God vs Science

[Asylum]

God vs. Science
i got this in an email... and welll i wanted to share and discuss it. See different people's point of views, etc.

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.


'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'


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


'Yes sir,' the student says.


'So you believe in God?'


'Absolutely'.


'Is God good?'


'Sure! God's good.'


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


'Yes'


'Are you good or evil?'


'The Bible says I'm evil...'


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


'Yes sir, I would.'


'So you're good....!'


'I wouldn't say that.'


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


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


The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'


'Er... Yes,' the student says.


'Is Satan good?'


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


'Then where does Satan come from?'



The student falters. 'From God'





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





'Yes, sir....’





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





'Yes'





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





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





The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'





'So who created them?'





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





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





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





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





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





'No, sir, I have not....’





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





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





'Yet you still believe in him?'





'Yes'


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





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





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





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





‘Yes’...





'And is there such a thing as cold?'



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



'No sir, there isn't...'





The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet... The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down 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.



If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'



PS: the student was Albert Einstein


Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921...

[Marcie]

Oo yeah I've been sent that about 100 times :P
I like it :-)

[Jess]

I like the part about cold lol.

[Perseus]

The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein’s position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in God, or in a god. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[81] In a 1954 letter, he wrote, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”[82] In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."[83]
Einstein had previously explored this belief, that man could not understand the nature of God, when he gave an interview to Time Magazine explaining:

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
—Albert Einstein

What's the point of this thread? There isn't a debate, per se.

I shall say this, though. There's more evidence for the theory of natural selection/evolution than there is for a god. I say that because it's true. I'm Christian, as well.

[Camazotz]

I don't believe Einstein ever had this discussion with a professor. I'm pretty sure it was made up. http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

I believe this particular myth was started to promote faith, using Einstein (perhaps the most famous genius of the last century) to gain popularity. The fact is, while Einstein wasn't an atheist, he wasn't religious. He saw the imperfections of faith, the imperfections of religion, and conducted his scientific experiments to advance in the scientific world. He was not a man of faith, nor was this event factual.

Regardless, much of his supposed argument is flawed. I may not see my brain, but I can show it's their using modern technology. You cannot prove a God. There is evidence that points to the theory of evolution, but none to a God. Science and religion are opposites. One revolves around logical thought, based on observations and evidence. Science seeks to answer the question, "Why?" rather than give an explanation based on imagination. Religion is based on faith, a belief that is held despite all contradictions, or ignorance.

[magikarpy]

Professor got owned.

[kingpinnn]

god is an explanation for what we don't understand...that is the best way i can explain why people believe in god

[Disco Jones]

Actually, I'd say science answers "How?" and religion answers "Why?"

[Peace God]

i doubt this conversation happened...wasnt Einstein jewish?(before he became an atheist)

Edit:
no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor

would einstein really say something this stupid?

[Perseus]

i doubt this conversation happened...wasnt Einstein jewish?(before he became an atheist)

Edit:

would einstein really say something this stupid?

Einstein wasn't atheist. Read my quote. But yeah, he was born Jewish.

[Peace God]

Einstein wasn't atheist.
debatable...

But yeah, he was born Jewish.
then in that case...


'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'

I dont think a einstein would say this.

[Asylum]

no there are two kids the second kid who was defending the first who was stupmed by the professor was not Einstien. Einstien stook up for the first kid, that was stumped.

[Peace God]

true but, both of the kids admitted to believing in christ...but i guess you technically dont have to believe in his divinity to believe in him

[Magus]

I think I heard this before, you can follow the link >> CLICK ME! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6427602102763665672#)

Halve way in the video, the (almost)same conversation arises.

[Perseus]

debatable...




What do you mean debatable? He said he wasn't atheist, so he isn't atheist. It's as simple as that.

[Peace God]

What do you mean debatable?
He has stated that he is atheist with respect to the abrahamic god...which is the one that is being discussed in the conversation. While agnostic, he certainly is a nonthiest.

[Perseus]

He has stated that he is atheist with respect to the abrahamic god...which is the one that is being discussed in the conversation. While agnostic, he certainly is a nonthiest.

He still isn't atheist.

[DayBreakArt]

god is an explanation for what we don't understand...that is the best way i can explain why people believe in god

^^ My thoughts exactly.

Actually, I'd say science answers "How?" and religion answers "Why?"

As said above, religion is made to answer "why" questions that will certainly not be answered anytime soon.

Although Einstein (if it was him) had a great comeback he still didn't prove God exists.

[INFERNO]

It's a nice story but I'm failing to see what the debate is meant to be. At the end, it means everything is based on faith, whether blind faith or some evidence to go with the faith. One can argue whether one of the students involved was Einstein but it doesn't matter, you could say it was Harry Potter as the first student and Darth Vader as the second, the moral of the story is still the same.

The story is kind of useless in a sense in that there's a constant conflict of paradigms. Science requires evidence, empiricism, statistical analysis, etc..., while religion, such as Christianity does not. The conflict between "god vs. science" still isn't resolved at the end of the story because both accept there is faith but perhaps both don't accept the same amounts of faith but faith nonetheless.

[Death]

I actually enjoyed reading through that and I agreed with most of it, but I really wouldn't call evil a lack of God though since as far as I'm concerned, morality had nothing to do with religion (so I would say that evil exists - though it's obviously an abstract concept).

The story is kind of useless in a sense in that there's a constant conflict of paradigms. Science requires evidence, empiricism, statistical analysis, etc..., while religion, such as Christianity does not.

But why does one need evidence but the other not? I'm sorry, but that seems more like an excuse for theists who don't back up their arguments to use.

[Peace God]

But why does one need evidence but the other not?
Religion is based on faith.

[kingpinnn]

god is an explanation to what we dont understand

[CaliKid24]

that teacher just got outsmarted. that sucks. haha.

[Death]

I wouldn't entirely say that. True, that kid had points (things that I would have expected a professor to know), but one of them (the bit about evil being a lack of God) was bullshit, and yet everything the professor (before the kid took his turn to ask questions obviously) said I agreed with.

[UnknownError]

LOL, I was going to send this to my granny, but decided no to chance it. :P

[Severus Snape]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Each side has its own little mantras. The fundamental flaw in yours is that Einstein compares abstract forces in nature that are experienced by 99% of the population on an every day basis and are proven to exist by thermometers to a force that only some people experience and which cannot be measured in any way.

As far as dark just being the absence of light, light could just be the absence of darkness. Isn't that the same thing? So they are both nothing. The student's argument makes no sense and the logical equation can't be reversed. That means that you aren't comparing like objects, but unlike objects, and that's not fair.

I'm afraid to say Einstein's comments on evolution were unfair because it neglects to take into consideration proof other than directly seeing it. He implies that the existence for god lies in this proof we arrive at through deductive reasoning. We have fossils for evolutions and....nothing for god. See the problem here? There still is no proof.

Let's assume there is proof. Einstein is not describing a Christian god, a muslim god, or a jewish god. That means a lot of people are out of luck.

[Severus Snape]

god is an explanation to what we dont understand

Like where we come from? (1850, Darwin)

Or if the earth revolves around the sun? (1610, Galileo)

Or if the crops will grow next season? (1492, the Aztecs)

Or if a victory will be granted? (Rome, 79 CE)

Or if the sun will shine tomorrow? (Amon Rah, Egypt)

Religion has been used to explain things we weren't sure about for a long time, but the trend is that through science we do eventually come to understand things. That discovery and slow progress of reason over fantasy has been decaying religious belief for centuries, the only problem is that people seem unwilling to let go of an untrue belief. If I told you that if you want kids you have to sacrifice a dove to Venus, you would laugh at me. You know that for a baby to be created all that is required is the unification of your sperm with a female's egg. In the time when Jesus walked the face of the earth this was a common practice. Now if people want kids badly they create them in test tubes or take drugs to increase their chances. Science wins again.

[CrazyGaga]

in my opinion, man created god, not god created man. religion is just a means of controlling people. but thats just what i think.

[Severus Snape]

in my opinion, man created god, not god created man. religion is just a means of controlling people. but thats just what i think.

^agree

Opium of the masses.

[The Dark Lord]

in my opinion, man created god, not god created man. religion is just a means of controlling people. but thats just what i think.

Correct, religion is irrational beliefs based on unproven claims, its like believing Hogwarts is a real place, religion encourages terrorism and homophobia

[Watta Tem]

i like it... i'd sent it to everyone.!

[Hanyo]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I'm afraid to say Einstein's comments on evolution were unfair because it neglects to take into consideration proof other than directly seeing it. He implies that the existence for god lies in this proof we arrive at through deductive reasoning. We have fossils for evolutions and....nothing for god. See the problem here? There still is no proof.

Let's assume there is proof. Einstein is not describing a Christian god, a muslim god, or a jewish god. That means a lot of people are out of luck.

Einsteins comments on evolution were unfair... that's funny. How about the professor's comments on God? Are they not unfair also? Lets leave the idea of fairness out of it for a bit. Evolution in the sense that everything developed from single celled organisms that just somehow manifested has also NOT been proven. Yes, we have fossils that seem to show various animals that appear to be different steps in a sequence, but these are rather large and sudden changes. Where are all the in between steps? And doesn't the theory also say that at some point humans were fish or something? How do we go from being a fish to a mammal?

Also, if life evolved from singled celled organisms originally, where did those come from? Evolution speculates that it was a combination of chemicals; amonia and some other stuff I think... but so far scientists have been unable to reproduce that process. If those original organisms developed naturally without help from God, why can't we reproduce that effect?

Here's another thing to consider. Why do most animals see in black and white, but humans see in color? Why do we have the capacity to create and enjoy music but other animals do not? (Sure, birds and frogs can sing, but that's for purposes of attracting a mate, not just pure enjoyment)

Why are we able to enjoy different types of food, instead of just eating what we need to survive?

And why do we feel satisfaction for our work when we accomplish something?

These aren't questions that have no answer. Its because God loves us, and wants us to be happy, so he gave us the capacity to enjoy things in our daily life, and to appreciate beauty in its various forms.

There WAS proof that God exists, but all of those divine acts that were done to prove God's power happened a long time ago. They were written in the Bible so that there would be a record or "proof" that they had occurred. But now its just been so long since those things happened that its hard for people to trust the credibility of the document. In my opinion though, its not fiction. There's too much that correlates with other recorded history for it to be total fiction, and there's too much practical useful wisdom and insightful truths for it to have been written by man alone.

Here's a silly example, the Bible has record of where God told the Israelites to bury their feces. This is smart for sanitation and preventing disease right? By nobody back then knew anything about bacteria or how that stuff worked. And Egypt, the most technologically advanced civilization at the time was using feces to make "medicine". The Israelites at the time had just come from Egypt, so what would make them think they should bury their feces instead of making medicine from it like the most advanced country in the world, if it hadn't really been God who told them so like the Bible says?


Correct, religion is irrational beliefs based on unproven claims, its like believing Hogwarts is a real place, religion encourages terrorism and homophobia


The proof is in the Bible. The problem is that people don't see it as a credible source.

TRUE Christianity is very rational. Other religions... tools to draw people away from the true God.

I countered your connection of terrorism and religion (True Christianity) in another post. But I will concede that it promotes homophobia. The Bible DOES clearly say that homosexuality is wrong (as is beastiality).



Going back to the beginning question of the professor in the entire thread… Why does God allow suffering if he’s supposed to be good and is all-powerful??

There IS an answer. Its because he’s giving Satan a chance to try to prove that he would be a better god.

Go back to the beginning of Genesis, where the serpent (Satan) is persuading Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. This is where Satan first starts his rebellion. He’s challenging God’s authority to rule the universe, and he’s bringing Adam and Eve into it. Satan told Eve that if she ate the fruit, she wouldn’t die. By disobeying God and eating the fruit, Adam and Eve joined the rebellion and were basically saying, “we don’t need you, we can make our own decisions”.

God is very loving, and didn’t want to just destroy them outright, he wanted them to know WHY his way was better. But God can’t lie, so he had to follow through on the death punishment from eating the fruit. That’s why we grow old and die eventually.

So for the purpose of allowing us to see why his way is better, God is allowing Satan to rule the world for a while. That’s why there’s so much suffering, because Satan makes a terrible god. The proof that Satan is the current ruler of the world and not God is in the Bible, one instance of it in the first book of John (5:19) “We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.”

All of human history as we know it is life under the rule of Satan. So then back to the main point… God allows suffering, and doesn’t act to stop it because that would be giving support to Satan’s rule. If God just stepped in to save us whenever we’re in trouble, that would make us think that Satan’s way of ruling isn’t so bad right? But that would be a lie, and God doesn’t lie.

So that’s why God doesn’t stop evil, although he has the power to do it.

[The Dark Lord]

The proof is in the Bible. The problem is that people don't see it as a credible source.

TRUE Christianity is very rational. Other religions... tools to draw people away from the true God.

I countered your connection of terrorism and religion (True Christianity) in another post. But I will concede that it promotes homophobia. The Bible DOES clearly say that homosexuality is wrong (as is beastiality).



Going back to the beginning question of the professor in the entire thread… Why does God allow suffering if he’s supposed to be good and is all-powerful??

There IS an answer. Its because he’s giving Satan a chance to try to prove that he would be a better god.

Go back to the beginning of Genesis, where the serpent (Satan) is persuading Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. This is where Satan first starts his rebellion. He’s challenging God’s authority to rule the universe, and he’s bringing Adam and Eve into it. Satan told Eve that if she ate the fruit, she wouldn’t die. By disobeying God and eating the fruit, Adam and Eve joined the rebellion and were basically saying, “we don’t need you, we can make our own decisions”.

God is very loving, and didn’t want to just destroy them outright, he wanted them to know WHY his way was better. But God can’t lie, so he had to follow through on the death punishment from eating the fruit. That’s why we grow old and die eventually.

So for the purpose of allowing us to see why his way is better, God is allowing Satan to rule the world for a while. That’s why there’s so much suffering, because Satan makes a terrible god. The proof that Satan is the current ruler of the world and not God is in the Bible, one instance of it in the first book of John (5:19) “We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.”

All of human history as we know it is life under the rule of Satan. So then back to the main point… God allows suffering, and doesn’t act to stop it because that would be giving support to Satan’s rule. If God just stepped in to save us whenever we’re in trouble, that would make us think that Satan’s way of ruling isn’t so bad right? But that would be a lie, and God doesn’t lie.

So that’s why God doesn’t stop evil, although he has the power to do it.

I agree with everything you said, expect well everything you said. The bible has no credability, it was edited to allow the church to dictate your beliefs. However I agree with the rational bible which, as you concede yourself, is homophobic. Obviously homophobic is rational in the 21st century! You can't justify God's existance by refering to the bible, it would be like me drawing your attention to various chapters in Harry Potter to prove the existance of Hogwarts. Of course, this reponse is pointless as you have already contradicted your own argument, highlighting the meaningless and lack of basic understanding of your own beliefs, so before you criticise mine, sort your own out

[Peace God]

Yes, we have fossils that seem to show various animals that appear to be different steps in a sequence, but these are rather large and sudden changes. Where are all the in between steps?
What are talking about? Scientist have found 1000s of transition fossils. Creationists love to point out the gaps in the fossil records but they dont realize that those gaps are becoming smaller or have already been filled.

There WAS proof that God exists, but all of those divine acts that were done to prove God's power happened a long time ago. They were written in the Bible so that there would be a record or "proof" that they had occurred. But now its just been so long since those things happened that its hard for people to trust the credibility of the document. In my opinion though, its not fiction. There's too much that correlates with other recorded history for it to be total fiction, and there's too much practical useful wisdom and insightful truths for it to have been written by man alone.

what about holy books from other religions? why is yours right and theirs wrong?

[Severus Snape]

Einsteins comments on evolution were unfair... that's funny. How about the professor's comments on God? Are they not unfair also? Lets leave the idea of fairness out of it for a bit.

The burden of proof usually lies on the person making the assertion in the first place. If you want to say god exists, prove it. It shouldn't be difficult if you are sure it exists. In the meantime science will continue to erode faith by unraveling the tapestry of lies about the natural world and the nature of humanity.

Evolution in the sense that everything developed from single celled organisms that just somehow manifested has also NOT been proven. Yes, we have fossils that seem to show various animals that appear to be different steps in a sequence, but these are rather large and sudden changes.

So you don't subscribe to evolution because you consider the evidence insufficient. I think that is ignorant especially given the fact that there is a lot more evidence pointing to evolution than the creation of the earth the way genesis describes it. If you were a betting man, where would you place your cash?

Where are all the in between steps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

And doesn't the theory also say that at some point humans were fish or something?
Umm, no. Before you start attacking evolution you want want to actually discover what it is.

Also, if life evolved from singled celled organisms originally, where did those come from?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59133/title/All_present-day_life_arose_from_a_single_ancestor

Evolution speculates that it was a combination of chemicals; amonia and some other stuff I think... but so far scientists have been unable to reproduce that process.

Actually they just did.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/20/science/la-sci-synthetic-genome-20100521

First creation of artificial life.

Why do most animals see in black and white, but humans see in color? Why do we have the capacity to create and enjoy music but other animals do not?
Why do flies see six images of the same thing? Isn't it hard to kill a fly without help? The way the fly sees has enabled it to survive better. Why can't we see ultraviolet light? We don't have to because we don't rely on the nectar of plants to survive.

(Sure, birds and frogs can sing, but that's for purposes of attracting a mate, not just pure enjoyment)

Why don't animals lick each other to show affection? You're comparing two unlike things and calling it a discrepancy. Favorable traits survive from parent to offspring, that includes behavior that best equips a species to survive in a certain environment. A couple million years later and you have the slow process of evolution taking place. It isn't a hard concept to understand when you aren't blinded by religious belief.

Why are we able to enjoy different types of food, instead of just eating what we need to survive? Want to know why fatty foods taste good? Because fatty foods were rich in nutrients that early humans wanted to get in order to pack in more calories.

These aren't questions that have no answer. Its because God loves us, and wants us to be happy, so he gave us the capacity to enjoy things in our daily life, and to appreciate beauty in its various forms.No, that's wrong. And unless you educate yourself on the basic scientific truths around you, your argument for the existence of god will remain, as it is, quite weak and unsupported.

There WAS proof that God exists, but all of those divine acts that were done to prove God's power happened a long time ago. They were written in the Bible so that there would be a record or "proof" that they had occurred.
So you are going to believe the ancient scribbles of people who were not even aware of the existence of bacteria and died in droves due to lead poisoning? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

But now its just been so long since those things happened that its hard for people to trust the credibility of the document. In my opinion though, its not fiction.

Why do you think that.

There's too much that correlates with other recorded history for it to be total fiction, and there's too much practical useful wisdom and insightful truths for it to have been written by man alone.As a matter of fact the bible is completely ahistorical, don't even try to argue that it is a historical account of anything. As far as containing wisdom and moral truths, sure, I can agree with that. But keep in mind that so does the Quran, Confucius, and Hinduism.

Here's a silly example, the Bible has record of where God told the Israelites to bury their feces.

What do you think people did with their shit before that? The Persians had sewer systems, you know.

This is smart for sanitation and preventing disease right? By nobody back then knew anything about bacteria or how that stuff worked.

Or, because humans have evolved the ability to use reason, people correlated shit with disease. Shit smells bad, yes? What else smells bad? Things that are toxic perhaps? And why do they smell bad to us? Because they could kill us. So, what do you think happened to the gene that made shit smell lovely? It was bred out of us because all the humans that enjoyed the smell of shit were killed by the diseases it gave them.

And Egypt, the most technologically advanced civilization at the time was using feces to make "medicine".
And Christian alchemists thought they could make gold from lead. What's your point?

The Israelites at the time had just come from Egypt, so what would make them think they should bury their feces instead of making medicine from it like the most advanced country in the world, if it hadn't really been God who told them so like the Bible says?

Alternatively, why the fuck would you slice off part of your penis because a voice in the sky told you to? I wonder how many Israelites died of infections from that little procedure.

[INFERNO]

But why does one need evidence but the other not? I'm sorry, but that seems more like an excuse for theists who don't back up their arguments to use.

To answer it, look at the very basic meaning of science. It requires empiricism and for theories to occur, there must be evidence. For religion, the paradigm is different but there is evidence just not in an empirical form. The evidence or rather "evidence", is having the god construct be able to explain things as cited usually by a text that supports it. It's not solid evidence as it is for science, it's very abstract and the characteristics of the god must be something the people can relate to in order to believe and understand.

Religion is based on faith.

Everything has faith.

Evolution in the sense that everything developed from single celled organisms that just somehow manifested has also NOT been proven. Yes, we have fossils that seem to show various animals that appear to be different steps in a sequence, but these are rather large and sudden changes. Where are all the in between steps? And doesn't the theory also say that at some point humans were fish or something? How do we go from being a fish to a mammal?

I'm not going to explain this for three reasons. First, you seem to have such a lack of understanding and an inherit bias towards beginning to understand it, any attempts would probably fail. Second, the explanations are libraries full. We didn't magically loose scales, tails, etc... all at once. The changes are small and gradual so at the simplest, you have to look at the organ level. If you took the time to even just Google evolution of a particular anatomical structure, you'll find there is evidence. Sometimes it's not always known for everything but knowledge doesn't come with the snap of the fingers. Third, due to the technological advancements, we can now begin to understand it at the genetic level, so this part still is growing.

Having done a third-year biology course in evolution for vertebrates and other biology courses in it, I can tell you organs such as the human heart have a somewhat clear evolutionary timeline. For example, fish have a S-shaped heart and the sinus venosus is the first part of the "S". In humans, this same structure exists but only in embryonic development between the superior and inferior vena cavae. This is only a fraction of the evidence. More evidence is in the embryonic development of Chordata (includes humans), we have what are called gill slits. They're not true gills but rather folded skin, best as pharyngeal slits. As the embryo matures, these slits or arches form parts of the jaw and inner ear for humans. What does this mean? The inner ear bones, such as malleus, incus and stapes, evolved from fish.

It's absolute ignorance on your part to say no such evidence exists.


Also, if life evolved from singled celled organisms originally, where did those come from? Evolution speculates that it was a combination of chemicals; amonia and some other stuff I think... but so far scientists have been unable to reproduce that process. If those original organisms developed naturally without help from God, why can't we reproduce that effect?

You mean the Urey-Miller experiment and the countless repeats have never occurred? Or Louis Pasteur's experiment the generated the Germ Theory? Nonsense.

Why cant we reproduce that effect? Think of how long it took for evolution to actually occur. We can easily see evolution at the bacterium level but waiting for it to produce, say, a fish, is not something that will occur fast at all.


Here's another thing to consider. Why do most animals see in black and white, but humans see in color? Why do we have the capacity to create and enjoy music but other animals do not? (Sure, birds and frogs can sing, but that's for purposes of attracting a mate, not just pure enjoyment)

Your question is both a pathetic argument and one that is very easily answerable. When answering, think of the conditions the animals were living in. For example, dogs and wolves see in black and white only. This gives an excellent advantage for living and surviving in the night, as well as for not being fooled by certain camoflauges. They do not normally eat plants unless needed so there's no need to develop colour vision for this purpose.

You're demonstrating your lack of knowledge with this question also. Evolution doesn't keep on making organisms have more and more capabilities. It is simply for bringing the organism to structures it needs to survive. Could wolves hunt better with colour vision? Probably not much of a difference. Also, as more and more complex structures arise, it needs more and more energy to keep them functioning. If developing colour eyesight and the neurological pathways and structures aren't much help, then it becomes a liability not an asset.

For enjoying music, this is actually quite questionable because one thing music has is a beat, which allows for coordinated movement or dancing. Can animals do this? Yes. Do they enjoy it? Perhaps, some do, not all. Other animals can create music or at least sounds. These sounds can be coordinated, have timbre, pitch, loudness, beat, etc..., so it's arguable for music.


Why are we able to enjoy different types of food, instead of just eating what we need to survive?

You're telling me that my dog does not drool for human food? If the animal has a) sense of smell, b) sense of taste, c) taste buds or equivalent mechanisms and d) neurological pathways and centers, they do enjoy and taste different foods. Your argument must disprove all four. You cant, not a hope for this.


And why do we feel satisfaction for our work when we accomplish something?

You're venturing into the realm of evolutionary psychology here. Also, your question seems to ignore the fact that animals have different neurologies (not a real word but it's late so it'll do). The different neurological components and sophistication explains part of your question. Evolutionary psychology is a bit odd to understand and you need to understand basic biological evolution first. You don't seem to have a clue on it so I'm not going to proceed any further with this on you.


There WAS proof that God exists, but all of those divine acts that were done to prove God's power happened a long time ago. They were written in the Bible so that there would be a record or "proof" that they had occurred. But now its just been so long since those things happened that its hard for people to trust the credibility of the document. In my opinion though, its not fiction. There's too much that correlates with other recorded history for it to be total fiction, and there's too much practical useful wisdom and insightful truths for it to have been written by man alone.

I'll admit, some of the historical events involving other civilizations and perhaps their own seem true but only in the human-human interaction sense. There is no further proof beyond that for god instilling morals, making things, doing miracles, other than people saying he did in a time where they had a knowledge gradient that's not comparable to ours.

You can assert your god helped humans write the bible if you use the argument people are too stupid. I can argue otherwise saying no proof for said god is there but this argument for his presence is moot. Not only are you using no direct evidence but rather you're making inferences on the psychology and intelligence of ancient people based on absolutely nothing.


TRUE Christianity is very rational. Other religions... tools to draw people away from the true God.

Now you're just preaching by saying "I'm right, screw you all, I'm right you're wrong". Childish and useless.


But I will concede that it promotes homophobia. The Bible DOES clearly say that homosexuality is wrong (as is beastiality).

Actually it doesn't. The ancient texts stated the word "arsenkoites", which was used less than 70 times sometimes in reference to homosexuality but also in reference to other things. "Malakos" was another word used which is more accepted to mean sex, basically inferior sex. Given the ambiguity of "arsenkoites" and "malakos", some experts say it's too little information to know what it means but those who support it condemns homosexuality take a stance on it. Since it only refers to the SEX, at most, the homosexual SEX is wrong, if that view is taken. The recent translations however ignore this and simply have it to say EVERYTHING of homosexuality is wrong, which is not what the language being translated says.


Going back to the beginning question of the professor in the entire thread… Why does God allow suffering if he’s supposed to be good and is all-powerful??

There IS an answer. Its because he’s giving Satan a chance to try to prove that he would be a better god.

Go back to the beginning of Genesis, where the serpent (Satan) is persuading Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. This is where Satan first starts his rebellion. He’s challenging God’s authority to rule the universe, and he’s bringing Adam and Eve into it. Satan told Eve that if she ate the fruit, she wouldn’t die. By disobeying God and eating the fruit, Adam and Eve joined the rebellion and were basically saying, “we don’t need you, we can make our own decisions”.

God is very loving, and didn’t want to just destroy them outright, he wanted them to know WHY his way was better. But God can’t lie, so he had to follow through on the death punishment from eating the fruit. That’s why we grow old and die eventually.

So for the purpose of allowing us to see why his way is better, God is allowing Satan to rule the world for a while. That’s why there’s so much suffering, because Satan makes a terrible god. The proof that Satan is the current ruler of the world and not God is in the Bible, one instance of it in the first book of John (5:19) “We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.”

All of human history as we know it is life under the rule of Satan. So then back to the main point… God allows suffering, and doesn’t act to stop it because that would be giving support to Satan’s rule. If God just stepped in to save us whenever we’re in trouble, that would make us think that Satan’s way of ruling isn’t so bad right? But that would be a lie, and God doesn’t lie.

So that’s why God doesn’t stop evil, although he has the power to do it.

Hold on, you seem to be spewing nonsense about your own belief here. According to you, god lets satan do whatever evil stuff and get away with it even though god could stop it (and in theory satan altogether) but doesn't because he wants to be a nice guy? So in his righteousness and supposed all-good, all-loving nature, he sits back with the view of he could get rid of all evil but would rather not raise a finger? hence, your god is simply lazy and doesn't give two shits about any of his believers because if he did, chances are he may go and try to save them but he doesn't, he just sits in heaven twirling his thumbs.

I'm confused now because why is god the one being worshiped? Suppose we take the stance he made everything, he's currently doing absolutely nothing, Satan is the one causing everything so if you want something to happen, you should pray to Satan because no matter how good or evil your intentions are, God isn't going to do a single thing to help. For example, if you want someone to turn to your belief, don't pray to god because god does nothing, pray to Satan who does something.

[Hanyo]

Everyone's against me, yaaay! Okay, wow, overwhelming response on the biology question. I stand corrected, there's tons of evidence for evolution. I know smalls steps can be observed, such as plant hybrids and fly mutations because they have very short life spans. My knowledge of biology is sorely lacking, and you guys are obviously experts. Congrats.

Matty - fun example with Hogwart's and Harry Potter. None of the stuff that happened in Harry Potter though was also verified by historical records. There are tons of events in the bible that are also verified by secular records.

I see your point about the Bible being used as proof of its own credibility, it isn't quite fair, because that's like quoting yourself to prove a point in an essay.

I don't see where I contradicted my own argument though. I wouldn't criticize your beliefs, you're perfectly free to have them. I just maintain my beliefs too.

I don't have time to address everyone's comments, but there were tons of awesome points, many of which (maybe even most of which) I agree with.

I'll try to revisit this thread so that I can actually read everything in detail.

For now I don't think science and faith have to be mutually exclusive. I admit, some of you are much smarter than I am, and I don't have a response to everything, especially the detailed biology questions. I never thought that science, or even evolution wasn't true, I was mainly trying to point out that science hasn't yet explained everything.

I don't see yet that God's existence has been disproven though. The way I see it, either way I win. IF God doesn't exist, at least my faith has made me quite happy, and given me a LOT of great people as friends. There's still tons of practical benefit. IF however, God DOES exist... well, then I have a pretty good friendship with the best person anyone COULD have a friendship with. Comparing what I have to lose if I'm wrong, compared to what I have to gain if I'm right, I see the answer as a no-brainer.

[Magus]

"It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." ~ Stephen Hawking.

[Death]

@Hanyo's question about the fossil record being incomplete: We actually did this in biology; it was one of my HWs to explain why it was incomplete. I won't go into the precise details of how a fossil is formed, but suffice to say that it is very difficult for a fossil to form and requires near perfect circumstances. Also note that only hard parts can become fossilised meaning that not all creatures can become fossils anyway. What few gaps there are in the fossil record are there because the 'fossilisation' (if such a word exists - if not, you know what I mean) was unsuccesful due to inappopiate circumstances.

[INFERNO]

I don't see yet that God's existence has been disproven though.

Not formally because when one asserts god exists, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence for its existence. Quoting the bible is as you said, unfair and it gets dismissed immediately. To me, the center of this problem is defining how god can be shown to exist, if he does exist. Our seven (and more) bodily senses cannot be used as nobody can hear, smell, taste, etc... him. As a result, we are limited to a purely abstract form of evidence but this evidence can at best argue for the existence of any supernatural creature, whether it be the Christian god or another god. So this right here is a problem because you may argue some being exists but cannot provide further evidence or arguments that it is the one you claim it to be (i.e. your god).

However, as I was discussing with some people, a new argument came to mind, and that is this. Ignore whether or not the actual being of god exists, forget about it, focus on what he is said to do or represent. God is said to represent love but now comes the very question of what is love? Biochemical reactions or something else? The argument is this: when trying to give evidence for an abstract thing of god, one commonly uses abstract things that are hard to define in order to show the god exists.

For the opposing side, questions of "if god exists, why does he let bad stuff happen if he exists?" are pointless and silly questions at this point because one doesn't yet have evidence for any of god's alleged abilities. Rather, the opposing side has the one argument that if you cannot fulfill your duty on the burden of proof, it cannot yet be shown to exist.


The way I see it, either way I win. IF God doesn't exist, at least my faith has made me quite happy, and given me a LOT of great people as friends. There's still tons of practical benefit. IF however, God DOES exist... well, then I have a pretty good friendship with the best person anyone COULD have a friendship with. Comparing what I have to lose if I'm wrong, compared to what I have to gain if I'm right, I see the answer as a no-brainer.

You're bringing up Pascal's Wager. If you believe in your god but you are wrong for there are at least 300 gods, you may be punished. Likewise, when I believe in nothing I have the same issue. Would the being punish both of us for not believing or would it consider how we lived our lives? I assume you have not committed violent crimes and things of that nature, same for myself, so would the being not punish us for this reason? There's another question in that would the being reward us by bringing us to a blissful world or similar rewards? Would we get nothing and not be punished nor rewarded? Lastly, would we even go to another world or simply rot in the ground or however your corpse is preserved?

Pascal's Wager goes on a bit more but the point is you have already answered some of these questions despite not knowing if your being is the right one. By this, it is possible for both of us to not believe in the correct being yet still get rewarded or punished or nothing. I can still maintain my views which in a way act to comfort me as does your friendship with god.

[Hanyo]

Inferno - I see your point, it IS hard to prove abstract ideas. Under your terms and definitions, I have no way to prove God's existence.

In terms of Pascal's wager, which would be assuming there is SOME kind of divine being(s) out there, I don't see how I could have chosen the wrong one. But that's just my opinion.

[Haydzzz]

Science makes more sense to me but thats just me. No religion nor science can disprove one another.

[Severus Snape]

Science makes more sense to me but thats just me. No religion nor science can disprove one another.

Science can disprove religion. Heliocentricity is an example of that.

[INFERNO]

Inferno - I see your point, it IS hard to prove abstract ideas. Under your terms and definitions, I have no way to prove God's existence.

My terms are simple: give evidence that is verifiable and not from the bible that god exists. I would like to say objective but I know that is me taking and eating the cake.


In terms of Pascal's wager, which would be assuming there is SOME kind of divine being(s) out there, I don't see how I could have chosen the wrong one. But that's just my opinion.

If you think my usage of Pascal's Wager was to show you're wrong, then you clearly have not read nor understood what I was saying let alone what the wager says. My intent on using the wager was to show you how your statement of you winning no matter the outcome is false, not to say what you believe is false. It shows that although you believe in a god and I don't, we may still be both screwed when and if there is some being. At the end of the day, whether you continue believing in Christianity or hop over to scientology or LaVeyan Satanism is not something I'm going to rejoice over.

What part of Pascal's Wager has you confused?

[Sith Lord 13]

Science makes more sense to me but thats just me. No religion nor science can disprove one another.

Science can disprove religion. Heliocentricity is an example of that.

Not necessarily. When one takes in the modern view of religion, where in the only thing they claim to know is faith and morals, science can no longer disprove it.

I'm not taking sides, just pointing out facts.