How to counter wind argument

[Rye]

well the argument i always hear from creationists is the one about the wind.

The argument goes like this: "well you believe in the wind right? and you can't see that, it has to be felt, same with god."

Personally i respond with "But you can pass air through water and see it, can you do that with god?"

or "you directly see wind interacting with visible things, as opposed to "working in mysterious ways" and taking credit for nature"

or "you can freeze air, then you can see it. when was the last time anyone froze god?"

I was just wanting some other retorts to this wind is invisible and can only be felt argument...

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Personally I'd go with the whole oxygen/nitrogen differences in heat and pressure blah blah blah routine, but its 4:30 AM, I'm tired and lazy so...

Blah.

[haas mark]

Personally I'd go with the whole oxygen/nitrogen differences in heat and pressure blah blah blah routine, but its 4:30 AM, I'm tired and lazy so...

Blah.

I see my powers have manifested themselves again.. BWUAHAHAH!!!

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Personally I'd go with the whole oxygen/nitrogen differences in heat and pressure blah blah blah routine, but its 4:30 AM, I'm tired and lazy so...

Blah.

I see my powers have manifested themselves again.. BWUAHAHAH!!!

Nooooo! How could I succumb to verilon's insomnia skillz?

[Kuroneko]

well the argument i always hear from creationists is the one about the wind.

The argument goes like this: "well you believe in the wind right? and you can't see that, it has to be felt, same with god." ...

Such an argument relies on such exceedingly superficial interpretation of science that it misses the point completely. Not only does this argument limit science to just one sense for no reason whatsoever (certainly no good scientist would deny the existence of an invisible phenomenon that causes consistent tactile sensation), but it also commits an equivocance on "feel"--it goes from tactile sensation (feeling the wind) to a psychological kind of feeling (feeling God's presense). The first error is probably due to ignorance, but the second is outright dishonesty.

(Edit: typo)

[haas mark]

well the argument i always hear from creationists is the one about the wind.

The argument goes like this: "well you believe in the wind right? and you can't see that, it has to be felt, same with god." ...

Such an argument relies on such exceedingly superficial interpretation of science that it misses the point completely. Not only does this argument limit science to just one sense for no reason whatsoever (certainly no good scientist would deny the existence of an invisible phenomenon that causes consistent tactile sensation), but it also commits an equivocance on "feel"--it goes from tactile sensation (feeling the wind) to a psychoogical kind of feeling (feeling God's presense). The first error is probably due to ignorance, but the second is outright dishonesty.

No, it's not, to them. They feel that sometimes you can "feel" the Hly Spirit (part of God) as in the tactile sense.. It's an internal feeling, at best, but it's what they say..

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

well the argument i always hear from creationists is the one about the wind.

The argument goes like this: "well you believe in the wind right? and you can't see that, it has to be felt, same with god." ...

Such an argument relies on such exceedingly superficial interpretation of science that it misses the point completely. Not only does this argument limit science to just one sense for no reason whatsoever (certainly no good scientist would deny the existence of an invisible phenomenon that causes consistent tactile sensation), but it also commits an equivocance on "feel"--it goes from tactile sensation (feeling the wind) to a psychological kind of feeling (feeling God's presense). The first error is probably due to ignorance, but the second is outright dishonesty.

(Edit: typo)

So when they argue about "can you use science to prove 'love'?" they are making a point or just confusing yet another kind of 'feeling'??

[haas mark]

well the argument i always hear from creationists is the one about the wind.

The argument goes like this: "well you believe in the wind right? and you can't see that, it has to be felt, same with god." ...

Such an argument relies on such exceedingly superficial interpretation of science that it misses the point completely. Not only does this argument limit science to just one sense for no reason whatsoever (certainly no good scientist would deny the existence of an invisible phenomenon that causes consistent tactile sensation), but it also commits an equivocance on "feel"--it goes from tactile sensation (feeling the wind) to a psychological kind of feeling (feeling God's presense). The first error is probably due to ignorance, but the second is outright dishonesty.

(Edit: typo)

So when they argue about "can you use science to prove 'love'?" they are making a point or just confusing yet another kind of 'feeling'??

Note that love is an emotion.. so technically, it can be ruled out, I'd think. At least, in this arguement.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Also note that love can be proven with science... but I probably missed the point entirely, so ignore me (damn you verilon! )

[Kuroneko]

No, it's not, to them. They feel that sometimes you can "feel" the Hly Spirit (part of God) as in the tactile sense.. It's an internal feeling, at best, but it's what they say..

Really? How strange; I would think an "internal" tactile sensation is a contradiction in terms. But even assuming so, it changes the second point only slightly, since the tactile sensation of the Holy Spirit is still clearly dependent on psychological state by the mere fact that unbelievers do not experience it. That alone makes it very suspect whether it is anything more than a psychological effect. The wind, by contrast, is nowhere near as picky: not only is it manifest regardless of a person's beliefs, but even inanimate objects experience wind.

[Kuroneko]

Note that love is an emotion.. so technically, it can be ruled out, I'd think. At least, in this arguement.

Yes; only tactile sensations are relevant to the wind argument.

[haas mark]

No, it's not, to them. They feel that sometimes you can "feel" the Hly Spirit (part of God) as in the tactile sense.. It's an internal feeling, at best, but it's what they say..

Really? How strange; I would think an "internal" tactile sensation is a contradiction in terms. But even assuming so, it changes the second point only slightly, since the tactile sensation of the Holy Spirit is still clearly dependent on psychological state by the mere fact that unbelievers do not experience it. That alone makes it very suspect whether it is anything more than a psychological effect. The wind, by contrast, is nowhere near as picky: not only is it manifest regardless of a person's beliefs, but even inanimate objects experience wind.

Actually, yes. Many people describe it as getting the chills, and let's not get into the speaking in tongues thing.. but as for the teactile sensations with the Holy Spirit, it generally happens on a personal basis.

[Kuroneko]

Actually, yes. Many people describe it as getting the chills, and let's not get into the speaking in tongues thing.. but as for the teactile sensations with the Holy Spirit, it generally happens on a personal basis.

Then the position is even weaker than I thought. Many people get the chills when they're afraid, wary, or just in awe. Especially when coupled with the popular "fear God" mentality, this is not suprising at all and even less conclusive of any outside force.

[haas mark]

Actually, yes. Many people describe it as getting the chills, and let's not get into the speaking in tongues thing.. but as for the teactile sensations with the Holy Spirit, it generally happens on a personal basis.

Then the position is even weaker than I thought. Many people get the chills when they're afraid, wary, or just in awe. Especially when coupled with the popular "fear God" mentality, this is not suprising at all and even less conclusive of any outside force.

No, this is their reasoning, that God fills them with Himself.. it's a weak reasoning, I know, but it DOES go against what you've just said. They're in awe, in a sense, but it's really difficult to explain. I think it's just an irrational way to explain away their feelings of empowerment.

[Kuroneko]

No, this is their reasoning, that God fills them with Himself.. it's a weak reasoning, I know, but it DOES go against what you've just said. They're in awe, in a sense, but it's really difficult to explain. I think it's just an irrational way to explain away their feelings of empowerment.

I believe my point was adequate: many people get similar feelings when thinking of something. For example, one may get "the chills" from thinking of the aliens in the Aliens movie, but that is no reason to believe that actual existant aliens are "filling" them with this feeling. Why are the feelings produced when thinking of God somehow special? If they insist on being unreasonable in arguments, why try to logically defend their faith at all?

That is why I believe that out of all the religions, ones like Zen are by far superior, for the simple reason that they don't insist on adherence to logic while violating it at every turn.

[haas mark]

No, this is their reasoning, that God fills them with Himself.. it's a weak reasoning, I know, but it DOES go against what you've just said. They're in awe, in a sense, but it's really difficult to explain. I think it's just an irrational way to explain away their feelings of empowerment.

I believe my point was adequate: many people get similar feelings when thinking of something. For example, one may get "the chills" from thinking of the aliens in the Aliens movie, but that is no reason to believe that actual existant aliens are "filling" them with this feeling. Why are the feelings produced when thinking of God somehow special? If they insist on being unreasonable in arguments, why try to logically defend their faith at all?

Good point.. I'm not trying to defend their points, I'm just stating what I have heard.

That is why I believe that out of all the religions, ones like Zen are by far superior, for the simple reason that they don't insist on adherence to logic while violating it at every turn.

Well, being pagan, adherence to logic isn't a necessity, but much of the beliefs make sense. As far as I know, the god and goddess are there for protection.

[Wicked Pilot]

I can make wind with a fan. I can break wind with some chili. Can I do the same with God?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I can make wind with a fan. I can break wind with some chili. Can I do the same with God?

It would be a sad outlook for Christians around the world if God could be defeated by a spicy Mexican meal.

[Darth Wong]

Wind can be EMPIRICALLY MEASURED with a mass airflow sensor, folks.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Or simply observed by blowing leaves on a windy day.

[XaLEv]

The argument goes like this: "well you believe in the wind right? and you can't see that, it has to be felt, same with god."

Atmosphere is only invisible in small volumes. It is visible in large volumes due to Rayleigh scattering.

[haas mark]

I can make wind with a fan. I can break wind with some chili. Can I do the same with God?

It would be a sad outlook for Christians around the world if God could be defeated by a spicy Mexican meal.

You're confusing chili with chile. Don't argue witht he New Mexican on the topic of Mexican food. Unless you're born here, Arizona, or Mexico, you WILL lose...

[Hobot]

What can you say to people who say "You can't see love, but you know exists. God's the same way!" and "You can't see, touch, taste, hear or smell math, but you accept it as being real. You're just being hypocritical when you say because their is no physical evidence of God he does not exist!" ?

[Kuroneko]

What can you say to people who say "You can't see love, but you know exists. God's the same way!"

Love exists only as far as there are people in love. God is the same way? Meaning, God has no existance seperable from the minds of believers? This is more than just not helping their case, it destroys it completely.

... and "You can't see, touch, taste, hear or smell math, but you accept it as being real. You're just being hypocritical when you say because their is no physical evidence of God he does not exist!" ?

Same thing here. Mathematics is invented by people, either as a useful tool or just for its own sake. There is no mathematics without people.

[Wicked Pilot]

What can you say to people who say "You can't see love, but you know exists. God's the same way!"

Say "You can't see love, but you know it exist. Vishtu is the same way."

and "You can't see, touch, taste, hear or smell math, but you accept it as being real. You're just being hypocritical when you say because their is no physical evidence of God he does not exist!" ?

Response: "You can't see, touch, taste, hear or smell math, but you accept it as being real. You're just being hypocritical when you say because their is no physical evidence of Santa Claus, he does not exist!"