Something to think about.

[CrazedImp]

Well what do you all think of this? I found it to be a very interesting little read.
God vs Science

"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?

[Danimetal]

I like this. Very much like this.

[Nomad]

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?

Yes--Night can be made darker. The light from distant stars and the light of the sun reflecting off the moon make the night sky considerably bright. Also, when talking about "light," what we usually usually refer to is the rather small section of the electromagnetic spectrum we call the "visible light spectrum". If we could see beyond this section of the EM Spectrum, what we call "light" would be considerably different. Imagine, perhaps, that you could see radio waves! The earth itself eminates ambient radio waves! Imagine how bright "night" would be then!
Well, absolute zero (0°K) is actually –459.67 °F. One could not make anything "colder" than that, because at that point is when all molecular activity completely ceases. The problem should rather be considered the absense of energy, since heat is nothing but the energy given off by molecular activity. Einstein told us that Energy is equal to Mass times aCcelleration squared. When mass is no longer accelerated, there is no energy. Wouldn't it cease to be mass at that point? I'm not exactly sure of the implications, but it would be interesting to find out.
I can observe its effects. I know through the research of others that a brain is required for everything my body does. Sure, I have to have faith that I have a brain, but I know that there is no way I could be here without one.

Either way, the argument that "If you can't test it empirically, it doesn't exist" argument is fallacious. There are plenty of other indicators that this "god" does not exist. Certainly if there were a being that I could see, hear, feel, taste, or smell, if he is an asshole, I can be pretty sure he's not a benevolent god.

[blood imp]

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,"
I see what this means. That if we use an argument like that on God, we can very well use it on our brains. However, there is one flaw here. NOBODY has ever seen God. Brains however, can be found in every human. I don't have FAITH that I have a brain, I have the KNOWLEDGE that I have a brain. If removal of my brain had no effect on me, I would bet my life that I have a brain, and would gladly expose it.

Furthermore, tell me, what does faith have to do with existance? If, say, the entire human population had "faith" that God is real, does that make it any more so? If we all had "faith" that the sky is going to be green tomorrow, would that make it more likely?

[rustyslacker]

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."
This is the chunk that contradicts a lot of Christianity.

[jetflock]

puny minds questioning the universe.
my answer to everything : sex

[BeTaNoL]

puny minds questioning the universe.
my answer to everything : sex

Damn straight!

[Pieter Enis]

Well, absolute zero (0°K) is actually –459.67 °F. One could not make anything "colder" than that, because at that point is when all molecular activity completely ceases. The problem should rather be considered the absense of energy, since heat is nothing but the energy given off by molecular activity. Einstein told us that Energy is equal to Mass times aCcelleration squared. When mass is no longer accelerated, there is no energy. Wouldn't it cease to be mass at that point? I'm not exactly sure of the implications, but it would be interesting to find out.

One thing I love to add here is that we CAN make stuff colder than 0°K, we just wouldn't be able to know since the molecules aren't moving. Because they aren't moving, no energy can conduct through it without heating the stuff up, thus giving it a new, warmer temperature. On top of that the temperature measuring device is giving off energy (making the molecules move again, for you dopeheads out there), so that doesn't help much either.
About the heat thingy, it's about the same: Molecules would get so agitated that they would, at the ultimate energy point we can measure using tools, actually be everywhere at the same time, making them seem a bigger, massive, immobile molecule. Same goes for the measuring device, it would cool the molecules off.
Fun times!

And I find the brain analogy stupid, just put the professor under narcosis, cut open his skull and show the brat his brain. Problem solved.

And jetflock, your answer to this problem created this problem in the first place! It's like beer.

[Sigma]

No, that is incorrect. 0 °K (absolute zero) is the coldest temperature possible. Even as much, it has never been observed (though scientists have gotten very close). Many question if absolute zero is even possible.

How can something possibly become colder than emission of no heat whatsoever? That makes no sense.

Well, absolute zero (0°K) is actually –459.67 °F. One could not make anything "colder" than that, because at that point is when all molecular activity completely ceases. The problem should rather be considered the absense of energy, since heat is nothing but the energy given off by molecular activity. Einstein told us that Energy is equal to Mass times aCcelleration squared. When mass is no longer accelerated, there is no energy. Wouldn't it cease to be mass at that point? I'm not exactly sure of the implications, but it would be interesting to find out.

No. The mass would still exist, but no longer serve purpose until energy was reintroduced into it. The mass would not collapse because such a collapse would require energy. Think of it in terms of slowing something to an absolute stop-- anything else would void the absolute zero status.

However, admittedly, this is all theoretical. Probable, but still theoretical.

[Pieter Enis]

No, that is incorrect. 0 °K (absolute zero) is the coldest temperature possible that we can measure. Even as much, it has never been observed (though scientists have gotten very close). Many question if absolute zero is even possible.

How can something possibly become colder than emission of no heat whatsoever? That makes no sense.
Through absorbing of heat?

Corrected for errors.

[Nomad]

Through absorbing of heat?

Where does that heat go then?

[blood imp]

Through absorbing of heat?
What? There would be no heat. There would be a lack of energy. How can the matter or whatnot be absorbing energy if there isn't any?

[Pieter Enis]

Where does that heat go then?
Into the absorbing body, raising it's temperature.

What? There would be no heat. There would be a lack of energy. How can the matter or whatnot be absorbing energy if there isn't any?
If there would be such a lack of energy that there is no more left to be absorbed they you've made it to the end of the universe! Congratulations!*party*

[blood imp]

Into the absorbing body, raising it's temperature.


If there would be such a lack of energy that there is no more left to be absorbed they you've made it to the end of the universe! Congratulations!*party*
Alright, so lets assume we do make something absolute zero, where there is no heat energy in the matter. So then the matter absorbs some heat from outside sources, but it keeps on going back to zero. How does this make it COLDER than absolute zero? And by the way this debate is really pointless :p

[Nomad]

Into the absorbing body, raising it's temperature.

Exactly. So nothing can be colder than absolute zero.

[JohnnyRancid]

The politics forum needs less things to think about.

[CrazedImp]

Its here for that purpose...

[BeTaNoL]

Hemidemisemiquaver it.

[Sigma]

And by the way this debate is really pointless :p

I agree. :)

As far as the arguments for God and everything else stated in the conversation between the student and professor, it's really rather ridiculous.

The student fails to answer any of the professors questions first of all. Second of all, the heat and darkness arguments are baseless.

"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."

These two sentences are oxymorons depending on how you think about them.

For example, rocks are nonliving matter. They cannot be subjected to death because they never lived in the first place. However, using his own words, "death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it," death and the absence of life end up being the same thing in relation to rocks and therefor, his argument is severely flawed.

In other words, rocks portray the absence of life. According to his argument they are then dead. In order to be subjected to death (not being dead; actually dying), it would have to imply they were once living. At this point, the opposite of life ends up being synonymous with the absence of life.

His argument is flawed on another level. A virus would be a notable exception according to the accepted definition of "life."

And finally, it really could be argued that the absence of something would in fact, be the opposite. Afterall, that is really what darkness, cold and death are! They're nothing more than words with denotations that illustrate the opposite or absence of light, warmth and life. Obviously, not on a scientific basis, but even so-- comparing them to good and evil is a grave miscalculation because good and evil are subjective terms. One person may think what they're doing is good and another evil; cold and warmth are always the same thing though. One could argue that warmth / cold, light / darkness are not in fact the complete opposite, but then again, none of them portray the complete absence either.

Furthermore, this does not even comply with traditional Christian beliefs! We could continue this argument with the belief of an afterlife, but that would be beating a dead horse.

"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?"

This is incorrect as well. Evolution can be observed as an on-going process. Experiments with bacteria are the most accessible observation of this.

"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."

Comparing the existence or lack thereof of a human brain to that of God is terrible as a comparison. Thousands of studies have been done on the human brain and it's mechanics, all within the realm of pure science. The acknowledgement of a human brain is not a matter of faith, but a matter of guaranteed probability. We all know in the circumstance the professor did not have a brain, he would cease to be living. The human brain has been subjected to the realm of the senses throughout all of history. God, however, has never been.

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."

This argument is laughable, for obvious reasons, when dealing with the way God is defined; omnipotent, omniscient, creator and ruler of all things, etc. In addition, there is the free-will argument to take into consideration, the child born in a part of the world where he is not given the capability to know of God, so forth and so on.

The entire "debate" is weak, if not even broken. Christian propaganda is terrible. It's inevitably flawed on thousands of levels. As far as the professor's arguments being flawed, well, that's a matter of education and at the best, opinion.

[blood imp]

I've thought of something (amazing, no?):
As for the evil argument, you can replace the word God with good, nay? So, according to the student, Evil is the absence of good. WRONG. The absence of good is not evil, just the absence of good. It would be where everybody simply walks around, eats, excretes, reproduces, but does nothing productive (except for things necessary for life). Evil is the intention of doing bad, while the absence of good is the intention not to do good.

[Nomad]

The "absence of God" argument is certainly silly since this very same student would probably argue that God is omnipresent. Can't have your cake and not have it at the same time, still expecting to eat it! D:

I've thought of something (amazing, no?):
Evil is the intention of doing bad, while the absence of good is the intention not to do good.

Or negligence (willful or not) to do good.

[Monkey]

I think the student is on the ball with this one. Though, just because faith is a functional part of life doesn't make Christianity any way valid; He was just arguing with a stupid professor who was trying to disprove something with no proof. Logic takes the precedent structure of the universe's mechanics and tries to organize thought around it. Faith is just a device for validating an idea that is not rooted in evidence.

[FATAL]

Faith cannot be used to validate anything, except the believer's insanity. Paranoiac schizophrenics have more basis for their "faith" than religious people. Only the former are considered nutcases, though.

[Nomad]

I have to disagree there, Fatal, on the basis that science doesn't currently have the answers to everything. I myself have faith that we will know the answers, as well as I have faith in certain unknowns about the universe such as the existence of other life. That doesn't really make me a nutcase.

But I suppose the difference is with founded and unfounded faith.

[FATAL]

That is what I meant, you can support your opinions with logic and observation.

We've made scientific breakthroughs before, so why couldn't we do them in the future too?

Governments are known to have spied on people in history, there's no telling whether they're watching my ever move!

I believe in god because it says so in a book.

[Monkey]

Lots of people believe that book. Although, for a time, the world was believed to be flat. You think Christianity is going anywhere, just a trend of the last few thousand years? Why do you think the monotheistic, Jesus as the Redeemer stuff has caught on so abundantly?
I'm personally agnostic, so these are just general questions, not redundant ones trying to convey some agenda.

[Props025]

This is very interesting. I think that there is a god, and it's simply a name I give for the beginning and everything that is. I can tell you this much, I don't think "god" has anything to do with the books we've written that are in reference to how you should live. Those are all man-made. As a matter of fact....what would you say to this...the "real" god is our very own memory. Without it, we wouldn't be able to ask these questions, let alone remember what I was just typing.

[blood imp]

So you're saying "god" is our brain? Or our mind? Or intellect as a whole?

And as for those who claim that God is "everything that exists", then why not call it everything instead of God?

[Pieter Enis]

Because the Pope still wants to get paid.

And I have no idea why I was convinced things could get colder than 0K

[Giftmacher]

This professer guy is my new hero.

[Props025]

I'm simply saying that there is no definition to "god". Life is what we make it. Take the time to analyze your very own existence. When I refer to god, I'm trying to imply that there was a creator of everything, and science or not, this energy that sparked existence had something to do with it(beginning of life as we know it). Beyond that, I don't know anything about it. Without a higher source of knowledge, we will get stuck in a such a manner, where we're looking for hand outs(of knowledge). I say, stop looking, and just use what you know.

[rustyslacker]

This professer guy is my new hero.
Why? He sounds like an asshole.

[Nomad]

I still love what I wrote:

The "absence of God" argument is certainly silly since this very same student would probably argue that God is omnipresent. Can't have your cake and not have it at the same time, still expecting to eat it! D:

[Props025]

*grin* (substitution for, smile after reading). I can't hope but think that one loves what they posted. Brilliant.....it's just like inventing bottle caps....to seal cold beverages...LMAO


***edit***
I didn't know that the configuration of words * grin * would create a character.

[Pieter Enis]

I don't care what god anyone worships, as long as they don't stuff him down my throat or have to pay to 'be on His good list', I'm fine.
Yet I find it silly that you'd give the name God to a certain occurence in time.

[Props025]

I'm with you Pieter. I was once asked, "Do you believe in Jesus"? I honestly answered...with something like, "Not the one you're talking about". His answer, "You're going to hell".

Based off his beliefs....I'm screwed. Based off of mine, there's an entire lifeforce that we can't see with our own eyes....and there is the unknown.....
Just do the right thing...you'll know what you're doing.....

[Pieter Enis]

I'd then reply "If your God is as forgiving as you say he is, I'm going to Paradise. If not, see you in Hell"
Something like that, to take their last inch of hope away by letting it haunt their minds.
Quite hypocritical, them.

[Giftmacher]

Why? He sounds like an asshole.
He owns in Religious discussions. :p

[Props025]

Aside from the fact...that "gods" messengers aren't too bloodthristy(oh....wait....they start wars.......especially against those who don't follow them), It's like meeting the bookie that never shows up....just his grunts to do the dirty work. My analogy.....Know one has seen god, yet supposedly, by all of his believers....he's there. My question is...if there is a god, why are there so many of them? Hell, I'm sure there's more gods out there, more then my years on this earth....and no one has any real proof....except for man written books....
I'm confused...It's all about the proof...and no one has any.