Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

2. Really?

Reply to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:23 AM

Jan 2013

Both of them seem to not realize that there is no difference between the imperceptible and the nonexistent.

If it cannot be perceived (the question, then, is by whom), it does not exist? A rather subjective view for a scientist.

"I do not sense it, therefore it does not exist."

It's the same statement that she's criticizing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

“I feel, therefore it exists” [View all] cleanhippie Jan 2013 OP

Wow, does this hit the nail on the head! n/t trotsky Jan 2013 #1

Sure does. Do you think it will hit close to home for some? cleanhippie Jan 2013 #3

Nah, they'll ignore it. trotsky Jan 2013 #4

Evasions to follow... mr blur Jan 2013 #6

...in this subthread... tama Jan 2013 #7

Really? rug Jan 2013 #2

i read 'imperceptible' meaning 'cannot be perceived' Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #9

Since it's not modified, I read it as by any means. rug Jan 2013 #10

Feelings are felt tama Jan 2013 #5

As neuroscientists continue to find electrochemical explanations for feelings, we can hope god will dimbear Jan 2013 #8

Explaining is not feeling tama Jan 2013 #11

Not to burst your bubble... Act_of_Reparation Jan 2013 #12

It's field, not a bubble tama Jan 2013 #13