God Vs. Science! Must read!

[Joy]

God vs. Science

This may be long, but its really good. Read the whole thing if you want a good

experience.

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the

students, 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist

professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new

students to stand. 'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?' 'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?' 'Absolutely.' 'Is God good?' 'Sure! God's good.' 'Is God

all-powerful? Can God do anything?' 'Yes.' 'Are you good or evil?' 'The Bible says

I'm evil.' The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a

moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you

can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?' 'Yes sir, I

would.' 'So you're good...!' 'I wouldn't say that.' 'But why not say that? You'd help a

sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God

doesn't.' The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't,

does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed

to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that

one?' The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He

takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?' 'Er...yes,' the student says. 'Is Satan

good?' The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.' 'Then where does Satan

come from?' The student falters. 'From God' 'That's right. God made Satan, didn't

he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Evil's everywhere, isn't it?

And God did make everything, correct?' 'Yes.' 'So who created evil?' The

professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil

exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God

is evil.' Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality?

Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?' The

student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.' 'So who created them?' The student does not

answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There

is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the

classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another

student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?' The student's voice betrays him

and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.' The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you

have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you

ever seen Jesus?' 'No sir. I've never seen Him.' 'Then tell us if you've ever heard

your Jesus?' 'No, sir, I have not.' 'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus

or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ,

or God for that matter?' 'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.' 'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.' 'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,

science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?' 'Nothing,' the

student replies. 'I only have my faith.' 'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that

is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.' At the back

of the room another student stands quietly for a moment before asking a

question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?' 'Yes,' the professor

replies. 'There's heat.' 'And is there such a thing as cold?' 'Yes, son, there's cold

too.' 'No sir, there isn't.' The professor turns to face the student, obviously

interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to

explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,

unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything

called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we

can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would

be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.' 'Every body or object is

susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a

body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total

absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the

absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal

units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the

absence of it.' Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the

classroom, sounding like a hammer. 'What about darkness, professor. Is there

such a thing as darkness?' 'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What

is night if it isn't darkness?' 'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something;

it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,

flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called

darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.' 'In reality,

darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't

you?' The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a

good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?' 'Yes, professor. My

point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your

conclusion must also be flawed.' The professor's face cannot hide his surprise

this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?' 'You are working on the premise of

duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a

good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something

finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'Science uses electricity and magnetism, but we have never seen, much less

fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant

of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the

opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your

students that they evolved from a monkey?? 'If you are referring to the natural

evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.' 'Have you ever observed

evolution with your own eyes, sir?' The professor begins to shake his head, still

smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester,

indeed. 'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and

cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not

teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?' The

class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give

you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there

anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks

out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain,

felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one

appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical,

stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due

respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your

lectures, sir?' Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student,

his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the professor

answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.' 'Now, you accept that there is

faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there

such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there

is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is

in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These

manifestations are nothing else but evil.' To this the student replied, 'Evil does

not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of

God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe

the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens

when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that

comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your

face when you finished, good for you! Post your comments below.

[Jehoshaphat]

Wow that was... just amazing I never have thought about that before. I started to LOL when the student talked about the profs brain it was HILARIOUS

[John Chrysostom]

Someone posted this in the debate thread and I'll just repeat what I and others said there. There are no actual professors like this, any professor who acts like this would be fired. Also if you bring these horribly cliched arguments to a debate with someone like a professor they will have answers for you they will not, like the professor in this story is, be rendered speechless by common evangelical Protestant talking points.

When the second student makes his argument about cold and dark he never ties it into an actual point, he claims that the professor says there is a good God and a bad God but in fact the professor claims that there is no God so all of the second students arguments up to that point are straw men since he's refuting a point his professor never made.

His point about immorality being the absence of morality is weak too since I've had this discussion with atheist and Buddhist and various other religions and you know what most of them said? There is no morality, it's all about socialite norms, there is no universal right or wrong. This professor is a highly unusual atheist for believing in universal standards for morality.

Also I think the second students argument about his professors brain is extremely weak; the professor could go to a hospital and have an x-ray taken of his brain, or if you want to be extreme he could have brain surgery so that his students could see and touch his brain. This would not cause the professor to go silent it would give the professor ammunition to prove his point.

And finally the student said "Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor." Of course the professor would reject this argument as false since he believes he does have evidence of evolution and of its ongoing process. No person who actually believes in evolution is just hoping no one asks if they have any evidence. The student also seems to believe that his professor is an extreme pragmatist that only believes in what he personally can physically see. This is not science this is an abnormal view. What the professor would say that evolution is able to be observed. Science is not based on every single person being able to view every single event but on the question of is it observable by people who are present? Questioning the scientific method like this will only get you laughed at and rightly so for not understanding what the scientific method is.

[ric]

When the second student makes his argument about cold and dark he never ties it into an actual point, he claims that the professor says there is a good God and a bad God but in fact the professor claims that there is no God so all of the second students arguments up to that point are straw men since he's refuting a point his professor never made.

I believe the argument is "There is no God, or if there is, he isn't good," but of course, everyone just assumes there is no God, nobody really believes there is a god that's evil. So, the student is basically explaining how it would be possible for God to exist and yet be completely good.

His point about immorality being the absence of morality is weak too since I've had this discussion with atheist and Buddhist and various other religions and you know what most of them said? There is no morality, it's all about socialite norms, there is no universal right or wrong. This professor is a highly unusual atheist for believing in universal standards for morality.

Good point.

Also I think the second students argument about his professors brain is extremely weak; the professor could go to a hospital and have an x-ray taken of his brain, or if you want to be extreme he could have brain surgery so that his students could see and touch his brain. This would not cause the professor to go silent it would give the professor ammunition to prove his point.

I quite agree. It is funny though.

[TigerintheShadows]

Overall, I agree with Ayn Rand. (Didn't know I could do that, haha. ) Not only will a college professor not act that way, but any teacher at all will not act that way. (I'm assuming this is the "college student vs. professor" talking point you referred to in an earlier thread, Ayn Rand?) That's called being totally disrespectful, and very few teachers act that way, if any do at all--especially in this day and age, where it's so easy to record that kind of behavior and have it to the head administrator that afternoon.

See, this reminds me of people who seem to think that being a very smart person, or a British college professor, or something of that nature, makes you an atheist or something. In fact, God used a great deal of logic and reasoning when arguing or making general points to his people. Jesus was a very guile hero (and a fairly snarky one, at that). The Holy Spirit spurs our intellect to ask questions and seek answers. Being "smart" doesn't mean you deny God's existence--that's not logic, it's a belief, and the two, while they go hand in hand a great deal of the time, are not the same.

(Not, of course, that CF meant that by her post--just thought I'd share. )

[John Chrysostom]

Ric: The second student says which argument he is attempting to refute

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.'

What makes this a strawman argument is that the professor never said either of those things. The professor claimed that God allows evil to happen so God must be evil, the answer to this is free will but that's a can of worms for another time. What it is not is an argument for duality. So yes maybe the second student is refuting the argument you mentioned but he never labeled it as such.

Tiger: Yes these are the talking points from an earlier thread.

[Joy]

I'm not all that logical. I'm not that smart either. And I guess I just didn't think about it that way. I found this on Howrse(Don't know if you've heard of it) and an atheist posted. I was surprised. She didn't even have points like this, or argue. She simply just posted it. I mean, if she thought about it like you guys did, then why not include her opinion? Just a thought.

[John Chrysostom]

I can't speak to her motives, I'm just saying none of these arguments will actually work in real life and no professor would act like this in real life.

[TigerintheShadows]

And she might have posted it to express her thoughts on Christianity--like, "this is so ridiculous and it's why I'm not a Christian"...or something like that. See, this is one of the things that can turn people off to Christianity--posting just whatever talking points you can think of and not being able to back it up with hard evidence.

This has nothing to do with your intellect or logical reasoning personally, CF--don't worry about that. I've just never met an argument I didn't like.

[ric]

I can't speak to her motives, I'm just saying none of these arguments will actually work in real life and no professor would act like this in real life.

I would say these arguments do indeed work in real life, for the most part. (Okay, maybe not the brain one.) But, no one ever has an opportunity to use them because professors are smart.

[John Chrysostom]

Yes the arguments would work if you were arguing with someone who believe in dualism which is a very odd belief you will most likely not encounter these days.

[jelly]

Better yet: don't ever 'argue' with an atheist. Most passionate atheists are people who have most likely been raised in a Christian environment, and have at the very least spent considerable time considering and shaping their worldview. They enjoy attacking the blindly stubborn standpoints of Christians, because they were once at the same place, and now that they're 'educated' they can look back and laugh at your ignorant viewpoints. Most likely they're a whole lot smarter than you. So take what they say to heart, and let it challenge your innermost understanding of reality. Don't build a wall that automatically repels all 'outside' theories or beliefs. You're only trapping yourself in your own ignorance.

[John Chrysostom]

Bumping this because of the movie God's Not Dead blatantly ripping off this story

[Countess]

In what way did it "rip it off"?

Also, I think the resurrection and whether or not that happened is the biggest point to bring up with an atheist. If it did, then there is a God. If it didn't, then there's not. As simple as that.

[John Chrysostom]

It's ripping it off because the professor is a raging atheist stereotype totally unrealistic and the student uses bad arguments to try and convince him that God is real.

[Countess]

Which argument is a good one? I've seen God's Not Dead and the reason for his anger was cause he blamed God for things happening to him. So what are "normal" atheists like?

[John Chrysostom]

Well first off by definition an atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in God, not someone who is angry at God.

This video, yes it's 30 mins but well worth it does a better job of pointing out the problems with God's Not Dead than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u_4EssUh4w

[Dredge]

Someone posted this in the debate thread and I'll just repeat what I and others said there. There are no actual professors like this, any professor who acts like this would be fired. Also if you bring these horribly cliched arguments to a debate with someone like a professor they will have answers for you they will not, like the professor in this story is, be rendered speechless by common evangelical Protestant talking points.

When the second student makes his argument about cold and dark he never ties it into an actual point, he claims that the professor says there is a good God and a bad God but in fact the professor claims that there is no God so all of the second students arguments up to that point are straw men since he's refuting a point his professor never made.

His point about immorality being the absence of morality is weak too since I've had this discussion with atheist and Buddhist and various other religions and you know what most of them said? There is no morality, it's all about socialite norms, there is no universal right or wrong. This professor is a highly unusual atheist for believing in universal standards for morality.

Also I think the second students argument about his professors brain is extremely weak; the professor could go to a hospital and have an x-ray taken of his brain, or if you want to be extreme he could have brain surgery so that his students could see and touch his brain. This would not cause the professor to go silent it would give the professor ammunition to prove his point.

And finally the student said "Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor." Of course the professor would reject this argument as false since he believes he does have evidence of evolution and of its ongoing process. No person who actually believes in evolution is just hoping no one asks if they have any evidence. The student also seems to believe that his professor is an extreme pragmatist that only believes in what he personally can physically see. This is not science this is an abnormal view. What the professor would say that evolution is able to be observed. Science is not based on every single person being able to view every single event but on the question of is it observable by people who are present? Questioning the scientific method like this will only get you laughed at and rightly so for not understanding what the scientific method is.

I seriously do not believe there is actual proof of evolution. If man did not come from God he is merely a computer spouting out gibberish. So... how can we understand each other?

[Moontide]

Computers can understand each other. Bees and bacteria can also communicate among themselves. Lacking a soul or free will doesn't keep things from communicating.

[John Chrysostom]

Also Dredge my main point is that the professor would believe there is evidence for evolution, he wouldn't believe in evolution if he thought there was no proof. Now you can argue that there isn't proof but the student made two straw men, he said first that humans evolved from monkeys, that is not what evolution says it says we evolved from a common ancestor. Secondly he said that because the professor hadn't seen evolution with his own eyes it couldn't be true, that is a ridiculous straw man and a standard of proof that no one would ever agree to, so my point is that this student is not addressing actual points. He's making up bad arguments that he can defeat and claiming victory without actually addressing any real points.