It is actually religion that tries to destroy the complexity, scale and beauty of the universe by simplifying it with it's silly little stories and explanations.

If that's you philosophizing in a serious manner, then I'd hate to see when you aren't. Saying that people (and I know you are referring to scientific people) don't think something exists if they don't experience it is complete rubbish. I'll say it again for the millionth time, we do not know what causes things beyond what has been supported by evidence. This does not mean that they think nothing exists because they haven't "experienced" it. You are just jumping to conclusions by thinking that you know what has caused it.

Colour is your eyes intepretation of a certain part of the wave spectrum. It has nothing to do with god.

I think that colour thing was meant as an analogy, babycheeks.

You know what I hate hearing? The "what if the way I see colours is different from the way someone else does?" conversation. I mean, fair enough, I guess everyone's got to have it once, but some of these people are my age and still haven't got their head round the fact that there's no way to know, that perception is fundamentally subjective, and that given the nature of... well, nature, no, almost certainly we don't, but that given the names of colours are arbitrary anyway, it doesn't really matter whether you see things that I see as blue the way I see things that are red, since it applies more or less across the board.

yeah I know, and my reply was meant to be an analogy to say that just because she can "experience" something, it doesn't mean it was god, it can also be explained in other ways. It has nothing to do with whether someone is "blind" to the fact or not. It is actually religious people that would be considered "blind" by her defition, as they are "blind" to anything outside of what the bible says, whereas scientific people and philosophers take onboard any type of theory, and are happy to change their opinion, as long as it can be supported by evidence.

yeah thats a popular topic of discussion by philosophers. My own opinion is that while we can never experience someone else's colour experience first hand, if we knew enough about it, e.g. we could measure the exact wave length hitting the retina, and measure the exact dimensions (and other related properties) of the retina's sensor area, then we could technically deduce that two people could be experiencing the same thing. But I doubt the technology would be available to do that in my life time.

What would be the point though? Colour does not exist until we perceive it, it is merely light oscillating at certain frequencies. (For the same reason, no, a falling tree doesn't make a sound if there's no-one around to hear it.) So we have no yardstick by which to measure what the "right" colours are. We can establish it through number, but we can't know how another colour is seen by someone else without effectively making our own eyes into theirs. And what would really be the point in that? Science permits some wonderful things to be done, but surely the argument about colour is merely a way of illustrating the subjectivity of perception compared to the supposed objectivity of matter/energy, so the "answer" is not necessarily the goal of asking.

"What use is a flower to intellect? If my husband had his way there'd be no flowers. He'd tear them all up to measure their mass, circumference and volume." - some chick in Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift

"What need the periwinkle or the poet?
If ne'r there be a God
To add the majesty;
A common weed it be
No use, most certainly
No point to spring this year"
~~carefulcarpenter