No God or Know God?

[babuji]

No God or Know God?

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem Science
has with God, The Almighty.

He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?
Student: Sure.


Prof: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.


Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him.

Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this
God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent.)


Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?
Student: Yes.


Prof: Is Satan good ?
Student: No.


Prof: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God.. .


Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.


Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.


Prof: So who created evil?
(Student does not answer. )


Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things
exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.


Prof: So, who created them?
( Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world
around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.


Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.


Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you
ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.


Prof: Yet you still believe in Him ?
Student: Yes.


Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your
GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.


Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.



Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.


Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.


Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events .)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat,
white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We
can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat,

But we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is
only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.

Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre .)


Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?


Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness 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 its called darkness, isn't it? In
reality, darkness isn't.

If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?


Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?


Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life
and then there is 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?


Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course,
I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the
argument is going.)


Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar .)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it,
touched or smelt it? 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, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room is silent . The professor stares at the student, his face
unfathomable. )


Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH .
That is all that keeps things moving & alive....... ......... ..

*********

[Michael Chui]

I agree. Atheist professors who make illogical arguments are very silly and easy to take apart.

[JoeBlogs]

Science has undeniable proof that electricity exists. It has been seen in the sense that it can be measured, its effect can be detected and the electron certainly exists. And your PC is working.

A similar argument for magnetism.

Both are reasonably well understood. Particularly electricity.

No science lecturer would answer that a thing called cold exists, he'd say that it was a *relative* lack of heat. Whilst darkness is a lack of light.

Strong evidence of evolution exists, fossil records, etc. Strong evidence of a garden with a snake, an apple tree and an incestuous family does not exist.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it,
touched or smelt it? 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, sir."

The brain surgeon who removed the professors tumor a few years before is fortunately visiting and puts his hand up to disagree. As do all the people who saw the professors x-rays.

The student will not have to take the claims of science on faith. The lecturer will teach science using explanations, examples, mathematical proofs and experimental proof. The student will go to a lab and see the effects of electricity and magnetism. He will learn about evolution from the lecturer who will also present *evidence*.

And when the student asks "why?" the lecturer will answer his question with a proper explanation and accompanying evidence. He will not say "because God made it" or "because the Lord works in mysterious ways".

God, or the church, will not present evidence. They will say "this is how things are. believe them" and the student will have to have faith.

Now, I'm not atheist, I do not actively disbelieve in God. But I do not believe in him blindly.

You should realise that you do yourself no favours by telling biased stories and attacking scientific knowledge. You should accept science though believe that it is only a tool to explain aspects of the way God made the universe work.

And where science strongly conflicts with your religion (eg. if you are a creationist) then I would suggest either

a) Saying..."oh...erm...yes...well the whole Adam and Eve thing was a metaphor! Erm...obviously" as many religious people have done.

b) Seriously reconsider the basis of your faith.....It's at that suggestion that a lot of religious people put their hands over their ears and go "la la la la la...". Those are the people that I have no respect for. If your faith does not even stand up to your own scrutiny then you really are blind.

A friend of mine was a christian because he was raised that way. Made to go to church. Told that the bible was fact, etc. He recently took the time to consider his own opinions and whether he had any real reason to believe in these things other than he'd been told to and he wanted to (ie. it'd be nice if God did exist and he was going to go to heaven). He decided he didn't and is now no longer a christian and quickly heading towards atheist.

That's up to him. And some people might think about the basis of their faith and decide that they stand by it. That's up to them.

It's the ones that blindly follow that worry me.

[Akashic_Librarian]

OK. God, in my opinion is just a name of the Unvierse as a whole. But lets say that for a second...God is a personified being of unfathomable knowledge like he is portrayed in most religions...

He is wise yes?

So he would have to create Evil as well as good or else good would have no meaning. We would be static. Sickness, death, starvation all these things exists so we can define ourselves from them and strive to counter them. Only a fool would think a world was ideal only when we have NO evil, or NO deah or NO sickness. Then we enter a gray zone of nothingnes. We would stagnate and effectively become no more than inanimate objects...dommed to roam this lifeless rock for eternity.

That is why we have what we have.

But hey...I am sure science can disprove that somehow...

[RT Wolf]

You're free to hold your opinion about whether you believe in god or not. But I have to ask, why did you post that particular spail? I've seen that floating around for a long time and each time I'm struck by the lack of sound reasoning, which JoeBlogs and Chui have both referred to.

But I'm more interested in your motives. Why did you post that story? What did you feel when you read it, or when you were posting it?

[babuji]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

But I'm more interested in your motives. Why did you post that story? What did you feel when you read it, or when you were posting it?

Regardless if the arguments in the initial post may or may not have been weak, I found that the portion on viewing life through the eyes of non-duality quite interesting. That's the part that resonated w/ me the most. I figured that this would be worth posting for the simple fact of considering another perspective. A perspective where there is Divinity (which I think one can measure in themselves through self-introspection), as stand-alone. So things may be completely Divine (God), partially divine, or completely devoid of it. It made me think about it in that way at least..

As for the rest, I could care less if the professor was athiest or not, or whether he could have provided more scientific answers to the student's questions. To me, all of that is irrelevant. I have no biases against any of that. Science definitely has it's practical applications in this world, so I'm not hating on any logicians or scientists in this forum .

Hope that clarifies your question.

[stroodle]

I love threads like this. I like seeing perspectives from both sides.

I think right now, I'm leaning towards Agnosticism - because I don't think we can 'know'.

But I guess in the end, it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're happy.

[Dive Bomb]

Wouldn't death be the lack of life?

then again..what is life?

Good topic, I liked that story.

[Michael Chui]

My working definition of life is "the capacity to cause change".

[One]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

My working definition of life is "the capacity to cause change".

Seems problematic to define capacity. A minefield has the capacity to cause change. Unless you're making a metaphysical statement about freewill raining down unto an otherwise deterministic universe from a nondeterministic plane.

My working definition of life is "Any system which intakes energy to maintain self coherence against the ebb of entropy."

I mentioned in another thread Micheal that I added you to my ICQ contact list after reading your People Structures essay. Hope to see you online.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by One

My working definition of life is "Any system which intakes energy to maintain self coherence against the ebb of entropy."

That's an interesting definition but isn't the element of consciousness missing, since the definition could possibly be applied to advanced robotics, self-repairing computer programs, or even a window that is cleaned by the rain falling on it?

[CFPurpose]

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world
around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.


Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No, sir.

Crissy -- Yes.


Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you
ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Crissy -- Felt God? Yes sir. Sensory Perception? Yes sir.


Prof: Yet you still believe in Him ?
Student: Yes.

Crissy -- Yes.


Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your
GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

Crissy -- Not in my case... sir.

[Cantando]

As God is spirit, he cannot be apprehended through the physical senses. Imagine a world where no-one had a sense of hearing. The scientist would then observe, analyze and conclude through the remaining senses. Some guy then comes along who has a sense of hearing and says "I can hear bells ringing". The scientist asks him to explain. The guy gives a garbled explanation in terms of the remaining senses. The scientist shakes his head and thinks, "This guy is nuts". God does not exist in scientific terms. I don't even have to believe in God or have faith, I know he is there. If God wasn't there, the scientist wouldn't exist.

[One]

Originally Posted by Cantando

That's an interesting definition but isn't the element of consciousness missing, since the definition could possibly be applied to advanced robotics, self-repairing computer programs, or even a window that is cleaned by the rain falling on it?

Certainly. All life is not sentient. After all, simple moss and bacteria are alive. Silicon and steel are just as valid materials for life as carbon.
It should also be noted that my definition is the most utterly essential of life I could form. It does not include the capacity to evolve -that's an additional feature.

And I don't see your window taking in energy to maintain it's own form.

[One]

Originally Posted by Cantando

As God is spirit, he cannot be apprehended through the physical senses. Imagine a world where no-one had a sense of hearing. The scientist would then observe, analyze and conclude through the remaining senses. Some guy then comes along who has a sense of hearing and says "I can hear bells ringing". The scientist asks him to explain. The guy gives a garbled explanation in terms of the remaining senses. The scientist shakes his head and thinks, "This guy is nuts". God does not exist in scientific terms. I don't even have to believe in God or have faith, I know he is there. If God wasn't there, the scientist wouldn't exist.

I made a relevant post in a thread that now seems to have gone dead. Unfortunate as I was looking forward to a reply.

Why has no one claimed the one million dollars?

Originally Posted by One

To reply more completely, I'll say that I don't understand the stigma many people seem to have with science and its validity. Most of science is just careful measurement. Think of it this way: If something is real, it has an effect. I mean effect in the most general way possible, don't think of it in terms of lifting cars with your mind or predicting the future on demand. If I ask you about anything you tell me by it's effects. Even if it's the wall in front of you and it's effects on your pressure sensitive hands and the light it bounces into your eyes. Even if it's your intuition and the statistically improving effect it has on your decision making.

When you experience psychic phenomena, you are in effect measuring it. It has an effect on you. Scientific measurement is the same measurement. It exists in the same world, only with science the effect is measured in controlled situations where other variables are removed. You've probably done something like this as well. If have a medical problem and want to find an effective medication you use only one at a time. If you used multiple medicines at the same time you wouldn't know which was having what effect.

[Akashic_Librarian]

CFPurpose are you from astral dynamics forum?

[One]

Additionally

Here's the problem with faith: that which are articles of it can't be proved. (According to our dictionary, faith is firm belief in something for which no proof exists. In other words, if such validations were possible, those concepts would stop being matters of faith and start being matters of fact.) Those who are convinced of the existence of God, therefore, have no incontrovertible, irrefutable answer to anyone who challenges them to provide evidence of the veracity of their belief systems' tenets. They are left unable to squelch the nay-sayers, to demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that their inner direction is the right one, and so have to endure the catcalls and jeers of those who insist on independently verifiable proof of that which can't be proven.

Further, that God permits evil to exist (and some would say to thrive) is taken by non-believers as an inarguable sign that there is no supreme being. This puzzle is pointed to by them as the unanswerable fallacy that proves the negative — they reckon that a loving, all-powerful God would have stamped out evil, ergo He doesn't exist, or He is not all-powerful, or He is not all that enamored of His children. As such, this paradox is downright disquieting to those who do believe. Not only do they themselves have to wrestle with the seeming disconnect, they are left unable to convincingly answer their critics when this topic comes up. They find themselves similarly hamstrung when pressed to prove the existence of God.

Stories about atheist professors being bested by true believers who did have answers at the ready are both ventings of this frustration and expressions of delight in finally seeming to have been armed with deft responses to fling back. These are tales of affirmation, modern-day parables of trials overcome and fierce adversaries bested by those who held fast to what they believed in, even in the face of ridicule rained down by authority figures. Like parables, they are meant to inspire similar resolve in those with whom they are shared — should those members of the flock ever find themselves in like circumstances, they should feel moved to emulate the brave little students of legend who stood up to the big, bad atheist professors.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by One

All life is not sentient. After all, simple moss and bacteria are alive. Silicon and steel are just as valid materials for life as carbon.

You seem to be confused about what life is and what specific, physical structures life may be attaching itself to. Surely, a basic prerequisite of life is that it is sentient - of, for example, light, temperature, water, or a source of food.

[Michael Chui]

It's worth noting that "sentience" and "sapience" aren't the same thing.

[One]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Surely, a basic prerequisite of life is that it is sentient - of, for example, light, temperature, water, or a source of food.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness — the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".)

Hmm, the dictionary is ambiguous here. I usually reserve 'sentient' for more advanced nervous systems. I don't think bacteria is sentient under this definition. To use sentient to mean basic mechanical stimulus response seems a waste of a word. We'd have to include things like burglar alarms and ^landmines.

You seem to be confused about what life is and what specific, physical structures life may be attaching itself to.

Obviously, else I wouldn't have bothered with trying to define it.
Correct me if I mistake you, but you seem to be referring to a dualistic spirit/material system here. In my experience theology is more voodoo than philosophy. I tend to avoid it. Perhaps that's only my own shortcoming.

[Michael Chui]

Hey, voodoo is more valid than a lot of people give it credit for.

[One]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Hey, voodoo is more valid than a lot of people give it credit for.

I wouldn't know. I'm not brave enough to bite the testicles off a goat.

Yet.

[CFPurpose]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

CFPurpose are you from astral dynamics forum?

I'm sorry, I just noticed you posted this. "Astral Dynamics" Forum?