Thread: GOD vs SCIENCE

Out of topic, but I always get this stuff on chain emails. It sucks having to email people back asking to stop it.

Originally Posted by Howie

'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

I live in the abscence of god...does that make me evil?

"Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one."

That the mechanics of something is not fully understood does not mean there is no rational reason to believe in that phenomenon. The point that's attempting to be made here is that we "believe in our own thoughts based on faith" which is nonsense. To suggest that no one has perceived a thought only demonstrates the thoughtlessness of the argument. I'm sure you could come up with a few experiments that pretty clearly suggest you're capable of thought (there's an idea). Thus the thought has been measured.

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

God is everywhere and everything. That's what they like to say, anyway. There can be no lack of god if he's "everywhere". Besides, as an all powerful being he has little excuse for allowing himself to be absent.

"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."

Semantic maneuvering to set himself up to basically say "Well, yeah, bad things exist except they don't really because something doesn't exist if its defined as the absence of something." But just because something has a negative definition (such as the darkness or cold examples) isn't to say it "doesn't exist". "Cold" has very clear manifestations that we rely on every day. To keep our food cold, for example. The relevant bit here is not that "cold is the absence of heat" but rather the manifestations of the absence of heat regarding how they affect our lives. Even if we accept that there is this mysterious quantity called "god" and that some people "lack god", the fact remains that the manifestations of the condition of "lacking god" (ie "evil") certainly exist and occur all the time. And who's to blame for that? The clueless dirt sculptures or the omniscient one who planned it all? I'll say it again: as an all powerful being he has little excuse for allowing himself to be absent.

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

I don't know what class the professor is teaching, but I should hope he would no better than to say yes to this.

The rest is more or less a reiteration and basically relies on the argument that science states that if it hasn't been directly perceived by the speaker, it doesn't exist. Of course that totally ignores things like deduction, inference and all that good stuff.

Nevermind the fact that the whole "cocky atheist professor versus the humble, polite underdog Christian kid" thing is totally cliché. Too long-winded, boring, fails its point. However, it is punctuated properly and organized in a readable fashion, which is worth one star. In total, I give it 1/5 stars.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Out of topic, but I always get this stuff on chain emails. It sucks having to email people back asking to stop it.

Yes, precisely why I would like to respond in another fashion than just "stop it."

Mark75 - You never fail to disappoint. It was too long winded and sorry for that. I'm quite sure most of you get the basis of the argument long before he was done.
I like your premise - The absence of god.
Haha - I was curious to know if anyone would pick up on the "monkey comment." I suppose that would take us off coarse though. But as a the professor, I think I would have had to address that point.

Originally Posted by Howie

Mark75 - You never fail to disappoint. It was too long winded and sorry for that. I'm quite sure most of you get the basis of the argument long before he was done.

You've nothing to apologize for, that'd be the fault of the author. But yeah, it was pretty easy to see where he was going with it (you know, especially after having read this a couple hundred times before.) :x

You mean the "humans evolved from monkeys"? LUL. If I was the professor, I would have said "No, I don't.". But bah, it's not like arguing over a stupid email is gonna change people's beliefs. There are so many flaws, even on the professor's part, that it's not a quick think to refute.

'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

What the "student" is assuming, is that without God, one is incapable of being a decent person. In actuality, "Evil" is simply a matter of perception. And even if "Evil" wasn't subjected to perception, it is perfectly possible to be what is considered "good" (again, subject to perception).

I myself do not believe in God, and yet, I am not what your average American considers "Evil". Quite the contrary.

The rest of the students argument, is merely making the suggestion that there are no negatives, but merely "Absences".

The line about Evolution having never been observed, is wrong. It has never been observed on the scale of "Monkey --> Human", but it HAS been observed on smaller scales in Insects and Bacteria. Large Scale Evolution is something that would take place over the course of multiple lifetimes.It would be almost impossible to witness Evolution on the Scale people want to see, in 1 life. It would have to be observed over the course of hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

The student's arguments are flawed. No one has perceived the professor's brain, but he is obviously thinking and speaking so he clearly has one. Perceiving directly is only one way of proving the existence of something, you can also show the effects the thing has.

Following the student's logic, there are is power station generating electricity for my computer because I have not seen, heard, tasted, touched, or smelled it.

professor says: why does god allow evil things to happen?

student says: because the words 'good' and 'evil' both describe the same thing, in the same way that the words 'heat' and 'cold' describe the same thing.

conclusion: therefore the statement "god is good" is essentially saying "god is both good and evil"

I think the semantic problem is on the student's part. Scientifically speaking, there's no thing as heat and cold, but there is hot and cold. It's a simple way of characterizing something, of categorizing it. If something has more heat than the referential, it is hot; if it doesn't, it is cold. It really *does* end up into a dualistic perception, made by the human mind. There's no thing as "good" or "evil" - it's just a way humans find to categorize things.

But just try to explain that to the ones sending the email. It'd be like explaining communism to a pig. A dead one.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

But just try to explain that to the ones sending the email. It'd be like explaining communism to a pig. A dead one.

Spam Filters. I have 90% of what people send me filtered into Spam thanks to messages like this one circulating around. Sad thing is, rarely do I ever find something that was mistakenly sent to spam. Most of the time, when its sent to spam, its legitimate spam in my opinion.

God, Jesus, and Satan. Oh boy. It's nice to see that every time there's a God argument, it's always about a specific portrayal and never about the concept. Why does the hypothetical professor ask the student if God is good or not? Isn't that irrelevant? Being "good" or "evil" does not reduce one's potential to exist.

as an all powerful being he has little excuse for allowing himself to be absent.

I think you mean "inactive". It's possible to be present for the sake of observation and nothing else.

The arguments on both sides are flawed.

The very foundation of what they argue about is flawed.

Originally Posted by Invader

God, Jesus, and Satan. Oh boy. It's nice to see that every time there's a God argument, it's always about a specific portrayal and never about the concept. Why does the hypothetical professor ask the student if God is good or not? Isn't that irrelevant? Being "good" or "evil" does not reduce one's potential to exist.



I think you mean "inactive". It's possible to be present for the sake of observation and nothing else.

You're talking about something else. The god we're talking about is one that supposedly is "good" and exists everywhere. If that offends you, you are invited to leave the thread.

both arguments were flawed if you asked me

the student should have left his argument that the teachers arguments were dualistic, which would limit God to a very narrow minded definition

the argument of hot and cold are good ones, because hot and cold are subjective to an individual. and so is 'good' and 'evil'

Originally Posted by Mark75

You're talking about something else. The god we're talking about is one that supposedly is "good" and exists everywhere. If that offends you, you are invited to leave the thread.

Hm? It doesn't offend me at all. I thought you meant to say "he has little excuse for allowing himself to be inactive". If we're talking about an omnipotent being it goes without saying that the being is not "absent", right? I only thought your meaning did not match the words you used, unless I misunderstood what you were saying.

Hot and cold are (relative) terms given to describe temperature conditions and how they relate to other such conditions. Cold is not the absence of heat, it is the term used to describe a low or declining temperature.

Darkness is the term to describe low or a lack of light. Therefore, like cold, it is a term used to describe something. When light decreases, it is described as becoming darker. Much more efficient than saying: "It is becoming less lit."

Both of these arguments are semantic.

As stated by someone else, evolution has been observed. We can observe evolution in small things like insects and bacteria and relate the findings to the evidence of our evolution. As such, the evidence of human evolution is as accurate as it can be. People's beliefs are what obstruct it from being accepted.

While no one in the room would have interacted with the professor's brain, they could. They could open the man's head and see his brain. It's not faith that he has a brain, it's logic that informs you that he requires a brain to function properly and if investigated you would find that he indeed does have a brain.

Evil is not relative to god. Actions/events and their repercussions are evaluated and deemed good or evil based on what is generally considered good or evil. This carries into the question of whether or not god(s)/jesus/etc are necessary for morality. I've seen a debate on this subject and I don't mean to sound biased, but the support for a supernatural entity being necessary for morality is fairly thin. If someone wants me to elaborate, I will, but I'm not sure if it's relevant here.

Note: Whether or not the professor's arguments are flawed is irrelevant, because Howie was asking about the student, not the professor.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

Hot and cold are (relative) terms given to describe temperature conditions and how they relate to other such conditions. Cold is not the absence of heat, it is the term used to describe a low or declining temperature.

Darkness is the term to describe low or a lack of light. Therefore, like cold, it is a term used to describe something. When light decreases, it is described as becoming darker. Much more efficient than saying: "It is becoming less lit."

Both of these arguments are semantic.

As stated by someone else, evolution has been observed. We can observe evolution in small things like insects and bacteria and relate the findings to the evidence of our evolution. As such, the evidence of human evolution is as accurate as it can be. People's beliefs are what obstruct it from being accepted.

While no one in the room would have interacted with the professor's brain, they could. They could open the man's head and see his brain. It's not faith that he has a brain, it's logic that informs you that he requires a brain to function properly and if investigated you would find that he indeed does have a brain.

Evil is not relative to god. Actions/events and their repercussions are evaluated and deemed good or evil based on what is generally considered good or evil. This carries into the question of whether or not god(s)/jesus/etc are necessary for morality. I've seen a debate on this subject and I don't mean to sound biased, but the support for a supernatural entity being necessary for morality is fairly thin. If someone wants me to elaborate, I will, but I'm not sure if it's relevant here.

Note: Whether or not the professor's arguments are flawed is irrelevant, because Howie was asking about the student, not the professor.

Just thought you should realize that "lack" means absence of. You are contradicting yourself. Cold is the absence of heat. To be more scientific, "Cold" is the absence of "x" amount of heat. It was taken for granted you would assume that.

Originally Posted by Invader

If we're talking about an omnipotent being it goes without saying that the being is not "absent", right?

Yeah. That was part of my point. "There can be no lack of god if he's 'everywhere'" The rest I was just continuing on assuming that even if he was somehow "absent" from certain places that this was not a valid argument. I was only using the terms of the argument provided. Of course I don't agree they really make much sense.

There's also one where the professor disproves God to his students by smashing chalk by dropping it on the floor. One day at the beginning of the semester one of his new students, who is a Christian, challenges him. The professor states that if there is a God he will intervene and prevent the chalk from smashing. He drops the chalk and it doesn't smash. The End.

These stories are a dime a dozen and don't seem to differ very much in development, character personalities, or theme.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

There's also one where the professor disproves God to his students by smashing chalk by dropping it on the floor. One day at the beginning of the semester one of his new students, who is a Christian, challenges him. The professor states that if there is a God he will intervene and prevent the chalk from smashing. He drops the chalk and it doesn't smash. The End.

These stories are a dime a dozen and don't seem to differ very much in development, character personalities, or theme.

These "stories" are just that though, stories. Depending on the person telling them, they can either Prove, or Disprove someones stance. If I wanted to make a story to challenge the existence of God, it would come out in favor of him not existing.

None of these stories can really be taken as "arguments", because each one is carefully crafted by the teller to be in favor of their position. They're fun to debate sometimes, but ultimately, pointless.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Just thought you should realize that "lack" means absence of. You are contradicting yourself. Cold is the absence of heat. To be more scientific, "Cold" is the absence of "x" amount of heat. It was taken for granted you would assume that.

Cold exists, even if you would only define it as a lack of heat. Darkness also exists, even if you only define it as the absence of light.

How is this contradictory? It's all just semantics anyway, so what does it even matter?

The student's arguments suggest that there is no such thing as cold, but that's the equivalent of saying there's no such thing as weakness, because it's actually just a lack of strength. Or there's no such thing as colour, it's just your eye's interpretation of light. Bullshit semantics are bullshit.

If I really wanted, I could go philosophical and claim that it's possible for darkness to get darker, but our eyes aren't able to perceive it. Then it'd be more than bullshit semantics.

EDIT: That's not even the main point anyway. The main point is about evil being the absence of god. Which, as I said, just leads into the discussion of morality requiring god.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

Which, as I said, just leads into the discussion of morality requiring god.

Which it doesn't. Morality can exist without God, as can Immoral actions. But what is Moral and what isn't, is a matter of perspective and opinion.

I like how you put the rest of yours though:

Semantics. And thats all it really is when you think about it.

Originally Posted by Kastro187420

Which it doesn't. Morality can exist without God, as can Immoral actions. But what is Moral and what isn't, is a matter of perspective and opinion.

I like how you put the rest of yours though:

Semantics. And thats all it really is when you think about it.

I agree with that. I didn't mean to sound like I think morality requires god; I'm rather convinced that it doesn't. I suppose I should've put a "whether" in there to clarify.