• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Professor Said That There Is No God. The Student Gave Him an Awesome Answer!

Status
Not open for further replies.

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
This is why the argument is flawed - watch:

Well then lets start there.....Can evil exist if there is no good?
Can good exist if there is no evil?

Can darkness exist if there is no light?
Can light exist if there is no darkness?

What is darkness but the absence of light.....and how can it be measured?
What is light but the absence of darkness.....and how can it be measured?

Can cold exist if there is no heat?
Can heat exist if there is no cold?

Isn't cold the absence of heat?
Isn't heat just the absence of cold?

How cold can it get and still be measured?
How hot can it get and still be measured?

....

When you can answer those questions honestly, you'll be getting somewhere.

I get that you liked the arguments made in the article because they agreed with your position, but I hope you're beginning to see why they are bad arguments. They're bad regardless of whether or not they argue for your god - and I'll give you another example as to why.

Replace every mention of "God" in the article you linked with "Zeus of Olympus". Would you equally agree that the debate makes a strong case for the existence and preeminence of Zeus? (I imagine not...) And that should tell you everything you need to know about why most people in this thread aren't taking it seriously (false quotations and historical attributions aside)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
There is little science. We do observe evolution all the time. We have thermodynamics to explain energy and heat. No one who is serious about science is going to question the existence of someone's brain based on no one having actually seen it. And if evil is the absence of god, then god cannot be omnipresent, despite claims of such an attribute, as the existence of evil would have to mean god is not found everywhere.

It wasn't really about the existence of professor's brain, but more about the criteria that scientists demand for the existence of God. Using the same criteria, there was no way to "prove" (as in seeing it, feeling it etc.) that he had a brain, but to assume that it existed because of the way we know the brain functions. Why is it wrong to use the same criteria for God?
Looking at the way the human body functions in all its complexity, it screams "DESIGN". Same with the eco-systems we see in nature, all interdependent and symbiotic.....too complex to be accidental.
That would be like coming across a masterpiece of artwork and assuming no there was no artist.
sigh.gif


Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. Evil is the absence of good. These are not really disputable facts...are they?

Each is measurable in its own way. For Bible believers, the last one is particularly interesting because initially God did not give his human creation a "knowledge of good and evil". He placed those concepts in his own jurisdiction and made the gaining of such knowledge a crime punishable by death. If they had just been content to leave it at that, and submit to his rightful authority, then the Creator would have been the arbiter of what is good and what is bad for humankind. No evil would exist in this world. I for one, would love to live in a world where evil did not exist. That was the Creator's first purpose for his human creation. He promises to restore those conditions, but not until all humanity experience first hand what evil can do in a world that thinks it doesn't need God.

Science knows that in all things there are equal opposites, so evil exists only as an opposite of good. The Creator was going to keep a knowledge of evil to himself. How good would that have been? Isn't that what we parents try to do with our own children.....try to keep harm away from them? :shrug:

I doubt Deeje intentionally lied given how widely circulated the OP myth is. There is a difference between lying and misspeaking over being wrongly informed. You may want to take this difference into consideration.

I do not ever intentionally lie and, quite frankly it did not occur to me that someone would post something like this if it wasn't true. But regardless of its authenticity, I think the argument is sound.

Thank you for defending me on this. I appreciate it.
Its very easy to make accusations about people when you don't really know them.

I'd be willing to put money on the line that even you believe some things that are not true, and do not intentionally lie about it when you mention it, but rather speak misinformation because you have been wrongly informed.

Yes, good point. Who has not been guilty of this at some point in their life?
Misinformation has been masquerading as truth since time immemorial. Some misinformation has been fooling people for decades...even centuries. I think a lot of folks are going to be mighty angry when the truth is finally revealed.
Nothing in this world is as it appears.

thankyou.gif
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
But, the Bible says that God created evil. So, wasn't Einstein wrong?

Why does evil exist? It is an equal opposite of good. Everything has an equal opposite.

Do you think God created evil just to make us miserable? He initially was going to keep that knowledge to himself, but because he gave humans free will, he could not just make it impossible to attain it. He place a huge penalty in front of it, so that only a fool would disobey his command and invite death on himself......but a fool did abuse his free will and unleashed upon all humankind something that God never wanted us to experience. Put the blame where it lies.....three rebels are responsible for what went wrong....but they hijacked the entire human race, necessitating an object lesson that will never need to be repeated. Man's battle with the consequences of evil will have set precedents for all time to come, so that no rebel will ever be able to abuse his free will again...not in heaven or on earth.

There is a reason for everything.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
If you say something that is mistaken and your statement is corrected and you fail to either defend your statement or even acknowledge correction ... it becomes a lie, e.g., a mistruth that is maintained even in the face of correction. The Einstein story is, at best, apocryphal,yet she continues to attempt to pass it off as reality.

A man of science who can't read......:rolleyes: Are you so quick to judge everyone sapiens?
Have you never been guilty of believing and passing on misinformation? I can assure you, you have.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Thank you all for your replies...I acknowledge that it probably was a fictitious account with an obvious agenda,
And it's not the first time you've posted fraudulent material either.

It's starting to look like a symptom of a larger issue.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
‘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?’
Of course the obvious answer to this imaginary student's imaginary question is, "Yes, I have seen populations evolve. You can see it as well. Let's go down to the micro lab."
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I do not ever intentionally lie and, quite frankly it did not occur to me that someone would post something like this if it wasn't true.
Now that's a fascinating revelation.

Before, when presented with published papers from prominent, well-respected scientific journals, your default assumption was that they were lying and/or engaging in a deliberate cover-up. Specifically, you explained how you didn't understand the papers at all, and from that basis assumed that the authors were deliberately using technical jargon to conceal the fact that they really had no evidence to support what they were saying.

Yet here, your default assumption is the exact opposite. You completely trusted whatever source you copied the fake Einstein story from....so much so that you used it to start a new thread under your name.

Do you appreciate the issue here? You assumed deliberate lying on the part of scientists even though you had absolutely no evidence of it at all, but later assumed complete honesty from an unknown source for the Einstein story, even though the story is completely fake.

At the very least that should tell you that something has gone wrong with your BS detector. More importantly (but less likely), it should tell you that there is something fundamentally wrong with your thinking mechanisms.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
If you say something that is mistaken and your statement is corrected and you fail to either defend your statement or even acknowledge correction ... it becomes a lie, e.g., a mistruth that is maintained even in the face of correction. The Einstein story is, at best, apocryphal,yet she continues to attempt to pass it off as reality.

You might try actually reading her posts before making accusations : The Professor Said That There Is No God. The Student Gave Him an Awesome Answer!
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Well, who asked you? :facepalm:

And what is the point of this 'sad and pathetic' post? I did 'just make the argument', and I did acknowledge that it may well have been a fictitious scenario......so do you want to address the issues raised in that scenario at all.....????

We will wait for your informative reply.....:)

You ADMITTED that it was just a made up scenario only after people called you out on it. That's what's sad and pathetic. Attempting to legitimize the lie by claiming it came from a well respected scientist. Just like most theist arguments, the facts alone aren't sufficient so you are forced to make stuff up. Very sad and pathetic in my opinion.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
You ADMITTED that it was just a made up scenario only after people called you out on it.

You mean: RIGHT AFTER SHE FOUND OUT.

That's what's sad and pathetic. Attempting to legitimize the lie by claiming it came from a well respected scientist. Just like most theist arguments, the facts alone aren't sufficient so you are forced to make stuff up. Very sad and pathetic in my opinion.

Hey man, I noticed you don't have an avatar.

Feel free to use this:
upload_2017-3-22_15-21-41.png
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
When you can answer those questions honestly, you'll be getting somewhere.

I thought the answers presented were quite brilliant actually. I haven't seen a good argument against them yet....
just a lot of huffing and puffing from people who can't quite seem to be able to refute them..."scientifically".
2mo5pow.gif


I get that you liked the arguments made in the article because they agreed with your position, but I hope you're beginning to see why they are bad arguments. They're bad regardless of whether or not they argue for your god - and I'll give you another example as to why.

I get that you like the arguments for evolution...for the same reason. I believe that the arguments for macro-evolution are "bad" too. I don't find them the least bit convincing.
Doesn't science need real evidence, rather than just a biased interpretation of what the fossils are saying? You guys seem to be as easily convinced as you assume we are. Science only "thinks" it knows how life evolved...they cannot prove a thing.

Replace every mention of "God" in the article you linked with "Zeus of Olympus". Would you equally agree that the debate makes a strong case for the existence and preeminence of Zeus? (I imagine not...) And that should tell you everything you need to know about why most people in this thread aren't taking it seriously (false quotations and historical attributions aside)

Replace the word God with "evolution" and the same thing happens. You have an unprovable belief system, just as I have. I can see with my own eyes that the 'designs' I see in nature cannot possibly be the work of blind chance.The fact that my other thread is still going strong after all this time and after all the comments, demonstrates that people are definitely taking this topic seriously. You underestimate how many undecided people there are out there. I hope the points raised help them to see that evolution is all talk and no real evidence. Deceiving people into believing in evolution and questioning their level of intelligence if they doubt its validity, is no substitute for actual proof. Science likes to shame people into submission.

It is good to be able to give the other side of the story and expose evolution for the fraud, masquerading as science, that it really is.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Of course the obvious answer to this imaginary student's imaginary question is, "Yes, I have seen populations evolve. You can see it as well. Let's go down to the micro lab."

Yes...lets go down to the micro lab and watch "adaptation". Why do you imply what cannot be proven? Adaptation is the only thing that science can observe in a lab. It always remains within a 'kind'....insect, fish, bacteria.....nothing evolves into something completely different....nothing ever has....and nothing ever will. To assume that adaptation goes beyond what can be observed is speculation, not evidence based at all. Its a gigantic fraud.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Before, when presented with published papers from prominent, well-respected scientific journals, your default assumption was that they were lying and/or engaging in a deliberate cover-up. Specifically, you explained how you didn't understand the papers at all, and from that basis assumed that the authors were deliberately using technical jargon to conceal the fact that they really had no evidence to support what they were saying.

Another scientist who cannot read......seriously. :rolleyes:

My position has always been that the evidence they present is "misinterpreted". Scientists interpret their "evidence" to fit their theory. I never said anything about deliberate cover ups and lying. You guys seem to be masters of that ploy.

The technical jargon masks the fact that evolutionary science is not evidence based, but is mere speculation about what "might have" or "could have" happened millions of years ago when no one was around to testify to any of it.
The very same evidence could be used just as well for individual creation over an extended period of time....which is what the Bible says.

At the very least that should tell you that something has gone wrong with your BS detector. More importantly (but less likely), it should tell you that there is something fundamentally wrong with your thinking mechanisms.

At the very least we should all see that many evolutionists resort to this kind of rhetoric when they have nothing better to offer. o_O
 

Cobol

Code Jockey
Don’t believe the reports that suggest Einstein wasn't an atheist. He may have dismissed the word, but it’s not like he spent any time praying or thinking about God.

If pollsters spoke with him today, they’d categorize him as a “None,” someone who wastes no energy on religion but also has no desire to become an atheist advocate. He didn't like labels.


god-letter.jpg


Here is Einstein's letter translated

The handwritten letter was sent to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind in 1954 just before Einstein’s death

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can [for me] change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Yes...lets go down to the micro lab and watch "adaptation". Why do you imply what cannot be proven? Adaptation is the only thing that science can observe in a lab.
And here we go again, this time with your "it's adaptation, not evolution" talking point.

Of course when asked to explain the difference between the two you run away, wait a bit, and then repeat the talking point all over again. Such is the fundamental dishonesty of creationism.

It always remains within a 'kind'
And here we go again, this time with your "they're all the same kind" talking point.

Of course when asked to define the term "kind" you run away, wait a bit, and then repeat the talking point all over again. Such is the fundamental dishonesty of creationism.

To assume that adaptation goes beyond what can be observed is speculation, not evidence based at all. Its a gigantic fraud.
So it's based on zero evidence and is a deliberate fraud. Remember that for my next post.....
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
My position has always been that the evidence they present is "misinterpreted". Scientists interpret their "evidence" to fit their theory.
Yet in the post you put up a mere 9 minutes before, you said "To assume that adaptation goes beyond what can be observed is speculation, not evidence based at all."

So in less than 10 minutes you go from "not evidence based at all" to "I've always said that they just 'misinterpret' the evidence". And the really fascinating part is, I'm betting you have absolutely no clue as to why such blatant, quick self-contradiction is a problem.

I never said anything about deliberate cover ups and lying.
My goodness you're on a roll. From that same post from less than 10 minutes before, you said "Its a gigantic fraud."

So in less than 10 minutes you go from "It's one big fraud" to "I never said anything about cover-ups or lying". Unbelievable.

The technical jargon masks the fact that evolutionary science is not evidence based, but is mere speculation about what "might have" or "could have" happened millions of years ago when no one was around to testify to any of it.
The very same evidence could be used just as well for individual creation over an extended period of time....which is what the Bible says.
Wow....you''re all over the map here and are now contradicting yourself not just within the same post, but within the same paragraph!

"It's not evidence based....except for the evidence that they're misinterpreting......so they use jargon to cover up the fact that they have no evidence......except for the evidence that could be seen as being for creation".

It's like talking to a schizophrenic parrot.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I have read this before, but thought I'd share it.....you cannot argue with this student's logic.


An 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? 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.’

‘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 d own 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 it 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 every day. 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.

The student was Albert Einstein. :D I'm with Einstein.

I love the OP!
It sums up a lot of things for me very effectively. Perhaps not the things it was intended to, but I'll take insight where I can get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top