An oldy but a goodie..............

[Danieltwotwenty]

This takes a while to read, but it's well worth it. May we be prepared always to give an answer to the reason for our faith...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The 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."

"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. "Ahh! 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 them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."

No answer.

"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? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?" No answer.

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?"

No answer.

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them?"

No answer.

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

No answer.

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?"

The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

No answer.

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers,

"Is God good?"

No answer..

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your 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... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

No answer.

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"...yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

The student doesn't answer.

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated. Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, 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, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - 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.

A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"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 and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then here'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 cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. 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, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! 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 makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. 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 priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face spits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"

The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room.

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "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.

The Christian shakes his head sadly.

"It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits...

Because that is what a chair is for.

[Dallas]

I saw this a few years ago, and yesterday on facebook. But on facebook, it said Einstein said this. Is that true?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

very good!

FL

[Danieltwotwenty]

Not sure about it being Einstein, i would say that is a fabrication unless you can dig up some proof.


Dan

[inlovewiththe44]

As far as if Einstein said it, he very possibly could have said it, even though he himself was a deist (he believed in a higher power). He could have at least been playing Devil's advocate, if nothing else. But, there really isn't any proof yet, so we'll see I guess.

[inlovewiththe44]

I think people might attribute it to Einstein just as a way to gain credibility for it, though the story does have credibility on its own accord.

[Ivellious]

The story is interesting, but I do take issue with a couple points.

First, I disagree with the initial premise of the good/evil relationship being akin to hot/cold or light/dark. The second two are physical proprieties, whereas good and evil are not even close to measurable in that way. Even if you can quantify them, I think on that sort of scale evil is NOT the absence of good, but rather a separate entity in itself. While you cannot add cold or darkness to a system, you can add evil.

To compare it to heat: There is no "neutrality" in heat. There is simply a certain level of heat. Now take good and evil. A person can perform good actions. A person can perform evil actions. But is an evil action really a "lack of good"? I say no. For instance, say I go outside and kick a tree lightly. There is no good in that action. does that mean I have performed an "evil" action? No, it means there is no good or evil. My killing somebody in a drunken rage is evil, but not because it is just void of good. It is actively adding "evil" to the situation.

Also, the brain analogy is just stupid, in my opinion. Have I seen his brain? No, but an MRI would let me rather easily. We study brains all the time. We have indeed felt, smelled, observed, and analyzed brains. Case closed on that point.

[Danieltwotwenty]

First, I disagree with the initial premise of the good/evil relationship being akin to hot/cold or light/dark. The second two are physical proprieties, whereas good and evil are not even close to measurable in that way. Even if you can quantify them, I think on that sort of scale evil is NOT the absence of good, but rather a separate entity in itself. While you cannot add cold or darkness to a system, you can add evil.

You missed the point, without good there is no evil, therefore if evil exists there must be a ultimate good.
In the atheistic world view you cannot account for evil or for good, everything is just random actions, so who is he to say that something is evil.

To compare it to heat: There is no "neutrality" in heat. There is simply a certain level of heat. Now take good and evil. A person can perform good actions. A person can perform evil actions. But is an evil action really a "lack of good"? I say no. For instance, say I go outside and kick a tree lightly. There is no good in that action. does that mean I have performed an "evil" action? No, it means there is no good or evil. My killing somebody in a drunken rage is evil, but not because it is just void of good. It is actively adding "evil" to the situation.

You missed the point again, please explain from a naturalistic process how something is good and how something can be evil, your analogy fails because you have no basis for saying that kicking the tree is neutral.
How do you know that kicking the tree is a neutral action, how do you know that killing someone is evil.

Also, the brain analogy is just stupid, in my opinion. Have I seen his brain? No, but an MRI would let me rather easily. We study brains all the time. We have indeed felt, smelled, observed, and analyzed brains. Case closed on that point.

The brain analogy is not stupid because once again you missed the point, right then and there in that specific situation and those specific people cannot see his thoughts so in scientific terms they do not exist.

[Ivellious]

As far as the brain goes: I get that those people cannot at that exact moment see the brain, BUT they easily could. Not that I agree that the argument given against Jesus is valid, but because this analogy was directly against the notion that one cannot physically experience Jesus, the brain analogy fails. The professor could demonstrate that he has a fully functional brain. No student can demonstrate that Jesus is God in such a way.

The argument given about evil specifically says that evil is the absence of good. I disagree with that. Again, it is not. They are opposite forces, which is why when the argument is given that darkness is to light as evil is to good, that argument fails. I never said good and evil were naturalistic. They are abstract. They are ideas. In general, good and evil are defined by an individual. Some societies grew to see good and evil differently. In human history very few things remain constantly viewed as "evil." I cannot define good and evil in the same way that I define heat and cold. That was my point.

If we want to get into good and evil in an atheistic world view, then I can't comment. I'm not an atheist. Personally, I think morality is defined by humans. It always has been. It is not set in stone and I don't think that they are "real" so to speak. It is a concept and an abstraction of reality. It is not naturalistic, in my opinion.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

You missed the point

You missed the point again

Yeah...they really did miss the point!

FL

[Danieltwotwenty]

As far as the brain goes: I get that those people cannot at that exact moment see the brain, BUT they easily could. Not that I agree that the argument given against Jesus is valid, but because this analogy was directly against the notion that one cannot physically experience Jesus, the brain analogy fails. The professor could demonstrate that he has a fully functional brain. No student can demonstrate that Jesus is God in such a way.

Yes exactly he can demonstrate the brain is "functioning" but that cannot account for thought he has etc...., we can see areas light up under an MRI but that does not account for the actual formation of the thought.

The argument given about evil specifically says that evil is the absence of good. I disagree with that. Again, it is not. They are opposite forces, which is why when the argument is given that darkness is to light as evil is to good, that argument fails. I never said good and evil were naturalistic. They are abstract. They are ideas. In general, good and evil are defined by an individual. Some societies grew to see good and evil differently. In human history very few things remain constantly viewed as "evil." I cannot define good and evil in the same way that I define heat and cold. That was my point.

They are not abstract idea's, they are mandated from God.
I believe you can define them the same way as heat and cold etc... because I have an absolute moral law from God to live by, so I disagree with your assertion.
You can say that it is subjective but that doesn't make it true.

If we want to get into good and evil in an atheistic world view, then I can't comment. I'm not an atheist. Personally, I think morality is defined by humans. It always has been. It is not set in stone and I don't think that they are "real" so to speak. It is a concept and an abstraction of reality. It is not naturalistic, in my opinion.

You have your opinion, I have mine and according to my worldview the premise of this argument does not fail.
This is the reason I posted in Christian chit chat because it was not a subject for open debate.

Dan

[Danieltwotwenty]

But is an evil action really a "lack of good"? I say no. For instance, say I go outside and kick a tree lightly. There is no good in that action. does that mean I have performed an "evil" action?

On the subject of being a neutral action, I say there are no neutral actions because every action should glorify God and if that action is not a glorification of God then the action becomes evil.
For example if kicking the tree has no purpose behind it and it is a random action, then what good is it how does it bring glory to God? It hasn't so therefore it has become evil, or conversely if that action did glorify God then it has become a good action.1 Corinthians 10:31
Evil is the absence of Good like cold is the absence of heat because according to God there is no neutral between good and evil.


Evil does not come from God, evil is where there is no good.

Dan

[Dallas]

But is an evil action really a "lack of good"? I say no. For instance, say I go outside and kick a tree lightly. There is no good in that action. does that mean I have performed an "evil" action?

On the subject of being a neutral action, I say there are no neutral actions because every action should glorify God and if that action is not a glorification of God then the action becomes evil.
For example if kicking the tree has no purpose behind it and it is a random action, then what good is it how does it bring glory to God? It hasn't so therefore it has become evil, or conversely if that action did glorify God then it has become a good action.<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Corinthians%2010.31" class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="1 Corinthians 10.31" data-version="nasb95" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:31</a>
Evil is the absence of Good like cold is the absence of heat because according to God there is no neutral between good and evil.


Evil does not come from God, evil is where there is no good.

Dan

The glorifying God statement, this is limited in a sense right? I'm asking this because if something doesn't glorify God, it's evil. I get that, but it's the next part that confuses me a little. Now,let's say I went out to kill someone in an act of war for the glory of God. Would that be good? Or is that violating "thou shalt not kill" commandment?

[Dallas]

But is an evil action really a "lack of good"? I say no. For instance, say I go outside and kick a tree lightly. There is no good in that action. does that mean I have performed an "evil" action?

On the subject of being a neutral action, I say there are no neutral actions because every action should glorify God and if that action is not a glorification of God then the action becomes evil.
For example if kicking the tree has no purpose behind it and it is a random action, then what good is it how does it bring glory to God? It hasn't so therefore it has become evil, or conversely if that action did glorify God then it has become a good action.<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Corinthians%2010.31" class="lbsBibleRef" data-reference="1 Corinthians 10.31" data-version="nasb95" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:31</a>
Evil is the absence of Good like cold is the absence of heat because according to God there is no neutral between good and evil.


Evil does not come from God, evil is where there is no good.

Dan

The glorifying God statement, this is limited in a sense right? I'm asking this because if something doesn't glorify God, it's evil. I get that, but it's the next part that confuses me a little. Now,let's say I went out to kill someone in an act of war for the glory of God. Would that be good? Or is that violating "thou shalt not kill" commandment?

[PaulSacramento]

The point is simply that if we START off with a false premiss ( or preconceived notion) then we will arrive at where we want, not at how things are.
The issue was that the professor started with a preconceived (and incorrect) notion of what HE thought God was.