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

[Derek500]

So, the originator of the topic told untruths about Einstein. Bold-faced lies. Easily checked.

Not exactly a rational way to try and win friends and influence people.

 

[Derek500]

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.

Yes, some people do like outright lies and accept those outright untruths. For some reason. Fact is; Einstein never said that.

 

[Pudding]

Please define "faith" for your op.

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?’

Please define "science" for your op.

Where and when does "science" say God doesn't exist?

Where can i find "the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol" which say God doesn't exist? If anyone know please cite a source.

‘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.’

Where does "science" say there is no evidence for God?
If anyone know please cite the source where "science" making such a statement.

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.’

Where in the conversation does the professor argue that "there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God"? I don't see it. That is a strawman.

‘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?’

Please define "preacher" and "preach".

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?’

Where does "science" say the professor have no brain?
Where can i find this "established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol" which the "science" use it to conclude that the professor have no brain?
If anyone know please cite a source.

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.’

Isaiah 45:7(King James Version) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The scripture says the God creates evil.

The student say God did not create evil.

Did God create evil or not?

The professor sat down.

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

LOL...regardless of the authenticity, I still think its a great argument.

The argument is great for arguing that cold/darkness/Evil doesn't exist, it is not the opposite of heat/light/God, just the absence of it?

The argument is great for arguing that since no one has ever have millions of life times to observed the FULL process of evolution at work, so it render those people who think evolution does happen, they actually just believe evolution by faith?

The argument is great for arguing that scientist who teaching evolution is not scientist but preacher?

The argument is great for arguing that because the professor cannot heard, felt, touched or smelt his brain, so he have to take the statement "he have brain" by faith?

The argument is great for arguing that God exist?

The argument is great for arguing that God did not create Evil?

@Deeje

The argument is great for arguing about what?

The argument is great for who? Great for them in what way? How great it is?

 

[jonathan180iq]

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".

They're only "brilliant" because they agree with your worldview. As I presented in my last response, they don't make a cohesive argument for anything, really.

For example:

• "What is darkness but an absence of light?"

That's certainly a question, but what does it have to do with anything? As I showed you, I could just as easily have asked the imaginary professor "what is light but an absence of darkness?" It needlessly distracts from the topic at hand and makes no point at all, other than an illusory one.

• Similarly, they asked, essentially, "What is evil but the absence of god?"

Now that's a huge leap of logic, don't you think? Not only are we making a huge assumption about the existence of deity, and necessitating the existence of a moral idea on the existence of said being, but we're also constructing false equivalencies based on bias - and I'm happy to show you what I mean.

First of all, you're assuming God, just as all believers assume their particular deity (which is why I made the Zeus analogy). You're then presupposing his preeminence by relegating evil as an absence of god. And just like with the light/dark concept, this comparison can be easily flipped, causing a very different result in outcome.

"What is god but the absence of evil?"

...Hmm... God's goodness can only be experienced or understood when contrasted against evil?This makes evil a required aspect of God's existence. God is subordinate to evil's existence, or else god cannot be good...

That's a very serious theological problem, and it's a bit more complex than the imaginary conversation that you posted at the beginning of this thread.

Those are just two reasons why the responses that you really enjoyed aren't all that you think they are. They aren't reasoned responses at all - and they don't argue for the existence of anything other than the speaker's bias. If I made those arguments for God, Santa Claus, Aliens, or scientific theories, I'd be wrong every time. Which brings me to my next point:

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.

This is called deflection... Instead of addressing the very obvious flaws with the posted article, and maybe engaging in a little theological debate, you're attacking an unstated position. It's a defensive tactic, but it's a weak one.

Nowhere in this thread have I made any claims about anything other than the flawed logic of the original post. Why on Earth are you drudging up evolution, or any other topic for that matter?

Like I said in the above paragraph, if I used the article's logic to defend a scientific claim, I would expect to be laughed at.

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.

Deflection times two... Let's try a different approach.

In your opening statement to me, you said that you had yet to see a decent argument against the article, and that mostly everyone was just huffing and puffing. You said that, despite the fact that I gave you reasoned rebuttals for flaws in the arguments being made, most notably comparing the arguments for God with arguments for Zeus. If those arguments work for god, in your mind, then they must also logically work for any variable - evolution being one of them. Since you're mocking the idea that these ideas would similarly defend an evolutionary position, I can only assume that you must admit that they can be equally as mocked as arguments for god, right?

Intellectual honesty is very important, not just in debate but in our daily lives as well. The arguments that you say you like cannot work for one variable and not the other...

So, which is it? Are they good arguments, or are they bad arguments?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the end, Deejee lied about it.

There is a major huge difference between lying and being mistaken. I see no reason to assume Deejee had any intention to deceive or deliberately misinform.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There is a major huge difference between lying and being mistaken. I see no reason to assume Deejee had any intention to deceive or deliberately misinform.

People love the word "lie."
Lie implies intent - She wasn't lying. She was just mistaken, which isn't that big of a deal. She moved on from that and is now focused on the merits of the article itself, which is much more substantive conversation. I think people should focus on the meat of the matter here, and get off the idea that someone "LIED" to them...

 

[Sapiens]

A man of science who can't read...... 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.

Really? Your story is a fraud, Einstein never said it, and besides, it's logic is fallacious. It relies upon an aargument from analogy (a special type of inductive argument) whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. This inference which was shown to be defective (see John Stuart Mills' work on the
problems of induction).

People love the word "lie."
Lie implies intent - She wasn't lying. She was just mistaken, which isn't that big of a deal. She moved on from that and is now focused on the merits of the article itself, which is much more substantive conversation. I think people should focus on the meat of the matter here, and get off the idea that someone "LIED" to them...

Initially she may have been just mistaken (I suggest that her past performance makes this unlikely), but when the mistake is repeated (as per usual), after correction, in full view of the truth, it is a lie, because then the intent to deceive is clear.

 

[ratiocinator]

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".

Both the professor and the "Einstein" character in the story talk utter nonsense. The whole thing is beyond absurd - an argument between two idiots.

It matters not a jot whether you regard evil as a thing or an absence (as if either makes any sense in the context) - if there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then it is responsible for everything - including evil (or the absence of good, if you want to play silly word games).

 

[viole]

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

So, if good can exist only in the presence of evil, and vice-versa, we can infer that Heaven contains evil, if it is claimed that it contains good.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh I know the feeling.....

So all the specific contradictions and issues I pointed out in your posts, and your response is "I know you are but what am I"?

Pathetic.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is a major huge difference between lying and being mistaken. I see no reason to assume Deejee had any intention to deceive or deliberately misinform.

It's part of a consistent pattern with Deeje and other creationists, where they pass on/post dishonest material when arguing for creationism or against evolution. Perhaps they didn't actually look into it and say to themselves, "I know this isn't true but I'm going to post it anyway", but that doesn't mean they were just innocent dupes either.

Basically it's a symptom of a couple of larger issues, i.e., lack of critical thinking and confirmation bias. Put them together and we end up with creationists who evaluate information via a very simple filter.....if it reinforces their beliefs and/or discredits the opposing position, it's reliable and should be shared; if it doesn't, it's wrong. This simplistic black/white way of evaluating information is reflected in AiG's Statement of Faith....

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.​

That's how we end up with creationist after creationist posting Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort videos, or Deeje posting an obviously fabricated ridiculous story about Albert Einstein as a college student. For these creationists, authenticity and accuracy are secondary (at best) concerns. What really matters is whether or not it tells them what they want to hear.

So maybe "liar" isn't the most accurate term to use. I'd say "cluelessly deluded" is better.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, some people do like outright lies and accept those outright untruths. For some reason. Fact is; Einstein never said that.

More than truth or lies, I've increasingly come to appreciate authenticity.
I think I've worked with too many salesmen over the years. They commonly tell the truth in ways deliberately open to misinterpretation. They're not actually lying.

In any case, there was a bunch of things I found interesting about the OP. It seems like a thing people tell themselves to confirm a belief they already hold, to my mind.

 

[Quagmire]

So, the originator of the topic told untruths about Einstein. Bold-faced lies. Easily checked.

What's wrong with you people? You really don't see the difference between a simple mistake and "bold faced lies"?

Not exactly a rational way to try and win friends and influence people.

And what do you think this sort of irrational hyper-emotionality makes you look like?

 

[Deeje]

Really? Your story is a fraud, Einstein never said it, and besides, it's logic is fallacious. It relies upon an aargument from analogy (a special type of inductive argument) whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. This inference which was shown to be defective (see John Stuart Mills' work on the
problems of induction).

You know something is up when you have to have definitions of "arguments" that expose other "arguments" as "inductive" or deceptive. Heaven forbid that an argument should stand on its own merits!

We obviously need other scientists to explain why a good argument isn't that good after all......so don't believe anyone unless you have exhausted all other arguments countering the other arguments .......is there an end to this? Are you suggesting that people will believe anything unless they are convinced otherwise? Does that work with all subject matter? Whose argument is considered the valid one? The one that you agree with?

Initially she may have been just mistaken (I suggest that her past performance makes this unlikely), but when the mistake is repeated (as per usual), after correction, in full view of the truth, it is a lie, because then the intent to deceive is clear.

I'm sorry Sapiens, but with each post your rhetoric just gets funnier and funnier......why is anyone who disagrees with you portrayed as some sort of sinister character with a bad motive?

 

[Sapiens]

You know something is up when you have to have definitions of "arguments" that expose other "arguments" as "inductive" or deceptive. Heaven forbid that an argument should stand on its own merits!

You've not made a single post to date that stands, period.

We obviously need other scientists to explain why a good argument isn't that good after all......so don't believe anyone unless you have exhausted all other arguments countering the other arguments .......is there an end to this? Are you suggesting that people will believe anything unless they are convinced otherwise? Does that work with all subject matter? Whose argument is considered the valid one? The one that you agree with?

Try a basic course in logic, that will help you to resolve the question. Oh, I forgot, your against education and learning ... or at least that is what you posted.

I'm sorry Sapiens, but with each post your rhetoric just gets funnier and funnier......why is anyone who disagrees with you portrayed as some sort of sinister character with a bad motive?

I do not think that your motives are bad, just that you logic isn't logical and by your own admission you have no respect for learning. Even the best of motives, when coupled with the worst of thought process often yields bizarre and unsupportable notions.

 

[Deeje]

I do not think that your motives are bad, just that you logic isn't logical and by your own admission you have no respect for learning. Even the best of motives, when coupled with the worst of thought process often yields bizarre and unsupportable notions.

In your professional opinion, which could not possibly be swayed by bias.....this might be the case Sapiens.

My thought processes are quite logical to me and to a whole lot of other people whom you and your learned colleagues might probably consider to be uneducated morons.

I have great respect for learning.....I just have no time for big egos who claim things that cannot be proven. Isn't that what education is for? To learn the truth about things? Evolution is at best a suggestion....it has never been proved to be true. In fact there is no real evidence that it ever happened.

I think that macro-evolution is more 'bizarre and unsupported' than anything I have presented.....if you were confident about my posts being untrue, then I doubt you would need to post against them so strongly....
Yet here you are again....

that says more about your confidence than your bluster and insults about my intelligence.

 

[Deeje]

So, if good can exist only in the presence of evil, and vice-versa, we can infer that Heaven contains evil, if it is claimed that it contains good.

A knowledge of evil must have always existed because the first rebel was a spirit being who dwelt in heaven in the direct presence of God. They were all endowed with free will, or else satan could not have exercised his options in Eden. There was just no way to exercise it in a bad way in heaven.

With the creation of intelligent lesser beings on earth, this rebel saw an opportunity to gain by deception, what he had wanted all along.....worship. (Luke 4:5-7 for the benefit of those who might be interested.)

His fellow spirit creatures could not view him as a god because they were his equal in power. He could at best be their leader.
But with the creation of man, here was an opportunity to act on an ambition that had grown within this being over who knows how many millenniums? He hijacked the human race and held them to ransom, becoming their god and ruler. God paid the ransom with the life of his own son. And now God is allowing all of us to choose where to spend eternity. After all, there was no natural cause of death in Eden, so eternal life was always in God's purpose for man.

God established the means by which obedient humanity could be preserved, whilst he dealt with the disobedient ones. Both humans and angels alike were making decisions about where they would spend eternity. All have only two choices according to the Bible.....eternal life...or eternal death. By our choices we indicate where we will end up. We send ourselves there.

The first place God cleansed of wickedness was heaven. And the last place he cleanses is earth....hence Jesus taught his disciples to pray for God's will "to be done on earth as it is in heaven." Soon I believe that will be a reality. In the meantime I see myself as a messenger, offering life to all who choose to obey the Creator. We have all seen where disobedience leads us, so who but a fool would want to keep this arrangement with its trauma and tragedy?....all as a result of the misuse of free will.

I like what God is offering and I do not see him as the 'inept and flawed magician' that is portrayed in the minds of many even in the churches.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Initially she may have been just mistaken (I suggest that her past performance makes this unlikely), but when the mistake is repeated (as per usual), after correction, in full view of the truth, it is a lie, because then the intent to deceive is clear.

No. She dismissed the names and characters and focused on what the argument actually is. That is an admission the story is false, but a desire to focus on what the argument of the story presents.

It's part of a consistent pattern with Deeje and other creationists, where they pass on/post dishonest material when arguing for creationism or against evolution. Perhaps they didn't actually look into it and say to themselves, "I know this isn't true but I'm going to post it anyway", but that doesn't mean they were just innocent dupes either.

As someone who did formerly believe the OP, this "I know this isn't true" doesn't exist. In many cases, such things are so heavily and frequently circulated, and when you combine that with how some churches filter and censor outside information, the flock is mislead, but when it's all they know they cannot be held guilty of a lie.

 

[Sapiens]

No. She dismissed the names and characters and focused on what the argument actually is. That is an admission the story is false, but a desire to focus on what the argument of the story presents.

... and I demonstrated how the story was a logical fallacy, a point you both ignore.

 

[Pudding]

This is my post for @Deeje's op.

Please define "faith" for your op.


Please define "science" for your op.

Where and when does "science" say God doesn't exist?

Where can i find "the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol" which say God doesn't exist? If anyone know please cite a source.

Where does "science" say there is no evidence for God?
If anyone know please cite the source where "science" making such a statement.


Where in the conversation does the professor argue that "there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God"? I don't see it. That is a strawman.

Please define "preacher" and "preach".

Where does "science" say the professor have no brain?
Where can i find this "established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol" which the "science" use it to conclude that the professor have no brain?
If anyone know please cite a source.


Isaiah 45:7(King James Version) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The scripture says the God creates evil.

The student say God did not create evil.

Did God create evil or not?


The argument is great for arguing that cold/darkness/Evil doesn't exist, it is not the opposite of heat/light/God, just the absence of it?

The argument is great for arguing that since no one has ever have millions of life times to observed the FULL process of evolution at work, so it render those people who think evolution does happen, they actually just believe evolution by faith?

The argument is great for arguing that scientist who teaching evolution is not scientist but preacher?

The argument is great for arguing that because the professor cannot heard, felt, touched or smelt his brain, so he have to take the statement "he have brain" by faith?

The argument is great for arguing that God exist?

The argument is great for arguing that God did not create Evil?

@Deeje

The argument is great for arguing about what?

The argument is great for who? Great for them in what way? How great it is?

Maybe @Deeje cannot define "faith", "science", "preacher" and "preach" for the op.

Deeje think that the op is a great argument, but maybe she cannot explain what things the argument is great in argue for.

And since no one have been able to provide any source for "the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol" which "science" use it to conclude and say that God doesn't exist and the professor have no brain; nor any people cite the source where "science" making the statement that there is no evidence for God, as a result, where and when does "science" ever making those statement is a mystery to be solve.

And since the student in op said God did not create evil, Deeje also said she's with the student, it means she also believe God did not create evil.
I provide the Bible Scripture to show that the Bible says God did create evil and asking Deeje for explanation.
So far, Deeje haven't provide any explanation yet. Maybe it means Deeje don't believe what the Bible say.