Not exactly blind faith is it, considering how far we’ve gotten so far? In fact, it isn’t faith so much as it is expectation based on evidence-if the evidence changes, so do our expectations.
So it is established that for the sake of your hypothetical, people who have bad luck and misfortune deserve it because of their black hearts and dark eyes, while those that are prosperous and happy with their lot in life have eyes and hearts of light? This weird situation might convince me there is a devil, but a god…?
What you take is human progress based on human effort I take as human progress from divine guidance. The end result is the same, we see human progress. How that came about we would decide on our life’s experience and what makes sense to us personally.
Pretty much my take as well. If it starts being verifiable and reproducible, then it has entered the realm of science and should be studied scientifically. Hypotheses as to them mechanism by which it works could be studied. But just because I can’t find the mechanism doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Oh, and if it did have predictive value I’d consult with Randi and try to win his million dollar challenge.
I assume I wouldn’t notice.
First, I’d guess that most people would be somewhere in between light and dark, which I assume would leave their eyes looking eye-colored.
Second, I don’t go around making judgements about how evil or lucky anyone is. I try to avoid people who cause me work, whether it’s because they’re a jerk, or because they’re needy, or because they have a habit of monologing. But since I’m the one making the choice of who fits into that category, I assume that the choice says more about me than about them.
You can be the most loving, lucky person in the world, but if you’re chattering constantly about how lucky and giving you are, I’m going to avoid you. (General You, not you particularly.) So I can’t imagine how I’d figure out that Light Eyes = Loving, let alone how that would benefit me.
Given my behavioral SOP, I’d probably either not notice or, I’d notice it here or there, then tune it out. Seriously, we got a new person in our department today and he asked me if that squeaking noise was always there. Once I listened, it was a really obvious and annoying noise. And I had no idea when it had started. And once I stopped paying attention to it, I stopped noticing again.
So my guess is that I’d go about my business. Do you go around deciding that people are “not full of light”?
So people are 100 percent lightness or darkness. They are not sometimes good, sometimes bad or sometimes neutral.
I’m looking forward in a perverse way to Part 3.
I’m also wondering if at some point God will grant unto the OP the ability to distinguish between the words ‘live’ and ‘life.’
And only bad people have bad luck.
Nope, quite a few are Chaotic or Lawful as well. 
What you are doing is stealing the credit for other people’s hard work.
Standard religious tactic. Give all the credit for what actual people do to God, whether its scientific research or rescue workers. Gratitude is not a feature of the believing mind.
I think God created very complex people. What if a mother killed her son’s rapist? What light would shine out of her eyes. What about the soldier who is fighting for his country, but innocent people get hurt in the crossfire? What about the truthful man who is only so because he either fears a diving spanking, or expects a celestial reward vs. the man who has no belief in God, yet has a personal dedication to the truth?
When all is owed to God, nothing can be owed to others.
No that is what we are doing in the current system. Rarely does one person do everything, but it is typically one person who gets the credit.
Changing that “one person” from “Bob the manager” to “God” doesn’t make it any more fair. On the contrary, it make it less fair since at least there’s a good change Bob actually did something. And Bob probably hasn’t killed the firstborn of any countries, either.
Seems like pretty subjective evidence. You can light and darkness in people’s eyes but other people can’t see it and there’s no physical evidence. And you feel the light and darkness is related to good and bad luck.
I’d want to see some objective evidence. You look over a bunch of people and tell me which ones have good luck/light and which ones have bad luck/darkness. Then I’ll run a series of probability tests to see if there’s any factual basis to your claim.
Well, if the light in the eyes is red and accompanied by Latin chanting, that’s usually a bad sign.
Yes it was structured that any evidence would be subjective. What would it take to start trusting ‘your’ subjectivity over ‘group’ objectivity. To trust and have faith in your ability to see things as how they are regardless of what others may think or how they evaluate you or what tests say even when what they say is counter to what you say.
It was that good/bad luck surrounded them, in other words it was not them necessarily but those who had recent contact with them seemed to experience good/bad things. For instance you see a ‘dark eyes’ person one/month for work, after each visit you get pulled over by a cop that day. After visiting ‘light eyes’ person you get a new job, your tax refund and a bank error in your favor. This pattern seems to continue.
We already have a threadon this.
But I’m seeing people with light eyes AND dark eyes. Both. (And, presumably, neither). It’s not like I’ll only see one person each day, so that I can make notes on who’s giving me luck.
And when I get a ticket, I don’t look for some random luck-sink to blame it on. I make a mental note not to do that illegal thing again. That’s the cause. There may be other sub-causes, but that’s the one I can control and therefor the only one I’ll worry about.
Likewise, the job wouldn’t have come if I hadn’t applied for it. The tax return is due because I applied for it. And the bank error in my favor is going to be a pain in my ass because now I’m going to have to fix it and if they can make an error one way, they can make it another, so now I have to watch my statements more closely, dammit.