Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

If it was demonstrated that there had to be a "designer" for the universe

this is not even proof that the designer

still exists


yo

 

[Scorch]

If a scientific explanation exists, then sure, a supernatural explanation will be inferior. There would be no reason for posing one. However if no naturalistic explanation exists, why exclude the possibility of supernatural explanation? Sure, it will be scientifically inexplicable, but we already know that. You need to demonstrate why no supernatural explanation is ever valid. What concerns me is that you seem to be ruling out the supernatural a priori - that is, it is simply taken or assumed without justification. This is a concern because if anything supernatural does exist (and has casual power), your naturalism has ruled out discovering it without the necessary warrant.

This is where such supernatural explanation simply falls into the gaps left by scientific understanding. It is a mere mirror image of a proper understanding of the universe that stands in lieu of a proper, quantifiable understanding. In this sense, such supernatural explanations are shortcuts, entertained by credulous people.

Supernatural explanations never have scientific validity simply because they are not subject to science; they are flexible, malleable and it is for this precise reason that they will side-step and adapt to every scientific advancement of knowledge into another gap, and they are given philosophical lip-service by such people as yourself who ride off the fact that if you direct your claims specifically enough, you can come up with something that is not falsifiable.

Given that you have conceded that scientific explanations should always supersede supernatural ones and science holds that the universe is, as a whole, able to be subject to rational inquiry, then the burden lies upon you to demonstrate why a supernatural explanation (that is one that is outside the realm of rational inquiry) should be preferred to scientifically-motivated conjecture based upon evidence and rationality.

 

[spacecadet]

Well, God has created a plan for us. Just like every other plan, whether its a business plan or whatever it is, its our choice to follow it or not. In other words, its our choice to follow the plan God has provided us. That's also where the devil comes in, he disrupts God's plans and causes us to go astray.

So.... the starving African children chose not to follow some glorious plan and live a happy life? Or were corrupted by the devil and were led astray???

....Or does 'god' just pay attention to the nice, clean, middle/upper class people in developed countries.....?

 

[Karlmarx]

My argument is quite simple:

i. A god that transcends language / predication is a god that is ineffable. Only silence is adequate.

ii. A god that transcends reason / explicability is a god that is inexplicable. Only mystery is definite.

iii. A god that transcends being / all conditions-relations is a god that is unconditional-nonrelational. "Existence & nonexistence" is indiscernible. Only non-being is necessary.

Even if the first two transcendent-aspects of god are only functions of our cognitive limitations, the third cannot merely be a human affectation, otherwise god would only transcend us as "superhuman" instead of, in the greatest sense, as "supernatural", and thus not be (ultimately) transcendent. Is a god that is "not transcendent" in a metaphysical (i.e. ultimate) sense "a god"? None of the great world-religions worship – or their respective theological traditions profess – "non-transcendent gods". Even where Christianity tries to have it both ways by suggesting that its god is "both transcendent and immanent", it’s the transcendent aspect of the Christian god that is the independent variable -- prior to the world it allegedly "created" and within which it’s also "immanent" -- that determines god’s ultimate status. It’s not my point that the concept of "transcendence" is incoherent, or self-contradictory, only that it entails non-being when attributed as a property that nullifies whatever determines the difference between what is & what is not the case, existence & nonexistence.

Therefore:

I. If god is transcendent, then god is (a) non-being. It does not exist.

II. If god is "transcendent and immanent", and if transcendence determines, or is prior to, immanence (as it is prior to the allegedly "created world" in which god is "immanent"), then god is (a) non-being. It does not exist.

III. If god is "not transcendent", then god is not god, and therefore is (a) non-being. It does not exist.

God does not exist.


Consequently, insofar as "theism" presupposes a ‘transcendent god’ it is incoherent, and any arguments premised on "theism" will be unsound.


Debate 12: Does God Exist?: Philosophy Forums

?

 

[tommykins]

After taking up Science and Religion course as well as having a few readings/doco's/whatever, I've now decided that God's existence is a philosophical one, and no amount of scientific discoveries could prove God does not exist.

Why? solely because of the traits (however convenient it is for the theist) of God prevents any kind of materialistic penetration and discovery.

This is of course implied via the idea that all science is created by God in the first place, and any research into it explains 'why' a phenomena occurs, and not 'who' did it.

As such, religion and science should kept as separate as possible.

One might view the BB Theory to be God's doing, or random fluctuations, but either way - the BB did occur and it is up to us to interpret it according to our knowledge and background.

 

[terminator69]

After taking up Science and Religion course as well as having a few readings/doco's/whatever, I've now decided that God's existence is a philosophical one, and no amount of scientific discoveries could prove God does not exist.

Richard Dawkins says the same thing but concludes that it is very unlikely that one exists.

 

[tommykins]

Richard Dawkins says the same thing but concludes that it is very unlikely that one exists.

I know, it is improbable that one exists, especially with the unclear definitions of God and his characteristics.

 

[xmangx]

after taking up science and religion course as well as having a few readings/doco's/whatever, i've now decided that god's existence is a philosophical one, and no amount of scientific discoveries could prove god does not exist.

Why? Solely because of the traits (however convenient it is for the theist) of god prevents any kind of materialistic penetration and discovery.

This is of course implied via the idea that all science is created by god in the first place, and any research into it explains 'why' a phenomena occurs, and not 'who' did it.

As such, religion and science should kept as separate as possible.

One might view the bb theory to be god's doing, or random fluctuations, but either way - the bb did occur and it is up to us to interpret it according to our knowledge and background.

+1

 

[PH011]

If an omnipotent, ominiscient being does exist, I sure hope it isn't like the one mentioned in the bible.

 

[BradCube]

Apologies for the late replies - things have been a little hectic.

Well quite frankly I cannot be bothered to continue this part, because despite all I have said you are still arguing with a first premise I never claimed.

I have previously quoted you on what you have claimed. Again, I am addressing this claim of yours:

So in the absence of any evidence, I assert that I believe God probably doesn't exist and even if he did I would assert that we have no way of knowing the slightest thing about him or his nature, let alone anything meaningful about his intentions and personality

I have gone through and explained why I feel that this is a positive assertion (not a mere lack of belief) and have thus proposed that it has some evidential requirements. I have also explained why I feel that what you regard as absence of evidence does not provide you with evidence of absence. This was done through my scheme for denying the existence of an entity. Originally you seemed to take issue with this scheme saying that it assumed theism. Once I explained that it started from a position of agnosticism, you had nothing more to comment.

You keep saying this over and over but it is a terribly weak excuse, really. For example endowing humans with freewill does not necessitate endowing them with a sense of emotions that he was fully aware would require the experience of vicarious suffering of other human beings in order to make them 'responsible moral agents' in the first place.

It's not conceivable in the slightest, if you hold the nature of human emotion and morality to be based on our experiencing of the suffering of, again, 200,000 East-Asian peasants, for example, that this is the best possible way for things to function.

There is nothing about our free will that necessitates the creation of any facet of our emotional reactions or 'flawed' nature. God's omnipotence allows him, again, to have created us with any sense of emotions; perhaps one with an inherent understanding of morality and good and evil, as opposed to one that requires violence, the death of his fellow creations and disaster in order to raise 'responsible moral agents' and create the 'greatest possible good'.

Again, you cannot simply point to free will as a catch-all excuse, because, even if free will is entirely necessary, it does not restrict any facet of God's creation of our emotional nature as human beings. If our emotional systems require us to see disasters, destruction, death and suffering of other human beings in order to simply be moral people (something I disagree with entirely anyway, but taking your premise anyway) then this is a system entirely of God's making; and he was entirely aware of it.

Okay, so essentially you seem to be saying this: “Granted that freewill is a necessity it still does not follow that our current emotional system is a necessity. God could have endowed us with an emotional system that doesn’t need to suffer as greatly and would still bring about the greatest good.”

There are a few things that can be said to this.

The first is that we have no idea what emotional system would be required to bring about the greatest good. It’s easy enough to simply say “Oh, God could have made our emotional suffering less and still brought about the greatest good”, but if it is our freewill that is inherently tied up in the greatest good then our emotional faculties will also be tied up in this. Since our emotional system contributes to our decision making process, it is entirely unclear that we would act in precisely the same way if our emotional systems were different. In fact it seems to me that this is likely to be false – I would think we would act very differently if our emotional systems were different.

One may counter this by claiming that if our emotional systems were different, God (being omnipotent) could fashion us so that we would still make the same decisions freely. Ultimately though, this asserts something which is logically incoherent. That is, it suggests that God can make someone do something freely (which they otherwise wouldn’t have done). This of course is not within Gods power to bring about.

Secondly, our emotional system does not only affect our inspiration for moral action or choice in the world around us, it could also have an adverse affect on how people relate to God. If Gods relationship with mankind is a key part of the greatest good then it is possible that our emotional nature has also been crafted to best facilitate this. Perhaps for people in the midst of suffering their emotional system helps make them aware of their lack of self sufficiency and as a result they are more apt to reach out to God for help and support. Or perhaps, our ability to feel loved deeply was designed so we could experience emotional intimacy with God – or with other people as an expression of God’s image. I’m sure many more examples could be thought of.

Thirdly, I feel that there may be some confusion over the way in which we are using the terms emotion. Are you strictly only including emotions or are you also including the recognition of moral behaviour and duties? I realise the two are closely related, but I feel there is some distinction to be made here.

Given that you have conceded that scientific explanations should always supersede supernatural ones and science holds that the universe is, as a whole, able to be subject to rational inquiry, then the burden lies upon you to demonstrate why a supernatural explanation (that is one that is outside the realm of rational inquiry) should be preferred to scientifically-motivated conjecture based upon evidence and rationality.

Couple of things here.

First, I conceded that if a scientific explanation exists, then it will be superior to a supernatural one – since there would be no reason for positing a supernatural explanation for something that can be explained naturally. This does not mean we should prefer a scientific explanation even if one does not exists however.

Secondly, you seem to be trying to indicate that science holds the only keys to rational enquiry within the universe. I simply do not agree. I would hold that philosophy is where you will find the grounding for all rationality and science will draw upon philosophy when making conclusions from data. Your assertion that supernatural explanations are outside the realm of rational enquiry loses all grounding when science isn’t the basis for rationality.

 

[BradCube]

Chicken and egg, yo. If the universe wasn't made in this way then we wouldn't be able to exist to examine it. We adapted to it, not vice versa.

Essentially you are arguing for a particular application of the Weak Anthropic Principle that proposes we need not be surprised at our existence since if the universe were not fine-tuned we would not exist to observe it. I have written up a short critique of this reasoning and have attached it with this post.

As in adaptation through species/geographical locations, etc?

Ahh, no? Did you read the links?

It best represents the way we interact with reality (infinite recursion... GO). To manipulate this down to the level of abstract philosophy in order to justify a deity is just sophistry. Even if you imply that there is no empirical method of saying it's the best way of interacting with reality, it doesn't automatically imply a deity.

I think you may have misunderstood what was said. What I am arguing is that science is not the only valid explanation – there are other ways of knowing things. Science must always be used in combination with philosophy in some fashion since this is where logical reasoning will take place.

In no way did I argue that if scientific explanation is not the only valid explanation, that this automatically implies a deity. You have constructed a straw man.

Again we don't know the method through which it works, but we also don't know the method through which anaesthetics work, or many other things we take for granted in our day to day lives. This is just a matter of further understanding in the field.

This is exactly my point. We don’t need an explanation of an explanation in order for it to be regarded as valid.

But it is criterion for weighting them in far less esteem than a naturalistic explanation when something else invokes 'well a deity did x', when a naturalistic explanation can show a much more reasonable (for your average quantity of reason) path to the actual outcome.

To be honest, I’m more interested in the truth of the matter than dogmatically ignoring view points based on my distaste of those who hold them. Also remember that in the case being discussed we were talking about phenomenon which lacks any plausible naturalistic explanation.

Because then you open the scope of the suggestions within the debate to absolutely everything. What makes your particular realm of supernatural belief accurate?

You would look at the sort of phenomena observed and look for valid explanations that best fit the data. This would go back into normal reasoning and justification for explanations proposed.

Because thus far, every supernatural claim for basically everything over the history of time that has been claimed for almost anything that has then been explained through naturalistic means has been proven to be bullshit. Call it pragmatism.

This is not good grounds for ruling out the possibility for supernatural explanation all together. Scientific theories and explanations also change over time – just because certain explanations have been false in the past does not give grounds to disaffirm all classes of those explanations currently. One should asses each individual explanation on its own merits.

Again in the context of the discussion arguing that it could potentially exist isn't the same as providing anything of a tangible nature that exists within the realm of this debate. Again, ruling out a supernatural cause comes entirely from pragmatism.

I would submit that this view is unjustified and without necessary warrant for the reasons above.

But this is separate entirely from the realm of views that you actually hold. Again, even if the universe is designed by an entity (or entities) it does not provide a teleological justification for 'x religious belief'.

Within the context of this discussion, God (for all values of God) is implied to be omnipotent, supernatural etc etc.

Otherwise the primary argument of 'is x y or z religion effectively right and if so why am I a follower' falls by the wayside.

This is because my personal beliefs are based on a variety of reasons and not just a teleological argument. I am not trying to extend this argument further than what it seeks to prove.

 

[Scorch]

The first is that we have no idea what emotional system would be required to bring about the greatest good. It’s easy enough to simply say “Oh, God could have made our emotional suffering less and still brought about the greatest good”, but if it is our freewill that is inherently tied up in the greatest good then our emotional faculties will also be tied up in this. Since our emotional system contributes to our decision making process, it is entirely unclear that we would act in precisely the same way if our emotional systems were different. In fact it seems to me that this is likely to be false – I would think we would act very differently if our emotional systems were different.

One may counter this by claiming that if our emotional systems were different, God (being omnipotent) could fashion us so that we would still make the same decisions freely. Ultimately though, this asserts something which is logically incoherent. That is, it suggests that God can make someone do something freely (which they otherwise wouldn’t have done). This of course is not within Gods power to bring about.

Secondly, our emotional system does not only affect our inspiration for moral action or choice in the world around us, it could also have an adverse affect on how people relate to God. If Gods relationship with mankind is a key part of the greatest good then it is possible that our emotional nature has also been crafted to best facilitate this. Perhaps for people in the midst of suffering their emotional system helps make them aware of their lack of self sufficiency and as a result they are more apt to reach out to God for help and support. Or perhaps, our ability to feel loved deeply was designed so we could experience emotional intimacy with God – or with other people as an expression of God’s image. I’m sure many more examples could be thought of.

All this demonstrates is extreme credulity on your part. That being said, in order for God to not appear capricious and malevolent, in your picture, the suffering and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of human beings on a yearly basis at the hands of natural disasters that God deigns must take place must be the best way of achieving the greatest good that brings with it the least amount of suffering, and free-will has not the slightest bit of influence over this, for we are being acted upon by forces of God's creation, not acting upon each other.

Things like "Perhaps for people in the midst of suffering their emotional system helps make them aware of their lack of self sufficiency and as a result they are more apt to reach out to God for help and support." again are quite frankly despicable things for God to be imagined doing; the fact that he would need to destroy a person's world, put them through physical pain and torment, and have their homes and livelihoods swept away by natural forces beyond their control simply so they would love him, ignoring the hundreds of thousands that don't even survive to be able to turn around and love God for destroying their lives is a reprehensible thing to even think of and violates any definition of the word benevolent.

First, I conceded that if a scientific explanation exists, then it will be superior to a supernatural one – since there would be no reason for positing a supernatural explanation for something that can be explained naturally. This does not mean we should prefer a scientific explanation even if one does not exists however.

A scientific explanation does exist, and it is closed and only requires causality imposed upon it by philosophical arguments attempting to add the supernatural, yet you prefer a supernatural explanation in this instance; or more accurately you prefer to add unnatural, supernatural aspects to closed, scientific explanations in order to validate your own credulous sense of belief.

 

[BradCube]

All this demonstrates is extreme credulity on your part. That being said, in order for God to not appear capricious and malevolent, in your picture, the suffering and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of human beings on a yearly basis at the hands of natural disasters that God deigns must take place must be the best way of achieving the greatest good that brings with it the least amount of suffering, and free-will has not the slightest bit of influence over this, for we are being acted upon by forces of God's creation, not acting upon each other.

The free will component comes in when looking at how people respond to natural disaster - both internally and also externally to those around them.

Things like "Perhaps for people in the midst of suffering their emotional system helps make them aware of their lack of self sufficiency and as a result they are more apt to reach out to God for help and support." again are quite frankly despicable things for God to be imagined doing; the fact that he would need to destroy a person's world, put them through physical pain and torment, and have their homes and livelihoods swept away by natural forces beyond their control simply so they would love him, ignoring the hundreds of thousands that don't even survive to be able to turn around and love God for destroying their lives is a reprehensible thing to even think of and violates any definition of the word benevolent.

This only applies if the greatest good is allowing people to live the most pleasant lives on earth. I have not defined the greatest good in this manner however. If the greatest good is looked at in terms of people coming into relationship with God and also becoming responsible moral agents then it is entirely possible that natural disasters can be used to bring about this end for the maximum amount of people. You can call me credulous (I don't mind) but ultimately I fail to see any logical inconsistency in what I am proposing.

A scientific explanation does exist, and it is closed and only requires causality imposed upon it by philosophical arguments attempting to add the supernatural, yet you prefer a supernatural explanation in this instance; or more accurately you prefer to add unnatural, supernatural aspects to closed, scientific explanations in order to validate your own credulous sense of belief.

What is the closed explanation?

 

[cssftw]

OH BOY THAT WAS TIRING, I JUST READ ALL 1053 PAGES OF BULLSHIT...

 

[Deathless]

First consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

(1) Romans 1:19-21
(2) Jeremiah 29:13-14
(3) R.E.D. Clark, Creation (London: Tyndale Press, 1946), p. 20
(4) The Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Institute of Science (Chicago, IL)
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Hugh Davson, Physiology of the Eye, 5th ed (New York: McGraw Hill, 1991)
(9) Robert Jastrow; "Message from Professor Robert Jastrow"; LeaderU.com; 2002.
(10) Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe; (Basic Books,1988); p 5.
(11) Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great about Christianity; (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2007, chapter 11).
(12) Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist (New York: BasicBooks, 1998), 43.
(13) Francis S. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and author of The Language of God, (Free Press, New York, NY), 2006

From: Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God






So I think, yes God does exist.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

First consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

(1) Romans 1:19-21
(2) Jeremiah 29:13-14
(3) R.E.D. Clark, Creation (London: Tyndale Press, 1946), p. 20
(4) The Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Institute of Science (Chicago, IL)
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Hugh Davson, Physiology of the Eye, 5th ed (New York: McGraw Hill, 1991)
(9) Robert Jastrow; "Message from Professor Robert Jastrow"; LeaderU.com; 2002.
(10) Steven Weinberg; The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe; (Basic Books,1988); p 5.
(11) Dinesh D'Souza, What's So Great about Christianity; (Regnery Publishing, Inc, 2007, chapter 11).
(12) Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist (New York: BasicBooks, 1998), 43.
(13) Francis S. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and author of The Language of God, (Free Press, New York, NY), 2006

From: Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God






So I think, yes God does exist.

something I read in the smh. gave me some lulz.

enjoy

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...hy_save_an_animal_just_begging_for_extinction

I DON’T want to sound blasphemous, but do we really care if the golden sun moth becomes extinct?
Shouldn’t we just harden up about this whole “endangered” racket?
Maybe we’d actually be better off without this damn bug - this orange bellied parrot of the insect world - that’s now crippling developments from Sydney to Melbourne.
Oh, and spare me your huffing about biodiversity, sustainability and my children’s children’s children.
You see, I’ve seen the dodo.
In a cupboard in a monastery on a hill above Prague, he was, and looking rather startled. So would you, if you’d just learned you were to be stuffed and mounted as the last of your kind.
To be frank, I wasn’t impressed. It was as ugly as sin, with the body of a turkey, the neck of a duck and the head of a vulture.
Here was indisputable proof that the universe was not created by an all-knowing God. Whatever made the dodo got the proportions so screwed up, with a monster beak but midget wings, that the bird couldn’t fly, and survived only as long on Mauritius as it took dogs, pigs, cats, rats and monkeys to find their way to its island and its eggs.
Nor was it of the slightest use to us. Its feathers were dull grey and its meat tough and nasty. It was so brainless besides that the Portuguese gave it their word for fool - duodo. Its Latin name says it all: Didus ineptus.
In fact, looking at the goofy thing, I felt serenely confident that there was not the slightest gap left in my life by its passing, just as I have no reason at all to regret never being able to see a herd of tyrannosaurus rex in my front garden.
Rather the reverse. The dodo’s extinction has been a gift to the language, giving us the pithy phrase “as dead as a dodo” as well as a good-natured word to describe the brainless.
Here’s an animal of more use to us dead than alive, which brings me to our golden sun moth, and our peculiar new habit of losing all ability to reason once someone screams “endangered”.

This is a moth that’s suddenly become the pet victim of activists who strangely believe a bit of grassland isn’t vastly improved by the addition of a few houses, or at least an oval for the kids.
And, much like the orange bellied parrot, it has a curious knack for bobbing up exactly where some poor schmuck was going to build a factory, a mall or a new suburb.
Last month, for instance, we were told so many of these moths had been found at a planned new housing development at Wyndham that at least 40ha could no longer be cleared.
In Coolaroo, 12 more moths were detected on a site for a new Woolworths store, and earlier this year yet more moths interfered with plans to build 160 houses at West Macgregor, in the ACT.
It’s curious, how a moth officially declared “critically endangered”, gets around so many building sites. As the federal Environment Department innocently puts it: “Increased survey effort since 2003 has yielded a further 39 (moth) sites in Victoria ... Much of this survey effort has been in association with development proposals.”
In fact, the more that developers are forced to check for these bugs, the more they find, to their cost. That’s why Environment ACT could list only 78 moth sites in NSW, ACT and Victoria in 2006, but the federal Environment Department could name another 47 only three years later.
But even if this golden sun moth is really as rare as is claimed, must we really go to such expense to save it, when it’s as dud a creation as the dodo?
It doesn’t even have working mouth parts, for goodness sake, and its wings are so useless that the female must walk, while the male can fly no more than 100m, and then only when the sun shines and the wind is soft.
Worse, these cripples spend up to three years in pupae form, and when they finally emerge live no more than four days and as little as one.
This is a life form virtually begging to be made extinct, and living as if it already were.
Even its fiercest defenders in the Don’t-Touch-Nature movement would struggle to love this joke of a moth, since it feeds not only on native grass but now relies on the imported Chilean needlegrass as well.
That means to best preserve it, we may have to plant Chilean weeds in our native grasslands. Tell that to the Greens.
So what good is this insect really? Isn’t it just Gaia’s way of telling us to take ourselves - and this mouthless, flightless and lifeless moth - a lot less seriously?

 

[Graney]

First consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn't change -- on earth or in galaxies far from us.

How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."11

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!

Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.13

Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.

Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tommykins]

deathless needs to read OP

 

[samueljoesph]

im a christian. i do believe in god.
and a mate sent this to me and i thought it was cool. so ill share it with you =]




'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.

Professor: '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 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 it 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 this 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'

​

​

if someone already posted this then sorry. but i thought it was cool. ​

​

 

[tommykins]

proves nothing.

i read 2 lines and was expecting the bullshit punchline of 'AND THIS STUDENT WAS ALBERT EINSTEIN'