God Vs Science
I welcome different perspectives and this is one just recently sent to me by a very close Christian friend… however, he knows I will have to comment on it! (read the comments below).
Thanks for sending this my way mcrom!
BLB
GOD vs SCIENCE
(a dialog between a professor and a student)
“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.
This students statements are true, can you or can you not make night darker?
Is it possible for it to get colder after absolute zero -458 degree’s F.
Can you feel,taste,see,hear,or smell your brain,
Share This
BLB on 05 Sep 2007 at 6:35 am #
Mcrom,
I would call this a story of surface level metaphor for those who will not spend time objectively evaluating it. Great for a Sunday morning sermon!
The first problem I have with it is that is relies on three subjects using questionable scientific data to prove something that is, by a Christian perspective, above and beyond the realms of science and logic (GOD). I give much more respect to those of faith who simply say, “Hey, you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, so I choose to believe there is a God, by faith and faith alone.” Yet, this is a common critique I have of Christian apologists; they try to prove God exists by using logic and sometimes even scientific data. Not gonna happen, faith is still the only argument they have to stand on. Take if from the Christian Philosophers… they knew this.
“Kierkegaard held that faith was both opposed to reason and was above it. Reason does not belong where faith reigns. Reason is the queen of all the sciences, but when it gets between the believer and God, it has gone out of its proper bounds. Karl Barth and Calvin held faith to be trans-rational or above reason. When revelation is considered self-authenticating, then it is above reason. From this point of view, natural theology is inappropriate, because it seeks to meet unbelief on its own ground in ordinary, finite reasoning, e.g., placing it on the same level as science. Thus Thomas Aquinas’ natural theology would be ruled out. Thomas goes beyond reason, however, into pure faith, too.”
Now I still have a problem with the above quote… Reason and Faith attempt to answer the same questions of existence and life, therefore reason, without doubt has a place in the conversation of the validity of God’s existence… and the idea that faith is above reason is just plain biased.
Second, there is a language problem here. Cold, and darkness are definitions of the absence of heat and light, nothing more(not being a scientist I am just assuming this is true). But to stretch that same logic that evil is the absence of God will not fly with me and many others. I used to believe that anything good that happened was in essence God, but again… it is just as possible and a billions times more rational that we (humans) do good because it is a self preserving behavior. We understand that our society frowns upon certain behaviors (established over many years), and the consequences are too great and will limit our freedom as we know it. Therefore, most people follow suit. It just makes sense.
I can also make the argument that the absence of GOD is GOODNESS. This holds the same logic this dialog above states, yet I have empirical evidence that this is true, in many circumstances. Take the suicide bomber for instance… It is well known that the way in which these (mostly economically poor) folk can do what they do is based on two fundamental beliefs pushed into there heads by their leaders:
First, that they are fighting and killing to convey the message that anyone not living the specific way of God (set forth by a violent interpretation of the Koran) is an abomination to GOD.
Second, that they will receive from GOD great things if they are to kill themselves for this “noble” cause.
Take God out that and you will have eliminated probably most suicided bombers. More examples…Ok… how about when I hear of people killing in GOD’s name, fighting with violence because of GOD’s inspired scriptures.
I like to put my faith in humanity, I think we are better than GOD thinks we are (born evil or sinners, according to a common Christian thinking). I do not believe we were born evil and have to fight all our lives to not be evil. In the whole, humanity is pretty good to one another… it is the leaders on the top that can’t seem to stop killing people because of their hunger for power.
I must say, Barney has a compelling and deep message that the whole world should listen to… “I love you, you love me, we’re a happy (human) family!” Now that would be amazing if we would all just follow Barney’s message of love. We could leave out all the reasons for fighting in Barney’s scriptures. We would not make judgments on other beliefs, nor have examples of Barney condoning war and actually wiping out whole cities. I would take out all that stuff about women being shut out from speaking in public and man being the head of the house. As well as the prejudice writings that gay people are living in sin and all other people of different beliefs going to hell. I also would definitely leave out that whole prayer thing, simply because humans would have to make their own choices, instead of being influenced by a distorted interpretation from their pastor, or a TV evangelist or worst yet, their President.
You know it would save so much trouble if we could just leave out all the things that are really breeding hatred in GOD’s scriptures. Now that is something to think about… maybe Christianity, Islam, Judaism would be back on my table of consideration then…
————
Below is a response that has already been posted on the internet to the same dialog/story, albeit a bit of a different version… Funny, after doing research it seems that the above dialog/story has been rewritten and edited a few times. This one below claims it was an actual conversation between Albert Einstein (the young student) and the professor. I have taken the liberty to remove some of the disrespectful language without compromising the context.
I wanted to include the dialog again to show the differences. The rebuttal (author unknown) follows:
(Quoted from: http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id8.html)
God the creator entails god created evil; this has connection has been used to argue against the existence of a universal creator. A witty presentation of this problem was sent to me by a friend’s wife.
Read carefully the arguments and then consider their merits. JK did in his subsequent analysis.
Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?
A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?”
A student bravely replied, “Yes he did!”
“God created everything?” The professor asked.
“Yes sir, he certainly did,” the student replied.
The professor answered, “If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil.”
The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor’s hypothetical definition.. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, “May I ask you a question,
Professor?” “Of course”, replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, “Professor does cold exist?”
“What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?”
The other students snickered at the young man’s question.
The young man replied, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody 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 (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.” The student continued, “Professor, does darkness exist?”
The professor responded, “Of course it does.”
The student replied, “Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton’s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.” Finally the young man asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?”
Now uncertain, the professor responded, “Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
The young man’s name — Albert Einstein
A true story.
THE REBUTTAL:
There are many confusions in that proof. Remember a meaning of a term is determined by its usage. First, there is a difference between cold and absolute zero. And absolute zero doesn’t exist, but cold does. The absences of light in a space does exist. That too is different than darkness, and darkness exist (if it didn’t we would use the term). Third, there is evil, for just like cold, darkness it is defined by our usage. The usage determines its meaning. The Christians have defined there God in a certain way. The question embedded in the discussion by the professor is one of whether this definition of God is in conflict with observable reality on the question of evil. They also defined their good as omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. Since there is evil, there is a conflict; and it is one that won’t go away. Finally, since they claim that their God created all things, then it created evil. This is made a fortiori inexcusable given their god being omniscient. God, as the professor pointed out, therefore deliberately created evil, and thus is evil.
The Gnostic Christians had a better solution, that Yahweh was a lesser (imperfect god) who didn’t take the advice of Sophie the highest god and created man. No amount of sophistry can undo the fact that the Christian definition is in conflict with observed reality and the meaning of the terms that describe that reality.
Finally, Einstein did not believe in a personal god; moreover, he probably did not have believed in a god period—though he didn’t want to admit that and deal with the intolerance of the Christians. There are a few lines in a letter that imply that he was an atheist, or an agnostic.
“From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist…. I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.”
The end “The young man’s name – Albert Einstein. A true story, is just one more example of the little regard for both truth and logic those of faith have.
EARLIER COMMENTARY ON A SIMILAR VERSION OF THE STORY
There are 3 common proofs of the existence of god, teleological, first cause, and ontological. Rene Descartes added 3 more. All of them have been properly rebutted. This one, a seventh, is flawed for several reasons. The first one applies to all
proofs of god, it is a category mistake.
Language and logic can never prove the existence of a material
object. Language and logic cannot prove the existence
of a unicorn; it is an observational issue. Language can prove that there are no round squares, because the issue rests upon the meaning of the terms. To prove that god is not of the same class of beings as unicorns an observation, having a very high degree of certainty is needed.
Second, there is a misuse of language, for cold and light have meanings different that the special technical meaning given to them by physicists. The meaning of fruit as used by biologists
includes cucumbers, green peppers, squash, and tomatoes.
It is a fallacy to use the term cold in the common mode and to ask for its meaning, and then to fault the professor for not giving the technical meaning one meaning of that term.
The interlocutor is switching between the two meanings. A word can have many meanings, but in a particular context
it has just one meaning. As Wittigenstein stated: The meaning
of a word is its usage.
Third, there is put forth a claim that evil means the absence of god, But, that was not how the professor used it when he asked the first student.
The logic of the professor is correct. To switch the meaning is to repeat the language and logic error of the previous paragraph.
Fourth. To claim that evil is the absence of god, is to commit the error of being circular; viz., to beg the question. One cannot with valid logic prove X exists by defining Y as an attribute of X, and then say there is Y therefore X exists—where X in this case is god, and Y is good. God can only be proved
by observations of the kind which the ideal observer, skilled in science and logic, would find compelling.
The above disputation is of the cheer type, those who are on god’s side cheer at the statement, even though the proof is invalid. It is like the proofs for creationism, only one who has taken a side—evidence be damned—would cheer at the proofs creationist scientists offer.
jess on 28 Aug 2008 at 2:55 pm #
I was wondering if I could (or if you could) post a copy of the GvS on that discussion board.
I was just sent that in my email, and your response was a nice one to find.
Thanks.
Don on 14 Nov 2008 at 9:45 pm #
Sir your reference to the sucide bombers is at best grade school level, in that the God refered to in the Bible the REAL God is NOT the god of the koran. They say he is bot if you compare the two it is self explanitory. The god of the koran is Alla the moon god of Arabia, and the koran in several places says it is ok to kill non muslims, but the real God says “Thou Shalt not kill” by the way, their god in the koran also says it’s ok to lie to non muslims…..so????
free online christmas game on 29 Nov 2008 at 10:17 am #
haveaheartymeal free online christmas game >:-P
Will on 09 Dec 2008 at 9:43 am #
@Don: eyng?
Alex on 12 Dec 2008 at 12:52 am #
Honestly, you guys…
BLB goes on forever with a logical breakdown and synthesis of this, yet he states near the very beginning that he respects people more if they simply say, “It cannot be proven that God does not exist. So, I’m going to keep believing in Him with nothing to go on but my faith.” What is that? The man is a hypocrite.
And are you all, or any of you, willing to go against Albert Einstein? Do you honestly propose to oppose his arguments? The simple prospect is ridiculous, especially in this case. I am a Christian, and this article makes perfect sense to me. To associate the logic of darkness as the absence of light with the logic of evil the absence of God is not a stretch at all. In fact, it fits perfectly. The Bible states, quite clearly and many times, that God created us with free choice. He did not create us to be evil, and He did not create us to be good or perfect. He created us to have free choice. The evil in this world was created by us, who turned away from God and destroyed the world he gave us.
But, I’m starting to get into logic. That’s not what I’m trying to say. I simply wanted to try and bring this entire argument down to earth. Can’t you hypocrites just leave well enough alone, and leave people to their faith without attempting to destroy it with logic?
schroedinger on 07 Jan 2009 at 3:33 am #
You guys want a real doozy? Start applying arguments that include quantum theory. Could give strength to either the “faith” or “science” argument.
If that story is true and that was ol’ bert-o boy making those arguments his aversion to particle duality was manifest at an early age.
Quantum physics would say the profs brain was not “non-existent” but was both existent and non-existent at the same time.
also.. if was in a room looking out of a closed window I could not “see, hear, feel, touch, or taste” the wind… but I could see its effects on leaves. Should I take it on faith at that point that wind exist?
a weak argument, I know, but I do not wish to invest the time to make it stronger.
Joshiki on 14 Jan 2009 at 11:59 pm #
To schroedinger.
In regards to your above statements and arguements put forward applying quantum physics to the arguement…you say:
also.. if was in a room looking out of a closed window I could not “see, hear, feel, touch, or taste” the wind… but I could see its effects on leaves. Should I take it on faith at that point that wind exist?
This is a very weak arguement.
YOU may not see, hear, touch, or taste God…but just as you would be able to see the winds effects on the leaves looking through the window, you can witness God’s effect on people…and you do not have to look very far
Stephen Atkinson on 25 Jan 2009 at 10:47 pm #
Sheer monopolism does not a cogent argument make.
Zum Beispiel:
May it be argued that faith is, in exact terms, an absence of logic? May it be further be argued, that the inexact nature of defining something as being indefinable, is one and the same, i.e. dispossessed of both logic and faith?
The vicissitudes of thought, are as knights errant, on the highways of reason. Hence, we are left with our own “tabula rasa”, upon which no remedies appear. Enlightened men, through the aquisition of logical standards of thinking, are taken beyond the boundaries of mortal thought, and reside, temporarily, in the uncertain inns found along those same highways of reason.
Such sustenance as may be found, is of little consequence to the wanderer. Ever, it seems, there is but a corner to be turned, and there, shall be the fulfilling nourishment for the lackluster soul. Many, the times may they be, when a man devoid of suitable answers, shall he turn wistfully to yet another less travelled byway, and find, for him at least, a soothing balm of rapturous joy. That, formerly inexplicable, is of sudden propriety within his mind, and elsewhere too.
In the dusty caverns of his inquiring mind, solace extends itself as an answer to his nagging questions, and he is whole once more.
What, then, instigated this morphosis of his mind’s understanding?
Faith.
Faith and logic are disparate, and are so at the same time, and in all dimensions. One, logic, attempts to be explanatory of all things.The second, faith, is an exercise, not of futility, but rather, a belief in a better way to understand those things logically unexplainable. A man of faith may be a logician. A man of logic may at times, resort to faith, if only in himself, to better understand those things not explained for him by his power of logic.
In each instance, both are correct, both in their assertions, and in their understandings of unknowable things to them at any given moment. Both are the better, but neither is better than the other. A curious “checkmate” this is, albeit one upon which, both might agree. In that regard, they are both whole, both co-resident on the plane of ultimate awareness.
Einstein’s logic led him inescapably, and correctly, to his conclusions. They are his alone. They may be shared, but to a certain extent only, for it is within the hearts of men, as to how far they may be led, or taken.
Call it Divine Providence. Call it what you will, it is an answer, and such answer must be suitable for each in turn. In fact, there may be no simultaneity of thought at all, merely a general, and unspecific concurrence of thought.
No! The question will never be one answered to the satisfaction of the many, nor the few, nor, perhaps, to the lone individual resting in contemplative thought in the inn on the byway of his life.
Jen on 06 Apr 2009 at 3:09 pm #
Wow..
It is no wonder that Jesus made the statement, “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it {at all.}” Luke 18:17
I remember, Brian, when I was in High School, and I had so many questions - “Does God exist?” I searched and searched for answers… Until one day I put Him to the test. (looking back I am ashamed of putting the God of the universe to the test! But I was very ignorant back then and young…so…) Well, he answered my prayer to the “T”, and proved to me He was real. That was the day I was born of the Spirit. I will never forget that day - my whole life changed in a moment of time, and from then on I began my journey through this life with God - I gave up all my friends in High School, was mocked and made fun of at school, but none of it mattered to me, nor did it change one iota of joy that was deposited into my soul from God - He gave me a spring in my step, and a joy that will never leave me. Walking with God every day I have a life of purpose, I have a love no man can take away, and most of all, a hope of spending eternity with Him.
My faith is like a child - If God told me to jump off a cliff and He’d catch me, I would - that’s how much I trust Him. I have MORE than faith - I have experience. I DO feel His presence in my soul - I feel Him every time I pray. I sense His love, I sense His joy, I sense His peace. One day, Brian, you will need these things - when your world falls apart, or something happens that shakes you - I hope it happens soon - that will cause your temporary “peace” to crumble, and you’ll be seeking for the answers. God is my reason for living - I would be miserable on this earth with no purpose for living. I pray sincerely for you, Brian - I pray that you will not just find true “faith” - many have “faith”, that doesn’t mean they have found the true GOD….but I pray you find HIM. He said in His Word,
“And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart. ” Jeremiah 29:13. This verse proved true and faithful in my case, and I know it will yours, if you really are sincere. If you are looking for a reason to doubt, sure, you’ll find what you are looking for - but if you really want to know if God is real, lay down your philosophical jargon and just humbly kneel before Him and seek Him with all your heart, you will find Him.
You may ask How I am so convinced He is real? I know He is real because HE LIVES IN ME.
God bless you my brother,
Jen
Roida on 05 Jun 2009 at 9:29 pm #
I have only one question for you…When things go bad what do you say or do at that instant?
a minister of science on 09 Nov 2009 at 2:53 am #
Sirs. You try to quantify an unquantifiable being. You try to make finite and infinite power. To try to calculate God is impossible. For in doing so, one must find something to test (which means one would have to quantify). So, I present this challenge. Disprove this God that popular science fears so much that it attempts to destroy His followers by using ad hominem attacks.
If someone could disprove God, please do try. For you will find that God cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. Scientists are begining to come to the conclusion that the “big bang” was the begining of the universe. Possibly so, but how? Quantum fluctuations in an infinitely dense singularity? What caused those fluctuations?
However, science can beat around the bush at the existence of God. M1V1=M2V2 or the conservation of momentum. The values are exactly the same. No matter how much you specify as to how mass is transformed and altered into velocity through alterations in energy, it is still completely the same. Nothing can be “lost” or “found”. Nothing can be destroyed or created in this equation. A very simple rule of science and one which is taught in most high school physics classes within the first month. So, how did matter come to be? Where is its origin? Why were there fluctuations in that infinitely dense quantum singularity which caused our universe to expand to what it is now? According to the LAW, if it just is, it could not have any alterations or changes because something would have to cause a fluctuation.
You now see the dilemma. And though big bang theory is still debated, the question still remains. We used to question, where did we come from. We used to question, where did this earth come from. Now we are asking where did this universe come from, and since the universe is the embodiment of everything that is on the physical plain, it had to come from something that was not physical and therefore not bound by the same laws of physics, but perhaps authored the LAWs of physics like a computer programmer authors rules for a processor.
Disprove God, tell me where the universe came from (i’ll be lenient on this one), or tell me how something can come from nothing or something can undergo effect with out cause.
BJG on 10 Nov 2009 at 8:42 am #
Did God come from nothing?
Assuming non-physical God created our physical Universe; who created God?
And if God has always existed; why….what for?
I have just as much “faith” that matter has always existed.
The ultimate question: Why is there something instead of nothing?
BLB on 11 Nov 2009 at 12:37 am #
Um… I think it is funny that religious people in essences are simply choosing to believe in something that another human before them concocted up. As stated before .. no one can PROVE God exists or prove that God does not exists… so then the same goes with a billion other possibilities that are impossible to prove either way. With this logic… it is just as likely that there is a large tomato in heaven that controls our ever move… can you prove there isn’t? …. go ahead try. Or it might be a big pumpkin, ha the GREAT Pumpkin… or there might be a whole bunch of “Gods” that have meetings, and they hang out by the water cooler getting the latest gossip. all of their jobs are about what to do with us humans ….because they have so much time there hands, just hangin out on clouds and stuff.
Prove to me that I shouldn’t worship an all powerful, omnipresent, holy, worthy to be praised, king of kings, lord of lords (yet invisible and inaudible and doesn’t do any obvious miracles for the last 2000 years) TOMATO that lives in the sky, and I might just become Christian again.
OMG!
or should I say OMT?
Blb
minister of science on 18 Nov 2009 at 8:19 am #
You make some interesting points while at the same time avoiding my questions.
I will say though that again the spiritual realm does not, for all we know, operate or have laws which are similar or identical to the physical. it is a law in the physical that something can’t come from nothing. That is a law. Science has known this for a long time. If we are going to start saying that we believe that this universe just IS, then we are really needing to just re-write a lot of laws and complicate the system all the more.
But yes, that is similar to my question. Why is there something instead of nothing. I believe, that it was created. Whether or not God was created, He still created this realm. Similar to a program having been created by a programmer, the programmer was created by two humans, and that goes back to God. I honestly do not care if God was created, I believe it is an irrelevant argument to the question, but one which might be asked after satisfying the question.
Good point on the disproving of something which goes to show my point. The supernatural being who created our universe could be the great pumpkin or a tomato. I can’t disprove it, but then yet, it could be true just the same. That goes to show that you cannot scientifically leave it out of the question. If it cannot be disproven, it MIGHT be true.
ofcourse they don’t call it faith if you KNOW it! That’s just knowing and accepting a fact or truth. Which is actually the whole point of the story (fictitious of not) we are debating about.
minister of science on 18 Nov 2009 at 8:24 am #
blb,
your choice to not be a Christian is totally up to you. I would honestly just subscribe to Christianity’s morals. Read proverbs and you’ll see good guidelines to live by. Take the lessons from the Bible and find something meaningful to you and apply it. Your faith in God, I believe, is irrelevant in being a good person. Only when you apply faith into the equation are you eligible to inherit the kingdom of God. I wish you luck and pray for your happiness on earth.
abereImmamp on 12 Dec 2009 at 8:53 pm #
Authentic words, some truthful words man. You rocked my day!
chakkar on 02 Feb 2010 at 1:30 am #
Science and faith come to the same conclusion, in my opinion. Regardless of the spiritual path you choose, one thing is certain: humans have the highest intelligence of all known (non-divine) beings. And, yes, that statement is a matter of faith in the end.
The concept of God is and has been so skewed that humans seem to collectively think that God has some kind of form. But *it* is formless and boundless. It is, at once, the creator and destroyer of all cosmic existence. Other than mathematical representations and analogies to observable events, can we actually conceptualize billions of years?
The dualistic approach to God (heaven and hell; good and evil) is fundamentally flawed. Everything exists as one continuous form of energy that, much like a rainbow’s colour blend, gradually changes form to manifest different characteristics of the Divine. That includes rampaging murderers, cats toying with their prey, beautiful coral reefs, barren deserts, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Of course, that’s just Earth.
Janssen on 05 Sep 2010 at 11:09 am #
No words can make a person believe in a God.Evil is really working now making us not to believe in God.Logic is a long-time enemy of God because we do not need Logic in order to believe God.It’s your choice not to believe in God that’s what our free will for.For me he exist and is always there I know it’s weird but God’s love for us is also weird.I don’t want to argue God’s existence.Read the bible and pray for the atheist to find the courage to believe in God.
KMD on 06 Sep 2010 at 5:39 pm #
The reality of the arguments that have been made thus far can be distilled as follows: Evil is bad and one must distinguish between “feeling” and “meaning”.
The professor described evil as a tangible observable occurrence and therefore a created thing thus giving it meaning.
The student described evil as what happens (observed behavior) when man does not have God’s love in his heart. (Feeling and meaning).
Cold has no meaning apart from its sensory application to the human body. Darkness has no meaning apart from the human body being able to see light. Thus, the meaning of these things only has relevance to sensory perception.
Since all of science has to do with observation, and observation only has relevance to sensory perception, then it follows that sensory perception is the only determinant of meaning as it relates to science. If this is truly the case, then science fails to deliver the necessary relevance of observable phenomena to meaning.
We discover this premise to be false, because behind the thrust of science is the hope that science will in itself give meaning to life. However, apart from a being greater than oneself it is impossible to have meaning based on observable phenomena alone.
Now back to evil…
The 17th century philosopher John Locke, who was in part responsible for shaping the minds of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Jay (the 1st chief justice of the Supreme Court of the US), held that evil was in fact the “absence of the Almighty”.
Evil exists because man is inherently evil. You do not have to teach a child to be selfish. That is evident from day one of the child’s existence after birth. He screams and yells because he does not have what he wants. Even when he is very young, with cookie crumbs all over his face and hands, he will say he did not eat the cookie. He will lie. Who taught him to lie? It was resident in his heart from birth. Who taught him to be selfish at birth? It is resident within him.
Apart from a being greater than oneself, there is no relevance to goodness nor evil. If there is indeed evil in this world, why then is it considered evil? Evil is considered evil because evil is only relevant to goodness. If there were no goodness in the universe, then evil would become irrelevant.
Thus, it logically follows that if there is no greater being, then evil is not really evil, because it has no relevance. Murder of humanity is not evil; Rape is not evil; Child molestation is not evil, neither is speeding nor being a cheating, greedy glutton.
One of the primary descriptions of God is Holiness (no evil at all). In fact, the scriptures say that there are four winged beasts who continually sing around God’s throne- “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come”.
One of the best arguments for the existence of a Holy God is the presence of evil. Since there is evil in the world and mankind is inherently evil, it follows that evil must be dealt with in a just way. Only a Holy God can justly deal with evil. He did so by providing a person who could rightly take our place as the recipient of His judgment on evil.
He provided Jesus as our substitute for this judgment and poured out His judgment on Him at the crucifixion. Jesus died as the result of that judgment. However, He did not stay dead. He became alive again after 3 days.
If you believe this and accept it as truth in your innermost being, then you can have peace with the holiest being in the universe. Once you have this peace, then the existence of evil is no longer an issue, because it has a solution.