An Interesting Conversation Between A Student And Teacher

Sorry duplicate!

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Donkey_Dean]

reply to post by YoungGod88


Actually you should be CORRECTED sir.

Light is not darkness when it does not reflect.

White is the event when light is reflected,

Black is when the color is absorbed and no waves are not reflected.

So, DARKNESS IS WHEN NO LIGHT IS PRESENT OR NOT REFLECTED (ABSORBED)

How can the light be darkness when it is not reflected and it is absorbed?

I like it, OP.

Problem lies, the student (ex-President of India) does not define the difference between a scientific possibility of an afterlife and what we all were raised to learn as a "god-figure".

A afterlife has some type of scientific background, OBE, NDE, etc.

The problem lies, the student is at flaw, however, his point is clear......


But the fact remains, he does not define any scientific basis on his plead other than the scientist does not have brain which is obviously scientifically PROVEN, unless he is a alien, demon, etc, WHICH IS NOT proven.



Professor does have a brain, according to 99.99999999% statistics proven over the past 1000 years.


However, I admire the student's aspect, although he could of provided it much more efficiently.

It's good to have faith for some, but i tend to believe that i don't know anything about why we're here, what made us, and what happens after we die. Religion on the other hand shoves their "answers" and "knowledge" down your throat. Science may not hold all the answers but at least we try to make sense of things by actually thinking, instead of just getting answers out of a book that's thousands of years old. Or getting them from a preacher that has the same answers who can't think beyond the boundaries of his own faith. Is it too hard to admit that you have no clue of the truth behind life, it's maker, it's closer, it's origins and story?

None of us know, and it makes some feel very small on this tiny little planet floating in this vacuum of unexplainable absence of matter. Religion to me is a fear of not knowing the truth, of the inability to know the full truth, and the compensation for that inability by making up total bull$it to help our little brains make sense of something that we have no understanding of.

think I've heard this one before, but I still read it every time, it warms my heart and reaffirms my faith in God, my Heavenly Father.

I don't 'physically' see with him with my eyes, but, I do hear him, feel him in my heart, and watch circumstances unfold and 'doors' open up with such perfect timing that...it has to be God.

It's like having a convo my wife and I had last week to our teenage grandson about him going to school or getting a job. His expectation of God is that he's susppose to be a sugar daddy and make everthing better and because he has that expectation of God he sets himself up for major dissapointment; and he uses that as a excuse to not make himself useful.

And since he does that, now he blames EVERTYTHING bad that has happened on God. Child support, tens of thousands of $$ in debt with no way to get out, his mom being a druggie, his brothers and sisters living in below poverty level, etc, etc....the list goes on and on..

But, our reply is....

We have a roof over our heads, food in the cubbard, one of us in the household is still on unemployment and working part time, I had a job within 6 days of getting laid off last July and still working there, my daughter is back living with us, he has the ENTIRE upstairs to him self, we have 5 PCs in the house 3 are in repair and 2 are working, one of which he has access whenever his nana isn't on it, we have a car that is driveable and gets us to work and places we need to go every....single....time..

Does that mean we don't have problems we've created for ourselves? Heh, most of the above problems were created by either me or my wife in the past and it was because of one thing.....

we didn't have faith in God when we should have!

even though at the time, he said it was going to be ok, we just couldn't see how and did it ourselves..which became ..

Child support, massive debt, a daughter that doens't want to be the best mom she can be, ...the list goes .. on ...and on..

So where is God in all of this?

We have a peace in our hearts and minds that even though we've screwed our lives up way more than what we ever thought..

God hasn't forsaken us, still brings on the right path, brings us along side of those with simlar experiences and we can share and pray with to help us as we help them, provides the means to make a few dollars to provide the rent and food we need, provides food boxes from chairities that suppliments our food bill for growning teenagers that can't see beyound they bedroom or their PC.

Now I ask you this to those that say they can't believe....


Based on the above issues, can you really afford NOT to have faith? How can you really know if all you do will really work out in your advantage?? You don't because you can't see your own future.

You may have all the money in the world or a good amount of it, but, even then, it will just fly out the window. Trust me, I know this.

"Lord, help me to be made willing to change, respect those that are unwilling to change, and love those who refuse. Make yourself real to me in such a way that I in turn will have the faith to know you & serve you forever after and believe...even in the face of uncetainy" Amen.

reply to post by john124


Everything is alive, just as in the workings of a cell so are the working of the smallest particle. Life is part of the equation friend, that’s all I am really saying. That makes life an energy like all others even if we cannot measure it. That makes the notion of planetary intelligence and consciousness possible. Some heavenly bodies may even have the freedom to change their orbits and or manipulate there environments at will. A unified theory is not possible unless life is included.

I have a way I see things but I can’t seem to put it to pen without sounding ridiculous. This can be proven with experimentation I think. Moreover there is intelligence in the design.

Life although not recognizable as life by our definitions will show that if you take the stuff a hydrogen atom is made of and let it sit in a vacuum it will beget more stuff that hydrogen is made of perpetually. Through reproduction and the energy the vacuum provides against the matter you will have our beginnings. If the universe is infinitely old it never needed a beginning, if by some dimensional trickery the Universe gives the illusion of expansion then you never needed a big bang. JUST LIFE!!! Life that defined the laws and built the universe to meet its needs, maybe it’s does not fit our definition of intelligence but it is a form of intelligence. I.E. GOD!

Evolution is a form of intelligence, as is the universal form of evolution that built everything. I cannot express it correctly, but thats a little closer. I guess I am crazy in that I could believe that we are an experiment conducted by a neighboring star cluster. Yes the stars themselves being the proprietors.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by Donkey_Dean]

An interesting debate, but more monotheistic BS.

Don't bother replying, I won't be here.

[Edit to add]

Actually, I was going to leave it at that until I realised how counter-productive it would be.

Counter Argument:
So, the Professor has no brain. How about the documented evidence that every human being ever to have lived had a brain and the scientific evidence that humans need a brain to live. Is it therefore not scientifically sensible to assume that as the Professor is human and is alive, that he should have a brain?

How can such assumptions be made of God? There is no scientific evidence or prior record of his (please note the lower case h) existence. There is prior evidence and record for the existence of brains.

I could counter argue every one of the OP's quoted points, but I can't be bothered.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by nik1halo]

Originally posted by nik1halo
Counter Argument:
So, the Professor has no brain. How about the documented evidence that every human being ever to have lived had a brain and the scientific evidence that humans need a brain to live. Is it therefore not scientifically sensible to assume that as the Professor is human and is alive, that he should have a brain?

How can such assumptions be made of God? There is no scientific evidence or prior record of his (please note the lower case h) existence. There is prior evidence and record for the existence of brains.

That is true, but science still cannot explain how brains were created. If all of creation just started from a single molecule that happened by chance and did not require design, wouldn't we constantly be witnessing creation literally all around us? Wouldn't things continually be created everywhere around us, causing chaos and instability everywhere?

I agree this does not prove that God exists, but I think it does indicate something beyond our own human capabilities created and designed the world. But then the problem becomes where did this entity that was able to create this world originate from? Unfortunately this leads to circular arguments about infinite particles that cannot be proven any more than the existence of a deity can be.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
If all of creation just started from a single molecule that happened by chance and did not require design, wouldn't we constantly be witnessing creation literally all around us? Wouldn't things continually be created everywhere around us, causing chaos and instability everywhere?

You do realize that evolution occurs in spurts, not a long, slow process, right? We've demonstrated many times in laboratory experiments that evolution is often a response to stress. We've also discovered several new species in the last 200 years or so, often with characteristics linking them to other nearby species and suggesting a recent evolutionary shift.

Research the lion populations of central Africa, the finches of the Galapagos, or the salamanders of the Grand Canyon. All of these are recent evolutionary changes.

I agree this does not prove that God exists, but I think it does indicate something beyond our own human capabilities created and designed the world. But then the problem becomes where did this entity that was able to create this world originate from? Unfortunately this leads to circular arguments about infinite particles that cannot be proven any more than the existence of a deity can be.

Why does it have to be an "entity"? Why can't we simply just admit (like most scientists do) that nature is incredibly versatile and we just don't know every precise answer yet? Does lack of evidence IMMEDIATELY have to point to a magical ghost in the sky?

Star & Flag!

Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
We've demonstrated many times in laboratory experiments that evolution is often a response to stress.

Correlation does not imply Causation.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
We've demonstrated many times in laboratory experiments that evolution is often a response to stress.

Correlation does not imply Causation.

When you apply a chemical antibiotic stress to a bacterial population comprised of mixed resistant and non-resistant bacteria, there is a much more rapid shift to competancy and uptake of new genetic material (the antibiotic resistance gene).

This is stress-induced microevolution, and is a textbook experiment performed in most basic college microbiology courses.

Originally posted by elfulanozutan0
reply to post by YoungGod88

 

How can the light be darkness when it is not reflected and it is absorbed?

well, I suppose light could be darkness if you had two beams of monochromatic light of the same amplitude that happen to occupy the same space, but their frequencies were exactly 180 degrees out of phase of each other. Then, destructive interference occurs and the two light beams cancel each other out, leaving nothing but blackness.

And, then you are in the interesting position of being able to turn the light on by turning one of the lights off.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by stoneysauce]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
When you apply a chemical antibiotic stress to a bacterial population comprised of mixed resistant and non-resistant bacteria, there is a much more rapid shift to competancy and uptake of new genetic material (the antibiotic resistance gene).

Nobody is denying the Correlation.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I realize this. However, *I* am denying that this repeated observation, coupled with molecular corroboration, lacks anything that would prevent it from being solid evidence.

[edit on 2/2/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
*I* am denying that this repeated observation, coupled with molecular corroboration, lacks anything that would prevent it from being solid evidence.

Solid evidence of what? Evidence of Correlation? Yes. Evidence of Causation? No.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

I agree, people that love science are perhaps obsessed with the concept of duality!

True, but there's an even deeper realization in the above conversation ... one that deconstructs all conceptual relativity, including science and faith.

thanks for sharing the story.

[edit on 1 Feb 2010 by schrodingers dog]

Can you please post some if you have any on hand. I enjoyed this highly and I find myself thinking about this kind of stuff quite often. I have my own views and beliefs, that I don't need to get into, but you intrigued me sir. If you got any links that would be awesome.

Thanks,
DK

reply to post by Skyfloating


Evidence of stress-induced microevolution. I've yet to come across anyone with a basic understanding of microbiology who claims this doesn't occur.

Quite honestly, I don't see what you're debating. There is little room for argument that introducing antibiotics causes bacteria to quickly take-up any sort of genetic advantage they can find. This has been performed hundreds, if not thousands, of times throughout the year with various antibiotics and baterial strains.

Care to elaborate on what you feel the weakness of this explanation is?

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

I agree this does not prove that God exists, but I think it does indicate something beyond our own human capabilities created and designed the world.

It does nothing of the sort. It only proves that the evolutionary process is beyond our current ability to 100% understand as a species.

If you're going to ask "who created the brain?" you may as well ask " who created god?".

It's a pointless question.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Care to elaborate on what you feel the weakness of this explanation is?

Mistaking Correlation with Causation. Taking this to a macro-level so that the readers may understand:

I shoot an arrow at the apple on his head. The apple falls down and squashes the Bug.

What "caused" the death of the Bug? Was it the arrow? The apple? The gust of wind that put the Bug there? Was it his parents without which he wouldnt be there in the first place?