First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply The Difference - Science and God
Posted 9/7/08 , edited 9/7/08
So I got this e-mail from a friend. And after reading it, I finally realized that it holds a message that answers so many people's same questions that I have received. So I was wondering, what you think of it. (Sorry if this is a duplicate). Here it is:

'Let me explain the problem science has with Jesus Christ.' 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 : '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.'

Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues:
'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible
things, do they exist in this world?'

The student: '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 is confident: '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 actually 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.'

The 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. 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?'

'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 smelled 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 old man 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.

Pass this on if you have faith in God.
If not, still pass it on for it's a good story!
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Online
Posted 9/7/08
Sadly most proffesors would still argue and never admit that they are wrong T_T really what we can do is live like Jesus, argue our faith if needed, and pray that the Holy Spirit would convict the hearts of the unsaved, we don't save, God does.
Moderator
14744 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 9/7/08
Ooo got any more like that....
Member
2697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / at the computer
Offline
Posted 9/15/08
I really like this. Good job, however be careful if you use this as an example to take to your professors. Some are far more adament on their beliefs, and will follow them no matter what you say. Also, be ready for what you may receive. If you approach this in the wrong way, and challenge them too harshly, you may make an enemy out of the teacher, who will be gunning to fail you.
Posted 9/16/08
The problem with this is the key points remain flawed- yes darkness is the absence of light, yes cold is the absence of heat but these are PHYSICAL and can be seen and interacted with by man- and while you cant see the scientists brain you can prove it physically exists. But good is not a physical substance and hence good and evil can exist in the same space at the same time- the presence of good (or God) does not guarantee the absence of evil.

For example:

Can you call yourself truly good if to save 1000 lives you choose to condemn 100 to death? Yet many were saved and you cannot be called truly evil either- you do both good and evil in a single stroke do you not? Good and evil can occur in the same place at the same time with the same deed- Unlike the case of light and dark where darkness simply means there is no light the presence of God does not mean there can be no evil.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Online
Posted 9/16/08 , edited 9/16/08
What you have to take into account is who chooses? God or man? Has not God stated that He offers salvation to all? Evil is sin, and sin is something that man and the demons created with the power of their free wills. Good and evil are absolutes that are set by God. Good and evil are not opinions.
Posted 9/16/08
That was an amazing comeback. =D
Moderator
14744 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 9/17/08

Stickmania wrote:

while you cant see the scientists brain you can prove it physically exists.


Ah but, you can not prove that the mind physically exist in that same brain.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 9/17/08
It is the argument of the unseen act. If a man does a good deed and no one notices is it still a good deed? Or we all believe in wind, but we cannot see it, merely the effects of the wind (thank you dc talk), but to be blunt ignorance is to define God with human terminology. He is both righteous and wrathful, forgiving and judgment, He is Divine yet was human, yet God at the same time. God is a balanced God, any who think otherwise should re-read the bible. It says He is one and yet another? Hypocrisy? I think the term God defines Him best.
Posted 9/17/08

Ratman21 wrote:


Stickmania wrote:

while you cant see the scientists brain you can prove it physically exists.


Ah but, you can not prove that the mind physically exist in that same brain.


Strangely enough yes we can in many many different ways as I'm slightly shocked you don't seem to realise. The most basic example I can give you is that when part of our brain is damaged our ability to think is impaired- yet when we lose a leg, a kidney or any other part of our body our mind keeps working just fine for some reason- good enough for you Ratman or do you want me to get scientific?
Posted 9/17/08

cryolyger wrote:

It is the argument of the unseen act. If a man does a good deed and no one notices is it still a good deed? Or we all believe in wind, but we cannot see it, merely the effects of the wind (thank you dc talk), but to be blunt ignorance is to define God with human terminology. He is both righteous and wrathful, forgiving and judgment, He is Divine yet was human, yet God at the same time. God is a balanced God, any who think otherwise should re-read the bible. It says He is one and yet another? Hypocrisy? I think the term God defines Him best.


The problem sir is that re-reading the bible will not do anyone any good as it is completely open to interpretation and indeed there are many many opinions about what the bible tells us all to do- chiefly this is because the silly book contradicts itself in many places as it was written by many different people over many centuries. No opinion of God you take from the bible can be said to be the 'correct' one so I'm sure people will read the bible thoroughly and still disagree with you completely about him being balanced.
Member
2697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / at the computer
Offline
Posted 9/17/08

Stickmania wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

It is the argument of the unseen act. If a man does a good deed and no one notices is it still a good deed? Or we all believe in wind, but we cannot see it, merely the effects of the wind (thank you dc talk), but to be blunt ignorance is to define God with human terminology. He is both righteous and wrathful, forgiving and judgment, He is Divine yet was human, yet God at the same time. God is a balanced God, any who think otherwise should re-read the bible. It says He is one and yet another? Hypocrisy? I think the term God defines Him best.


The problem sir is that re-reading the bible will not do anyone any good as it is completely open to interpretation and indeed there are many many opinions about what the bible tells us all to do- chiefly this is because the silly book contradicts itself in many places as it was written by many different people over many centuries. No opinion of God you take from the bible can be said to be the 'correct' one so I'm sure people will read the bible thoroughly and still disagree with you completely about him being balanced.


What contradiction? I don't see any contradiction. Also, tell us about this interpretation problems.

The Bible is not a silly book. It is extremely serious.
Posted 9/17/08

clearwateralchemist wrote:


Stickmania wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

It is the argument of the unseen act. If a man does a good deed and no one notices is it still a good deed? Or we all believe in wind, but we cannot see it, merely the effects of the wind (thank you dc talk), but to be blunt ignorance is to define God with human terminology. He is both righteous and wrathful, forgiving and judgment, He is Divine yet was human, yet God at the same time. God is a balanced God, any who think otherwise should re-read the bible. It says He is one and yet another? Hypocrisy? I think the term God defines Him best.


The problem sir is that re-reading the bible will not do anyone any good as it is completely open to interpretation and indeed there are many many opinions about what the bible tells us all to do- chiefly this is because the silly book contradicts itself in many places as it was written by many different people over many centuries. No opinion of God you take from the bible can be said to be the 'correct' one so I'm sure people will read the bible thoroughly and still disagree with you completely about him being balanced.


What contradiction? I don't see any contradiction. Also, tell us about this interpretation problems.

The Bible is not a silly book. It is extremely serious.


You cannot seriously not know what I'm on about about the issue of interpretations and contradictions can you?
Really now if you haven't noticed any contradictions then you clearly haven't read the bible very carefully. There are quite literally HUNDREDS. For this reason I am not going to bother spelling them out for you- its well documented and widely accepted that the bible contradicts itself- google is your friend as it will give you a complete list of the things so go do some research.
The same can be said of the interpretation thing except you don't even have to read the bible to see it- its even more obvious. Have you really never wondered why there are 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' instead of just 'Christians'? The difference my ignorant friend is simply that Protestants and Catholics interpret the bible differently- and I'm sure you know that these two groups have fought bitter wars over this simple matter of interpretation costing many many innocent lives, so it really can't be called a small issue. Of course the interpretations vary hugely even within the bigger groups to the extent that there are quite literally hundreds of variations from creationists to crusaders which have been argued over constantly for centuries. Hell there are new interpretations emerging all the time. Once again google is your friend if you want to know more.
Member
2697 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / at the computer
Offline
Posted 9/18/08
Name a single contradiction...can't be too hard, Stickmania. I'm not going to waste my time researching contradictions until I hear more than a general accusation. You started the point on contradictions...not me.

See, in a court of law, a prosecutor must present Specific evidence for his case, not generalities. Since you are the prosecutor, You must present evidence. So, will the prosecution present specifics, or will we just dismiss the case on you presenting no evidence whatsoever.

Now, on the grounds of interpretation, Let us begin. Catholics fudge the truth about the Bible. I don't know if it's true now, but they once had people buy indulgences to get the loved ones out of purgatory faster. Now, there is not a single mention of purgatory in the Bible, in any version of the Bible. Now, I don't count the apacrapha as part of the Bible, but that is another issue, and I will NOT debate about the apacrapha. Indulgences are a DIRECT contradiction with the Bible. The Bible says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith. And this is not of yourselves, it is a gift of God. not by works, so that no one can boast." Works include giving money to the church. If you want, I can find the reference later. If you refer to the Catholics interpreting the Bible vs. Protestants interpreting the Bible, then your argument is about denominations.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 9/18/08

Stickmania wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

It is the argument of the unseen act. If a man does a good deed and no one notices is it still a good deed? Or we all believe in wind, but we cannot see it, merely the effects of the wind (thank you dc talk), but to be blunt ignorance is to define God with human terminology. He is both righteous and wrathful, forgiving and judgment, He is Divine yet was human, yet God at the same time. God is a balanced God, any who think otherwise should re-read the bible. It says He is one and yet another? Hypocrisy? I think the term God defines Him best.


The problem sir is that re-reading the bible will not do anyone any good as it is completely open to interpretation and indeed there are many many opinions about what the bible tells us all to do- chiefly this is because the silly book contradicts itself in many places as it was written by many different people over many centuries. No opinion of God you take from the bible can be said to be the 'correct' one so I'm sure people will read the bible thoroughly and still disagree with you completely about him being balanced.


Interpretation? Ok would you agree to me that the human mind is limited. It's similar to judging another culture we know nothing about. How can we define them with our terms? How much so is it harder to define the divine. I believe that scripture has one interpretation, the "right one" if you will. However being limited to that of flesh, I believe that to understand the divines creation fully would to become gods ourselves. And they will disagree with me and they will disagree with you for all of eternity, for the lack of understanding is not stupidity, its a different understanding of it. I believe in capital punishment, but a thousand voices would stand up and disagree with me. I believe that the dallas cowboys are a horrible team since they lost Emmitt Smith, my point being in that we are humans its in our nature to argue and to disagree, even if its out of spite. The fact of the matter is no two people agree on everything exactly the same. I like the cold you like the hot. How is it when spirituality and religion would be any different?
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.