Proving The Existance Of God Cannot Be Done, Stop Trying, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 08:06 PM by Dubyakadubla
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Creator.
He asks one of his new students to stand and.....


Professor: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Professor: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Professor: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then?

Student: (Student is silent.)

Professor: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Is Satan good?

Student: No.

Professor: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God...

Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

Student: Yes.

Professor: So who created evil?

Student: (Student does not answer)

Professor: Sickness, Immorality, Hatred, Ugliness, All
these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them?

Student: (Student has no answer)

Professor: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God ?

Student: No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student: No , sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

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

Professor: Yet, you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

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

Student: Nothing. I only have my Faith.

Professor: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't. Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, 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. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.
We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness 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? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed! Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor.
Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

Professor: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

Student: 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 not a scientist but a preacher?

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....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, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

Professor: I guess you'll have to take it on Faith, son.

Student: That is it sir.. The link between Man & the Creator is Faith.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 08:41 PM by Lokey13
reply to post by Ameneter



Yes the critical word in your post being OPINION... or the actual definition: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. Geez these theist's are easy to shut down then I thought.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 08:43 PM by Lokey13
reply to post by bismarcksea



Geez lay off the acid... Either that or quit watching SCI-Fi.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Lokey13]



reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 08:48 PM by Lokey13
reply to post by AlexG141989



Agree with you all the way, although I don't completely disagree with the fact that there may be something after life; like you said it can't be proven. But I do agree that every religion is man made and therefor foulable for that exact reason. I wish everyone would stop trying to prove the existence of something that could just as easily be everything and nothing; and just be compassionate toward their fellow man.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Lokey13]


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 09:05 PM by AlexG141989
reply to post by Dubyakadubla



oh please lol, If you are going to try to take that approach, at least make the story something that wasn't written by a biased religious person. If you are going to take that approach, make it something that isn't so easily refuted. I've come across this little story before and it has many holes.

For one, the argument that the student used about the proffesor not having a brain due to not being able to see it. If this story was written by someone neutral in this debate it would have gone a little something like this.

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....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, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

Professor: We'll son, the difference between not being able to see my brain, and not being able to see God is that one can be proved rather easily. Let's say you had a shotgun and you pointed it at my head. You know for a fact that if you fired, my brains would pop out of my head. Thats one way to prove I have a brain, or at least had a brain. An easier way would be to take me to a surgeon and have him cut my head open and let you look inside. Those are two not so pleasant ways that you can prove I have a brain. However, using that same logic how do you prove God???

"Yet I KNOW there is a creator. How? Because I have touched it's face and been SUCKED back into this world."

I hate to repeat myself but what is so hard to understand about this??? YOU dont KNOW that God exists, there is a reason it is called "faith". Why should proof only be in the eyes of the beholder??? That explanation sounds alot more like a cop-out to me

"You would change your mind in an instant if you stood in front of the
Lord Jesus Christ. You would say over and over......."My God. what
was i thinking?" The Lord Jesus Christ had unconditional love for you.
God Almighty, the spirit father also loves you unconditionally."

Hmmm I deeply & sincerely hope that you are joking.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 09:41 PM by undo
first thing i noticed was there were some things that were true all over the planet, without fail. aside from the more obvious scientific principles like gravity, there were social and familal norms, everywhere. when i compared it to nature, i noticed the norms in nature were programmed in by default (science calls this instinct but i view it more like biological computer programming). however, in human cultures, it was alot more random. i was amazed to find any cohesive norm had managed to enter the picture -- BUT IT DID! not just in western culture, but every culture, all the way back in human civilzation to the earliest written texts. this thread of truth had wound itself around and threw our historical texts for thousands of years.

some of the ideas were common sense, such as be kind, don't steal, etc. others were more specific - the power of positive thinking/faith. and yet more were extremely esoteric - visions/astral projections. it was hard to ignore because it kept coming up, across religions, eastern, western, didn't matter.

so the next step was to research the historicity of the texts themselves. and that's where it really got interesting. i'd elaborate but this post would spill over into another and another (and probably 5 more), just to list all the remarkable "norms" or connected dots i found. suffice it to say, if you really want to know, you'll find the answers. if you don't want to know, you won't, that is, conceivably. i mean, stranger things have happened.


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 09:47 PM by AlexG141989
Originally posted by undo
first thing i noticed was there were some things that were true all over the planet, without fail. aside from the more obvious scientific principles like gravity, there were social and familal norms, everywhere. when i compared it to nature, i noticed the norms in nature were programmed in by default (science calls this instinct but i view it more like biological computer programming). however, in human cultures, it was alot more random. i was amazed to find any cohesive norm had managed to enter the picture -- BUT IT DID! not just in western culture, but every culture, all the way back in human civilzation to the earliest written texts. this thread of truth had wound itself around and threw our historical texts for thousands of years.

some of the ideas were common sense, such as be kind, don't steal, etc. others were more specific - the power of positive thinking/faith. and yet more were extremely esoteric - visions/astral projections. it was hard to ignore because it kept coming up, across religions, eastern, western, didn't matter.

so the next step was to research the historicity of the texts themselves. and that's where it really got interesting. i'd elaborate but this post would spill over into another and another (and probably 5 more), just to list all the remarkable "norms" or connected dots i found. suffice it to say, if you really want to know, you'll find the answers. if you don't want to know, you won't, that is, conceivably. i mean, stranger things have happened.


huh???


reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 09:55 PM by LiquidCrystalz
reply to post by AlexG141989



You want people to stop trying to Prove God is real?
Why don't you put us all to shame and prove that he isn't..
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags