• GOD vs. Science

    A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, “Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. “You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'”

    “Yes sir,” the student says.
    “So you believe in God?”

    “Absolutely.”
    “Is God good?”

    “Sure! God's good.”

    “Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

    “Yes.”
    “Are you good or evil?”
    “The Bible says I'm evil.”

    The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him would you try?”
    “Yes sir, I would.”
    “So you're good...!”
    “I wouldn't say that.”

    “But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.”
    The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”
    The student remains silent.
    “No, you can't, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. “Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?”

    “Er...yes,” the student says.

    “Is Satan good?”

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

    “Then where does Satan come from?”

    The student falters. “From God”

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

    “Yes, sir.”

    “Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?”
    “Yes.”

    “So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.” Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”
    The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

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

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

    The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”
    “No sir. I've never seen Him.”

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

    “No, sir, I have not.”
    “Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
    “'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.”

    “Yet you still believe in him?”

    “Yes.”
    “According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?”
    “Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”
    “Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”
    At the back of the room another 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.
    “Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmit synergy, 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. The 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.


    Bloedspetters besmeuren de muren van de ruïnes, van iets wat men ooit een beschaving noemde maar al lang is vernietigt.

    Ik heb dit eerder ergens gelezen. Maar het is een verhaaltje wat je aan het denken zet...


    Bored.

    There actually are people who saw evolution. So there is evolution. But, nice story! ^^


    And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world.

    Owned.


    I've no idea of the future, but I can see the past quite well. And the present, if the weather's clear.

    Ik had dit al eerder gelezen, en er zal heus wel wat van kloppen maar toch ga ik er niet over nadenken.


    Soms ben ik het sterkste wijf ter wereld en soms ben ik een kwartelei.

    Lilium schreef:
    There actually are people who saw evolution. So there is evolution. But, nice story! ^^


    Nee, er zijn mensen, die denken te weten dat evolutie er is geweest. Niemand heeft ooit lang genoeg geleefd om daadwerkelijke evolutie mee te maken. Er kan alleen maar over gespeculeerd worden, naar aanleiding van vindingen, die er op duiden dat het zo zou kunnen zijn. Niemand heeft ooit evolutie gezien.

    Het zet je wel aan het denken, mooie tekst. The professor did get seriously owned though x]

    [ bericht aangepast op 3 nov 2011 - 11:18 ]


    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

    Klinkt behoorlijk logisch, behalve dat van de hersens. Je hoeft hersens niet te zien, ruiken of voelen om te weten dat ze er zijn. Als je lichaam kan functioneren, heb je hersens, zonder werkt je lichaam niet. (: Dus, daar gaat het fout waardoor het laatste stuk niet meer geloofwaardig is in mijn ogen.

    Daarbij, mensen die moorden uit naam van God, is dat dan ook gecreerd omdat ze Gods liefde missen?

    Mijn conclusie is dat het verhaal werkt zonder het laatste stuk.

    [ bericht aangepast op 3 nov 2011 - 11:20 ]


    Your make-up is terrible

    Ik vind dat de argumenten die zowel de professor als de leerling aanbrengen, simpelweg nergens op slaan.


    Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

    Assassin schreef:
    Klinkt behoorlijk logisch, behalve dat van de hersens. Je hoeft hersens niet te zien, ruiken of voelen om te weten dat ze er zijn. Als je lichaam kan functioneren, heb je hersens, zonder werkt je lichaam niet. (: Dus, daar gaat het fout waardoor het laatste stuk niet meer geloofwaardig is in mijn ogen.


    Maar dat voorbeeld is afgeleid van wat die professor zei. Want hij zei, dat dingen alleen maar bestaan, als je ze gezien, gevoeld en geroken hebt. Dus is het een compleet logisch voorbeeld, want dat is letterlijk wat de professor zei. Je moet maar aannemen dat zijn hersenen er zijn, want niemand heeft ze in dat lokaal gezien, gevoeld of geroken. Dus moet je er maar op vertrouwen dat die professor hersenen heeft. Compleet logisch, als je gaat kijken naar wat die leraar zei en het dus letterlijk zo overnemen. Wat er dus gebeurd is x]


    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

    Zalig. Echt, respect.


    So here's a heart to heart on the back of postcards sent from California

    Applejack schreef:
    (...)

    Maar dat voorbeeld is afgeleid van wat die professor zei. Want hij zei, dat dingen alleen maar bestaan, als je ze gezien, gevoeld en geroken hebt. Dus is het een compleet logisch voorbeeld, want dat is letterlijk wat de professor zei. Je moet maar aannemen dat zijn hersenen er zijn, want niemand heeft ze in dat lokaal gezien, gevoeld of geroken. Dus moet je er maar op vertrouwen dat die professor hersenen heeft. Compleet logisch, als je gaat kijken naar wat die leraar zei en het dus letterlijk zo overnemen. Wat er dus gebeurd is x]


    Als mensen dingen zo letterlijk overnemen (ik snap wel dat ze dat doen) is het toch behoorlijk dom.
    Goed, de professors argument over Jezus, dat hij hem niet had gezien, gevoeld of geroken had klopt niet, want er is bewijs dat hij echt bestaan heeft.

    Ik vind dat er te weinig over nagedacht is toen dit geschreven was.


    Your make-up is terrible

    Assassin schreef:
    (...)

    Als mensen dingen zo letterlijk overnemen (ik snap wel dat ze dat doen) is het toch behoorlijk dom.
    Goed, de professors argument over Jezus, dat hij hem niet had gezien, gevoeld of geroken had klopt niet, want er is bewijs dat hij echt bestaan heeft.

    Ik vind dat er te weinig over nagedacht is toen dit geschreven was.


    Ja, omdat dat argument niet klopte, klopte het andere ook niet. Sowieso zitten er bij beide redeneringen behoorlijk wat losse eindjes x'D Ik vind het al knap dat ze het in zoverre geschreven hebben, maar beide argumentaties missen gewoon wat dingen en hebben 'wtf?' momenten er in zitten x]

    Sowieso snap ik dat hele probleem tussen wetenschap en religie niet. De grootste wetenschappelijke ontdekkingen zijn door mensen die in een God geloven gedaan. Hetzelfde met filosofen, de grootste filosofen, die zijn ook gewoon gelovig.


    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

    Assassin schreef:
    (...)

    Als mensen dingen zo letterlijk overnemen (ik snap wel dat ze dat doen) is het toch behoorlijk dom.
    Goed, de professors argument over Jezus, dat hij hem niet had gezien, gevoeld of geroken had klopt niet, want er is bewijs dat hij echt bestaan heeft.

    Ik vind dat er te weinig over nagedacht is toen dit geschreven was.
    ja vind ik ook. Iemand die even slim wilde doen maar volledig in de mist ia gegaan. De argumenten spreken elkaar tegen, zijn slecht gestructureerd en bevatten trouwens constant valse vergelijkingen en vage autoritaire figuren.


    Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

    Applejack schreef:
    (...)

    Ja, omdat dat argument niet klopte, klopte het andere ook niet. Sowieso zitten er bij beide redeneringen behoorlijk wat losse eindjes x'D Ik vind het al knap dat ze het in zoverre geschreven hebben, maar beide argumentaties missen gewoon wat dingen en hebben 'wtf?' momenten er in zitten x]

    Sowieso snap ik dat hele probleem tussen wetenschap en religie niet. De grootste wetenschappelijke ontdekkingen zijn door mensen die in een God geloven gedaan. Hetzelfde met filosofen, de grootste filosofen, die zijn ook gewoon gelovig.


    Hmhm, er zijn genoeg bewijzen voor dingen uit de bijbel, daar draait de wetenschap om, bewijzen.


    Your make-up is terrible

    Dit staat in mijn cursus van Godsdienst, alleen dan wel in het Nederlands. Er stond ook nog bij dat die student Albert Einstein was, maar ik heb geen idee of dat echt zo is.


    Exactly who we are is just enough.

    Haha, super vet!
    Maar ik ben het niet met de studenten eens dat evil the absence of God is, actually.
    Maar goed.


    You could be great, you know, it’s all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt