[_ Old Earth _] Conversation between Atheist professor and student.

[caseypayne1980]

What do you guys think of this post, a real conversation between an Atheistic professor and his student?
An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in God?

Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is God good?

Student: Sure.

Prof: Is God all-powerful?

Student: Yes.

Prof: 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? Hummmm???
(Student is silent.)

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

Prof: Is Satan good?

Student: No.

Prof: Where does Satan come from?

Student: From...God...

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

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

Prof: So who created evil?

(Student does not answer.)
Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?

(Student has no answer.)

Prof: 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.

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

Student: No, sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, and smelled your

God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

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

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student: Yes.

Prof: 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.

Prof: Yes. Faith! And that is the problem science has.

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

Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: 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.

(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

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

Prof: 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 its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness - darker, wouldn't you???

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

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

Prof: 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?

Prof: 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?

(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 endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelled 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?

(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student: That is it, sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

That young man was ALBERT EINSTEIN.......

 

[MaybeNextTime]

Nonsense.

First of all, Einstein was Jewish and Jews (followers of judaism to be specific) have different view on who/what Satan is.

Second of all of all - he was young and his views on formalized religion changed dramatically. He became a pandeist.

Science does not claim there is no God, it never has and never will, because by definition you can't prove God.

Also the professor wouldn't be so stupid to think that cold (although cold as a as an abstract noun in fact does exist, and so does darkness)/darkness exist... Even people in junior highschool (or even earlier) know that. He must've really been very uneducated... Also it's worth noting that Einstein lived in Germany which uses centigrade, so it'd be –273.15 °C - not -458 F, which proves that you made it all up furthermore.

Hmmm, did he say "monkeys"? Another proof that it has been made by an ignorant christian. If he really taught evolution (which it doubtful providing in the very beginning you said he was a philosophy teacher), he would never say "monkey" instead of a "common ancestor"...

Evolution has been observed. Laboratory flies or bacteria anyone?

And about that brain thing. You actually can prove it exists without cutting his head apart - it's called Magnetic Resonance Imaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging .

Except for several minor errors, misconceptions and biases it was a good read. /end of sarcasm

 

[caseypayne1980]

I just happen to find it.

Just because a scientist tries to make a fly or bacteria evolve doesn't hold ground for humans evolving. Even if the fly never really evolutionized nor the bacteria. Adaption of things? maybe, hybrid my cell munipluation, who knows. But in all Evolution does not take place nor has it. And isn't proven.

What I posted was an interesting read on Viewing God in a sense on how people view other things regardless of who said it or if it was made up. That point doesn't matter.

 

[MaybeNextTime]

I just happen to find it.

Just because a scientist tries to make a fly or bacteria evolve doesn't hold ground for humans evolving. Even if the fly never really evolutionized nor the bacteria. Adaption of things? maybe, hybrid my cell munipluation, who knows. But in all Evolution does not take place nor has it. And isn't proven.

What I posted was an interesting read on Viewing God in a sense on how people view other things regardless of who said it or if it was made up. That point doesn't matter.

It does matter, because you can prove all those things you've mentioned empirically, but you can't prove God.

Also Evolution has been proven by scietific data hundreds of times (go to the topic about evolution or simply ask jwu to tell you why it has). Oh, and it's "evolved" - not "evolutionized"...

 

[caseypayne1980]

It does matter, because you can prove all those things you've mentioned empirically, but you can't prove God.

Also Evolution has been proven by scietific data hundreds of times (go to the topic about evolution or simply ask jwu to tell you why it has). Oh, and it's "evolved" - not "evolutionized"...

What you can prove darkness exists or cold? Both are events when something is lacking, not actually things.

view point makes you believe things evolved. Go ask an evolution scientist if there is "proof" that evolution took place amongh humans from a single celled organism and you will find nothing. Its all theories, assumptions, and guesses. In this case science uses hypothesis which is a synonym for guess. Not a proven fact but guess.

You know why there are missing links in fossil records? Because evolution never took place.


Science can prove God exists. Look at the Universe. The chance of a planet like ours that can sustain life is 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 if not more. There is around 20 or more geology principles that have to be met to carry life. Water, atmosphere, Sun at a proper distance to the earth, gravity, Moon distance to earth to help its tilt, etc. Now scientist have yet to find anything remotely close to this anywhere. With out any of these things life could not exist. It's almost proof in its self that God created it for us. If the earth was 1 mile or less to or from the sun we wouldn't survive. And how the earth rotates around the sun in a perfect circle and not egg like. You will never find this anywhere else in the galaxy. A divine hand created life. And thats enough for me for proof of God.

 

[Quath]

As MaybeNextTime pointed out, this story is not true. Even Snopes.com has an article debunking this story. So first of all, you should wonder how great the claims of this story are if they are based on a lie.

Also, the student doesn't ever prove anything. To say that God is good an evil is explained by the absense of God is just a statement of belief. One could just as easily say that God is evil and absense of God is good.

He also ignores the idea that God creates evil as stated by the Bible. If God creates evil, then God is not creating an absense of himself.

You know why there are missing links in fossil records? Because evolution never took place.

There is a joke that if there are 4 gaps in the fossils and a new fossile is found in the middle, Creationists will now say that things are much worse because there are 5 gaps.

The chance of a planet like ours that can sustain life is 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 if not more.

Lets just assume this is true. That would mean that you would expect life to spring up without the assistant of God on 1 planet out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. The current Big Bang models leans towards an infinute universe with infinite planets. Therefore, you would expect an infinite number of planets with life (they are just very far apart).

If the earth was 1 mile or less to or from the sun we wouldn't survive.

In January, Earth is 91.4 million miles from the sun, and in July it is 94.5 million miles from the sun. 3 million miles is a lot bigger than 1 mile you mention. I would recheck your sources if I were you.

 

[caseypayne1980]

In January, Earth is 91.4 million miles from the sun, and in July it is 94.5 million miles from the sun. 3 million miles is a lot bigger than 1 mile you mention. I would recheck your sources if I were you.

I didn't proof read my statement. What I ment to say if the earth moved 1 mile away or toward the sun. Not that the sun is a mile away. Sorry for the wrongful use of words. If earth moved lets say 100 miles from the sun or 85 miles from the sun. Life wouldn't be able to live.


The thought of another planet is just unthinkable. Sure there are over 130 billion stars in our galaxy alone and times that by all the galaxies. That doesn't mean that a rock floats around them perfectly in a circle and at the right distance, harbor the right atmosphere, water, gravity. Just not gonna happen.

 

[MaybeNextTime]

I was talking that you can prove magnetism, electricity, brain existence and evolution. You, on the other hand, can't prove God.

I also said that darkness and cold are abstract words used in everyday speach.

Earth has an eliptical orbit... Are you really that EDITED
Also if the universe is infinite then there are plantes as Earth, hell, there can even be plantes that look exactly like ours...

Have you heard of life based on metan by the way? I guess not...

AGAIN WATCH WHAT YOU SAY
Edited made by Atonemmet

 

[Quath]

I didn't proof read my statement. What I ment to say if the earth moved 1 mile away or toward the sun. Not that the sun is a mile away. Sorry for the wrongful use of words. If earth moved lets say 100 miles from the sun or 85 miles from the sun. Life wouldn't be able to live.

No, I read it the way you meant it. What I was showing is that the Earth's orbit forms an ellipse. Sometimes we are 3 million miles closer to the sun than other times.

The thought of another planet is just unthinkable. Sure there are over 130 billion stars in our galaxy alone and times that by all the galaxies. That doesn't mean that a rock floats around them perfectly in a circle and at the right distance, harbor the right atmosphere, water, gravity. Just not gonna happen.

We have seen other planets with telescopes. We know some of them have water. However, even if Earth is rare, there is nothing to say what is possible with a binary star or if some moons of other planets can support life.

 

[blunthitta4life]

The thought of another planet is just unthinkable. Sure there are over 130 billion stars in our galaxy alone and times that by all the galaxies. That doesn't mean that a rock floats around them perfectly in a circle and at the right distance, harbor the right atmosphere, water, gravity. Just not gonna happen.

Well the evidence suggest otherwise. There could be/could have been life on a number of planets in our solar system. NASA just recently found conclusive evidence of water on Mars. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/12/0 ... index.html

There is life under 7 miles of water at thermal vents which trives at temperatures of over 250F. There is life under glaciers that thrive in subzero temperatures. Life is very adaptive to its environment, so its very probable that it can adapt to the conditions of a less hospitable plantet.

Planets do have to meet certain conditions but the conditions for life aren't as specific as you mentioned.

 

[caseypayne1980]

Well the evidence suggest otherwise. There could be/could have been life on a number of planets in our solar system. NASA just recently found conclusive evidence of water on Mars. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/12/0 ... index.html

There is life under 7 miles of water at thermal vents which trives at temperatures of over 250F. There is life under glaciers that thrive in subzero temperatures. Life is very adaptive to its environment, so its very probable that it can adapt to the conditions of a less hospitable plantet.

Planets do have to meet certain conditions but the conditions for life aren't as specific as you mentioned.

We are talking about human life not organisms. Just because we find a planet that holds water doesn't mean hey look another planet that supports life.

Here is an example
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s ... 40825.html
Men have claimed they found an earth similar to ours. However it is 14 times larger meaning the gravity will be so strong we would not be able to walk on it. Instead of 9.8 it would be much great. Second it is to close to the sun and during day time it reaches tempertures of "Hot as in around 1,160 degrees." Now we can't live in that temp during the day or walk on that planet so is it suitable for our life? No.


http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/2559 ... index.html
"So far, scientists around the world have found 150 planets orbiting other stars.

Most are giants, like Jupiter; none is as small as Earth. Scientists believe the best odds of finding life outside our solar system are on Earth-sized planets, particularly those with the right temperature, density and chemistry.
"

Even this site mentions that the earth like planets found are as large as Jupiter and probably could not sustain life. And it requires a planet the size of earth for the gravity to be withstanding. And the right temps which i bet none of those 150 are, and right density and elements in the atmosphere.

 

[jwu]

We are talking about human life not organisms.

...and if the conditions on earth were different, then the life on it would be different as well.

Your objection is a bit like a puddle wondering why that hole that it is in fits its shape so perfectly - surely it had to be designed specifically for that puddle. But the actual situation is different, the puddle was shaped after the hole, not vice versa.

Even this site mentions that the earth like planets found are as large as Jupiter and probably could not sustain life.

...because we are technically unable to detect smaller planets so far, due to lack of sensitivity of the measuring instruments.

Just because we find a planet that holds water doesn't mean hey look another planet that supports life.

What other factors are required for e.g. bacteria? Some minerals in the water, a heat source and that's it. If there is fluid water, then it quite certainly can sustain life. Not human life, but we don't hold a monopoly on "life".

 

[caseypayne1980]

What other factors are required for e.g. bacteria? Some minerals in the water, a heat source and that's it. If there is fluid water, then it quite certainly can sustain life. Not human life, but we don't hold a monopoly on "life".

Just goes to show how this earth was created by God for humans in his image. He disn't create us to be able to withstand high temp. Or hell wouldn't be that big of a dea. He didn't create us around a strong gravity based planet or we'd more likely crawl be huge muscle masses.

 

[jwu]

Just goes to show how this earth was created by God for humans in his image. He disn't create us to be able to withstand high temp. Or hell wouldn't be that big of a dea

Umm...so much for eternal punishment then, if one just burns to ashes. And what has this to do with "in God's image"? Can't God withstand high temperatures either? You're not making any sense.

 

[MaybeNextTime]

We are here because Earth was able to sustain life, other plantes are able to do that aswell for certain. Your "reasoning" is completely flawed...

 

[Quath]

If you freeze a mud puddle and pull it out, you will notice that the shape of the bottom fits the hole EXACTLY! With such an amazing coicidence, should we assume that God did it?

No. We know that natural laws can explain this amazing fit of water to the hole it fills. Likewise, evolution shows why there is an amazing fit between life and the environment they occupy.

 

[caseypayne1980]

We are here because Earth was able to sustain life, other plantes are able to do that aswell for certain. Your "reasoning" is completely flawed...

Then go move to a planet that is 1,200 degrees during the day and has a gravitational pull that is 10 times greater then here with more or less oxygen. ;-)

 

[caseypayne1980]

If you freeze a mud puddle and pull it out, you will notice that the shape of the bottom fits the hole EXACTLY! With such an amazing coicidence, should we assume that God did it?

No. We know that natural laws can explain this amazing fit of water to the hole it fills. Likewise, evolution shows why there is an amazing fit between life and the environment they occupy.

I don't recall this topic being about evolution. Apperently you cling to the idea. :rainbow1:

I'm only going to talk about earth and what was wrote in this letter regardless if it is Albert or not. It makes a solid point and I emailed it to all my friends and got nothing but great comments. Perhaps those against the thought are closed minded. :smt062

 

[jwu]

It makes a solid point and I emailed it to all my friends and got nothing but great comments.

It may be well received at the right audience, but the points which were made cast doubt whether it is a good idea to use it as an argument - especially the point that it's most likely not a true story but that it was made up by someone.

 

[caseypayne1980]

It may be well received at the right audience, but the points which were made cast doubt whether it is a good idea to use it as an argument - especially the point that it's most likely not a true story but that it was made up by someone.

And that we are not 100% sure of, but who cares. It fits well because alot of non believers are exactly like the professor in the writing. They don't see God so they don't believe but they can follow sciene that they haven't personally sean take shape. No scientist has scene evolution of animals or man because no one has lived k years ago or more. So the ground they stand on is idea based and with faith they are right with help of other fields that are faith based and ideals supporting them.