Challenge for Atheists: Prove Wind Exists

My devious mind fast-forwards to Act Five where Our Hero Heretic appears before an enthroned God who pronounces, "ME-(*)(*)(*)(*)!t, I gave you idiots perfectly good physical senses and a fundamental ... a practical...logic to discern your world. ...and you argue the existence of the un-seen based on a wind analogy? Really?". God exits stage left and mutters...to His Son, "Jesus, it's gonna' be a long day...but then I can make another one if We need it.".

 

Bump!!!

 

Does God create every snowflake?

 

God represents the creative power of all existence, the source and beginning of existence.

 

And the peace symbol represents peace. What is your point?

 

God is an entity of the highest moral authority and autonomy, not just "a symbol".

You wouldn't say a "peace symbol" is morally responsible for consequences, now would you????

So you're drawing false parallels. I hope that you aren't trying to make a point of some kind???

 

So you are claiming God is an entity which exists?

What is your proof of that?

 

Why Bump an over 2.5 year old thread?

BTW are you able to prove there is only 1 God and not Multiple Gods?

 

Regardless of whether you used "would" or "wouldn't", it is still a matter of 'believing' (as in your statement "I believe....". Then comes the delimiters... 'overwhelming' and 'evidence'. What might be 'overwhelming' to you may not be 'overwhelming' to someone else. What might be 'evidence' to you might not be 'evidence' to someone else. Your own preconceived notions regarding what is 'overwhelming' and what is 'evidence' is what you are believing. So take a closer look at the meaning of the word 'faith' and the word 'belief'.

 

I would guess that he is saying that God exists. One definitive proof of Gods existence is the admission of many Theists and non-theists on this forum. That definitive proof is the very meaning of the words "is" and "be". Some people on this forum will not hesitate to declare that "God is ...." this or that or the other thing. Well, every time they make such a declaration, they are admitting the existence of God. Is = be = exist.

 

Unless you are speaking theoretically or as part of a thought exercise. Which has been explained to you numerous times.

 

Can you see it blowing across a field of wheat? Can you see it blow over a tree or fill the sails of a sailboat?

What are you trying to say?

 

Sure they can, just not with the material senses.

 

This is a loaded question. Why do you readily assume God would allow His creation to scientifically observe Him? God is dominant over nature, and you have it completely backwards.

 

I argue that most of humanity understands wind and that our views on it will be much the same... the same cannot be said on the topic of God. Atheists and theists can see and feel the effects of wind, the same cannot be said on the topic of God.

 

There is nothing theoretical about the word "is" or "be" or "exist". They are all clearly defined and not defined by me. As for a 'thought exercise'. Perhaps it might have a variable meaning in such case, however, all participants would first need to have a mutual agreement regarding that specialized meaning of a word that is otherwise clearly defined. Because no-one has suggested an alternative meaning, and because (as far as I know) no-one has agreed to any specialized meaning of those terms, then the standard definitions offered by standard dictionaries is applicable. Try again. The alleged explanations that you reference have not changed the meaning of those terms.

 

Anemometer

 

Unlike gods, wind (and air in general) is objectively observable and measurable. It's something we can all experience and agree exists, and it can be explained as the movement of air. It's not at all like the entirely subjective gods that people claim to "feel" and "know" exist.

 

So your god cares more about his own privacy than saving the souls of people who require proof to believe something? Or he only wants to hang out with people who are gullible or intuitive enough to love him without having proof gods exist at all?

 

If you have no proof, then why should I or anyone else believe your claims?

For that matter, why should you?

- - - Updated - - -

"Han Solo is a smuggler and owns the Millennium Falcon"

Does that mean I believe Han Solo exists beyond as a character of fiction or that he is a real person?

 

The Lawnmower Man: Behavior Bay


The unusual American comic book super-villain Hogboblin (Marvel Comics) is a jet-soaring ghoul who challenges the webbed wonder Spider-Man's authority to defend peace and sanity in his city.

We make terror-themed avatars such as the colorful Hobgoblin to re-present human anxieties about behavior and etiquette. Why do human beings form social contracts and enforce manners and ethics? After all, there is no definitive proof that self-serving profiteerism is not as beneficial as teamwork and courtesy. We can't see the wind, and water is colorless, and yet we celebrate the feeling (i.e., texture) they create.

In the short-story "The Lawnmower Man" (Stephen King), a man hires a lawnmower serviceperson to cut his grass but soon discovers that the person the lawn company has sent is actually a menacing freak, preparing to create goosebumps. Such a story surely signifies a human curiosity about spiritual unpredictability. Maybe atheism is a way to discuss suffering.





The Lawnmower Man (Stephen King)

 

There is always the possibility that you might hold such a belief. Considering that you made the declaration, I have no reason to doubt that you might have that belief, and I am certainly not going to sit here at my computer terminal and call you a liar. You are a person of integrity aren't you? In other words, do I have any justifiable reason to suspect that you might be telling a lie when you made that declaration?

 

BTW Questerr: Just out of curiosity, I did a search on the name Han Solo. As it is shown in the link below, there are a few of them here in the US. I don't personally know any of them or their occupations. Maybe one of them is the one you spoke about.
http://www.whitepages.com/name/Han-Solo

 

Provide an example.

 

Even that was pointed out in scripture. " 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "

Technology and all of its devices and instruments cannot detect the spiritual, neither can the physical senses of the human body, however, the intuitive sense is another matter.