Science vs God - a debate...a conversation

[dmp]

Hope this isn't a re-post...

Good for thinking about, at least

SCIENCE vs. GOD : A DEBATE
Origin: Unknown

"Professing to be wise, they became fools . . . "

"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." 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."

"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. "Ahh! 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 them? "Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could...in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."

(No answer)

"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?"

{No answer}

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella."

"Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?" The student falters.

"From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

{No answer}

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the terrible things - do they exist in this world? "

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them? "

{No answer}

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE! "The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

{No answer}

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

{No answer}

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?"

Pause.

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"

{No answer}

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

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

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen Him?"

"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 smelled your Jesus ... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

{No answer}

"Answer me, please."

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

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

The student doesn't answer.

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits... Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

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

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

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

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458. 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. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"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 and give me a jar of it. Can you... give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

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

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!""

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example 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 cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. 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, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! 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 makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. 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 priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"

The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain...felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain?" No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos.

The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16

"Without faith it is impossible to please God..." Hebrews 11:

 

[5stringJeff]

I've seen it before, but not on here.

I will say, though, that more and more scientists are accepting Intellegent Design as a plausible theory for the origin of the universe, i.e. the "First Cause" which caused the Big Bang.

 

[Hobbit]

Yeah, more and more scientists are accepting the fact that the odds a bunch of amino acids would come together to form a living being is more preposterous than a tornado passing through a junkyard causing the spare parts to fall together into a functional 747.

 

[gaffer]

There's a lot said about the measurements of light and heat. But those are poor analogies for good and evil. If evil is the absence of good it still would have a limit. How do you measure good? And what is the negative value of evil? If God created everything, then he also created evil. Was that a good thing or an evil thing? Is something bad happening necessarily an evil occurance?

Which one of the two students got a passing grade? Would the failure of one of them be an evil event? What level of evil would it be? Was the professor evil in belittling the first student? Was the second student evil in belittling the professor?

Dark is the absence of light. The introduction of light into dark creates various shades of darkness. Light is energy which is heat. Heat always flows toward no heat to creat various temperatures. Therefore there would be varying degrees of good and evil.

I have to get to bed, but this could open up a can of good or evil worms.

:bat:

 

[NewGuy]

There's a lot said about the measurements of light and heat. But those are poor analogies for good and evil. If evil is the absence of good it still would have a limit. How do you measure good? And what is the negative value of evil? If God created everything, then he also created evil. Was that a good thing or an evil thing? Is something bad happening necessarily an evil occurance?

Which one of the two students got a passing grade? Would the failure of one of them be an evil event? What level of evil would it be? Was the professor evil in belittling the first student? Was the second student evil in belittling the professor?

Dark is the absence of light. The introduction of light into dark creates various shades of darkness. Light is energy which is heat. Heat always flows toward no heat to creat various temperatures. Therefore there would be varying degrees of good and evil.

I have to get to bed, but this could open up a can of good or evil worms.

:bat:

Actually your entire supposition of varying degrees misses something.

Moral relativity which is what you suppose still proves flawed:

When a pitcher of water is pure, it is pure.

When it gets 1 drop of red food coloring added, you cannot see it. -Yet the entire pitcher is contaminated.

The water at the top is not called 'more contaminated". -It is ALL contaminated.

Therefore the absence of light in any capacity is dark.

The absence of good in any capacity is evil.

Pure good=Holy.

 

[HGROKIT]

Just outright cool!

 

[ajwps]

There's a lot said about the measurements of light and heat. But those are poor analogies for good and evil. If evil is the absence of good it still would have a limit. How do you measure good? And what is the negative value of evil? If God created everything, then he also created evil. Was that a good thing or an evil thing? Is something bad happening necessarily an evil occurance?

1) good measurements: simple good; somewhat good; higher good; very good; greatest good.
2) negative value of evil: deviltry; diablerie; evildoing; immorality; iniquity; misdeed; peccancy; sin; wickedness; wrongdoing.
3) Creation of good and evil: Creation of evil is a good thing for it gives one the chance to create good.
4) Bad happening necessarily evil occurance: No. Example: A volcano is a bad happening but it necessarily results in the formation of new land for humanity to live on, create music on, create literature on, become charitable on, give mercy to one's fellow man on and to be thankful for this bad happening in the first place.

Which one of the two students got a passing grade?

It depends on whether the liberal teacher knew the difference between justice and truth or admitting ignornace of two alternative realities.

Would the failure of one of them be an evil event?

Only if one of the two students failed to learn the material covered in this course.

What level of evil would it be?

Depending on who does the judging of the continuum between good and evil.

Was the professor evil in belittling the first student?

Not at all. The professor was belitting himself by demonstrating his own ignorance of the direct connection between science and religion.

Was the second student evil in belittling the professor?

Not at all. The second student simply provided a valid alternative to the professor's concrete certainty.

Dark is the absence of light. The introduction of light into dark creates various shades of darkness. Light is energy which is heat. Heat always flows toward no heat to creat various temperatures. Therefore there would be varying degrees of good and evil.

Now you are beginning to understand.

I have to get to bed, but this could open up a can of good or evil worms.

I hope the sleep fairy springles good dream dust over you so that you will not have evil dreams. How many worms can you get in a 4 ounce can?

:happy2:

 

[Zhukov]

Firstly, the professor's brain could be observed. So the student's grand final statement falls flat.

Secondly, the Theory of Evolution is the logical derivative of many observable phenomena.

 

[dmp]

Firstly, the professor's brain could be observed. So the student's grand final statement falls flat..

No - his brain 'can't' be viewed; by anyone in audience...that was the point. The point is there are lots of 'real' things we can't observe.

Secondly, the Theory of Evolution is the logical derivative of many observable phenomena.

It just happens that divine design makes MORE sense to people who are honestly looking; devoid of agenda or prejudice.

 

[Zhukov]

No - his brain 'can't' be viewed; by anyone in audience...that was the point. The point is there are lots of 'real' things we can't observe.

Sure it could. Take a class field trip to a hospital and get the man an MRI. Easy.

Or if you want to take it to an extreme, bash the man's head in.

I understand his point. His last example was awful, that's all.

It just happens that divine design makes MORE sense to people who are honestly looking; devoid of agenda or prejudice.

Not to me.

 

[dmp]

Sure it could. Take a class field trip to a hospital and get the man an MRI. Easy.

You aren't seeing the guy's brain; you're seeing the effects the matter has on whatever waves are passing thru his skull -

People don't see God so much; as they see the effects He has on people's brains and hearts and junk.

...if people put honest effort into looking for him; they'll 'see' him.

 

[Zhukov]

You aren't seeing the guy's brain; you're seeing the effects the matter has on whatever waves are passing thru his skull -

Fine, then you don't see anything. Your brain interprets photons bouncing off of objects, streaming into your eye, and colliding with with your retina and then assembles that information into what we call a visual image.

I notice you didn't comment on the 'bashing in his skull' idea.

I'm just saying it's a crappy example, and I'm right, it is. I'm sure someone here can come up with something better.

People don't see God so much; as they see the effects He has on people's...junk.

He better not be messing with my junk...

 

[ajwps]

Firstly, the professor's brain could be observed. So the student's grand final statement falls flat.

Secondly, the Theory of Evolution is the logical derivative of many observable phenomena.

Sorry Zhukov but both of your premises are faulty.

1) The professor's brain can only be observed once the professor is dead. Ergo there is no proof of something until it can be seen postmorten. The analogy is to proving existence, matter, energy or gravity. They cannot be proved until the universe is dead as only theory exists today and that is not considered scientific fact.

2) Evolution is observable on a small scale and only within a species. Have you ever seen a snake evolve into a buffalo? Did you know that all fossil evidence found in the more than one hundred years of archeological findings proves that all the present and extinct species known came about in the Cambrian era of about 10 million years. Since that time no further species have come into existence. There were some evidence of soft one-celled fossil organisms found to be pre-Cambrian but nothing else before that time period or since. Evolution, even by Darwinians admit that nothing can evolve into the complexity we see in all life forms in the short time frame of this universe with a time span of only 10 million years or so.

Strange......

 

[ajwps]

Sure it could. Take a class field trip to a hospital and get the man an MRI. Easy.

Actually =d= is more correct. You are not seeing the professor's brain. You are seeing a piece of film which can represent anything to the observer. Perception of something is no proof that something is real. You are assuming that the professor's brain exists. Just like we all see reality as we assume it exists.

Or if you want to take it to an extreme, bash the man's head in.

Then by the same as listed in my last post, you would have to dissect the universe to see that it is real or that it exists. That is post death of our universe. Science only presumes with theories but unprovable as each generation finds something new that alters all previous assumptions.

There is no proof that anything but your consciousness is real or a solid that you can see, feel, smell or measure.

 

[Zhukov]

Sorry Zhukov but both of your premises are faulty.

1) The professor's brain can only be observed once the professor is dead.

Have you ever heard of brain surgery?

the Cambrian era of about 10 million years.

The Cambrian Period was about 500 million years ago, not 10. Clearly, you have no idea what your talking about.

Actually =d= is more correct. You are not seeing the professor's brain. You are seeing a piece of film which can represent anything to the observer. Perception of something is no proof that something is real. You are assuming that the professor's brain exists. Just like we all see reality as we assume it exists.

Actually, I'm addressing the point made by the student in the story and the merits of that point. If you have a problem with the imaginary student's understanding of reality, perhaps you should take it up with him.

 

[ajwps]

Have you ever heard of brain surgery?

Yes of course. But is the professor's brain seen as a solid mass of reality or is human consciousness only perceiving what it thinks it sees? There is no scientific evidence that it is solid.

If one takes the hydrogen atom which is thought to be a nucleus and one electron circling this nucleus. This atom is so small that even photons will not bounce off it so that it can be observed by any form of microscope in existence. But if one could enlarge that hydrogen atom nucleus to say a 4" diameter, do you have any idea of the electron's distance from that now enlarged nucleus? It would be eight miles away from the 4" nucleus.

Ergo, science says from this example that our entire universe as perceived is made up of 99.99999999999999999% space and the remainder a form of basic particle mass. But Einstein said that that matter is sometimes solid and sometimes energy and then sometimes it reverts back to the basic particle or energy ad infinitim. This does not take into account the QM concept of uncertainty.

Ergo, the professor's brain is mainly space with particles that are sometimes particles and sometimes energy (back and forth). So can you be certain that the professor's brain is in your hand?

No I don't think you can count on that reality.

The Cambrian Period was about 500 million years ago, not 10. Clearly, you have no idea what your talking about.

No you misread my post. I said that all fossil evidence appeared during the 10 million year Cambrian period. Not how long ago the Cambrian period existed until today.

No Transitional Forms

Charles Darwin wrote, "...Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (Darwin, The Origin of the Species, New York: Heritage Press, page 135). The fossil record does not show the change from one specie to another. Intensive searches for more than a century have produced no transitional forms. D. S. Woodruff, University of Chicago, wrote, "...the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition" (Science, Vol. 208, 1980, p. 716).

Forms Appear Suddenly

The major groups of animal life are distinct from the beginning of the fossil record and they appear suddenly in the Cambrian strata. This would suggest creation rather than evolution. Darwin wondered why fossils were abundant from the Cambrian strata onward. He expected to find abundant fossils beneath the Cambrian strata. (Darwin, The Origin of the Species, Heritage Press, page 295).

Systematic Gaps

(1) There are no fossils to show a change from one-celled microorganisms of the Pre-Cambrian era to the many and varied Invertebrates of the Cambrian era. (2) The change from Invertebrates to vertebrates would have involved billions of animals. Not one fossil has been found to demonstrate the change. Invertebrates have soft inner parts and hard outer shells. Vertebrates have skeletons. (3) Evolution would require that the fin of a fish would evolve into the foot of an amphibian. The coelacanth was supposed to be such a fish and thought to have limb-like features indicating development of a primitive amphibian. But in 1938 a live coelacanth was found near Madagascar. Through the years it has kept the same structure. (4) The fossil record proves nothing about the supposed evolution from amphibians to reptiles to mammals. Similar characteristics may be observed, but this does not prove that one life form evolved into another. (5) There is no fossil evidence to show that reptiles evolved into birds. Archaeopteryx was said to show the change from reptile to bird, but Archaeopteryx had feathers and was clearly a bird. (6) Insect fossils, found in amber, coal, volcanic ash, etc., show that ancient insects were similar to those living now. There is no fossil evidence to indicate that insects evolved from some other life form. (7) Plant fossils provide no evidence of evolution.

Advanced Forms

Consider the trilobite. It is found in Cambrian strata and should be primitive, but its eye is superior to the human eye. It could focus on an object one foot away and three miles away at the same time. If life forms have slowly evolved, how did the trilobite develop such an advanced eye in a primitive age?

Actually, I'm addressing the point made by the student in the story and the merits of that point. If you have a problem with the imaginary student's understanding of reality, perhaps you should take it up with him.

Sorry but the student was speaking in metaphors and not in rigid concrete scientific evidence.

You apparently would like to think the science and reality are proven facts like the professor assumed. But you can't divorce science from religion as they are interdependent as seen with modern scientific thought and the parallels in Genesis.

 

[gaffer]

four oz of worms fit into a four oz can

 

[NewGuy]

four oz of worms fit into a four oz can

Do they weigh more than a ton of feathers, or more than a ton of bricks?

 

[ajwps]

four oz of worms fit into a four oz can

Bless you my son. Go forth and do your own will. You are a wonderful human being.

Nice enough????

 

[Bullypulpit]

We readily accept that a fully formed and functional human being can arise from a few cells within the span of a generation. Why is it so difficult then, to accept that such has occurred of the span of billions of years?

As for the formation of amino acids, experiments in the 60's and 70's proved that they do form readily under laboratory conditions simulating earth's primordial environment.