?

Send him there.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Send him there.

No good. The point of the exercise is to verify that you can convince someone of a spiritual realm. If you murder them, how would you verify they still "exist"? With a ouija board?

 

[AV1611VET]

No good. The point of the exercise is to verify that you can convince someone of a spiritual realm. If you murder them, how would you verify they still "exist"? With a ouija board?

Moving the goalpost now, are we? so my answer won't look effective?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I can envisage experiments that would convince a blind person that there is such a thing as vision - proof that some people, "the sighted" can gather correct information from the environment without using touch, smell, taste or hearing.

Is there any comparable way of convincing a "spiritually blind" person of the existence of a spiritual dimension?

In principle or in practice?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Moving the goalpost now, are we? so my answer won't look effective?

How would you verify whether the deceased experience anything or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there any comparable way of convincing a "spiritually blind" person of the existence of a spiritual dimension?

Send him there.

No good. The point of the exercise is to verify that you can convince someone of a spiritual realm. If you murder them, how would you verify they still "exist"? With a ouija board?

Moving the goalpost now, are we? so my answer won't look effective?

How would you verify whether the deceased experience anything or not?

I wouldn't -- I wasn't aware I had to verify it afterward.

That part seems to be missing from your OP.

My obligation ends once this "spiritually blind" person is convinced.

 

[Loudmouth]

I wouldn't -- I wasn't aware I had to verify it afterward.

That part seems to be missing from your OP.

My obligation ends once this "spiritually blind" person is convinced.

In the opening post the blind person is still living when they are convinced by the experiment that vision exists. Is there a parallel experiment for the spiritual dimenion where someone is not killed in the process?

 

[BarryDesborough]

My obligation ends once this "spiritually blind" person is convinced.

Or murdered.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[keith99]

I can envisage experiments that would convince a blind person that there is such a thing as vision - proof that some people, "the sighted" can gather correct information from the environment without using touch, smell, taste or hearing.

Is there any comparable way of convincing a "spiritually blind" person of the existence of a spiritual dimension?

To be fair beyond fair, would that test convince the blind person who refused to believe in sight?

However one simple sight test would be to create 2 tiles that the blind person says are identical and then tell them apart at a distance. \

The follow up would be to have 2 sighted people then identify tiles picked by the blind skeptic by color. Note that since these would be tiles created by and selected by the blind they often would not be a single color and that there would be a lot of judgment calls.

Still the results would be impressive.

At the least it would be convincing that the sighted person was a great trickster.

I propose the second test. Christian, gypsy fortune teller, whatever. Get 2 or more that claim to sense the spiritual realm and see if they see the same things when not allowed to communicate with each other.

I see a complication. Can others? (I'm not going to give mine just yet, if others think a bit they may see one I have missed).

 

[AV1611VET]

I propose the second test. Christian, gypsy fortune teller, whatever. Get 2 or more that claim to sense the spiritual realm and see if they see the same things when not allowed to communicate with each other.

Is that how science would attribute Paul's conversion? to gypsy fortune telling?

Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Or is that how science would interpret this?

John 12:29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Is that how science would attribute Paul's conversion? to gypsy fortune telling?

Acts 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Or is that how science would interpret this?

John 12:29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

Science requires independently verifiable facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science requires independently verifiable facts.

Otherwise the scientist gets to call it everything but what it is, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

To be fair beyond fair, would that test convince the blind person who refused to believe in sight?

Think of how easily we are convinced that photons exist outside of our visual range, and how easily we can use experiments to evidence them without directly seeing them.

 

[quatona]

I can envisage experiments that would convince a blind person that there is such a thing as vision - proof that some people, "the sighted" can gather correct information from the environment without using touch, smell, taste or hearing.

I once had a long talk with a person who was "blind" from birth. It was one of the most impressive conversations I ever had.
She could talk about things as though she had vision. At the same time she could explain to me how she manage to do that (making me look quite clueless because I didn´t have a similar understanding what it is like to be "blind" - au contraire: I had a lot of questions to her, and she didn´t have any to me).
In the end I felt that if any of us two were to be called "handicapped" it was me.
Ever since, I don´t think of "blind" persons as "handicapped" but as experiencing differently than I do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I can envisage experiments that would convince a blind person that there is such a thing as vision - proof that some people, "the sighted" can gather correct information from the environment without using touch, smell, taste or hearing.

Is there any comparable way of convincing a "spiritually blind" person of the existence of a spiritual dimension?

Yes, once a blind person "believed," they could envisage and understand. Likewise No, there is no way to convince a "spiritually blind" person to see. Because in either case you must first "believe" in order to be able to understand. Likewise if they were deaf as well as blind, and could neither touch, nor smell, nor taste this proof of your sight, they could never understand until they took it as a matter of faith from the start and "believed" only then could they "see."

 

[Belk]

Send him there.

Murdering people would seem a rather poor way of changing their mind. Do you have any other options that might allow them to be convinced but continue breathing?

 

[Belk]

Yes, once a blind person "believed," they could envisage and understand. Likewise No, there is no way to convince a "spiritually blind" person to see. Because in either case you must first "believe" in order to be able to understand. Likewise if they were deaf as well as blind, and could neither touch, nor smell, nor taste this proof of your sight, they could never understand until they took it as a matter of faith from the start and "believed" only then could they "see."

So what does belief bring with it that allows one to "see"? In every material instance I can think of belief is not required first. I am able to cite, and in most cases show, physical evidence in order to convince someone a proposition is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Murdering people would seem a rather poor way of changing their mind. Do you have any other options that might allow them to be convinced but continue breathing?

Send them to church?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what does belief bring with it that allows one to "see"? In every material instance I can think of belief is not required first. I am able to cite, and in most cases show, physical evidence in order to convince someone a proposition is true.

And if the other person could neither see, feel, taste, or hear your evidence? Please, convince me that space which is composed of nothing is not only bent, but expanding at an accelerating rate? Are you asking me to believe that something bends nothing, then nothing tells that something what direction to take?