Challenge for Atheists: Prove Wind Exists

So ATHEISTS...................

Two men are standing outside. One says it's hot. The other says it's cool. They disagree. How do you "scientifically" prove that one man is true and the other is false????? Where is your so called "OBJECTIVITY"????

Who dictates which temperatures are "hot" and which are "cold"???? Would a human find the weather cold that a penguin would find warm????

BE HONEST, atheists, although it may be hard to admit............

 

The temperature is an objective measurement. The human reaction as to whether its "hot" or "warm" or "cool" is subjective.

when I snowmobile and I am dressed appropriately, I don't consider -10C to cold, but if I was butt naked you can bet I'd think it was damn cold.

 

I guess some theists think that one cannot prove that earth has an atmosphere, nor that that atmosphere flows from high pressure to low pressure, not to mention up and down, because according to them it can't be seen, despite the fact that it can be seen and felt. Guess they never saw a sand storm or tornado. That jet stream must be a supernatural fantasy as well.


Is it little wonder that such deep thinkers think they are on to something here?

 

There are at least 10 animal/species that eat each other and that includes primates..

In 2009, it was reported that the first act of orangutan cannibalism had been witnessed. A female orangutan was recorded eating the body of deceased infant. You might be surprised that monkeys also account for 80% of a chimpanzee’s diet.

http://www.themost10.com/most-cannibalistic-animals/

So much for innate morals...

 

What to you think drives natural selection?

 

Machines are objective and there are numerous machines that measure wind.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would or should I ever believe in something that can't be scientifically observed?

 

Well, let's begin with agreeing that subjective opinion won't cut the mustard, therefore we need some way to establish an objective framework for assessment of temperature.

In fact, the terms "hot" and "cold" are rather subjective, so we'll start by deciding some kind of objective basis of measurement.

Let's go with the point of temperature at which liquid water freezes as the baseline, zero degrees, if you will. It's easy to keep track of, since water is so common and exists naturally in frozen, liquid and gaseous state on earth. Call that cold, if you will, but we're being scientific here, so we're rather after an objective measurement of temperature rather than an opinion.

But a baseline is no good if we don't know the scale, so we need some other level of temperature to compare it to. I know! How about the point at which water turns from liquid to gaseous state? It's easily accessible, since we're putting the baseline at another transitional point of water, so it'll be a nice fit. Let's say that this point is, oh, how about 100 degrees. That means that the scale is now in 1/100s of the difference in temperature between the freezing point and the boiling point of water.

And hey presto, we've got a scale for measuring temperature! Now, there is no longer any need for relying on subjective opinions on whether it is warm or cold, we've got a scale on which we can pinpoint what the temperature is, regardless of you're the type of person who gets chilly easily or not.

I think I'll name this scale after my dear old friend, Steve Celsius. It shall therefore be known as...The Steve Scale!

For our next lesson, we'll be learning about how to pinpoint the temperature of surrounding air in a simple fashion that can be observed casually. Stay tuned.

 

Even at that, do you consider 'wind' to be a part of 'reality'? If yes, then what is 'reality'?

 

Scripture written by man is proof than man believes in God not that there is actually a God.

Believing the above is not proof that the above is true or untrue.

 

I already have, just not to your satisfaction.

 

When you "see" a tornado, are you actually seeing it? Or are you just seeing all the moisture and debris that tornado has pulled into itself and blown around itself? The evidence of its existence is clear, but you don't see the wind at all.

 

I agree with you completely on your first statement above. As to your closing remark.... do you venture much into the meanings of words? If you did, then you might realize that 'believing' something does not require 'proof'. But if you insist on using the term 'proof' as part of your argument, then I will submit that Proof = evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Therefore, it is conceivably possible for someone to 'believe' "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. " to be a true statement, based on the evidence that science has not been able to detect anything from the spiritual realm using any of their technology or its devices and instruments. Therefore, someone holding such a belief, has been presented the evidence of what science has not done and that evidence was sufficient to compel that persons mind to accept the assertion as true.

 

Many animals eat their dead offspring as a way to protect their other babies from scavengers and predators attracted by the smell of death. It also gives nourishment to the mother that she may not otherwise be able to get. Besides, some cannibalism is moral according to the Bible.

"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me'" - Luke 22:19

As for chimpanzee's eating monkeys, so what? We eat other species all the time, including monkeys.

 

No. Not if you live.

 

Well all the evidence points to morality being relative, given that people have spent all of human existence arguing over it.

I believe that murder is wrong, and so do most other people. It's a subjective belief that most people share because millions of years of evolution have instilled in us a sense of empathy. Because a majority of people want to live in a society where people aren't getting murdered all the time, we punish it to discourage that kind of behavior. Seems fairly straightforward.

Now what does any of this have to do with observing a god?

 

A windsock can easily indicate wind strength and direction for any observer, regardless of how different people might describe it subjectively.

 

not sure what your asking.... survival decides natural selection, sexual attractions, climate, there are many many variables involved

what causes a bacteria to evolve to became resistant to antibiotics... it's the path that meant survival, thus the one that was taken, not because the bacteria made a choice in this case, but because the others died, they survived and repopulated

.

 

Of the seven questions that RPA1 asked you, your answer of 'Natural selection' applies specifically to which one of those questions, and how does it apply? Also, why were you so selective in answering his inquiry? Were you simply evading the other questions?

 

There are methods to test and we can see the affects of wind, we also can make wind. Not so with the gods

 

why are you unhappy with my response? did I not answer the way you wanted me too?

.

 

I believe your answer could be very correct, if I knew which one of the questions it was in response to. So, your inference toward my feeling of liking or disliking your response is truly irrelevant.

 

This instrument detects wind, and gives you additional information about the wind it detects. Qualitative/quantitative data. I respect what you're trying to do with your thought experiment, but it's lacking. Analogies are inherently weak. You must do better if you intend to lead others towards Christ.

 

The real question is why you readily assume that anything that can't be scientifically observed doesn't exist.

 

POINT #1

Scientific tools used to measure something do NOT prove the existence of that THING. An anemometer, a thermometer, a calculator, all these instruments do is demonstrate some numbers on a screen. Those numbers don't MEAN ANYTHING unless you presuppose that meaning. ATHEISTS use science as a logical fallacy, saying the instrument proves the phenomenon, without admitting that they ALREADY PRESUPPOSED the thing they're measuring. ATHEISTS are blind to the fact that they PRESUPPOSE the existence of the wind, before even attempting to measure it. Because ATHEISTS want to turn their "subjective" feeling, about the wind, into an "OBJECTIVE FACT".

Basically, what I've shown here, is that ATHEISTS are WRONG, again, which is no great difficulty of course.

POINT #2

Disagreement about a SUPPOSEDLY objective phenomenon, wind speed, demonstrates that ATHEISTS CANNOT AGREE on whether it's warm or cool outside, whether it's pouring rain or sprinkling, or whether the wind is blowing hard or lightly. So if ATHEISTS cannot make up their minds, even about their "OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS", then why should they be taken seriously when demanding "PROOF" and "OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE" about GOD, when they already disagreed about these points regarding the existence of the wind?????????

ATHEISTS ALREADY AGREED WITH ME. A supposedly "OBJECTIVE" measurement does NOT lead to consensus, nor does that "OBJECTIVE" measurement make you "SEE" or "FEEL" the wind any differently. Whether some stupid instrument shows 53 or 89, doesn't change the nature of the dispute, whether air temperature is warm or cool, or the wind is hard or light. If ATHEISTS can't agree about something this simple, then how can they have the NERVE to demand a higher standard than they apply to the existence of wind, when they cannot even PROVE its existence??????

 

I don't assume it doesn't exist. I don't know whether things that have not been proven exist or not. They certainly could. But I am not going to actively believe they do until I am presented with said evidence.

So again, why should I actively believe in your God without objective evidence?