Belief Without Evidence WTF?

SoCaldrums

Active Member
Didn't say He was easier to *see* (didja notice the part about strawmen/misinterpretation?). You can't see the wind either. You can see the effects of both though.

How is there not more evidence of the wind that there is of god(A conscious creator god, as described). Explain how god is easier to see than the wind.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Didn't say He was easier to *see* (didja notice the part about strawmen/misinterpretation?). You can't see the wind either. You can see the effects of both though.
I don't care about that part, you quoted me in the end.

And you can damn well see the wind. I have long hair. Sometimes the wind makes it where I can't see anything else but "the wind" blowing my hair around. So yes, I see the wind all the time. On water, in grass. it moves everything.

God (creator, conscious god) exists only in a book, and in the minds of his followers.
 

SoCaldrums

Active Member
Ok...we're done. You have NEVER seen the wind. Nor has anyone.

I don't care about that part, you quoted me in the end.

And you can damn well see the wind. I have long hair. Sometimes the wind makes it where I can't see anything else but "the wind" blowing my hair around. So yes, I see the wind all the time. On water, in grass. it moves everything.

God (creator, conscious god) exists only in a book, and in the minds of his followers.
 

SoCaldrums

Active Member
Holy crap dude...how are we going to have an intelligent discussion if we can't get thru Point #1? You cannot see air. You cannot see wind. You see the AFFECTS of the wind. If you were laying on top of Mt Everest on a cloudless day looking up at the sky, you wouldn't SEE the 80mph wind around you. Why the hell is that so hard to understand?

The word "Wind" just describes "The movement of air". We've all "seen the wind"
 
Holy crap dude...how are we going to have an intelligent discussion if we can't get thru Point #1? You cannot see air. You cannot see wind. You see the AFFECTS of the wind. If you were laying on top of Mt Everest on a cloudless day looking up at the sky, you wouldn't SEE the 80mph wind around you. Why the hell is that so hard to understand?
Not true we now have cameras that can detect light diferences caused by blowing air, in turn we can now litterally see wind, check it outvoted was on discovery channel a while back
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Holy crap dude...how are we going to have an intelligent discussion if we can't get thru Point #1? You cannot see air. You cannot see wind. You see the AFFECTS of the wind. If you were laying on top of Mt Everest on a cloudless day looking up at the sky, you wouldn't SEE the 80mph wind around you. Why the hell is that so hard to understand?
Air and wind are not the same. you are mistaken. You can see the wind happen. Look up "Dirt Devil". Like that's probably where the guy got the idea for the vacuum brand "Dirt Devil" or "Dust Devil" or whatever. "Watching the wind" in the Dirt Devils.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
Holy crap dude...how are we going to have an intelligent discussion if we can't get thru Point #1? You cannot see air. You cannot see wind. You see the AFFECTS of the wind. If you were laying on top of Mt Everest on a cloudless day looking up at the sky, you wouldn't SEE the 80mph wind around you. Why the hell is that so hard to understand?
You would "see the 80mph wind" blowing the snow. Yes.
 

SoCaldrums

Active Member
You would "see the 80mph wind" blowing the snow. Yes.
<<<

LOL. Ok...laying on top of a boat at sea. There's no clouds. All you can see is the blue sky above you. There's a 20mph wond. You can NOT see it. You know what...nevermind. I knew it was stupid coming in here.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Didn't say He was easier to *see* (didja notice the part about strawmen/misinterpretation?). You can't see the wind either. You can see the effects of both though.
The "wind" can be measured, predicted, influenced and replicated. There's three distinctions the wind enjoys and God lacks. I agree these discussions are filled with strawmen and bad logic, and your comparison to the wind is a prime example.


#217 ARGUMENT FROM WIND
(1) You believe in wind.
(2) But you can't see it.
(3) God's the same way.
(4) It IS TOO analogous!
(5) Therefore, God exists.
 

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
The "wind" can be measured, predicted, influenced and replicated. There's three distinctions the wind enjoys and God lacks. I agree these discussions are filled with strawmen and bad logic, and your comparison to the wind is a prime example.


#217 ARGUMENT FROM WIND
(1) You believe in wind.
(2) But you can't see it.
(3) God's the same way.
(4) It IS TOO analogous!
(5) Therefore, God exists.
It is analogous. My point was just that there is MUCH MORE evidence of the wind, than there is of a creator god, with consciousness.
 

SoCaldrums

Active Member
Holy crap! Is there *anyone* here who understands a simple concept? And you created another strawman, as I never said that "proves God exists".

The "wind" can be measured, predicted, influenced and replicated. There's three distinctions the wind enjoys and God lacks. I agree these discussions are filled with strawmen and bad logic, and your comparison to the wind is a prime example.


#217 ARGUMENT FROM WIND
(1) You believe in wind.
(2) But you can't see it.
(3) God's the same way.
(4) It IS TOO analogous!
(5) Therefore, God exists.
 

SoCaldrums

Active Member
Well no. See, we never *got* to "you point" because you were too fixated on proving you can see the wind. Ok...my bad for dropping by. Cyas.
It is analogous. My point was just that there is MUCH MORE evidence of the wind, than there is of a creator god, with consciousness.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
It is analogous. My point was just that there is MUCH MORE evidence of the wind, than there is of a creator god, with consciousness.
Yes, we agree.

Holy crap! Is there *anyone* here who understands a simple concept? And you created another strawman, as I never said that "proves God exists".
We understand your point, and reject it. You can see wind, for all intents and purposes, unless you want to argue semantics. You simply stated "I've never seen the wind. I believe it's there though", so yes we made an assumption that you were comparing the wind to god. This assumption was backed up with the statement "You can't see the wind either. You can see the effects of both though." in which you specifically connected your statement to God.

So then, what was your point? You were simply pointed out things that are invisible? We believe and lots of things we can not 'see' yet can still prove quite conclusively, like gravity. The idea of God has many more problems than his invisibility.
 
Top