Well, I'm glad you understood it, at least. Yes, they say we are god's creation, thus his children, but we can neither hear nor see god. Hence the deaf/blind child.

This is pretty much how I feel.

...*rubs face* Next time, could please label it better, then? I had no idea that's what the heck you were going on about.

But this blind and deaf child would only be blind and deaf to their creator. They would be able to see and hear everything else in the world.

So you're analogy should be more like:

You have a child. They can never hear or see or touch you, but they can hear and see and touch everything else in the world. Would you sentence them to a life's punishment if they didn't know who created them?

Hehe - I got the analogy right away and I like it. Of course it does not have to be taken literally as in seeing and hearing, but rather as in not having all the means of perception that would be required to perceive the parent fully. For the deaf and blind child, the world would be one of touch and smell, but it would not know anything else. Likewise many people know only seeing and hearing and touch and smell, but do not have a sense for what one could call "the creator".
I think perception is what defines our reality and connects us to our reality and the world we live in. If we have a sense to perceive who created us is a question of theology, I presume, but in any case to the original question, I think a parent like that would still love its child and there would not be any reason to punish it.

They can still physically determine your presence. They still know you exist. The analogy is not only transparent, but fallacious.

Also, a small point of interest - if you were subsequently replaced by another person who acted the same and neither spoke, they wouldn't know any difference.

Sorry for the bad analogy, as apparently it was. I'm glad it made sense to some of you, at least. I should have prefaced it.

That is much better. I'll steal that for future reference if you don't mind.

Exaaaaactly

I really can't add anything to what you said.

Ok, yes HNM, that is right. The analogy is not really that good because the intention behind it was to say that that person would not be able to PERCEIVE the creator. To use sight or sound as the seemingly only means to do so, leaving the other senses out of play is fallacious indeed. The analogy assumes that the other senses do not apply to the creator but only to one self and the other ones likewise. So in a way cavemans analogy would be better, that of an invisible (to the "child") creator. I describes what I understood how it was meant but frankly, I also do not really know a good analogy either :P

Should we name the child Job?:gwink:

I believe that the religious people claim to hear their creator, and be able to feel him. Whether or not you believe they are tricking themselves or not is up to your beliefs.

"Assumption is the mother of all **** ups!"

You believe in what you're told... or not. I don't believe in existence of God, but I'm also not denying it. There's no reason to.

<.<
>.>

Nah, son

are you talking to me? feel free to call me stupid :rolleyes: