You may have read this before...but it is for those who haven't:
An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the problem Science has with GOD, the ALMIGHTY. He asked one of his New Christian
(Students to stand)
Professor: You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you Believe in GOD?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Professor: Is GOD Good?
Student: Sure.
Professor: Is GOD ALL POWERFUL?
Student: Yes.
Professor: My Brother died of Cancer even though he prayed to GOD to Heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent )
Professor: You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, Young Fella. Is GOD Good?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Professor: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From . . . GOD . . .
Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And GOD did make everything.. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Professor: So who created evil?
(Student did not answer)
Professor: Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the World, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who Created them?
(Student had no answer)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you. Tell me, son . . . Have you ever seen GOD?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor: Yet you still believe in HIM?
Student: Yes.
Professor: According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my Faith.
Professor: Yes, Faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student: No, sir. There isn't.
(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events)
Student: Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat, a Little Heat or No Heat. But we don't have anything called Cold. We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as Cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of Heat. We cannot measure Cold. Heat is Energy. Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.
(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre)
Student: What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness 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 its called Darkness, isn't it? In reality, Darkness isn't. If it is, then you would be able to make Darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, Young Man?
Student: Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue there is Life and then there is 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. It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has 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?
Professor: If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the Processof Evolution at work and cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor, Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir? Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
(The Class was in Uproar)
Student: Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor's Brain?
(The Class broke out into Laughter)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's Brain, Felt it, touched or smelt it? . . . No one appears to have done so. So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Tesstable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that You have No Brain, sir.. with all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your lectures, sir?
(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)
Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student: That is it sir . . . Exactly! The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.
ID:54495
 Feb 21 2009, 2:46 pm
|
|
|
Feb 21 2009, 2:55 pm
|
|
Jeff8500
 |
I've seen evolution and the process of natural selection before, a lizard mutated in a desert after the sand shifted colors for some reason; within a year, the lizards with the mutation took over the population. And one can logically deduce that a living organism with the ability to respond to advanced stimuli has some form of a brain, whether it be a brain or a primitive nerve net.
|
Evolution has been observed before, quite a lot actually. Too bad the Professor got into an argument where he didn't know what he was talking about.
| |
its pretty simple... without evil, there isnt good, without sickness, there isnt health, God made bad because there would be no good without it..
| |
1 - This is quite clearly a chain letter that isn't based on any real events. There are a number of them.
2 - What the hell is up with the weird capitalisation? 3 - The argument is flawed. One can observe evolution and the professor's brain by proxy - you can note, for example, that if evolution were true, there would be a consistent phylogeny including all species on earth. We observe that there does appear to be a consistent phylogeny including all species we know about. You can't conclude from that that evolution is true, of course, just that the observation hasn't disproved it. That's how science works. As for the professor's brain, one can note that all normal functioning humans that have been cut up appear to have a brain, and that the professor is functioning. Seems a pretty good reason to think he has the brain. 4 - I'm not quite sure what point the student is trying to make, but my best guess is that it's that 'evil is the absence of god'. In which case that's a terrible theodicy. Why would an omnibenevolent god allow himself to be 'absent' and thereby hurt people? Withholding your presence to hurt people doesn't sound omnibenevolent at all. 5 - Science can explain a thought, it just hasn't yet. And by "hasn't", I mean 'in great detail'. We know it's caused by impulses in the brain - we don't know exactly how. That's okay, we'll get there. 6 - It has never been accepted scientific fact that humans evolved from monkeys. Nor, for that matter, that we evolved from apes, although that would be more accurate. No, it is accepted scientific opinion - and since Darwin this has been the case - that humans and apes evolved from something that was sort-of ape, sort-of human. To our eyes, they're an apelike ancestor. An ape would think of them (If they could think in this manner) that they were a human-like ancestor. 8 - The student never answers some of the professor's earlier questions in any substantive manner. We would help someone who is sick. Why would you consider a god who didn't help the sick to be good? And the whole concept of satan is full of interestingness. Why did god create lucifer in the first place? God is omniscient - he knew lucifer would rebel. Why did he make the angels imperfect, so that they could rebel? If god is omnibenevolent, a perfect being would be completely in tune with god's desires. Why is it that any attempt to turn lucifer's fall into a story ends up making lucifer look like a good guy? That one is intriguing. Paradise Lost is probably the best example. Many of these were written by Christians, for heaven's sakes. its pretty simple... without evil, there isnt good, without sickness, there isnt health, God made bad because there would be no good without it.. So, BxS0ldi3R, or however you type that mess, where's the evil in heaven? More to the point, where does your premise that you can't have good without evil come from? I don't accept that premise. I can imagine a world in which nobody is injured or conned or murdered or screwed over by their fellow man. You could argue that then 'evil' would be defined as the least-good part of the spectrum - surely there would be some differences in how good each life was - but that sort of misses the point that 'evil', in that case, is only giving one dollar a week to the local charity, rather than two. To claim that that's equivalent to murder, rape, and the like is to play word games. I can also imagine a world with no disease of any kind. I don't see what's logically impossible with it. There's evil because there is no omnibenevolent - or even very benevolent deity. You're stuck with one that isn't worth worshipping, or one that doesn't exist. Pick your poison. | |
Diane, a young Christian university student, was home for the summer. She had gone to visit some friends one evening and the time passed quickly as each shared their various experiences of the past year.
She ended up staying longer than she had planned and had to walk home alone. But she wasn't afraid because it was a small town and she lived only a few blocks away. As she walked along under the tall elm trees, Diane asked "God" to keep her safe from harm and danger. When she reached the alley, which was a short cut to her house, she decided to take it. However, halfway down the alley she noticed a man standing at the end as though he were waiting for her. She became uneasy and began to pray, asking for God's protection. Instantly a comforting feeling of quietness and security wrapped around her, she felt as though someone was walking with her. When she reached the end of the alley, she walked right past the man and arrived home safety. The following day, she read in the paper that a young girl had been raped in the same alley, just twenty minutes after she had been there. Feeling overwhelmed by this tragedy and the fact that it could have been her, she began to weep. Thanking the Lord for her safety and to help this young woman, she decided to go to the police station. She felt she could recognize the man, so she told them her story. The police asked her if she would be willing to look at a lineup to see if she could identify him. She agreed and immediately pointed out the man she had seen in the alley the night before. When the man was told he had been identified, he immediately broke down and confessed. The officer thanked Diane for her bravery and asked if their was anything they could do for her, she asked if they would ask the man one question. Diane was curious as to why he had not attacked her. When the policeman asked him, he answered, "Because she wasn't alone. She had two tall men walking on either side of her." Moral of the story: Christians think Athiests deserve to be raped. | |
Nay.
| |
Obviously one of those chain letters.
Obviously written by a random guy who knows too much without understanding much of it. The Obvious distinction between the two sides are cliche, and both sides are poorly supported. | |
This is worth reading, if only to demonstrate the terrible grasp on the scientific method some evangelists have, as well as their need to both "beat science" and rely on propaganda tactics to get their point across.
The entertaining thing about this scenario is the fact that it was written by someone with a point to prove. That point seems to me to be God > Science, as though these two concepts are in some way mutually exclusive. Science has pretty well nothing of great significance to say on the notion of God. Similarly, I would think that the notion of God does not suddenly destroy the notion of Science, a human activity of describing and explaining the how and local why of phenomena in our environment. Science has nothing to say on why the universe exists in terms of purpose, nor does it particularly want to. Science suggests I exist. Through my existence, I take part in a number of scientific processes. I am part of the carbon life-cycle, I (of more appropriately processes occurring on and within me) absorb and emit energy. Science can explain where I probably came from and to a lesser extent where I will probably end up. It will not however bestow purpose on me in terms of an infinite system. It can answer how I am here, but it cannot ultimately answer why I am here. This is what creates the scope for God as a construct, possibly of my mind, possibly a big bearded white man-like entity. Science has a problem with mass religion, not faith in God, in so far as mass religion has this wonderful tendency to go beyond the notion of God and make unsupportable hypotheses about observable phenomena. In order for mass religion's hypotheses to work, you typically have to suspend both rational thought and obvious use of your senses. Saying "God did it" happens to work as an explanation of every phenomena we've come across. However "God did it" isn't terribly useful, it would not grant us electricity, or desalination plants, medicine etc. Because what is the logical next step from "God did it"? To get more of it, we need to ask God, or please God, or wait for God. We tried this method out, incidentally. It was called the Dark Ages. Now the Dark Ages is a bit of a vague concept, however the general premise goes that society adopted a rather destructive mentality, opting to place faith in mass religion and the people running it for answers to problems. During the Dark Ages, we had an overall population decline as best we can tell, mostly due to the black death. Mass religion preached that the black death was God's wrath, striking down sinners. Now of course that would suggest nuns and so forth would be immune. As per their typically nice nature, they went to help the afflicted, got the various diseases themselves and consequently added to the death toll. Science as it was at the time would not have necessarily saved people, however obvious thought about observations such as clean isolated villages getting it later than others would and did conclude that it is being transmitted somehow between people, ultimately implying quarantine as a method of stopping the spread. Oh dear, I've gone off on a tangent. It's a stupid chain letter, written by stupid people looking to defend stupid axioms through stupid means. | |
This is not worth reading at all. In my opinion, at least.
| |
Evolution. Still happening. More than just how we came to be. Completely observable. No faith required.
| |
Owned. Totally owned, though I have to admit, both science and faith can co-exist in harmony if things like this post weren't keeping them from it.
It's also noteworthy to say that two sides of an equation are always equal in this world. | |
It's also noteworthy to say that two sides of an equation are always equal in this world. If the mathematical system in question is inconsistent, those two values can be 'true' and 'false'. Also, no. Science and faith are dissimilar in pretty much every way. They aren't even remotely close to equivalent. EDIT: Oh, and what's 'owned'? If you're referring to the professor in the story above, that's because he's not a real person so much as a fictional straw-man created solely for the purpose of being owned - it's not a great achievement. If you were referring to everybody in the comments owning the story, carry on. :P | |
I was going to say that this isn't worth reading, when I haven't read it at all, but when I read it until the end, I guess I can sort of say that it is worth reading it.
Although I still don't give faith in that sort of thing, like Jesus and God, because my principle is if you can't hear, smell, taste, see, then that doesn't exist AT all. | |
This is awesome.
| |
0bby wrote:
Although I still don't give faith in that sort of thing, like Jesus and God, because my principle is if you can't hear, smell, taste, see, then that doesn't exist AT all. In that case, you're quite naive. | |
Tayoko wrote:
0bby wrote: Yeah, by his philosophy, he has no brain. That section of the story is right; the professor is too idiotic to realize you need to use logic, as well. | |
Naive? Sure.
Just because I don't have faith in that sort of thing, it makes me naive? | |
0bby wrote:
Naive? Sure. Denying the existence of something that cannot be heard, tasted, or seen is just ridiculously retarded. We have gravity. We have Thoughts and Dreams. Even if you edited and extended your philosophy to something like: "If it cannot be sensed (in any and all senses of the body) it does not exist" It's still very naive and simple-minded. because that would just mean it would be imposible for something to exist if it cant be felt.... Think of someone, or even a force at a distance...that cant be sensed, does it make non-existent? No. Now, lets assume the "sensor" is always in the presence of the force, yet it still lacks the capabilities to perceive the force... does the force become non-existent? NO. I was talking to Verm about this... and he gave a good example...Simply because a person was born deaf, does not make SOUND non-existent. Therefore, (you mentioned faith, and this topic is about Science vs.God) its impossible to prove the existence of spiritual entities, like God, false... based solely on the fact that we don't have the capabilities to sense them. | |
I just believe in Luck and Unlucky, not Jesus and God.
| |