From facebook
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
There are many philosophical discussions to be had about whether or not God exists, but this exchange is illogical. The student is wrong.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Evolution is more than a faith. Brain surgery occursx- so that is more than faith.
There are many philosophical discussions to be had about whether or not God exists, but this exchange is illogical. The student is wrong.
can you logically explain that?
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Yes, i would be interested too
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: 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? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: 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.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : 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.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became 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.
Therefore, cold is the absence of heat. It is a "thing". The absence of heat exists, therefore "cold" exists. Illogical argument.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: 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 is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Again, not sure what the point is. Darkness is the lack of light.
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: 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.
This entire section is flawed. The questions the professor asked about God are meant to ask a simple thing: why is there misery in the world? What did the AIDS baby, born into a life of poverty, do to deserve its fate?
The student's idea about the premise of duality sounds impressive, but it again, makes no sense. What does duality have to do with how finite God is? The professor is not arguing for a good God and a bad God (except for the part about Satan, which is trying to ask why God would create evil) he is arguing about why there is an **indifferent **God. Maybe there is no God. That would make more sense, in that the AIDS baby simply had bad luck. There was no grand architect that decided to doom the baby, it was just the roll of the dice. I'm not saying these are my views, I'm saying this is an easier explanation to accept than to say that there is a God, He is loving and all-powerful, but he lets all this misery occur in the world to people who are innocent.
As for the idea about science being unable to explain "thought"...uh what? A thought is an idea. It doesn't exist in the real world. It is an abstract idea. You can't see it. What you can see however, is your brain light up in an MRI, as you think or do different things. Therefore, you obviously can't "see" a thought, but you can see the brain in action. These actions result in ideas and viewpoints, which we call thoughts.
Lastly, the student is ignorant of the fact that death can be both the opposite of life, as well as the absence of light. As we established above, cold is the absence of heat. Cold is also the opposite of heat. Therefore, death is both the absence of, and the lack of, life. QED.
As for death: it IS substantive, which means it has a firm basis in reality, and is therefore, important, meaningful, and considerable. This entire part was nonsense, meant to sound impressive.
Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: 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 shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was 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 endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
If the student knows anything about evolution, then you know that inherent in its definition is that the change occurs over millions of years. How the hell are you going to see it? Oh wait, you could find archeological and biological evidence that shows the common ancestor from which apes and man diverged. So I guess we can see evolution. And guess what, this has nothing to do with religion. For all you know, evolution is the method by which God created man.
(The class was in uproar.)
Cute.
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt 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?
This seems to be a very confused student. He or she needs to check an MRI and "see" a brain. Better yet, stick a metal rod through someone's head and notice how their mental capacity is suddenly reduced. That would indicate, to me at least, that there is something inside the head which governs our thoughts and intelligence. But hey, that's just me.
Going back to the professor's idea about not being able to prove that God exists: well he's right, you can't. You can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste God, nor can you demonstrate that God exists through experiment, ex: If you pray for something, it may or may not happen, and you have no way to know if it was God or random chance.
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH
And this brings me to a more important point. There is nothing wrong with having faith. But you have to admit that it is faith, that you are believing in spite of a lack of evidence, and should be willing to accept that for some, faith is not enough. Therefore, no religion is "obviously right" as they all rely on faith. Equating faith and religious doctrine, which, if challenged, is considered haram, is not the same as scientific discourse, in which new ideas are often denied and shot down until a consensus is built. This is the opposite of religion which says that this is the world of God, accept it.
I have no idea why some religious people feel the need to belittle science. It is entirely separate from religion. Religion is about ideas and philosophies, which can obviously exist outside of any doctrine. Science is about the physical world around us.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ then why does Science have to rely on the invisible Higgs Boson i.e, the "God Particle" to prove that atoms have Mass?
even Science relies on Faith!....True?
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ then why does Science have to rely on the invisible Higgs Boson i.e, the "God Particle" to prove that atoms have Mass?
even Science relies on Faith!....True?
Lol are you serious? It was considered unobserved until this year. That means that the hypothesis was that it existed, but until the recent experiments, one could argue that the Higgs Boson may not exist. No faith there. On the other hand, since no one has seen God, by scientific logic, it is reasonable to argue that God doesn't exist. Of course, faith doesn't work like that.
Furthermore, science relies on peer review, where your contemporaries have to vet your work. Did anyone verify the claims of any of the prophets of any religion? Of course not. That's faith.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Ghost I am speechless. Wise man. Much respect.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
I think professor is right in pointing out the contradiction which is that if God is good & merciful than how come he created evil that causes suffering? Surely, a loving God would not approve of that, or would he?
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ What evil did He create, exactly? Jinns and humans? Then how come not all of jinns and not all of humans are evil? He created angels to be good so they're all good, no exceptions. If He created us to be evil then how come there is good in jinns and humans? How come Iblis was a devoted servant of God for a good while if he was in fact created to be evil?
He gave us free will, that's what He did. If we make use of this freedom to be evil, that's our fault, not His. Being a true crime fanatic, I'm always amazed at how some of the serial killers have exceptionally high IQ. Did God give them that brain to plot murders and robberies or could they have used that brain to help the world like millions of other bright minds we know of? We know the shayateen are locked up in Ramadan but we still do wrong because we don't need the devil to make us do wrong, we have a brain of our own and the ability to make our own decisions.
Who says He approves of evil? He wouldn't have sent countless Prophets to us if He didn't think there was ill happening in the world. The Judgement Day is planned for a reason - it will bring justice to those who've been wronged and will punish the wrongdoers. Forget physical pain and suffering, even if you verbally hurt someone, you'll be answering for that on the day. And for every pain that has afflicted you during your time on earth, even if it is as minor as the hurt caused by the prick of a thorn, your sins will be wiped off as leaves fall from a tree. That is the merciful and just God I believe in.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ What evil did He create, exactly? Jinns and humans? Then how come not all of jinns and not all of humans are evil? He created angels to be good so they're all good, no exceptions. If He created us to be evil then how come there is good in jinns and humans? How come Iblis was a devoted servant of God for a good while if he was in fact created to be evil?
He gave us free will, that's what He did. If we make use of this freedom to be evil, that's our fault, not His. Being a true crime fanatic, I'm always amazed at how some of the serial killers have exceptionally high IQ. Did God give them that brain to plot murders and robberies or could they have used that brain to help the world like millions of other bright minds we know of? We know the shayateen are locked up in Ramadan but we still do wrong because we don't need the devil to make us do wrong, we have a brain of our own and the ability to make our own decisions.
Who says He approves of evil? He wouldn't have sent countless Prophets to us if He didn't think there was ill happening in the world. The Judgement Day is planned for a reason - it will bring justice to those who've been wronged and will punish the wrongdoers. Forget physical pain and suffering, even if you verbally hurt someone, you'll be answering for that on the day. And for every pain that has afflicted you during your time on earth, even if it is as minor as the hurt caused by the prick of a thorn, your sins will be wiped off as leaves fall from a tree. That is the merciful and just God I believe in.
Absolutely.
The science lovers think science has everything proven or can be proven someday. But much of science is based on theories and beliefs and nothing concrete or absolute.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ What evil did He create, exactly? Jinns and humans? Then how come not all of jinns and not all of humans are evil? He created angels to be good so they're all good, no exceptions. If He created us to be evil then how come there is good in jinns and humans? How come Iblis was a devoted servant of God for a good while if he was in fact created to be evil?
He gave us free will, that's what He did. If we make use of this freedom to be evil, that's our fault, not His. Being a true crime fanatic, I'm always amazed at how some of the serial killers have exceptionally high IQ. Did God give them that brain to plot murders and robberies or could they have used that brain to help the world like millions of other bright minds we know of? We know the shayateen are locked up in Ramadan but we still do wrong because we don't need the devil to make us do wrong, we have a brain of our own and the ability to make our own decisions.
Who says He approves of evil? He wouldn't have sent countless Prophets to us if He didn't think there was ill happening in the world. The Judgement Day is planned for a reason - it will bring justice to those who've been wronged and will punish the wrongdoers. Forget physical pain and suffering, even if you verbally hurt someone, you'll be answering for that on the day. And for every pain that has afflicted you during your time on earth, even if it is as minor as the hurt caused by the prick of a thorn, your sins will be wiped off as leaves fall from a tree. That is the merciful and just God I believe in.
God created everything, including the world. The world has evil in it. Therefore, God created evil.
Find the flaw in that train of thought.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Absolutely.
The science lovers think science has everything proven or can be proven someday. But much of science is based on theories and beliefs and nothing concrete or absolute.
That's absolutely incorrect. You are thinking of "theory" as in something that is unproven. In science, theory refers to a framework of ideas. So if someone was to come up with something new about the laws of gravity, it would be evaluated using the existing framework, or theories, that we know are true.
Theory **does not mean assumption. **This is the biggest misconception among people who try to equate religion and philosophy with science.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
God created everything, including the world. The world has evil in it. Therefore, God created evil.
Find the flaw in that train of thought.
nothing wrong with that train of thought as long as one recognizes the existence of God in all that - however unfair the God's image may depict from the conclusion. Conclusion that is subjective to one's own perspective.
Some blame God for the evil they themselves brought upon them by not following God's instructions but some understand that evil is there to test us and we are given tools to overcome it. Therefore, there is a judgement day. If all were happy-go-lucky matter of the affairs, then, there was no judgement to be had. This is the reason, angels have no judgement day.
I will read your long post and will try to see where you are coming from in that later.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
nothing wrong with that train of thought as long as one recognizes the existence of God in all that - however unfair the God's image may depict from the conclusion. Conclusion that is subjective to one's own perspective.
Some blame God for the evil they themselves brought upon them by not following God's instructions but some understand that evil is there to test us and we are given tools to overcome it. Therefore, there is a judgement day. If all were happy-go-lucky matter of the affairs, then, there was no judgement to be had. This is the reason, angels have no judgement day.
I will read your long post and will try to see where you are coming from in that later.
Now that's a more interesting discussion. Of course, it leads to other questions but it's better than trying to lump philosophy (which is what religious doctrine can be thought of as) and science together. Belittling one (science) does not make the other one more "legit".
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Absolutely.
The science lovers think science has everything proven or can be proven someday. But much of science is based on theories and beliefs and nothing concrete or absolute.
I am a member of the scientific community too but I also believe that you cannot prove or disprove God's existence in the lab. He's not a thing or a creature for whom you can devise experiments, He's God. This intelligent universe is proof enough for me and it's perfectly fine if it isn't for someone else, I don't engage in these debates any more. Every time I read stuff like this, it reminds me of surah Ar-Rahman - "Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny?"
I was just discussing the creation of evil part.
God created everything, including the world. The world has evil in it. Therefore, God created evil.
Find the flaw in that train of thought.
You’re blaming the weapon and not the criminal, the weapon being our brain/intelligence/freedom and the criminals being those who choose to use that weapon for the wrong purposes. God only created the tools and it is up to us as to how we utilize them. Choking someone with bare hands isn't rocket science but does that mean God is evil for giving us hands or were these limbs meant for a different, not so evil purpose? Evil is not a different being that was created and put on this earth separately, it comes from within us. It is only our capacity to think and act independently that makes humans do evil things. Even the angels expressed this fear and Allah taala did not deny this but He simply said “I know what you do not know”. So what is it that He knew? Despite the negative virtues of humans, somehow our status is greater than that of angels’. How come? What is it about us that raises our status above beings who never even sin?
Just like drug manufacturers make drugs for therapeutic purposes despite their side effects, God created us despite our shortcomings because we’re capable of demonstrating immense love, greatness, knowledge, intelligence, empathy etc. Even bacteria, fungi and plants etc have certain disadvantages, some can even kill you, but they have plenty of advantages as well and they were made to serve some extremely important functions. The only difference between a drug and a poison is the dosage. Similarly, the only difference between good and bad humans (and jinns) is in the choices they make. While we have the ability and freedom to make the wrong choices, has God not taught us how to make the right choices? Has He not sent scriptures and countless prophets to us to warn us against and deter us from evil? Why would He do that if He in fact created us to be evil and if He approved of evil. That was my argument.
Interesting thread anyway, enjoy the discussions. I’m out.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ I'm not blaming the weapon. I'm questioning the motives of the creator. Free will and intelligence are certainly gifts, but why would God create malice to go along with the ability to do whatever we want? Why put in humans the desire for power? Why make us susceptible to lust, greed and violence? Surely we can have free will, and spend our time here on Earth in a utopia. If humans were created such that we truly do not want to harm others, the Earth would be a much more peaceful place.
God created evil in the sense that He made humans nature. I'm questioning the intent of this.
Since you're out of the discussion I won't expect a reply. What I wrote above is just something to think about. I certainly do. I don't think I have answers.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Ghost I am speechless. Wise man. Much respect.
Not sure about the wise part but nonetheless, thank you!
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
That's absolutely incorrect. You are thinking of "theory" as in something that is unproven. In science, theory refers to a framework of ideas. So if someone was to come up with something new about the laws of gravity, it would be evaluated using the existing framework, or theories, that we know are true.
Theory **does not mean assumption. **This is the biggest misconception among people who try to equate religion and philosophy with science.
Agreed. One comes up with a hypothesis. Then tries to prove it with observation. Critics try to disprove it. Based on observation and data the hypothesis is either validated or not.