The Professor Said That There Is No God. The Student Gave Him an Awesome Answer!

[Quagmire]

There is no where in rule 1 which says: it's violation of rule 1 when talking about someone in the third person.

What is violation of rule 1 is when someone personal attacks and name-calling another person, whether direct or in the third person.

That's right; wishing someone a happy birthday in the third person isn't a rule violation.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Gossip and back-biting on the other hand are considered personal attacks, although I realize there are people here who haven't got the foggiest notion as to why they would be.

 

[Sapiens]

Hilarious. Deeje asks for people to show where she's been dishonest, Pudding goes through the trouble of documenting several examples, and how does Deeje respond? "Gosh, it's all so much it's giving me a headache."

Um......yeah, that's exactly the point......there so much of it.

... and it gives me a headache!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have read this before, but thought I'd share it.....you cannot argue with this student's logic.


An 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? 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.

‘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 d own 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 every day. 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.

The student was Albert Einstein. I'm with Einstein.

That's an interesting take on good and evil, certainly I knew they defined each other like hot and cold- that one has no meaning without the other... but that evil is merely the absence of good.. I'd never thought of it that way- thanks Deeje, every day is a school day!

 

[Pudding]

That's right; wishing someone a happy birthday in the third person isn't a rule violation.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Gossip and back-biting on the other hand are considered personal attacks, although I realize there are people here who haven't got the foggiest notion as to why they would be.

I can see that this moderator is in favor of Deeje.

When some member gossip about Deeje and call her a liar this moderator would wants to defend for her.

When Deeje gossip about science and scientist, saying it would be a con job if scientist promote evolution (same as saying the scientist is lying), no where can we see this moderator give any warning to Deeje. (There're some member in this forum who think evolution does happen and in some way promote or teaching it)


Thank you for your fair treatment to every member on this forum.

This is pure deception. A con job....and you think we are easily fooled!

It is clear to me that egos drive science, not truth or facts.

 

[Quagmire]

I can see that this moderator is in favor of Deeje.

I'm sure you're in the habit of seeing whatever's convenient for you.

When some member gossip about Deeje and call her a liar this moderator would wants to defend for her.

Same as I would for any other member who was being ganged up on.

When Deeje gossip about science and scientist, saying it would be a con job if scientist promote evolution (same as saying the scientist is lying), no where can we see this moderator give any warning to Deeje.

"science" and "scientist" aren't members here, for god's sake.

(There're some member in this forum who think evolution does happen and in some way promote or teaching it)

Uh huh, and there are quiet a few who can do all that without coming across as bitter little old ladies.

Thank you for your fair treatment to every member on this forum.

I have a feeling that your definition of "fair" is "Pudding-gets-to-do-anything-s/he-wants-without-any-consequences". How's that working out for you?

Anyway., I'm posting in this thread as a member., The fact that you have to resort to pointing to my staff badge says more about you than it does about me.

I love how once you've been shown that your "point" is basically nonsense, instead of reevaluating your stance, you go right to posting equally unfounded ad hominems.

Thank you for showing everybody in this thread what passive/aggressive pouting looks like.

 

[Darkstorn]

I have a feeling that your definition of "fair" is "Pudding-gets-to-do-anything-s/he-wants-without-any-consequences". How's that working out for you?

I think his definition of "fair"(he used it sarcastically) is "Deeje-gets-to-do-anything-she-wants-without-any-consequences". But that's a lie: There are consequences.

When Deeje says insulting things to other members, to cause them to "gang up on her"(what a silly statement, considering she made the thread, of COURSE responsibility for her words is on her, not on others), you come to her defence. That seems to be the consequence.

From what i've seen, i'm going to agree with Pudding's vision. Regardless of the consequences to myself. I'm going to say that you are not taking into account that Deeje personally insults people in this very thread.

 

[Deeje]

I think his definition of "fair"(he used it sarcastically) is "Deeje-gets-to-do-anything-she-wants-without-any-consequences". But that's a lie: There are consequences.

When Deeje says insulting things to other members, to cause them to "gang up on her"(what a silly statement, considering she made the thread, of COURSE responsibility for her words is on her, not on others), you come to her defence. That seems to be the consequence.

From what i've seen, i'm going to agree with Pudding's vision. Regardless of the consequences to myself. I'm going to say that you are not taking into account that Deeje personally insults people in this very thread.

Oh dear, there seems to be some people chucking tannies on this thread.

(In case you need an interpreter....that in Australia means throwing a tantrum.)

So sorry if I hurt science's feelings.

Seriously...where have the adults gone? Can we get back on topic now?

 

[Deeje]

Examples off the top of my head include you posting and defending Ray Comfort's dishonestly edited video;

I personally don't think there is any way to demonstrate that Ray Comfort did anything but show those students and professors up to be what they really are.....brainwashed by the science, not the evidence. The students were the most brainwashed of all.....none of them had a clue how to defend what they had been told to believe. And the professors were as clueless as their students. What could Mr Meyers have said that could undo what was shown? I watched the refutation video...it was a joke.

I will ask you again Jose Fly....please provide evidence for macro-evolution that does not require belief or faith or suggestion based on something beyond adaptation.....cite some solid hard evidence that evolution ever took place. Like Ray Comfort, I have never seen any. "Might have's" and "could have's" don't mean anything in the absence of real (as opposed to manufactured) evidence.

dismissing scientific sources on accusations of "bias" while linking to your own Jehovah's Witness sources and apparently thinking their extreme bias is just fine;

Most of what I have presented on this thread and the other one have been through Google searches. Though I have to say the JW sourced items have been very well researched and presented. I might be just a tad biased though. You can't refute them though, can you?

accusing scientists of perpetuating a "fraud factory" while providing zero evidence of any fraudulent activity; claiming that scientists deliberately use technical terminology to hide a lack of data, without providing a shred of evidence to support such an accusation;

That is what I honestly believe. The fraud is old but what has been built on it is a fantasy worthy of Walt Disney IMO.
Did Sapiens really say that we descended from bananas?

....that chickens came from dinosaurs? You seriously believe that? Show me the proof.

waving away documented cases of evolution with "that's adaptation not evolution", then when its exposed that your own source defines adaptation and evolution in basically the same way, you just ignore that info and leave the discussion; continually repeating talking points about "kinds" but refusing to define the term....

Documented cases of adaptation do not prove macro-evolution. Adaptation is something that produces variety within a species. Show us evidence that one species of creature can morph into another and change completely over time. The fossil record does not really support that idea. If there are no links...there is no chain.

And I have defined "kinds" many times....I guess you just ignore them and leave the discussion only to return and make the same groundless accusations.

I could go on.

You mean you haven't already?

 

[Pudding]

Oh dear, there seems to be some people chucking tannies on this thread.

(In case you need an interpreter....that in Australia means throwing a tantrum.)

So sorry if I hurt science's feelings.

Seriously...where have the adults gone? Can we get back on topic now?

Your typical debate tactics are that:
- Ignore people's post.
- Insult people.
- Proselytization. Saying people have to face consequences if they don't believe in your God or your religious beliefs (typical response from some theist from some abrahamic religion).
- Handwave people's post with smiley and saying they're being optimistic to expect that you will respond their post.
- When people ask you not to ignore their post you then say they have ego problem.
- Saying you have already answer people's question and ask them to find the answer themselves in previous page. People say they cannot see where you have answer their question, you then either insult or ignore them.

And here you ask "can we get back on topic now"...

 

[Pudding]

I'm sure you're in the habit of seeing whatever's convenient for you.

No, i see what you do by your post in this thread.

Same as I would for any other member who was being ganged up on.

That is what you say. Maybe.

"science" and "scientist" aren't members here, for god's sake.

There're some members here who work in science field and in some way promote/teaching/explaing evolution, Deeje saying evolution is a con job is like saying those members con people about evolution.

Uh huh, and there are quiet a few who can do all that without coming across as bitter little old ladies.

I see, you insult those people.

I have a feeling that your definition of "fair" is "Pudding-gets-to-do-anything-s/he-wants-without-any-consequences". How's that working out for you?

No, that is a strawman you create.

Anyway., I'm posting in this thread as a member., The fact that you have to resort to pointing to my staff badge says more about you than it does about me.

I'm sorry about that.

I love how once you've been shown that your "point" is basically nonsense, instead of reevaluating your stance, you go right to posting equally unfounded ad hominems.

Please continue to create more strawman as you like.

Thank you for showing everybody in this thread what passive/aggressive pouting looks like.

You're a fine example of what you're describing.

 

[Deeje]

Your typical debate tactics are that:
- Ignore people's post.
- Insult people.
- Proselytization. Saying people have to face consequences if they don't believe in your God or your religious beliefs (typical response from some theist from some abrahamic religion).
- Handwave people's post with smiley and saying they're being optimistic to expect that you will respond their post.
- When people ask you not to ignore their post you then say they have ego problem.
- Saying you have already answer people's question and ask them to find the answer themselves in previous page. People say they cannot see where you have answer their question, you then either insult or ignore them.

And here you ask "can we get back on topic now"...

O Boo Hoo Pudding.

Again, I am sorry if I have hurt the feelings of those who believe in and promote macro-evolution. (not)

You have your beliefs and I have mine....this is a place to debate them, discuss them and show the discrepancies....it is not a place to shoot the messenger because it doesn't address the message.

I reserve the right, on my own thread, to address whomever I wish.....not for my own benefit but for the benefit of those who might be reading and who are undecided on this issue. Some posts will stand on their own, whilst others are just rehashing what has already been discussed to death.

I like to let the evolutionists shoot themselves in the foot by trying to hold up evidence that has already been exposed as misleading.....manufactured in the minds of those who want to eliminate a Creator and make gods out of themselves.....and who make creative design, so obvious in nature, into mere undirected "accidents".

What are your "typical debate tactics"?....Pedantic nit picking and personal insults. It appears as if egos get in the way when this topic is discussed....and when the 'religion' of evolutionary science is questioned, it is treated rather like one has committed blasphemy for questioning the methods and interpretation of your gods (noted evolutionary scientists) regarding how life on this planet began. I do question them and will go on questioning them. The readers here will be making evaluations based on the content and conduct of the posters here. What do tantrums achieve?

Macro-evolution, IMO, is one of the greatest frauds ever committed and forced on the public. But then so is YEC. Perception management can be used on everyone....who is immune? We just have to hope that our perceptions are being managed by the right party......don't we?

 

[Jose Fly]

I personally don't think there is any way to demonstrate that Ray Comfort did anything but show those students and professors up to be what they really are.....brainwashed by the science, not the evidence.

Then you're just denying documented reality. As I showed by linking to the original sources, Dr. Myers did answer Comfort's question in full, and Comfort edited that part out giving viewers the impression that Dr. Myers couldn't answer. Not only that, but Comfort admitted to it.

Further, this sort of dishonest editing by Comfort has been documented in other cases that I linked to. But as we see here, your preference is to stick with the documented liar. Says a lot about you.

I will ask you again Jose Fly....please provide evidence for macro-evolution that does not require belief or faith or suggestion based on something beyond adaptation.....cite some solid hard evidence that evolution ever took place.

Again, why? You've already made it abundantly clear that you absolutely cannot and will not recognize any evidence or data as being supportive of evolution. You've told me that you cannot compromise on this because your religion prohibits it.

So why would anyone present evidence to a person who's already declared that they will deny it no matter what?

Most of what I have presented on this thread and the other one have been through Google searches. Though I have to say the JW sourced items have been very well researched and presented. I might be just a tad biased though. You can't refute them though, can you?

You're dodging the point. You dismiss scientific sources as "biased" while citing your own highly biased JW sources. That's hypocritical.

That is what I honestly believe. The fraud is old but what has been built on it is a fantasy worthy of Walt Disney IMO.

And that's all it is, isn't it.....a belief? You make grand sweeping accusations of wholesale fraud, but never provide any actual evidence of such.

Apparently your religion doesn't teach against making unfounded accusations against people. Again, says a lot.

Documented cases of adaptation do not prove macro-evolution. Adaptation is something that produces variety within a species. Show us evidence that one species of creature can morph into another and change completely over time. The fossil record does not really support that idea. If there are no links...there is no chain.

Already done, multiple times. You either ignored it or complained that it was too technical for you to understand, and then accused the scientists of deliberately using technical terms to cover up a lack of evidence.

That shows why it's pointless to present scientific data to you. All you do with the material is make up excuses to deny it. If it's presented with confidence you dismiss it because "they're presenting it as a fact". If it's presented tentatively you dismiss it because "they don't even know....it's weak science". And if they use technical terms you dismiss it because you don't understand it.

IOW, no matter what the material is you have a ready-made excuse for waving it away. Why? Because your religion simply does not allow you to recognize any of it as valid.

And I have defined "kinds" many times....I guess you just ignore them and leave the discussion only to return and make the same groundless accusations.

Now you're just lying. If you have defined "kinds", then why didn't you just repeat the definition here, or link to the post where you did?

 

[Pudding]

O Boo Hoo Pudding.
Again, I am sorry if I have hurt the feelings of those who believe in and promote macro-evolution. (not)

So you mean you don't feel sorry for your insult to science and scientist.
Thank you for your politeness then.

You have your beliefs and I have mine....this is a place to debate them, discuss them and show the discrepancies....it is not a place to shoot the messenger because it doesn't address the message.

This is a place for you to selectively ignore people's post, occasionally insult them, then declare you think the op is a great argument (but don't bother to explain why you think so) and say that you have not ignore anyone's post.

You think this is a place to debate and discuss? Really...?

I reserve the right, on my own thread, to address whomever I wish.....not for my own benefit but for the benefit of those who might be reading and who are undecided on this issue.

What is the benefit for you to selectively ignore people's post?

Some posts will stand on their own, whilst others are just rehashing what has already been discussed to death.

Another typical debate tactic of yours, saying it had been discuss before and conveniently ignore people's post.

I like to let the evolutionists shoot themselves in the foot by trying to hold up evidence that has already been exposed as misleading.....manufactured in the minds of those who want to eliminate a Creator and make gods out of themselves.....and who make creative design, so obvious in nature, into mere undirected "accidents".

Please cite the evidence/post where evolutionist say: things exist by undirected "accidents".
Eh don't bother, i know you'll probably just ignore my demand seeing i have asking many similar questions before and how you have just so conveniently ignore all of them.

What are your "typical debate tactics"?....Pedantic nit picking and personal insults.

Please explain how do i pedantic nit picking your post.
Please quote where i have insult you.

It appears as if egos get in the way when this topic is discussed....

Where? Evidence please.

and when the 'religion' of evolutionary science is questioned, it is treated rather like one has committed blasphemy for questioning the methods and interpretation of your gods (noted evolutionary scientists) regarding how life on this planet began.

Please define 'religion' and 'god'.
Don't bother, you'll probably ignore my demand like how i previously asking you to define the terms appear in your op and how you have ignore all of them.

I do question them and will go on questioning them. The readers here will be making evaluations based on the content and conduct of the posters here. What do tantrums achieve?

Who's throwing tantrums? Evidence please.

Macro-evolution, IMO, is one of the greatest frauds ever committed and forced on the public. But then so is YEC. Perception management can be used on everyone....who is immune? We just have to hope that our perceptions are being managed by the right party......don't we?

Thanks for repeat your unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[Brickjectivity]

***Moderation: Thread Closed***