10 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerOh, bloody hell! Really?
Have you ever seen the wind? But somehow you believe that the wind exists...
dj2, would you mind telling me how old you are?
TheSkipper
EDIT: Ah, I see from your profile you are 19. Seeing as you are still quite young and are blessed with an amazing capacity to suck up knowledge would you be willing to read some books I suggest to you with an open mind?
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerActually, the wind isn't a thing.
Have you ever seen the wind? But somehow you believe that the wind exists...
Wind is but the movement of air, which we can feel and consistently test.
Air exists--this can be proven by many different methods, either directly or indirectly.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYour poetic rhetoric would have been effective in the pre-industrial era, when the means to "see" the wind did not exist. Even so, sight doesn't necessarily outrank touch.
Have you ever seen the wind? But somehow you believe that the wind exists...
I'm sure you can do better than that.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageUnfortunately, this is neither the first time he has used this analogy, nor in fact the worst of them.
Your poetic rhetoric would have been effective in the pre-industrial era, when the means to "see" the wind did not exist. Even so, sight doesn't necessarily outrank touch.
I'm sure you can do better than that.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by echeceroActually, the wind isn't a thing.
Actually, the wind isn't a thing.
Wind is but the movement of air, which we can feel and consistently test.
Air exists--this can be proven by many different methods, either directly or indirectly.
Is God a 'thing'?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by echeceroWind is but the movement of air, which we can feel and consistently test
Actually, the wind isn't a thing.
Wind is but the movement of air, which we can feel and consistently test.
Air exists--this can be proven by many different methods, either directly or indirectly.
So you prove that the wind exists because of some personal experience of the senses?
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerthe point, dj2, is that your analogies here are really sucky: you are referring to natural things and trying to generalize to supernatural things.
Have you seen an electron?
that is why no one is giving you the time of day in this thread.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloIs an electron a natural thing? Which of its physical qualities makes it natural?
the point, dj2, is that your analogies here are really sucky: you are referring to natural things and trying to generalize to supernatural things.
that is why no one is giving you the time of day in this thread.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt's not 'which ' of its physical qualities that makes it natural, but that it 'has' physical qualities.
Is an electron a natural thing? Which of its physical qualities makes it natural?
Now please go and look up the difference between supernatural and natural.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanAre you saying that there are natural things with 'physical qualities' which have never been seen or experienced by any of the senses?
It's not 'which ' of its physical qualities that makes it natural, but that it 'has' physical qualities.
Now please go and look up the difference between supernatural and natural.