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

[Quagmire]

I can actually.

Apparently not.

In this case it wasn't a simple mistake.

Hey look everybody, a mind reader!

Not when all it takes is a click of the button to discover that the whole thing was untrue and made up,

Which "button" would that be?

yet the originator of this thread repeated the same untruths.

If you still have access to your magic button, try looking up "disjointed sentences".

Good, actually.

Take another look.

I called a spade a spade. Some people can't distinguish between a garden spade and a kitchen fork, yet pretend that those are the same. I don't. An untruth is a untruth. No matter how much it's tried to be covered in word salads.

There's some irony.

 

[Darkstorn]

Quagmire, i appreciate your effort in trying to make him see that he's making claims without evidence.

But, on the other hand, i've read Deeje's previous threads. So you might have Derek beaten in a logical debate. But the sad truth of the matter is that i gauge people's worth through their actions. And Deeje's previous actions do not fill me with great confidence that she / he is not a liar. And your argument, no matter how successful it was, doesn't convince me otherwise.

That is my opinion, you're welcome to try to argue it / try to ridicule me in order to hammer on your point.

 

[Jenny Collins]

@Jenny Collins. You can delete excess posts by clicking the delete button in the bottom left hand corner of your post, next to "Edit".

Yeah, I am aware of the scripture "Let him who think he is standing, beware that he does not fall." Question for you though. If you are applying that to me, by what authority do you do so? Do you know me? Are you in a position to judge others? Awaiting your clarification. Applying scriptures to others, is something that should only be done, when you firmly understand that person. You never met me, nor do you explain why that would apply to me.

 

[Quagmire]

Quagmire, i appreciate your effort in trying to make him see that he's making claims without evidence.

But, on the other hand, i've read Deeje's previous threads. So you might have Derek beaten in a logical debate. But the sad truth of the matter is that i gauge people's worth through their actions. And Deeje's previous actions do not fill me with great confidence that she / he is not a liar. And your argument, no matter how successful it was, doesn't convince me otherwise.

That is my opinion, you're welcome to try to argue it / try to ridicule me in order to hammer on your point.

All I'm going to tell you is that, aside from being a low-class move, talking about someone in the third person is a rule 1 violation.

And considering what it makes you look like, humiliating you would be redundant.

 

[Darkstorn]

And considering what it makes you look like, humiliating you would be redundant.

It does make me look a bit like someone calling someone a liar based on the content of his or her words. I am okay with that. I'll consider it my belief instead of fact if it makes you feel any better.

 

[Deeje]

Yeah, I am aware of the scripture "Let him who think he is standing, beware that he does not fall." Question for you though. If you are applying that to me, by what authority do you do so? Do you know me? Are you in a position to judge others? Awaiting your clarification. Applying scriptures to others, is something that should only be done, when you firmly understand that person. You never met me, nor do you explain why that would apply to me.

Sorry, you have misunderstood me. I was telling you how to delete the multiple posts you made. Did you not notice that the same post appeared several times? I wasn't talking about my signature, I was talking about the delete button in the bottom left hand corner of YOUR posts, not mine. Next to "edit" is "delete".

I was not applying my signature to you at all.....sorry if I confused you.

 

[Pudding]

This is kind of a special case. Deeje is self-described as "ignorant" and she has repeated stated that she is proud of her condition.

I don't know whether or not she said so, but if she did said so, i cannot understand why she would say so.

It is hardly rude to describe a person in the way in which they state that they prefer to be styled, especially when it is so apropos to the discussion.

I'm not sure how to respond to your post.

 

[Pudding]

Let's be perfectly clear about what's going on here. We have in our midst a person (Deeje) who makes grand, sweeping accusations of wholesale dishonesty against scientists, even though she presents absolutely no evidence of such. When presented with scientific information that contradicts her talking points, she says she doesn't understand it......but rather than saying "I don't understand that so I can't comment on it", she has the nerve to accuse the authors of deliberately using technical jargon to cover up a lack of evidence. She refers to science as a "fraud factory", even though she's the one repeatedly posting fraudulent material. She makes ridiculous arguments and when questioned on them, she leaves the thread, waits a few days, then comes back and repeats them all over again as if nothing had ever been said.

So please don't paint this as some sort of equivalency, where it's nothing more than two equal sides being mean to each other. This is one person being habitually dishonest and accusatory, and the rest of us calling her on it.

I do see she said science is dishonest, she makes accusations and insulting science or scientist. I can understand how anyone would like to correct her mistake by explain why they think so. I still don't know what is the meaning to add insulting in their explanation to her.

First, don't assume that I'm attempting to persuade Deeje. I carry no illusions that such a thing is even possible. She has far too much of her personal life and emotional safety tied up in her religious beliefs to ever change them.

Thanks for explaining your perspective.

Second, her arguments, accusations, and copied material are so ridiculous that responding to them at face value grants them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. Simply put, I refer to them as "stupid" because they are stupid.....very stupid. It's as H.L. Mencken put it....

“The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous."​

I'm not sure how to respond to your post.

 

[Jose Fly]

I do see she said science is dishonest, she makes accusations and insulting science or scientist. I can understand how anyone would like to correct her mistake by explain why they think so. I still don't know what is the meaning to add insulting in their explanation to her.

What is your preferred method of dealing with someone who persists in such dishonest behavior?

I'm not sure how to respond to your post.

What's giving you trouble?

 

[Deeje]

This is kind of a special case. Deeje is self-described as "ignorant" and she has repeated stated that she is proud of her condition.

I don't know whether or not she said so, but if she did said so, i cannot understand why she would say so.

Actually I have not described myself as "ignorant" of the truth, only ignorant of what Sapiens holds as truth. There is a vast difference. He is well educated in something that I believe is completely unsubstantiated.
He is welcome to his opinion.

It is hardly rude to describe a person in the way in which they state that they prefer to be styled, especially when it is so apropos to the discussion.

I'm not sure how to respond to your post.

Its hard to respond to arrogance except to ignore it. This poster appears to have an 'altitude' problem.

 

[Deeje]

I do see she said science is dishonest, she makes accusations and insulting science or scientist. I can understand how anyone would like to correct her mistake by explain why they think so. I still don't know what is the meaning to add insulting in their explanation to her.

What is your preferred method of dealing with someone who persists in such dishonest behavior?

I believe that evolutionary scientists are dishonest by stating that evolution is an established fact when it is nothing even close to a fact. They will cite adaptation as proof of macro-evolution when adaptation is not proof at all for one creature morphing into another. It is merely a demonstration that any creature can adapt to new surroundings or conditions. They never change from one kind of creature into another kind altogether. There is no proof for that.

I'm not sure how to respond to your post.

What's giving you trouble?

Your attitude perhaps?

 

[Pudding]

What is your preferred method of dealing with someone who persists in such dishonest behavior?

What is the meaning to get emotionally with Deeje?
She probably will feel happy and a sense of victory if you become more angry and insult her.
Then she may also insult you back.
What is the meaning for people to insult each other back and forward.

What's giving you trouble?

I'll tell you when i know how to respond to you.

 

[Pudding]

Actually I have not described myself as "ignorant" of the truth, only ignorant of what Sapiens holds as truth. There is a vast difference. He is well educated in something that I believe is completely unsubstantiated.
He is welcome to his opinion.

I bet maybe you're also educated/believe in something that he believe is completely unsubstantiated.
You may welcome to your opinion too.

Its hard to respond to arrogance except to ignore it. This poster appears to have an 'altitude' problem.

You're also appears to have some problem.
You insult, accuse science and scientist and theory of evolution.
People post their arguments against your op or asking why you think your op's arguments/points are valid but you selectively ignoring them.
Do you really want to discuss your op with people.

 

[Deeje]

I bet maybe you're also educated/believe in something that he believe is completely unsubstantiated.
You may welcome to your opinion too.

Exactly, and I have acknowledged that several times.

You're also appears to have some problem.

Yes, I do....problems with people who want to infer that ignorance drives those who disagree with evolution.
Ignorance equally drives those who think science is higher than God.

[/quote]You insult, accuse science and scientist and theory of evolution.[/quote]

I return serve some of the time, I'll admit to that, but scientists are usually the most hostile when it comes to discussing this topic. Evolution is the sacred cow of science. I want to help those who are undecided about this issue to see that there are two choices here.....both of them based on beliefs, not science.

People post their arguments against your op or asking why you think your op's arguments/points are valid but you selectively ignoring them.
Do you really want to discuss your op with people.

The OP was a quote from someone else. I did not write it. Anyone is free to take from it what they will. It seems to have touched quite a few. And I haven't really seen anyone refute the arguments. I have 30 posts in this thread already so who am I ignoring except those who want to rehash? It gets tiring.

 

[Pudding]

Exactly, and I have acknowledged that several times.

Fine.

Yes, I do....problems with people who want to infer that ignorance drives those who disagree with evolution.
Ignorance equally drives those who think science is higher than God.

Evolusionist: Who agree with evolution and believe/think it happens.
Non-evolusionist: Who disagree with evolution and don't believe in evolution.
(Label just for the simplicity to write my sentence)

You have problems that how some evolusionist insult all non-evolusionist for being ignorance.
So in return you have to insult all evolusionist for being ignorance?

What do you mean by "science is higher than God"?

I return serve some of the time, I'll admit to that,

So you do admit you had insulted, accused science and scientist and theory of evolution.

but scientists are usually the most hostile when it comes to discussing this topic. Evolution is the sacred cow of science. I want to help those who are undecided about this issue to see that there are two choices here.....both of them based on beliefs, not science.

Please define 'beliefs' and 'science'.

The OP was a quote from someone else. I did not write it.

This is the second time you said you did not write the story in your op. I haven't say otherwise.

Anyone is free to take from it what they will.

I also haven't say otherwise.

It seems to have touched quite a few.

'It' seems to have touched quite a few of 'what'?
Please elaborate and list the 'what' you're talking about.

 

[Pudding]

And I haven't really seen anyone refute the arguments. I have 30 posts in this thread already so who an I ignoring except those who want to rehash? It gets tiring.

The posts which have disagree with your op's arguments and explain why they think so, which so far you haven't repond to, are:
Post #11

Even if this were a real exchange, the arguments presented are silly and specious, moreover, it doesn't even address the existence of God which, I presume, is the point of the whole thing.

The student made no case for God, he merely declared evil an absence of God -- presuming a God without evidence.

Evolution observed? Darwin's "Origin" had been published only twenty years before Einstein's birth. It was a new idea, with little empirical evidence at the time. At the time of this exchange, the professor could have made a case for the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight just as easily.
Today, of course, we've directly observed evolution many times and understand most of its mechanisms.

The prof's brain? Stupid argument. To propose that it would be reasonable to doubt such a well known fact as people having brains in their skulls, just because the brain of a particular individual hadn't been observed directly, is simply absurd. It's a wonder Einstein wasn't summarily dismissed from the school for being mentally retarded and unable to handle the work.

Post #31

There is pretty much no evidence to suggest that Einstein actually said this. On top of this Einstein was not a Christian. He was jewish during his childhood the concept of the Christian satan would of been foreign to him. On top of all this none of this is an argument for god actually being good.

If you stop and think about it, even if it's just the absence of god ( which kind of defeats the whole omnipresent thing doesn't it?) God is still allowing all this to happen. God is all knowing, all powerful , everywhere. In other words it is impossible for all of this to not be God's fault.

Do Jews Believe in Satan?

Post #34

You cannot argue with that student's logic? I think it is pretty clear that logic is not exactly his forte. He actually looks quite challenged in that.

It is obvious that if a premise is flawed, that does not entail that the conclusions are flawed, too. Despite his claim that they must be.

If I assume that i have 1 dollar in my left pocket and 3 dollars in my right one, I can conclude that I have a total of 4 dollars. But I can have 4 dollars also if I have 2 dollars in each of the pockets. Ergo, the conclusion can be true, even if the premises are not.

So, we can conclude that he was not Einstein. Unless we believe that Einstein was challenged in basic inferential logic.

Ciao

- viole

Post #38

Nice (fictional) story, yet...



Sure you can


Here is your first problem. A professor of philosohpy can be a great philosopher, yet it suggests nothing about his scientific knowledge...

Well.. I would debate that (assuming by God we mean the Christian God)...
Humans' way of defining good and bad are based on many many things... God or "Absolute good", is not one of them.
Each and every step along history that we considered to be a "moral" advancement, was initiated due to people realizing more and more about the human nature.

How rude it is to deny millions of people who many times died fighting for an idea later on "hijacked" to the benefit of God?
God didn't stop slavery! it was endless number of people who died fighting for liberation.

To claim the God is good, means two things:
1. You know God personalty, and you are absolutely sure that there is no Bad in god.(Judging by its books, one could argue against it quite easily)
2. That you know what Good is without basing it on the belief that God is good thus Good is what God wants.

In other words, The argument of: "Good is what god wants, and God is good. Good is God because God says it is Good." (Fallacy something?)


Again, Quite debatable In order to know if God really is all powerful, you have to know what are all the "powers" working in existence, and only if God out measures them all, it really is all powerful. Again, You cannot claim God's claim of being all powerful as an evidence that God is all powerful.

Throughout the books, And the different myths, God makes wonders and Claiming he is all powerful. but what if it is not really all powerful? What if it can't make English speaking dinosaurs? and somewhere in the universe there is a creature that can?

What if God is only one of several and it is "Faking" it to being only the one God?


Dear god!!!
How sad it is that there are children who actually think like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Give everything in my power to teach my kids that are good, and no matter what they do, as long as they respect other beings (Humans or not), and will do their best not to harm others, THEY ARE GOOD!!!!
If one of them even starts thinking he is evil, how sad will it be if I told him, Indeed you are!

I'd say this professor is far from bright, huh?

I Have to agree with the student on that one


Yeah... you know, because it doesn't really exist! This professor doesn't really sound like an atheist

Really? I Would love to see the scientific theory proving God doesn't exist...

FYI: Science invests countless of efforts to try and prove God! Actually, it probably started with that in mind.
The thing is, that no matter where we search (On earth and out side of it), there is not one evidence of anything suggesting of a godly presence.

god doesn't claim there is no God, Science claims there is yet an evidence that proved a god/s.

I Hope I don't have to explain the big difference.


And my entire life as a child where my parents and community or whatever shoved to my brain whatever they thought as the absolute truth yet never really bothered to verify it


Not really a problem. I fear theist quite often claim that science hates God or denies God or whatever..
All science claims is, So far, based on everything we know (Which is probably very little), there hasn't been even one small OBJECTIVE evidence regarding God (J, C, M or any other for that matter)

Agree!

Actually, There is...
Cold and Hot are relative!
Cold, is not Hot. same as Hot, is not Cold.

Cold, might be in reality a lack of energy, but is an actual term.

And we don't really know how cold things can get. There are some suggestions that going below absolute zero temperature might be possible.
So the entire claim is valid only if adding : Based on what we know today!


Are you sure??? HA HA HA HA


Same thing,
This professor for philosophy, really isn't much of a philosopher it seems.


Lol... nope.. night is NOT darkness!


Indeed there are...
Although one doesn't represent the opposite of the other.. duh!


Or a No God???


Yet! Although science is getting closer everyday


Yet! ... see the pattern here?

I Agree!
Death is the end of life.. not the opposite of it.

This would be like saying:

the opposite of being awake, is going to sleep... nope.. the opposite of awake, is sleeping, So you could say that:

Being dead, is the opposite of being alive... But this is also not the precise term, as not being born yet is also not being alive....


Ehh.. nope... Death... is not the absence of Life!
Death is the termination of life


Lol... I sure hope no!!!
For two reasons:

1. We are not evolved from a monkey! lol... We are evolved from an ancient COMMON ANCESTOR..
2. Why would a philosophy professor be teaching evolution???


Lol... really? you can see it on a daily basis!
Your eyes do have to be open though!

There are thousands upon thousands of demonstrable, observable evidences that prove evolution.


Yet we did and still do.

Lol...
So let me get this straight...
This logic claims this:

The fact some process is happening for a few hundreds of millions of years, doesn't suggest it is like so before, rather the LOGICAL ( ??? ) conclusion should be:

Its been like that only for a few thousands of years but only looks like it tool millions???

or, in other words... If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, has a DNA of a duck, demonstrate every treat any other duck has.. It is not logical to claim that it is a duck???



He does!!! he is a philosophy professor!!! Geez



Wow!!! Amazing!

Lets look at this in another perspective:

All people in the world (Maybe excluding some ), have a brain.
How do we know that?
1: if a baby was monitored and it was showing it got no brain.. I am pretty sure the doctors will notice
2: Shockingly.. Every person until today that was examined, shows it has a brain.. Wow!!!!

On the other hand:

Have you ever seen ANY god somewhere?
Have you ever saw any counter-physical miracle?
Have you ever witnessed any proven miraculous action? (proven - meaning it can be demonstrated over and over again!)

Hope you understand the way i'm going with this...


There are ZERO valid scientific theories that are based on faith.. Not even one


When did he claim there is no faith???


??? What ???



Really? Oh my god!!! That the proof that God is good!!!!
Oh, Wait!!! But what is Evil??? Oh.. Right! Evil is everything that God is not!
Lol


Ehhhh.. nope again!
You can measure heat!!!
You can measure Light!!!
YOU CAN'T MEASURE EVIL!!!



For sure! He just realized how bad of a teacher he is



Yeah.. LMAO! I doubt that

 

[Pudding]

@Deeje
You write:
Post #7

LOL...regardless of the authenticity, I still think its a great argument.

Sapiens reply with:
Post #45

Even if your make-believe were true, it is still logically flawed:

Does the "Einstein and the professor" story prove that God exists?

The story is basically an attempt to solve the problem of theodicy: the coexistence of God and evil in the world. "Theodicy" comes from a Greek expression meaning the "justification of God." It is an attempt to explain how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneficient, and omnipresent God could have created a world with so much suffering and evil present.

One example of the conflict is the hypothetical case of a child running onto a street into the path of an oncoming truck that is unable to stop in time to prevent the child's death. If an adult observes the scene and does nothing to try to stop the child, we would consider them profoundly evil. But the historical concept of God is that he is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and all present. Yet in this scenario, God would do nothing to prevent the death of the child. He is either not all powerful, or not all present, or not all loving, or not all knowing. Rabbi Harold Kushner tackled this problem in his very popular book: "When bad things happen to good people." He concluded that God cannot possess all four attributes simultaneously. He felt that we should drop God's omnipotence in order to retain the other three attributes. That is, God didn't save the life of the child because he cannot do so.

Theologians and philosophers have attempted to harmonize the presence of evil and the historical attributes of God for centuries without success. So it is doubtful that this story will accomplish that goal.

Analyzing the story:

In the third last paragraph, "Einstein" says: "Evil is simply the absence of God." Note that "Einstein" first assumes the existence of God in order to prove the existence of God. He is saying that God exists and thus God exists. This is circular reasoning, and makes his analysis meaningless.

The story attempts to prove God's existence as follows:

"Einstein" asserts: "Evil is simply the absence of God."

By implication, good is the presence of God.

Good and evil exist in the world.

Thus God must also exist.

However, an alternate initial statement would be that "Evil is simply the absence of good." I suspect that if you asked many people what the antonym of "evil" is, the vast majority would respond "good." Very few would respond "God."

By substituting "good" for "God," the argument collapses.

Another approach would be to realize that no consensus exists over what is good and evil in a given situation.

Some people believe that capital punishment is evil because it terminates a person's life prematurely usually without the person's consent. Other feel that it is good because its use lowers the area's homicide rate.

Some believe that spanking children is good because it is mandated by the God's Word, the Bible, and because it is the only effective method of disciplining children. Others feel that spanking is evil because they feel it terrorizes children and realize that it causes higher rates of depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse and drug abuse among adults who were spanked as children.

The leaders of Nazi Germany felt that the Jewish Holocaust was a noble calling that would make a major contribution to the betterment of European society by making the area Juden-Frei (free of Jews). Essentially everyone today condemns the Holocaust and all other forms of genocide as the most serious evil possible.

Some feel that same-sex marriage is a profound evil because if it becomes widely available, more people will choose to become homosexual, and because it will damage or destroy the institution of marriage. Others feel that same-sex marriage is good because it extends all of the advantages of marriage to persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, and would lower the level of anti-gay bigotry.

There are obviously very different views of good and evil in the world. Most individuals probably believe that absolute truth exists for them, and perhaps even for their culture and religious denomination or tradition. But when comparing the absolute truths as claimed by different individuals, cultures, and denominations, we observe great diversity and much mutual exclusivity. There is no agreement on what is good and what is evil.

If we equate goodness with God, as was done in this story, then it is obvious that a multiplicity of Gods would have to exist. This would not be difficult during ancient times when different Gods and Goddesses were assumed to be in charge of different cultures. However, the argument collapses if one is trying to prove that only a single deity exists.

Source: Source: Did Einstein prove that God exists?

The "logic" backing up the story can be destroyed by simply asserting that "good is the absence of evil" and cranking through that construct.

You only reply to the last two lines of his post with:
Post #48

Well then lets start there.....Can evil exist if there is no good?

Can darkness exist if there is no light? What is darkness but the absence of light.....and how can it be measured?

Can cold exist if there is no heat? Isn't cold the absence of heat? How cold can it get and still be measured?

The "logic" backing up the story can be destroyed by simply asserting that "good is the absence of evil" and cranking through that construct.

 

[Pudding]

@Deeje
(Continue with the previous post)
Sapiens and jonathan180iq reply your post #48 with:
Post #50

Yes, and good can exist without evil. This is demonstrated in many ways one of which is through the study of game theory and the modeling of Evolutionarily Stable Strategies.

You are trying to get away with a logical fallacy here. Illumination and heat are continuous, measurable, enumerable variables, good and evil are philosophical concepts that have no absolute measure or value and are hard (or even impossible) to deal with even in relative terms.

You are trying to just jump over this problem. But you jump and fall flat on your face. Additionally there are many things are good in one perspective or situation and yet are simultaneously evil if viewed in another perspective or situation ... this is not the case with either light or heat.

Post #61

This is why the argument is flawed - watch:


Can good exist if there is no evil?


Can light exist if there is no darkness?


What is light but the absence of darkness.....and how can it be measured?


Can heat exist if there is no cold?


Isn't heat just the absence of cold?


How hot can it get and still be measured?

....

When you can answer those questions honestly, you'll be getting somewhere.

I get that you liked the arguments made in the article because they agreed with your position, but I hope you're beginning to see why they are bad arguments. They're bad regardless of whether or not they argue for your god - and I'll give you another example as to why.

Replace every mention of "God" in the article you linked with "Zeus of Olympus". Would you equally agree that the debate makes a strong case for the existence and preeminence of Zeus? (I imagine not...) And that should tell you everything you need to know about why most people in this thread aren't taking it seriously (false quotations and historical attributions aside)

So far you haven't repond to Sapiens' Post #50 yet.

You reply jonathan180iq's Post #61 with:

I thought the answers presented were quite brilliant actually. I haven't seen a good argument against them yet....
just a lot of huffing and puffing from people who can't quite seem to be able to refute them..."scientifically".

I get that you like the arguments for evolution...for the same reason. I believe that the arguments for macro-evolution are "bad" too. I don't find them the least bit convincing.
Doesn't science need real evidence, rather than just a biased interpretation of what the fossils are saying? You guys seem to be as easily convinced as you assume we are. Science only "thinks" it knows how life evolved...they cannot prove a thing.


Replace the word God with "evolution" and the same thing happens. You have an unprovable belief system, just as I have. I can see with my own eyes that the 'designs' I see in nature cannot possibly be the work of blind chance.The fact that my other thread is still going strong after all this time and after all the comments, demonstrates that people are definitely taking this topic seriously. You underestimate how many undecided people there are out there. I hope the points raised help them to see that evolution is all talk and no real evidence. Deceiving people into believing in evolution and questioning their level of intelligence if they doubt its validity, is no substitute for actual proof. Science likes to shame people into submission.

It is good to be able to give the other side of the story and expose evolution for the fraud, masquerading as science, that it really is.

jonathan180iq reply with:
Post #84

They're only "brilliant" because they agree with your worldview. As I presented in my last response, they don't make a cohesive argument for anything, really.

For example:

• "What is darkness but an absence of light?"

That's certainly a question, but what does it have to do with anything? As I showed you, I could just as easily have asked the imaginary professor "what is light but an absence of darkness?" It needlessly distracts from the topic at hand and makes no point at all, other than an illusory one.

• Similarly, they asked, essentially, "What is evil but the absence of god?"

Now that's a huge leap of logic, don't you think? Not only are we making a huge assumption about the existence of deity, and necessitating the existence of a moral idea on the existence of said being, but we're also constructing false equivalencies based on bias - and I'm happy to show you what I mean.

First of all, you're assuming God, just as all believers assume their particular deity (which is why I made the Zeus analogy). You're then presupposing his preeminence by relegating evil as an absence of god. And just like with the light/dark concept, this comparison can be easily flipped, causing a very different result in outcome.

"What is god but the absence of evil?"

...Hmm... God's goodness can only be experienced or understood when contrasted against evil?This makes evil a required aspect of God's existence. God is subordinate to evil's existence, or else god cannot be good...

That's a very serious theological problem, and it's a bit more complex than the imaginary conversation that you posted at the beginning of this thread.

Those are just two reasons why the responses that you really enjoyed aren't all that you think they are. They aren't reasoned responses at all - and they don't argue for the existence of anything other than the speaker's bias. If I made those arguments for God, Santa Claus, Aliens, or scientific theories, I'd be wrong every time. Which brings me to my next point:



This is called deflection... Instead of addressing the very obvious flaws with the posted article, and maybe engaging in a little theological debate, you're attacking an unstated position. It's a defensive tactic, but it's a weak one.

Nowhere in this thread have I made any claims about anything other than the flawed logic of the original post. Why on Earth are you drudging up evolution, or any other topic for that matter?

Like I said in the above paragraph, if I used the article's logic to defend a scientific claim, I would expect to be laughed at.



Deflection times two... Let's try a different approach.

In your opening statement to me, you said that you had yet to see a decent argument against the article, and that mostly everyone was just huffing and puffing. You said that, despite the fact that I gave you reasoned rebuttals for flaws in the arguments being made, most notably comparing the arguments for God with arguments for Zeus. If those arguments work for god, in your mind, then they must also logically work for any variable - evolution being one of them. Since you're mocking the idea that these ideas would similarly defend an evolutionary position, I can only assume that you must admit that they can be equally as mocked as arguments for god, right?

Intellectual honesty is very important, not just in debate but in our daily lives as well. The arguments that you say you like cannot work for one variable and not the other...

So, which is it? Are they good arguments, or are they bad arguments?

So far you haven't repond to jonathan180iq's post #84 yet.

 

[Pudding]

@Deeje
Your op say:

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(Deeje)'m with Einstein.

leibowde84 reply your op with:
Post #59

But, the Bible says that God created evil. So, wasn't Einstein wrong?

You reply with:
Post #63

Why does evil exist? It is an equal opposite of good. Everything has an equal opposite.

Do you think God created evil just to make us miserable? He initially was going to keep that knowledge to himself, but because he gave humans free will, he could not just make it impossible to attain it. He place a huge penalty in front of it, so that only a fool would disobey his command and invite death on himself......but a fool did abuse his free will and unleashed upon all humankind something that God never wanted us to experience. Put the blame where it lies.....three rebels are responsible for what went wrong....but they hijacked the entire human race, necessitating an object lesson that will never need to be repeated. Man's battle with the consequences of evil will have set precedents for all time to come, so that no rebel will ever be able to abuse his free will again...not in heaven or on earth.

There is a reason for everything.

leibowde84 said "the Bible says that God created evil", while the Einstein in your op said "God did not create evil". He ask you whether Einstein wrong or not because what Einstein said contradict with what the Bible said. You did not answer his question.

Isaiah 45:7(King James Version) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[Jose Fly]

What is the meaning to get emotionally with Deeje?

What makes you think I'm getting emotional? Simply pointing out a person's persistent dishonesty doesn't make one "emotional".

She probably will feel happy and a sense of victory if you become more angry and insult her.
Then she may also insult you back.
What is the meaning for people to insult each other back and forward.

You didn't answer the question. I asked how you would deal with a person who is persistently dishonest, remember?

I'll tell you when i know how to respond to you.

Why don't you know how to respond to me?