Young Writers Society

Home » Forums » Community » Serious Discussion and Debate

God vs.Science

Post a reply
User avatar
31 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 1598
Reviews: 31
Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:39 pm
kjr5horses says...



So tell me what do you think about this?

Interesting Logic....

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

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

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

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

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

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

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.




From: http://jganger.blogspot.com/2007/09/god-vs-science.html
"Me I'm dishonest but a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly its the honest ones you have to watch out for because you can never tell when they are going to do something incredibly...stupid." ~Capt. Jack Sparrow




User avatar
36 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 13373
Reviews: 36
Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:31 pm
View Likes
tr3x says...



Oh! It's a story, it's on the internet, so it must be true! Gosh!
I really detest such sensationalist, controversy arousing, ill-written chain messages.
I'm not going to debate about "Science vs. God." That would demean both schools of thought. They aren't boxers in a rink trying to pummel each other into submission. Now there are several things wrong with this "story" that I'm going to point out and refute.
We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

False. There is such a thing as cold, it's just not a scientific term. Cold is relative to human sensitivity - below 5 degrees (C) is "cold" for me living in Canada - it's a matter of comfort. "Cold" exists, but not as an absolute.

"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."

Again, the student is stupidly arguing over semantics. "Darkness" is an absence of light, true enough, does this mean that the concept of "darkness" cannot exist?

"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."

This makes no sense. A premise of duality? What does that even mean? The professor never argued that there was a "Good God" and a "Bad" one. He argued that there is no god at all.


"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?"

Now the student is just plain ignorant. He seems to be confusing "observation" with "empirical evidence." You can have proof of something's existence and effects without ever having seen it. Most of modern quantum theory is based on inobservable, yet empirical evidence. Can you see yourself growing? Can you see yourself getting taller? Of course not, yet you do grow. Evolution is inestimably slow - but by the way, we have seen it happen before our eyes, look up "observed speciation" - that does not mean it did not happen. We have both empirical evidence and observation to back it up.


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?"

Once again confusion between 'observation' and 'empirical evidence' - this is really tragic. The fact that the professor is walking, talking and thinking is evidence of a brain. No "faith" required.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

This is the one piece of information that doesn't seem to have any empirical evidence to back it's claims. There are much better arguments for god; this is one of the worse ones.

So to sum up, this story is obviously untrue. No professor of science would ever be tripped up by such simple, vague, downright ignorant arguments. It was probably written as propaganda for the gullible and easily impressed. Do feel free to ask me any questions you have with my analysis.
A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on.
- Terry Pratchett

Si non confectus, non recifiat - If it ain't broken, don't fix it.




User avatar
84 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 908
Reviews: 84
Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:21 pm
briggsy1996 says...



hi there!
I love love love every portion of this story. It was absolutely brilliant, every dialogue and description is flawless! I cannot even explain who much I adore this piece!

-briggsy
but the sky is love and i am for you
just so long and long enough
-E.E. Cummings




User avatar
3670 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 2141
Reviews: 3670
Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:52 am
View Likes
Snoink says...



Haha. If that were my teacher, I would have reported him as the asshole he is. Teachers are supposed to be way more tolerant than that. XD

In any case, I disapprove. He was using Fahrenheit temperatures to express absolute zero? That's silly. Fahrenheit depends on pressure... so that the energy is measure in pressure and temperature. Not good a values close to the coldest point! It's far better to use Kelvin or Rankine. Though, really, Rankine sucks. So, Kelvin is better.

The argument was okay until he got to the part where evolution, and then it became a bit fallacious. However, before then, that is a pretty good argument to explain what evil truly is in Christianity.
Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est.

"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly." ~ Richard Bach

Moth and Myth <- My comic! :D




User avatar
66 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 2092
Reviews: 66
Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:10 am
View Likes
Matthew says...



Hmm. The brain thing. Evidence of the brain is there in the form of walking, breathing, talking etc. Evidence of God is there in the form of changed lives, revivals, and miracles.
One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they face one another, drew their swords and shot each other!




User avatar
187 Reviews


Gender: Other
Points: 4492
Reviews: 187
Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:09 pm
View Likes
Aet Lindling says...



Besides which, we have observed evolution in laboratories and regularly in everyday incidences. That wasn't much of a professor if he couldn't even point that out. E. coli strains, being carefully observed, evolved to use citric acid as a source of energy.

As for the regular incidences, this is as simple as breeding a edible fruit, or the like. Edible fruits (such as the domestic banana, the original wild banana looks more like a gourd than anything you could peel) are the preferred output, just as in a wild environment a stronger organism would be more likely to survive, and so more edible fruits/stronger organisms survive to the next generation to pass on their genetic code and alter the species. Colonies of moths similarly have changed their wing color gradually over generations after moving habitats, to blend in better.

I won't bother addressing silly things like
"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."
because all you have to do is read a little about what those words actually mean and you'll get why it's silly.

I do get that this is just feel-good blather, though. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with feel-good blather, all sorts of things have it and while it's not factually sound no matter who does it (me, you, anyone else), it makes the people who agree with it get a chuckle out of it and, well, feel good. I wouldn't have attacked this harmless story if you hadn't posted it in the "Serious Discussion and Debate" section. But you did, and this feels like something that was forwarded to your email inbox, as opposed to an honest attempt at a debate.
12-18-12 7:43 PM
AmelieoftheValley: ...Aet and Bog sometimes sound like a comedy duo.
12-18-12 7:43 PM
AmelieoftheValley: Just pointing it out.

RIP Bog 2008-2013. If only we could comede once more...

The neap tide draws.
The Leviathan nears.
Caterjunes.




User avatar
90 Reviews


Gender: None specified
Points: 3580
Reviews: 90
Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:44 pm
View Likes
freewritersavvy says...



Can God do anything? No He cannot do ‘anything’. There are things that according to the book called the Bible that God cannot do.

Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
God cannot lie.

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
God cannot be tempted with evil nor can he tempt.


Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
God cannot forgive those who reject the Holy Ghost.


God cannot do anything.



What’s next….
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."
Hmmm…. Really? Lets change this just a bit… we are writers after all. J Lets make the sick person a serial killer. Wonder if he would still say to heal him?


The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

Well if you are a ‘Bible’ believer then death is not the end as this professor wants to point out. In fact…
Ecclesiastes 7:1
A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
For ‘Bible’ believers they get to live forever in joy and peace with those they love. What could be better? Atheists believe they turn to dust or something like that, beliefs vary.


Next….

God made Satan. According to the ‘Bible’ yes he did. But then again he made humans too. According to the ’Bible’, God gave free choice. To Satan to Adam to Eve to everyone. Where would be the free choice if he had made all good? Where would the good be if there was no free choice? So Satan made a choice to be evil and we make the choice to follow him. Or at least that’s one way to see it.

Lets see… Addressing the subject of faith in well just about anything….
"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."


Faith:
I drive up to a stop light I have faith my brakes will work when it turns red.
I sit on a chair I have faith it will hold my weight.
I breath and have faith that my air wont kill me.
I go to sleep and have faith that I will awaken.
Hmmm….. I am seeing a pattern here….

Okay… on with the interesting logic….
Lets take this back a few years… Or maybe a few billion…..

Some believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth (and everything else)…. They have faith that is so.
Some believe that the almighty Nothing created Earth (and everything but Heaven and Hell) because well….. There is no Heaven.

I better take a moment to explain the ALMIGHTY NOTHING! *Bows dramatically to thin air…wait… that’s something…* Anyway…..

There are many ‘professional’ people out there that believe in the Big Boom…. Wait… (looks in book) Bang…
*Sorry …. Sarcasm may have come out….oops….*

Professionals…. They claim that a Big Bang created the world and the primordial soup… *Sorry…* They believe (you can check this on Google, in your science text book or with your collage professor) that all the dirt in the universe was condensed into a infinitesimal spec… smaller than a period on this page… it exploded *BOOM…or… BANG!* and thus the world was created. However somewhere along the line these professionals were asked about where all the dirt came from…. (I mean who made the dirt anyway?) They were not sure so they refined there belief to say that that the Big Boom…er….Bang simply happened … in other words…the Nothing exploded.
Thus the Almighty Nothing that came from nowhere with no outside stimuli exploded while no one was there to observe it doing so, about ….. Some astronomical number of billions of years ago.

To simplify one more time: Nothing, acting upon nothing, at no time, for no reason, with no design and no designer created everything.

Those who believe in the Big Bang take it on faith (mostly in their professional professors and text book writers) that nothing created everything….including them.

Now on to those other folks…

The ’other folks’ believe that: A god acting upon divine inspiration, at some time, with some purpose, with a perfect design as himself (or perhaps herself) as the creator created everything.

These ‘other folks’ are called by a number of names… bible bashers, fanatics, and…. Well it’s a LONG list so I wont bother with anymore. J


Hmmm….. One side believes Nothing, The other believes Something.
Both take there belief on the principles faith. No one was there for the Big Bang and no one was there for the Speaking in to Being.

The Big Bangers have ‘professionals’ that tell us. “Well it just was.”
The Others usually have a book known as the Bible that says, “God did it.”

Big Bangers= Billions of years, no recorded history by man until about 6000 or so ago.
Others= Six Thousand years, a full record of history known as the Bible.


*Simplified version*
Big Bangers = Nothing
Others = Book


There was some question as to whether this could be a serious discussion or debate… how about now?

I remain faithfully an-Other person.
*Bows to The Nothing and everything else*

Spoiler! :
Looking forward to any and all responses! :) If my post offends you I apologize that you are offended. One more thing, this is a debate thread so please don't take anything as a personal attack because it is not meant as such.
Cheers! :D
http://www.isiseiyr.com
~When you do the common things in life in an uncommon way, you will command the attention of the world. ~ George Carver

Writing...they claim it is a dangerous occupation... 'they' have no idea!




User avatar
81 Reviews


Gender: Other
Points: 1263
Reviews: 81
Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:05 am
View Likes
Pigeon says...



freewriter, you raise some good points. However, there are several things wrong with that argument. Most of them are evident in this:
Big Bangers= Billions of years, no recorded history by man until about 6000 or so ago.
Others= Six Thousand years, a full record of history known as the Bible.


*Simplified version*
Big Bangers = Nothing
Others = Book

You seem to be suggesting that the only evidence worth having is that recorded by humans. However, humans are notoriously unreliable at recording things. All recorded human history has bias and lies involved and takes a lot of study to make guesses at which parts of it are at least based on truth.
The 'big bangers' do not have for their evidence '"nothing" as you suggest. They have a lot of scientific evidence. Sure, the evidence is imperfect at this point, but it's getting there. Their empirical evidence has a whole lot more weight than a biased human record.

*Simplified version*
Big Bangers = objective evidence
Others = subjective evidence


Spoiler! :
hehehehe big bangers. *has a dirty mind* :O I'm sorry! I can't help it!


~as freewriter said - this is just one argument and is not intended to offend or to be taken personally in any way~
Reader, what are you doing?





User avatar
185 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 1096
Reviews: 185
Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:50 am
View Likes
inkwell says...



How long will this thing get passed along!?

In reference to your title: metaphysics =/= science. Simple as that.

In reference to what your post actually contained: as tr3x said, it sums up to a semantic trick of false logic.
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." — Einstein




User avatar
1065 Reviews


Gender: Other
Points: 77750
Reviews: 1065
Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:23 am
Kyllorac says...



There's also the matter of how there is far more than 6,000 years worth of human history. Although the oldest known written records of history only go back about 5,000 years, there's archaeological evidence, mainly in the form of tools and artwork, dating back over 200,000 years of human habitation.

Oral history predates written history by a substantial time span. By indirectly claiming that only written history is relevant, and that a lack of recorded history means there is no evidence at all, the logic follows that groups such as the Native American tribes could not possibly have had a history, or even have left behind evidence they existed, before they were documented by Europeans. That is quite obviously a false train of logic.
Screwing with gender since 1995.


There are no chickens in Hyrule.




User avatar
163 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 4747
Reviews: 163
Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:40 pm
View Likes
Kit says...



**puts on her Christian Scientist hat**
**looks at the debate topic**
**looks at her hat**
**looks at the debate topic**

I can't trust anyone who thinks they have all the answers, we as humans are not built in absolutes, and under the assumption that the Bible is the word of God, it has been an oral tradition and been translated and editted so many times, and while each person strived to be a holy vessel, neither they nor we are built without our own biases. I think something worth believing is worth debating, and questioning and exploring, things Jesus was known for even as a child. I don't know anything for sure, I think for me it would be hubris to think otherwise. This is why I do not think Science and God are conflicting forces, science is built on the idea that our understanding of the world is arbitrary, that we vigilantly, humbly pursue truth. Also it tends to improve quality of life and stop people from starving, which is really what religion should do to. I understand that religion can be a tremendous force for good, and like science, can be misused by bad people in direct violation of its original purpose. I think if you're a creationist and God makes each of us indivually out of clay and maps out each life, if that makes your life that much more beautiful and special, that is good, but don't assume the life of Steve the Atheist next door is any less meaningful or full of wonder because he believes he is the result of millions of years of evolution from a single cell.

Meanwhile I have no idea how global warming became a Christian thing, why is it not Christian to believe in global warming? Is that a science/God thing?


(No, I don't have a Christian Science hat, but I do sometimes think about getting a reptile so he could be my Christian Science Monitor Lizard.)
Princess of Parataxis, Mistress of Manichean McGuffins




User avatar
95 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 5190
Reviews: 95
Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:31 pm
noninjaspresent says...



Wait till the clubs are back up. I have a whole rant that disproves/mollifies/WMD's/maybe even slightly insults the Xtians rant.
Noni does Napo
NaPoWriMo 2014
"Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts." - Arnold Bennet

AnnieJaePayne
The Three Ninjateers
Being awesome since Jan 2012.




User avatar
37 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 382
Reviews: 37
Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:50 pm
View Likes
Laminated says...



This is old. But interesting. I have a few things to add.

To freewritersavvy- I applaud you on your extensive research/thinking about things. Obviously, it's difficult to break things down so much. I do think you oversimplified things a bit much, though.

Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
God cannot lie.

James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
God cannot be tempted with evil nor can he tempt.

Matthew 12:32
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
God cannot forgive those who reject the Holy Ghost.


God places these limitations on Himself. He does not answer to a higher oath or power that guides Him. He does not lie, thus He cannot lie. (Badly stated...)

And if He were willing, God certainly could forgive those who reject the Holy Ghost. Doing so would make the entire Christian dogma uprooted and the doctrines of election and reprobation completely different, but if He so chose, He could. Nevertheless, He has promised He will not, therefore trusting Him we believe He will not.

(Also, as a note... I'd rather you didn't sarcasticize the Big Bang theory. It does make your arguments a little more difficult to swallow. Not that I don't agree with your arguments, but just a suggestion...)

The title of this topic also bothers me. The implications here are that God and Science do not coexist, and all who believe in the Bible do not believe in Science. Not true. We generally do not believe in the Theory of Evolution, but we certainly believe in Science >.<
I'M GUNNA MAKE DIS PLACE YO HOME




User avatar
95 Reviews


Gender: Female
Points: 5190
Reviews: 95
Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:28 am
noninjaspresent says...



Faith:
I drive up to a stop light I have faith my brakes will work when it turns red.
I sit on a chair I have faith it will hold my weight.
I breath and have faith that my air wont kill me.
I go to sleep and have faith that I will awaken.
Hmmm….. I am seeing a pattern here….

Faith is to have unsupported trust or confidence in a being or entity.
It's not so much faith you have in these things because there is clear evidence behind them. The chair you sit on has evidence that shows it can hold your wait. There is evidence that shows that the air won't kill you, so its not faith you have, its knowledge. It's not faith in your brakes, it's knowledge that they should work, but they can fail in the right (or should I say wrong) circumstances and confidence in your mechanic. For waking up, it depends on your beliefs. A religious person may have faith in God and hope He lets you wake, or you could know that you just don't know whether or not you will wake up in the morning.
It is not faith that you have in all these things except waking in the morning, It is supported knowledge and confidence in these things.
Noni does Napo
NaPoWriMo 2014
"Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts." - Arnold Bennet

AnnieJaePayne
The Three Ninjateers
Being awesome since Jan 2012.




User avatar
8 Reviews


Gender: Male
Points: 685
Reviews: 8
Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:39 am
skwmusic says...



This student made it into college? Wow they'll take anyone these days. I have a hard time believing anyone could possibly be moved even a metaphorical fraction of a fraction of a millimeter. Let's just start with a few points on this student's incredibly flawed "logic".

"The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."


SO according to the second coming of Newton, cold does not exist because cold is simply the absence of heat and cannot be measured. He later says the same thing about darkness. And his brilliant supporting argument is that since you can't make anything colder than absolute zero, which is no heat, there is no such thing as cold. Let's just start with how ridiculous that argument is. Now when you're stuck in Serbia with one frozen foot and one broken off, just remember you aren't cold, you are just experiencing less heat than you were! Oh wait a minute except cold is a relative term describing how you interpret the amount of heat around you and not an actual ****ing scientific term! Oh Newton realized this? Huh he's really good at refuting his own arguments.

And how does this even support his thesis that there is a God? He later explains
"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."


Woah woah slow down there Newton. Us with inferior cerebral attributes are having issues comprehending the information you have presented before us. So he first he explains that cold and dark are not actual measurable things, but just terms which we use to describe the lack of heat and light, which anyone even if they only had two and a half brain cells, could've figured out, if they rubbed them together long enough. Then he argues that the professor is arguing on a solely scientific basis (what other ****ing basis would you use?) acting as if we could measure God. But wait who's trying to measure god? The professor was simply asking for evidence for the existence of an entity. If I ask you evidence for the tree in your backyard, what do you measure? Nothing! You just show me the tree in your back yard! Or a picture! Or whatever! And why does he include the shit about electricity and magnetism? He doesn't even go anywhere with the argument! Ugh lets go on...

"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."


Okay now the student is just trolling. If this professor was a science teacher, he should lose his job and be thrown off the nearest cliff. Have you ever observed evolution? Does this guy even know what the hell evolution is? Doesn't he know that we have these things called FOSSILS and they clearly show that a process of evolution probably occurred over MILLIONS OF ****ING YEARS? And the brain argument, yeah I can see your brain. It's pouring out of the back of your head you numbskull! Hey have you ever heard of this neat thing called an MRI? It takes pictures, yes pictures!, of this thing you call a brain. Hell have you heard of a frikin knife? You take it and you slice the top of someone's head off and voila! there's a brain!

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 student gallantly provides no evidence that evil is tied to god and sucker punches the professor knowing that he's won the audience from redneck,stupidtown and anything he says will be like words from Jesus himself. Anyone who is even slightly convinced by any of the rhetoric the student uses is stupid. Conversely anyone who thinks the professor was unfairly spoken down is also stupid since the professor's logic is also sometimes extremely flawed. Simply put it this story is stupid and should be sent back to Qin Dynasty China so it can be burned with all the other books.
"I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect." -George Carlin