Someone sent me a link to this blog entry at some random weblog that appears to be a new variation on the popular Evil Atheist Professor versus the True Believer student chain letter that’s been making the rounds for years. Previous versions were much shorter and attributed the student as being Albert Einstein, but this version has replaced making the student someone famous with making the fiction considerably longer. This isn’t the only blog with this email up as of late and just about every site that has it marvels over what a great bit of logic it is.
Well I’m hear to say it’s a load of crap, but first I should start by relating the sad story in question:
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.”
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 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 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.
This students statements are true, can you or can you not make night darker?
Is it possible for it to get colder after absolute zero -458 degree’s F.
Can you feel,taste,see,hear,or smell your brain,
If anyone can contest this please do.
So I did. I left the following comment at the blog I pulled this from and, as it’s rather lengthy and there’s a good chance the site owner will just delete it outright, I thought I should post it here as well.
Here’s my reply:
It’s a fictional story that’s been attributed to any number of people including Albert Einstein, but has no basis in reality. It’s also a very flawed argument that’s only really impressive to the scientifically illiterate. It’s kind of sad to see it making the rounds once again, but at least the latest incarnation isn’t attributing it to Einstein.
Let’s start with the most obvious problem with this entire argument: The Christian God is supposedly omnipresent therefor if God is literally everywhere how can there be the absence of God anywhere? This is a fatal flaw to the Absence of God = Evil argument. Additionally there’s the problem with the simple fact that many believers commit acts of evil in spite of their belief in God and often because of their belief in God. This would also be an obstacle for the evil = absence of God argument.
Secondly it relies on conflating two different meanings of the word faith. Namely the faith required for something that’s pretty well established—the fact that the professor does have a brain—versus the faith required for something with absolutely no evidence—the existence of God. In the former there are any number of ways to prove the existence of the professor’s brain, some of which would be extreme but definitive (open his skull and look), but a simple cat scan should suffice for most people. The existence of brains is so well established, in fact, that most Christians wouldn’t be stupid enough to question that reality in the first place.
In comparison you’d first have to nail down exactly what you mean by the word “God”, because even among believers of the same religion there’s often a difference on opinion about the nature of God, before you could even begin to try and establish whether or not it would be possible to determine if he exists. Clearly the type of faith it would take to believe in such a being is miles beyond the faith it takes to accept our lowly professor as having a brain without resorting to cracking his head open to check, though that would at least be possible if it had to come to it.
This particular version managed to work in the anti-evolution angle as well though that too is a flawed and incorrect argument. Evolution has been observed in both simple lab experiments and by studying fossils from antiquity. That is an entire argument unto itself, however, and more time than I wish to expend at the moment.
Furthermore the definitions for heat/cold and light/dark demonstrate that the author of this fiction has only a limited understanding of the concepts he’s writing about. The whole paragraph where the student explains the concept of heat is wrong, but most people aren’t scientifically literate enough to grasp that fact. They just see a lot of scientific words and their eyes glaze over and they think something really intelligent was said.
The author contends that “heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy” and that is flat out wrong as heat is actually the transfer of energy caused by a temperature difference. If two systems are not in thermal equilibrium with each other then heat transfer will occur with the flow going from the higher temperature system to the lower temperature system until thermal equilibrium is obtained. Or, in other words, if one system is hot and the other one is cold then heat will transfer from one to the other until they are the same temperature. The statement that we can have “super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat” is just nonsense. The author is conflating the word “heat” with the word “hot” the latter of which is, like “cold”, a relative term describing the temperature of an object in relation to something else.
So too the author goes on to demonstrate only a partial understanding of light and dark. He starts by conflating the scientific definition of light, which includes the entire electromagnetic spectrum, with what is known as “visible light.” What we refer to as dark is actually just a low level of visible light, but not the absence of light as is claimed in the text. Even in the total absence of visible light all objects will continue to give off infrared and gamma radiation due to heat transfer and as such there is no absence of light at all even though you can’t see. A simple pair of infrared goggles is all it takes to see in the darkest of environments. In order to remove all light you’d have to remove all energy (absolute zero) which isn’t possible to do outside of the realm of theoretical mathematics.
So the answers to the questions at the end of this missive end up as follows: Yes, you could make night “darker” by blocking out more and more of the electromagnetic spectrum. No, you can’t make something colder than absolute zero because that’s the point when a system has no energy. For that matter it’s not possible to reach absolute zero either, though you can get close and matter starts to do some funky stuff at those temperatures. Yes, you can feel, taste, see, hear, and smell your brain if you really wanted to, but some of those would be messy and probably leave you damaged in the process. For some folks, though, it might be an experiment worth undertaking.
Please feel free to chime in with any other flaws you find in either the original story or my rebuttal.
Quixotery.
Being religious is not an affliction of mine, but I can see that being forced to compartmentalize sucks.
Ah, the arrogance of intellectuals. You all have got one thing right though…God definately isn’t for you. Good luck. You’ll need it.
Brian, there’s a fair bit of irony in your taking the time to list your degree after your name suggesting you’re well educated and then bemoaning the supposed arrogance of intellectuals.
I do have a question for you though: According to your bio on the Engineering and Water Resources, Inc. website you’ve got a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural engineering and a Master of Engineering degree. This makes you very qualified to answer a question I’ve had for a long time: Why does it seem like so many engineers are fundamentalist creationists? Is it just a case of being a designer makes everything look designed to you guys or is there some deeper reason behind it?
Not suggesting that you, personally, are a fundamentalist creationist—there’s not much in your comment to draw conclusions on—but being an engineer yourself I thought perhaps you could provide an insight into the question.
Assuming, of course, that it wouldn’t be too arrogant of you to ponder such a question.
Bwahahahahahahaha. The good old ‘You’re gonna burn’ argument. Why don’t you death-cultists come up with an argument we haven’t heard a hundred times before?
Why would any-one want to belong to such a fear-based mythology is difficult to understand.
Come on, Julian, everyone wants to be manipulated at SOME time in their life.
I’m not really against the aim of the story but.. You can use a CT scan to “sense” the existence of your brain. And uh.. Darwin made a voyage – the beagle – and listed down his “observation(s)” before he formulated his theory. In science, there’s a difference between a theory and a law. Darwin’s conclusions are theoretical because his findings are circumstantial. But there is an evidence nevertheless, and that’s what’s important in the formulation of a theory.
RickRoll writes…
This is true, but not in the way you go on to suggest with the following:
Which isn’t true at all.
Specifically both a scientific theory and a scientific law are generally accepted as true by the scientific community. The biggest difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is that a law is simple—often described using a single mathematical formula—whereas a theory is more complex and describes an entire group of related phenomena.
Your statement implies that theories, once they acquire enough evidence, become laws and that simply isn’t the case at all. Laws are not proven theories and theories are not unproven laws. Though similar, they are different by definition and a theory never becomes a law nor does a law ever start out as a theory.
There is, for example, both a Law of Gravity – formerly known as Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and succinctly expressed as F=G(Mm/d^2) – and a Theory of Gravity which grew out of it called The General Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Newton’s work is a law because it’s very specific and elegantly simple whereas Einstein’s theory is much more complex.
In fact the General Theory of Relativity superseded Newton’s Law as a description of gravity in modern physics because it was better at describing the phenomena. That doesn’t stop us from relying on the very equation Newton came up with when planning artillery shell trajectories though because it works just fine for that purpose.
And moon landings- even though the moon is in the wrong place (no one noticed Newton wasn’t accurate enough until after)
I’d say the biggest difference is that a scientific law is accepted as something akin to truth. Scientific laws make profound statements about nature that are not considered open to revision short of rewriting major parts of scientific knowledge. However, there’s no qualitative difference between scientific theories and scientific laws.
News at 11. All science is theoretical.
Elwed: There is four letters difference!
Thanks for the corrections. My point is actually simple. The examples that the student gave follows the “rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol”. They are observable.
And when I said:
“In science, there’s a difference between a theory and a law. Darwin’s conclusions are theoretical because his findings are circumstantial. But there is an evidence nevertheless, and that’s what’s important in the formulation of a theory.”
My point is that Darwin never claimed and could never claim that his theories are TRUE while it’s not yet completely proven. But since his theory is based on his “observations”, it’s not his fault that he’s more credible than any preacher.
In religion, you are left with two choices. It’s either you believe their “truth” or not even though it’s not yet proven. In science, there is a room for assumptions.
And the same is true for all of science.
All of science is based on observations, while religion is based on “observations” (as in .
You do lack a basic understanding of what science is all about. Science doesn’t make any truth claims, it’s all about improving models that best describe observable nature.
This is diametrically opposed to religion, which is all about making stuff up out of thin air and claiming it to be true.
Give me Darwin any time.
Take it on faith[1] or not.
[1] Faith as in belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Wow! Good thread…deep stuff.
Unfortunately, Christian indoctrination from an early age can result in assertions and arguments with no backing in reason (e.g. “from thin air”).
Allow me to point out that this is not what religion is all about; rather, we are seeing the ugly side which washes up often in this cultural wasteland we call the Internet.
No, religion is this rough framework around which we each weave our personal morals and ideals, because humans seek a simple unifying concept; sometimes that framework is innate (as in atheism), and sometimes it is imparted (as in Christianity).
Faith is a gift, regardless of one’s familiarity with observable data which may seem to contradict it. Those with no faith in God cannot prove his nonexistence, as the truth of his existence is not constrained to be defined within the bounds of human science. Atheism is faith that there is no God; evolution does not disprove God, nor does any other facet of human understanding.
Generalizations and overzealousness are not the best evidence that Christians know what they’re talking about, just as generalizations and assumptions about the universe that the science community takes for granted do not validate atheism.
As for the whole “Evil is the absence of God” debate, this is bunk. Evidence should always be taken in context, without exception. That is, a frame of reference is necessary to establish any assertion is true. We know that black is black because it contrasts most with white. But if God was supposed to be absolute good, evil would still be necessary; otherwise the revelation of his degree of goodness would be impossible.
Humans seek a purpose for their existence. If God overcomes all evil, what’s the point? Why have humans to begin with? However, whether God can overcome all evil or not, humans exist as rational decision makers; the point of traditional Christian faith lies in the willingness to accept that which has NO basis except in the concept of “good” which humanity has established. This is not to say there is no basis or line of reasoning which Christians may address, only that their faith doesn’t need knowledge to back it up.
All in all, I like what snopes had to say about these stories—modern parables.
If this counts as “faith”, then there’s lots of faith going around: your faith that Santa does not exist, my faith that there is no teapot in orbit between Mars and Jupiter, Les’ faith that there are no Diminutive Underwear Drawer Trolls. In fact, there’s an infinite amount of faith in the world.
Now, you can define “faith” as you please; but your definition, imho, is not as useful as the more traditional one: that is, faith is belief in something despite lack of material evidence for it. Under your definition, there’s no difference between faith in Jesus and faith that gremlins don’t exist.
Kierkegaard said that we must make a “leap of faith” in order to believe in God. If we accept your definition of “faith”, we’d be leaping like crazed bunnies our whole lives.
And that’s just too damn much hopping for me.
I have to agree with zilch on this one, although believe-you-me, John I do very much appreciate your ability to firewall faith and observation/rationality, Are there any more like you at home?
Evolutionary biology does not “disprove” God—that’s totally outside its scope. But, in tandem with other branches of physics, geology, astronomy, etc, does pretty much deep-six the notion that the Universe, Earth, and any life therein was slapped together in six calendar days six thousand years ago and that our species was the non plus ultra from the get-go.
I don’t quite understand why you think that evil is necessary, if only as a foil to the quote-unquote good that is God. To me that sounds like a rationalization. I don’t for a minute dream that humans have the ability to eliminate evil in themselves or others—for one thing, the definition’s awfully subjective—but that’s no excuse to throw up one’s hands at its inevitability.
Here is a variation on that “brainless professor” theme. A fun read.
The Atheist Professor with no Brain
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/brain.htm
—Cal Dalton
There are sock draw trolls though. Its the only explanation.
How can u say that there is no evidence of God? I just don’t understand. Go outside one night and look up into the stars. Doesn’t that make you feel so small? There are billions of other stars and galaxies out there. How can you say that there is no evidence of God? Go outside in the day and look at the sun. If planet earth was one mile closer to earth, the water at the equator would boil away and there would be no life. If earth was one mile further away from the sun, the earth would be too cold to sustain human life. How can you say that there is no evidence of God?
You said that you can go and find a way to see and touch your brain, and that is true. You are going to have to search for it though. You are also going to search for God, except God is going to be a lot easier to find.
God created everything. There is no way that this earth and human life just happened. If you took a highly expensive rolex watch and took it apart, then you put every tiny little piece of that watch into a paper bag and shook that bag for a trillion years, there is no way that you would eventually end up with a fully operating rolex watch again. And in that situation, you have every piece to work with. This world did not just appear. There was a divine creator. The same creator that created each and every one of us. The same creator that died for our sins.
Dale tries to express himself in one comment and fails to do so….
That’s not proof of God. I feel small when I stand next to big airplanes or buildings. You wouldn’t claim that proves God so why should staring up into the night sky?
There are perfectly natural explanations for the stars and galaxies. Not a proof of God.
That’s not proof either. There are likely hundreds of millions of planets that are well suited to life. The fact that we happen to be on one isn’t anything out of the ordinary.
Don’t have to search for it. Just about any hospital can make it happen and I know where my brain is.
Sure there is. In fact I’d say there’s a 100% chance of it happening cause we’re here.
Apples to oranges, Dale. Watches aren’t living things. They don’t work the same way. It’s a silly argument to make.
Of course this world didn’t “just appear.” It formed over billions of years in a well understood and non-divine process. No God required.
Dale, you said:
That’s true, Dale, but as Les said, that’s not the way living things work: they evolved, one tiny step at a time. Moreover, I could say to you:
The problem with your argument, Dale, is that in trying to explain how highly ordered things such as living beings arise, merely positing a God who creates them does not help- all it does is beg the question: how did God arise? So far, I’ve seen no answer to this that was not some kind of appeal to wordplay (God is the “uncaused cause” or some such nonsense), magic (God created Himself, or is simply beyond time and space), or mystery (we don’t know; God’s ways are mysterious).
But these are not explanations: they are conversation stoppers. I can avail myself of them too, and say that the Universe is the uncaused cause, or that it just popped into being, or that I don’t know how it came to be. My explanation is just as good or bad as that for God, and it’s simpler.
Nonsense. The eccentricity of the earth is more than 3 million miles. Get your facts right before spewing nonsense. Or at least make a valiant effort instead of just puking out what Kent Hovind told you.
Zilch:
Great analogy. Not that s/he’ll understand but still.
Thanks, Julian. I was going to mention this too, but I figured one of the well-educated regulars here would pick it up anyway. I’m a lazy prophet.
While it’s true that we do live in a so-called “Goldilocks” zone (where everything is not too hot, or too cold, but just right), that’s sort of to be expected, isn’t it? The Universe is a big place, and it’s not at all a coincidence that life happened to evolve on a planet where conditions were favorable to life. Douglas Adams’ puddle analogy bears repeating:
All I know is that a cat’s eyes perfectly line up perfectly with the holes in its fur. Co-incidence (insert multiple interrobangs).
Les, you said that there is a perfect explanation for the billions and trillions of stars and galaxies. You are correct. They were all created to display God’s magnificent power. He has unlimited power and he created this massive universe to show us a tiny tiny portion of his power. You also said that standing next to a big plane makes you feel small. How does it make you feel that there is a God that created every star and knows every star by name. How does it make you feel that that same God knows exactly who you are and how many hairs you and I have on our heads. He is an sovereign God that holds the universe in His hands, yet he still loves and cares for us.
To answer your question, zilch, God has no beginning and no end. It is a hard concept to wrap our simple minds around, but its true. You just have to trust the oldest and truest book that exist, the Bible.
Believing this claptrap doesn’t make it true…
Now if only the eccentricity of the True Believers™ were a little less than that of Earth, we might have a chance of converting some of them.
What happens if dale flies from Colorado (1 mile above sea level) to the Netherlands (slightly below).
How do billions of stars prove God? Could it prove the Hindu creation story, or a star vomiting giant space goat? How do we know your version is correct?
Hmmm. I don’t know whether to put this in “wordplay” or “magic”. Dale- why can’t the Universe have no beginning and no end? Then we don’t need God. Complex beings who create universes are far more unlikely things to simply have “no beginning and no end” then universes are. I’ll go with the simpler explanation that has the same explanatory power, thanks.
As far as the Bible being the “oldest” book that exists, that’s hilarious: there are lots of older books, for instance Gilgamesh and the Egyptian Book of the Dead. And as far as being the “truest” book goes- when have you seen an insect with four legs? Etc ad ridiculum.
Dale tries again…
No, they weren’t.
It doesn’t make me feel anything because there is no God.
He doesn’t exist. He’s a delusion. A fantasy. A wishful desire.
Ha, as any fule kno molesworth minor freq has 4 leged beetles on his nee, as mad sigmundson the maths teacher catches him drawing them haf way throgh
Don’t you mean “too thurds throgh”, Hussar?
I notice you doing your Austrian Tourist Board job below my comments at Pharyngula- are you stalking me?
You wish.
No, we’re just mutual casual Pharyngulites. Isn’t that a cool critter, though? That’s what I go there for.
I noticed that your poeing fooled a couple of people. Not surprising, unfortunately: it’s hard to be ridiculous enough that no one takes you seriously.
Have you notice there is no such thing as an anti-poe? I can parrot the right to ridiculousness in politics and religeon, and sound like one of them, but the best they can do is ‘he’s a commie’ about Obama.
Apropos of something out of nothing: there’s a new translation of the Bible that has a message for all of us- the LolCatBible. Here’s a sample from Genesis:
Amen.
Oh, and I just found out that there’s a name for the compulsion to argue with people online: the Siwoti Syndrome.
No its not.
Is, too!
leguru, you always argue when you’re wrong.
If you go sit on a chair, how do you know it will hold you…. faith? So why not have faith that God exist. If every single person only KNOWS about God, the Kingdom of heaven will be set on earth as it’s in heaven. Science can not explain love, or hurt, or happiness in a smile except by explaining how many muscles it uses, all of those behaviors has been created by God. Light was created by God speaking it out in the word, not by a match, or light bulb or something created by man. No don’t get me wrong, science helped people allot in the word, so i’m not saying science is bad, but without God it would not be possible to even do science, he uses people as tools in the world to try and make it a better place. God is Love, and without him there will only be hurt, depression, war, exc. and people blame evil on that.
This like i said is my opinion, maybe God used me to post this today, who knows… science can’t explain that either.
God bless.
If I go to sit on a chair, I don’t know for sure that it will hold me- in fact, chairs have broken under me on more than one occasion. But most of the time they hold me just fine, so I have experimental evidence that chairs work (most of the time).
I have no such evidence that God exists, so until such time as such evidence is forthcoming, I will not believe in God. It’s fine with me if others want to believe in God, as long as they behave nicely and don’t try to smuggle their God into politics or science.
What Zilch said.
And, for the record, science has been studying things such as love, smiles, and happiness for quite some time and has plenty to say on the topics. Try picking up a book other than the Bible for a change.
God isn’t telling you which chairs are flimsy and rain is coming in the storm clouds you see – it’s experience, which shares a common root with experiment – part of the scientific method. It’s not religion, it’s science and logic, just like everything else in the universe. A chair is not supernatural.
God vs. science in a nutshell. Pathetic.
No, physics.
The only form of any god, and I will not capitalize that word, are those who believe in one. Those same people are simply hypocritical religious conceptualists just as Bruce Lee believed. They go around judging what it is in others that is not like themselves in the way that they are and think. If a person does not fit into there comfort zone category of sameness they censor them from their lives to protect their comfort zone. They are seperatists and have an arrogant habit of deciding who will be so called saved and who will be damned to the hell that has been placed in thier minds by other supersticious people in a disease spreading type way that came from past dead people all the way back from when it first started. They walk around like thier poop doesn’t stink with insincere smiles and handshakes for those who are not like them. They hide with thier concept in a false humility and use thier Jesus to whitewash all that they have been, have done, all that they are and will ever do. As long as they stay within the boundaries of civil law to screw with other people for the sake of money or advancement they justify it as not a sin to do so, ( Church and State minded). I have a great disdain for these kind of people. All I can say to them is in the words of Trent Resner:” If there is a hell I will see you thier.” It was good to see someone who was smart and educated enough to put it like it is. One thing though; you could talk to a religious person until you are blue in the face but once someone has allowed thierself to be brainwashed there is no use. They actually believe it is thier own personal thoughts and opinions.
I have reasonable evidence from experience that it will hold me, but there is always a possibility it won’t hold me. Somehow the ‘it might not hold me’ part doesn’t really fit into many people’s concept of faith.
It’s always ‘I have faith that it is true’, conveniently forgetting ‘but it might not be true…’