Letters from Visitors to ExChristian.Net and Replies.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

From THE ACE

This is not a testimony, but something I wanted to bring to bring to everyone's attention. My parents recently e-mailed this Christian propaganda; I've read it through several times, and it still confuses the heck out of me. Would some of you comment on this so I can give them some logical answers to whatever this is trying to say?

Science vs. God

'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,' 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? Hmmm? 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 : '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.'

Without allowing the student to answer, the professor continues:
'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible
things, do they exist in this world?'

The student: '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 is confident: '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 actually 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,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

'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 up 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 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 smelled 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 everyday. 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.

Pass this on if you have faith and love Jesus.
 
Comments:
Blogger Samuel said...
So, atheists should ALL be evil people, incapable of goodness, since they're "empty of God". Is'nt it ?

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

Whatever the interpretation you can make of this verse, it just CLEALY says that god created evil. Even if he "does'nt approve" it.


Blogger Edward T. Babinski said...
This post has been removed by the author.


Blogger ExFundie said...
I'm too fucking sick of this delusional superstitious argument to even read the whole thing! We use all our senses to make observations, not just sight. None of our senses can detect anything Christian or spiritual, unless we (or someone else) tell ourselves over and over again they can. It is an argument of confusion, and brainwashed delusion.


Blogger Edward T. Babinski said...
The whole fake dialogue presupposes that we must speak about such matters in terms of the "problem of evil," when it's far more direct and problematical to speak in terms of the "problem of pain." Let me explain...

Neither "evil" nor "good" are universally agreed upon terms.

For instance, according to religionists anything not agreeing with their particular theology is deemed "evil." That includes rival theologies. So a whole lot of Christians with different theologies disagree as to what beliefs and sacramental practices and biblical interpretations are "evil," and which may "damn" a person or "save" them.

According to the O.T. the Hebrew god Yahweh found particular acts of genocide, stoning blasphemers, polygamous relationships, and owning slaves to be "good." In the N.T. a slave makes God happy if obeys even harsh unjust masters who beat him with no reason. That's "good" in other words, for slaves to obey their master. (Even Jesus depicts in a parable that a disobedient slave "shall be beaten with many stripes.") That's all "good."

So religionists usually don't want to develop the argument in terms of a "problem of evil," because they have such a problem defining "good and evil" simply via the Bible, and harmonizing or explaining away various biblical ideas, including loving one's neighbor and loving one's enemies, with Yahweh telling the Israelites to slay their neighbors, and God damning his enemies eternally. Blessed are the peacemakers?

So the first thing to do is POINT OUT THAT "pain" is a word that is more universally agreed upon than "evil." Even C. S. Lewis titled his book, The Problem of Pain (not the Problem of Evil). And no one is going to argue that "pain" does not exist, both physical pain and mentally anguishing, even mentally crippling, pains and illnesses.

Whence come such pains in such quantities -- with pain striking down animals for billions of years, i.e., long before the first human primate species began walking upright? The existnce of physical and mental pains turns many people away from religion's nice tidy explanations for the cosmos. In fact C. S. Lewis's friend, Charles Williams, even chided Lewis for writing a book attempting to explain away the problem of pain. And I myself am appaled that Lewis could compose a book with such glib answers as "Maybe animals will live eternally and God could combine a hell for human beings with a heaven for mosquitoes." Check it out, that's a paraphrase of what Lewis wrote in The Problem of Pain.

Lastly as for existence of a personal Jesus... consider these questions...

Many evangelical Christians boast that they have a “personal relationship” with Jesus. What makes it so “personal?” Well, they say, we have the words attributed to Jesus in the four Gospels. But there are so few of them, a couple thousand. You could fit all of Jesus’s words into a small 16-page booklet. And they are subject to interpretation.

Well, they say, there are “answered prayers.” But again, that is a matter of interpretation, because no matter what happens, an evangelical Christian interprets it as “Jesus’s will,” even when bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

Whenever I have a “personal relationship” with someone it does not consist of a few thousand words spoken two thousand years ago, recorded accurately (or inaccurately) by someone else, and which require interpretation from third parties for me to “truly” understand them (especially when the third parties disagree concerning the meaning and intent of those words).

Neither should a “personal relationship” depend on me having to interpret the results of every prayer uttered. And the range of interpretations covers every conceivable outcome: “strongly positively answered,” “weakly positively answered,” “strongly negatively answered,” “weakly negatively answered,” or even, “try again later when you have more faith.”


Blogger Ray Braun said...
This is a doozy to respond to. But, I am glad very you presented it because I guess that is the real up-to-date frontline of the Fundamentalist Christian argument offered by "Christians" who are professional scientists. They are hacking away at the issue of Thermodynamics in the subject area of physics and they feel they have the answer to non believers. To be completely honest, while I have seen this argument before, I am not a physicist and cannot therefore answer the claime with any meaningful rebuttal at this pooint in time. That, however, does not mean they are right or have any information over which we should get into a panic. I know nothing about these areas of physics, but I will research it to the best of my ability and let you know if I come up with anything useful. I do have a physicist within my family connections. If I can make any useful sense out of whatever he says about this stuff, I will let you know.

One needs to go with one's gut feelings unless and until one has something that really shows that the other side is clearly wrong. I say that because these preachers actually emotionally involved individuals who are looking for so called rational facts that they think will show the rest of us that they know what is really true. Until then, don't let them make a fool of you by saying something they can easily refute.


Blogger Edward T. Babinski said...
My friend at Greenville Nontheists, David Windhorst has this to add:

Yeesh. Where to start...

Okay -- a science professor begins his school year...

Who is he? Where, and when? For an item that's so proud of its world-beating, secular-slaying rhetoric, it's awfully short on particulars. If an exchange such as this were genuine, one would expect all the Christian sites reproducing it to be trumpeting the names and parties involved. Not that its vagueness automatically marks it as nothing more than a sad piece of wish-fulfillment fiction, but I'm just sayin'...

...professor of philosophy...

He was a science professor in the preceding sentence. We're not even through the first paragraph, and this screed already is about as internally consistent as the Synoptic Gospels.

The professor's arguments get pretty good, though, until he comes to the "...empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol..."* bit, a phrase which I'm guessing the writer lifted from somewhere, given its laughable application here. By the standards depicted, the student couldn't attest to the existence of Abraham Lincoln. Or -- assuming this was written recently rather than a generation ago --John Lennon.

* (Googling that phrase turns up, as of this moment, 756 hits. 753 are pages reproducing all or part of the item in question here. Of the three that aren't, one is from an Oklahoma bbs where another Christian writer makes the same mistake this one does [I suppose they could be the same person]; the second is from mysteriousuniverse.org, a site devoted to "a diverse range of topics from the paranormal and the UFO phenomenon, to cryptozoology and ancient mysteries"; the third is from a page about "Kali: Religion Jesus" at www.goddess-kali-ma.com. Spot a trend yet?)

It starts getting especially silly with the "...we cannot measure cold" and whatnot. Although absence of heat is one definition, saying cold doesn't exist is erroneously simplistic, semantically facetious, and just plain wrong. Cold can also be used to describe aspects of the condition of some relative lowness of temperature (among other uses; googling "'science dictionary' cold" gets over 10,000 pages, the first few dozen of which I checked to verify the context; for something supposedly so nonexistent, it's a word with a lot of scientific utility). The same goes for "darkness is not something" ("'science dictionary' dark" -- over 12,000 pages).

Then we come to the gem: "You are working on the premise of duality." Excuse me? Don't Christians love to quote scriptures such as "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon"? (Luke 16:13 KJV) And "He that is not with me is against me"? (Mthw. 12:30) The Bible is chock full o' duality. And one of the most frequent accusations Christians make of unbelievers is that they are duality-deficient; unable to see things in absolutes and prone to shades of gray, existentialism, and "situational ethics." I wish they'd make up their minds.

On to "...science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one." Lotsa stuff wrong there. 1) Science doesn't claim to fully understand or explain much of anything. That's the beauty of it: science is an open-ended process of discovery, painstakingly seeking to accumulate understanding a bit at a time. There's a whole lot more known now about thought, electricity, and magnetism than there was just a decade ago. 2) While the substance of an individual thought -- a word which incorporates no small abstractness in its definitions -- may after a fashion still be described as unseen (for now), new research tools such as fMRI scans allow and observation of brain function in real time; in that sense, a thought is no less visible in action than is a byte of computer data. 3) I can't help noticing that although the writer describes electricity and magnetism as invisible, no mention is made of electromagnetism -- whose spectrum includes visible light.

"Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it." Cripes, this is tedious. I suppose hunger is nothing more than the absence of food?

"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." A professor of science is not likely to agree with such an ill-informed speaker. Humans and apes evolved from a common primate ancestor, not monkeys. Okay, maybe that's quibbling. Half a point.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor..." That tears it. The writer of this bit is utterly, thoroughly illiterate when it comes to the facts of evolution by natural selection. Guilty, case closed. Someone needs to read up on mutating viruses and cancer genes, ring species, etc., for starters. I keep in my files, for just this sort of discussion, a list of 100 published, peer-reviewed scientific papers which each describe an event of observed speciation. You'll understand if it's a bit much to include here. And then there's all the fossil evidence of so-called transitional species (so-called only because lots of species, maybe even most, are transitional -- like us: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving.html).

"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" Lame-o. If the professor, like ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff, ever suffers the misfortune of proximity to a roadside bomb, someone will likely see at least part of his brain. By this point the writer has gotten desperate.

"Evil is simply the absence of God." When I was a kid in Sunday school, one of the attributes of God they taught us about was His omnipresence. "Do I not fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord?" -- Jeremiah 23:24. How can an omnipresent being ever be absent? If he's omnipresent, he's not absent from the evil. If he is absent, he's not omnipresent. (And speaking the attributes of God, if we were made in His image, why aren't we Invisible? That one's free, no charge.)

Nuff said. Fish in a barrel.
[Dave Windhorst, Greenville Nontheists, a Yahoo Group]


Blogger Pete said...
We evolved with the apes, not from them. We are apes. Gorilla apes, baboon apes, chimp apes, human apes, we are all primates.. Fundies get this through your heads once and for all...... pete.


Blogger webmdave said...
Pete! We're not primates -- yuck! No, according to the Bye-Bull, we're nothing more than reconstituted dirt.

And everyone knows, dirts is worth a whole lot more than any old primates.


Blogger 02 said...
I find it disheartening that so many feel the need to denigrate those who don't agree with them.

Name-calling, the "get over it, Christian" type of comment -- what does that accomplish? Does it convince anyone?

Surely not.

Believe me (!), I understand the frustration. But there is only frustration in automatic dismissal of those who don't agree with you/see things your way.

If we (non-believers) do treat the Christians that way, how are we any different from the fundamentalists (I was one) who do likewise?

Reason, yes. Logic, yes. But without compassion, science is but tinkling brass and sounding cymbal.

FWIW,

Gregg (The "I'm not a Christian" guy)


Blogger Jackie said...
hmmm... I got this email like 10 years ago and a couple of months ago from a Christian guy except it added the part about the professor having no brain.
Now, I haven't been to college and I've been out of high school for 10 years but I'm reading this and thinking "you can still measure heat and light. You still can't measure God or the lack thereof." Still proves nothing other than Christians still don't know their shit, still can't think critically, still can't research or use their damn brains. Oh, and rely on stupid emails like this to prove that God and Jesus exist.
One last thing, I am pretty sure that this originally came from some book that was a work of fiction and has been modified in the passing of emails (there's the one about the professors brain and the chalk rolling down his pants or something like that.)


Blogger webmdave said...
Gregg, perhaps instead of lumping "no-god-knows-who" under the umbrella of "so many," perhaps you could specifically identify the miscreants to whom you refer.

Frankly, I read all the posts above and didn't see anything wrong with any of them.

Taking a position of authority in telling other people whom you don't know and whom you have barely met how you think they ought to communicate or present their ideas and opinions is a fundie maxim. No one else so easily presupposes that kind of sanctimony.

Just saying...


Blogger webmdave said...
Hi Jackie,

This latest email is an evolved version of this story on Snopes: Malice of Absence


Blogger Jackie said...
Sorry, I cheated and didn't read the whole thing. This is the one about the professors brain. silly me!


Blogger 02 said...
webmdave:

exfundie wrote:

++I'm too fucking sick of this delusional superstitious argument to even read the whole thing!++

That's to whom I was referring, and also the kind of thinking to which I was referring.

You really think that's appropriate?

It seems abrasive at best to me.


Blogger The AntiChristian said...
Gregg 02,
I am a victim of Christianity, as I suspect many other people on this site are as well. I suffered quite a bit as a youngster at the hands of well meaning Christians.

I am over Christianity now, but the emotional scars that I received from those assholes will remain with me for the rest of my life.

I don't think that Christians should be treated with any more respect than rapists, the KKK, or Nazis. Mental abuse of children is a heinous crime.

I reserve the right to tell a Christian to go fuck himself anytime I want to.

Cheers


Blogger Trans-man said...
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
Check it out, it tells you clearly it's another one of those sappy, nonsense fictional stories, designed to make atheists look stupid.
especially the argument of the brain is silly, since we know that no person could exist without it. Besides, you can feel it, touch it, even eat it if you absolutely want to.
evil can't be the absence of god, cause god's always been absent. So, everything there is is the absence of god, including everything good, or what's considered good.
To me, the argument is simply senseless. To a believer, well, I guess it's just one more of those Internet hoax and scam stories that they eat up with glee, just like the ones that show you the wonderful nature pictures, tell of some spectacular rescue of someone, or show a soldier with a little Iraqi baby in his arms.
Have fun, christians and other believers, with your gods and credit everything good to them. I, on the other hand, will keep looking for the good in people and give them credit for their heroic deeds and their unselfish actions, for kindness, altruism and a helping hand.


Blogger 02 said...
theantihristian:

I completely understand.

Don't get me wrong: I, too, am a total victim of christianity. Supposedly well-meaning, supposedly loving people put me through absolute living hell for over thirty-five years.

I do not minimize your status as a victim, for I am one as well.

There is a very real part of me that would completely relish the opportunity to rage at the ones who condemned me for being gay.

And for just plain doubting the faith.

I could -- ahem -- "preach" on it for a long time.

I do not pretend to understand what you've been through. As someone once said: It doesn't matter if your burden is more than mine; mine is about all I can carry.

That said, I refuse to be defined by what others did to me. No, I'm not somehow "above the fray." (In fact, I actually enjoy the fray from time to time.)

But I do find my life more . . . um . . . what I want it to be (enjoyable? okay, that's one way to state it) when I disengage -- for a time.

I choose to battle the nonsensical believers in different ways than casting aspersions at them.

Doesn't make me better, or worse. It's just my personal philosophy that I'll come closer to changing the world (read: at least one person) by not baring fangs . . . .

FWIW


Blogger brent said...
You should stop being so concerned with what you're parents think. If they're anything like my folks, they're way too far gone to be reached. Let them keep their tiny little worldview. As long as they're not running around stabbing people or running for office they're probably not hurting anybody so you can just file these silly, nonsensical stories with your chick tracts and keep them around for a good chuckle.


Blogger brent said...
BTW,

Edward t. Babinski's entry was a fucking work of art. If you really want to throw down on your folks just slap some of that shit on them. They won't understand any of it but it will be fucking hilarious to hear them call you a liberal or communist or terrorist or whatever when their brains are boiling in their skulls.


Blogger Justin said...
I have one question for the student in this situation. If god is omnipresent......how can there be an absence of god.


Blogger webmdave said...
Yes, 02, what exfundie wrote is abrasive, but it is ABSOLUTELY appropriate.

Please read the site purpose and disclaimer. There is only one reason this site exists... to encourage ex-Christians. That's it. That's all there is to it.

Some ex-Christians are mad as hell for any number of reasons. If they need a place to rant, rave, and vent, this is the place to do it.

Some of the former Christians here are forced to hide what they think in front of spouses, employers, family, the neighbors, etc., in order to keep the peace. If those individuals need to come here to vent, scream and cry -- they are welcome!

Let's take a look at what exfundie said: "I'm too fucking sick of this delusional superstitious argument.'

What in the world is wrong with that? Is it the word "fucking" you find offensive? It IS a delusional, superstitious argument! The argument is STUPID. Exfundie didn't denigrate a person, he denigrated an ARGUMENT. Where do you come from that calling an argument asinine is considered going over the top?

There is nothing wrong with being overly polite on this site, but there is also nothing wrong with what you apparently consider rude verbiage. If a Christian is offended by "fucking," there is a little X in the corner of the page. Christians are not in any way mandated to hang around.

In Christianity everyone is expected to be conformed to the image of whatever leader is blathering. There is no such expectation here. Outside of the prohibitions mentioned in the disclaimer, everyone is free to express his or her individuality.

I hope all that makes sense.


Blogger Lance said...
Hi ACE,

I hope I don't bore you with this, but here goes.

This is obviously a fictional story meant to encapsulate a logical argument. The authors of this email are trying to combat the problem of evil, and the uncomfortable idea of god creating it.

So let's start off by analyzing their logical arguments.

Argument #1.
A. Heat is real.
B. Cold is only the absence of heat.
C. Therefore cold does not exist.

Argument #2.
Ditto for light and darkness.

Argument #3.
A. Good and evil fit the same category as heat and cold.
B. Therefore evil is only the absence of good.
C. Therefore evil does not really exit on its own.

Argument #4.
A. God is the source of all good.
B. Evil is only the absence of good.
C. Therefore, evil is really the absence of god.

Their final conclusion: Evil is only lack of god's presence or goodness, and does not exist on its own. Therefore you can't accuse god of creating the non-existent thing called evil.

I think that sums it up, but I'm open to other thoughts.

So now lets look at those arguments.

The problem with arguments 1 and 2 is the logical fallacy called equivocation. It is using a word that has multiple meanings, such as hot or cold, in an ambiguous way.

For example, the email is correct technically in that heat and light are simply the effects of vibration of sub-atomic particles inside a substance. If you stop the particles from vibrating by cooling them down, then you stop the heat and light. Heat and light are a measure of the quantity and quality of that vibration. We do not typically measure the coldness or darkness of an object. Chalk up one point for the email.

But then they try to contrast heat and cold. A correct contrast would be between hot and cold, since those terms are used for relative measurements, just like fast and slow.

Here is the equivocation; the word heat can be used both as measurement of the quantity of thermal energy, as well as for a relative measurement between two or more objects. For example, you can say that one object is colder than another, or that one room is darker than another. Their argument concerning heat and cold, as well as light and dark confuse the two meanings; one being an absolute measurement, the other being relative.

So the conclusion of argument 1 is correct in that cold does not exist as physical property, but it is wrong in that the concept of cold does in fact exist when two objects of dissimilar temperatures are compared.

Does that make sense?

It is typical debating tactics to take something that is true, but twist it around in a way that is confusing.


Argument 3 is a false analogy combined with the above equivocation. They are trying to use an analogy to equate a physical concept with a metaphysical one.

The terms good and evil are never used in scientific ways such as heat or light. You can't measure the absolute goodness of an act by a human, nor can you find the absolute bottom of evil (unless, of course, you consider the concept of hell). You can't say there were 253 units of goodness in an act, nor can you say that no act can score below -322 units of goodness. That would be silly.

A correct analogy would be to say that the goodness of an act can in some ways be compared to other acts in a similar fashion as the temperature of one object can be compared to the temperature of another. It is not a precise analogy, but it gets the point across that good and evil can be judged on a sliding scale, just as hot and cold can be.

The analogy of argument 3-A falls apart because they use the absolute nature of heat and light in arguments 1 and 2, but they do an under-handed switch to the relative meaning of heat and light when they try to equate those concepts with goodness. They want you to think that goodness is absolute and exists on its own, rather than in its relation to evil.

Now the real problem starts with argument 4. This argument starts with the premise that god exists and that he is the source of all good. This is begging the question in the extreme, since the fictional professor only posed those concepts as rhetorical questions, and never agreed to their being a valid premise.

They are trying to claim that goodness is a absolute property of god without giving any evidence that this god even exists. By the way, begging the question means to propose the conclusion of an argument as one of the initial premises. Without this claim of absolute goodness, they have no way of equating heat or light with goodness.

So until they can give some sort of evidence for premise 4-A, then the rest of argument 4 is empty.

So let's skip argument 4, since that is a topic unto itself, and jump directly from argument 3 to the final conclusion that evil does not really exist, but is simply the absence of good, and therefore you can't accuse god of creating something that does not exist. Even this argument does does not hold water since they need to resort to using equivocation followed by a false analogy, and then round it out by begging the question.

I don't claim to be a philosopher, but the way I understand it, good and evil only exist in relative terms, and thus in relationship to each other. They are trying to argue against this, and I think they fail in the attempt.

Please let me know if this helped or not, as I have been accused of being able to take a simple concept and make it unbelievably complicated.

Thanks,

Lance


Blogger THE ACE said...
Thank you one and all for your
responses. These helped a lot.
I would have thanked you earlier,
but I'm just getting back to my computer this morning (Wednesday).
Webmaster Dave also mentioned yesterday this is an old urban legend supposedly concerning
Albert Einstein. Maybe Einstein
could have figured it out, because the whole thing didn't make much sense to me!


Blogger boomSLANG said...
"Evil" is merely the absence of "God", is it?

Well, if this is true, then logic says that "God" most certainly cannot be "Omnipresent", as in, the way that the very same people who fabricate these cheezy parables insist that "He" is.

If "good" and "evil" is a "choice", then good grief, that certainly doesn't do me much good if "God" is "absent". After all, "God" can't, on the one hand, be there for my choosing, and on the other hand, be absent, thus, permiting "evil" to hang around. This is circular reasoning, and it is quite blatant.


Blogger 02 said...
webmdave:

I don't find the word "fucking" offensive.

Where I come from, telling someone their argument is "fucking delusional" is the same as denigrating the person.

It is certainly possible to hold and show respect for a person while finding their line of reasoning lacks integrity.

I find it somewhat harder to manage calling someone's argument stupid and, at the same time, holding the person in respect. Though it can be -- and is -- done, often we blur the lines between the argument and the person. Hence the conflict between those of different beliefs that sometimes becomes emotional, sometimes physical.

This site's purpose is to encourage ex-christians. Noted. I read that before posting.

Somehow I missed the the point was also to rant and rave -- which is okay, if that's what you want to do.

The reason for my comment is that the original post seemed to be asking for help.

To quote from THE ACE:

"Would some of you comment on this so I can give them some logical answers to whatever this is trying to say?"

That seemed to me to be an honest request for something constructive to say to the poster's parents.

exfundie's comment didn't seem to do a good job of answering the poster's question.

That's all this is about.

I completely embrace those who want to rant and rave and exorcise (ha!) the pent-up rage that being a christian can generate.

Really, I do.

I simply thought that anyone commenting on this post would first try to help the poster.

Calling his parents' argument "fucking delusional" doesn't help.

Hey, I'm new here, so perhaps I've just missed the tone of the general conversation. Be patient; I'll catch on before long.

Thanks for listening.


Blogger 02 said...
Brief edit/correction:

After re-reading exfundie's original comment, I see that he didn't actually use the term, "fucking delusional," but said:

"I'm too fucking sick of this delusional superstitious argument."

This is, of course, different from what I said he said.

Though that changes things a bit, the general gist of what I say above still holds, I think.

Just wanted to be accurate. Should have checked before I clicked the Publish button.


Blogger Lynne said...
So then if evil is just an absence of God, and people are evil (according to the Bible) then ALL people, not just atheists, are empty of God. Therefore, God may as well not exist because God can't touch us or affect us in any way. If evil is an absence of good, rather than an absence of God, then it's clear that humans are NOT evil because then we wouldn't be capable of doing anything good. Yet clearly, people do good works all the time. So in order to make this logically coherent, you'd either have to admit that people are NOT evil, that God does not exist or that God does exist but is entirely irrelevant to people's lives. In short, it's a horribly stupid argument made by someone who only thinks he's being clever.


Blogger Nina said...
I can not read the whole thing either. COLD CAN BE MEASURED AND CREATED AND is not just the absence of heat.
Such illogic.
Don't get how the professor did not stop him right there!!!!
Nina


Blogger The AntiChristian said...
Gregg 02,
I understand your point of view. In principle, if you want to engage in an intelligent dialogue, you have to respect your interlocutor.

I am willing to hold an intelligent debate with any religious person whatsoever, or with any person on any subject, for that matter.

However, when people start regurgitating senseless plabum (our beloved Andrew, for instance), I do not hesitate in throwing insults.

There are some people who you simply cannot reason with. They are either ignorant, schizophrenic, proud, brainwashed, or just plain hard headed.

You can present them with fact after fact contrary to what they believe, and they will still hold onto their beleifs with a passion.

These people deserve insults.

Speaking of gay ...

When I was 19, our youth pastor went before the youth group (about 200 people) and effectively ex-communicated two members for being gay. "Mr. X and Mr. Y are in sin and they will not repent. They are homosexuals and they will not repent. No one from this youth group is to have any contact with them whatsoever. They will not be allowed to enter the church grounds anymore."

I knew these two young men. They were young and sensitive at 15 and 16 years old. They were struggling with their first pangs of sexuality, and this idiot youth pastor brasenly exposed them and ex-communicated in front of the entire youth group.

Doesn't it make you want to hit somebody?

Doesn't this idiocracy make you angry?

Needless to say, I left the church shorlty thereafter. My only regret is that I was too much of a coward to confront the youth pastor on this.

For some of these idiot Christians, a mere insult is way too kind.


Blogger The AntiChristian said...
The Ace,
I am not a physicist, but I am a high school physics teacher. And, yes, we do teach that, at least in the realm of physics, there are simply varying degrees of heat. The word "cold" really has no meaning in the realm of physics.

Nevertheless, it was inappropriate to transfer this principle to the presence of God and the absence of God or the presence of good and the absence of good. The corrolation given is simply contrived.

One of the bloggers said, "God is supposed to be omnipresent, isn't he?" That pretty much kills the argument presented.


Blogger twincats said...
Nina, the "professor" didn't respond to the student because he is fictional, just like the fair few other similar stories I've seen circulating.

None of the godless types in these stories ever has any rhetorical training, it seems, so the christers always "win."

Maybe someone (Mr. Babinsky?) should write up a version where the professor has the answers he put forth and put the xtian students in their place!


Blogger 02 said...
TheAntiChristian:

I agree with much of what you say. Intelligent conversation is the best.

But when the person before you spouts nonsense, acts rude, and attempts to shut down all appeal to reason, what do you do?

What I do is disconnect with a "We'll just have to agree to disagree" type of statement.

Not that I'm not tempted to "let them have it" -- I am, I am.

But I don't see how shouting insults gets me anywhere.

I just don't.

Now, if that unreasonable person wants to do more than talk -- for example, wants to try and change the laws on the books -- then I retaliate with action.

But not with name-calling.

Perhaps I'm just way too polite for my own good.

My feeling is that I'm more likely to favorably impress those open-minded types that aren't settled in their convictions (and those who are) by trying to remain decorous.

~ ~ ~

The story of the youth pastor -- I've seen that type of person in action too many times. It's easy to come back with comments like "He should be shot" or worse.

In my humble opinion, he should be defrocked (no, evangelicals don't get frocked in the first place [fill in your own joke here]) and kept from positions of leadership.

I liked your comment about physics, btw. I'm a musician and editor by trade, but have always enjoyed armchair physics -- keeping up with the subject as best as a layperson can.


Blogger webmdave said...
02, I think the difference of opinion we are having here is NOT with how you want to maintain a conversation. The disagreement is over your implied suggestion that EVERYONE should hold a conversation following your prescribed formula.

Whether your approach is more effective remains to be proved. Although it is reasonable to assume that your method may appeal to some, it is a truism that there are many different types of people. My personal experience in arguing with fundies over the past several years indicates that an emotional appeal is sometimes MORE effective than anything else. I've witnessed a number of people who have de-converted after being initially emotionally insulted. Those particular posters went away mad, at first, and the anger spurred them on to research and think. When they came back, they came back with a different perspective.

The point here is that there is no one guaranteed way to get through to anyone and there is no one way that I've seen that is demonstratively better. A simple study of the political rhetoric that birthed the USA will show that while some politicians gained considerable ground through controlled politeness, others gained equal success through a more colorfully aggressive approach.

Ex-Christians are like cats. To expect them all to conform to any one standard of conversational style sends up red flags. No one here expects you to adjust your style of conversation. No one has even hinted at that conclusion. It does appear, however, that you seem desirous of bringing others into conformation with your preferred style.

This, and this alone, is my point in addressing you on this matter.


Blogger jamesisme1 said...
The arguments given could apply to every god ever known. So does zeus exist? What about Thor? If jehova exists and this argument is correct then Thor throws lightning bolts,rather rediculous right? All branches of science are susceptible to change when new observations require that they do so. Religion rarely changes regardsless of discoveries that make it irelevant.Religion is a system of control whereas science is a system of discovery. Religion exists to maintain the status quo, science exists to help us discover our universe. Science requires that we think, religion requires that we be obedient to an unchanging set of cultural rules of behavior. Which do you prefer? Frankly I PREFER TO THINK.


Blogger Raul said...
boomSLANG definetly made a good point.
1.If God everything how can there be "abscence of God"?
2.If in the begining there was only God and "he had no evil within him" where did evil come from?


Blogger boomSLANG said...
Actually, upon closer inspection, I noticed that I wasn't the first in this thread to point out the dilemma that "omnipresence" poses for the "Evil is the absence of God", hypothesis...

Justine asked... If god is omnipresent......how can there be an absence of god(?)

Christians need to make up their minds and show a little more unity on how they want their Christian concepts to play out. Is "evil" something passive?..is it something that only has influence if one's "free will" allows it? Or, is "evil" an active force in the Universe and something that we have no control over, and thus, presumably need their biblegod's "assistance" in overcoming it?

*Note, any thinking person realizes that there are serious implications for both senarios, which, again, is how we know that Christianity's foundation is built of impossible and illogical concepts. I suppose this is where "faith" comes in handy.


Blogger 02 said...
webmdave:

I don't think everyone should hold a conversation following my prescribed formula.

Indeed, I don't have a prescribed formula. Sometimes I call names, too.

All of this matters not, however, because something in the tone I used communicated to you that I thought my way was better, preferred, or the only way.

I apologize for that. I didn't realize I came across that way.

I don't think my way is the only way. I do, of course, think it's a better way -- that's why it's my way.

After all, who chooses what they think is the second- or third-best way to behave? We all do what we do because we think that's the best.

But the way everyone should argue?

No, no, and no.

I do want to point out, though, that the Purpose Disclaimer page at Ex-Christian.net says:

If a topic degenerates into mindless name calling, your post may be deleted.

Apparently the ones running the site don't think that mindless name-calling is appropriate.

Now, you could argue that what I responded to (exfundie's comment) isn't mindless name calling, and I'd listen. Not all name calling is inappropriate at all times.

Regardless, I apologize for coming across as arrogant.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
In my experience, it's usually a "red flag" when a guest drops in on this site and they commence to unceasingly harping on the actions/propriety, etc., of the non-theist posters here. This is because, more often than not, what they end up being is anonymous Christians, who, since they don't have a valid argument for their worldview, resort to judging the behavior of non-believers. I guess what they fail to understand, is that we left the one-size-fits-all mentality behind, right along with the "flying zombie".

As far as this(from the disclaimer).....

If a topic degenerates into mindless name calling, your post may be deleted.

I'm going to go out on a limb and estimate that what it more than likely means, is that if a poster resorts to NOTHING but name-calling, then their posts get scrubbed. Personally, I try to incorporate reason and logic as much as possible when dealing with Theists, notwithstanding, I also like to throw in an occasional ad hominem assault. It's like fights in hockey--it comes with the turf.


Blogger stronger now said...
"Apparently the ones running the site don't think that mindless name-calling is appropriate."

But they don't seem to have a problem with mindfull namecalling!


Blogger webmdave said...
02 wrote, "After all, who chooses what they think is the second- or third-best way to behave? We all do what we do because we think that's the best."

To the end of that sentence I'd add, "way for us to act." In other words, I correspond in a style that fits my personality, upbringing, training, education, etc. I also happen to think my style is the very best style... FOR ME. I don't, however, think my style is generally the best style in existence. Regardless, my chosen style of communication is currently the absolute best style for me and your chosen style is currently the absolute best style for you.

I appreciate your apology, but I still think you miss the point. You believe your approach is the best, and you are correct -- but only for you. You are incorrect in assuming that your style may be a standard for anyone else.

I belabor this point because as a Christian I was constantly confronted by well-meaning Christians who resented my difficult theological questions and accused me of sowing discord among the brethern. They wanted me to shut up and conform to the status quo. Christians ALWAYS want everyone to conform to some status quo. It's a maxim in Christianity that EVERYONE conform to the status quo. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that you still suffer somewhat from that malady of thought.

Again: Your approach is the best for you. My approach is the best for me. Exfundie's approach is the best for Exfundie. And so on...

Boom's limb testing was spot on. When a thread degenerates into nothing but mindless name calling then the post MAY be scrubbed. And I happen to know that the primary audience to which that sentence was originally penned is made up of trolling fundamentalists.

Anyway, enough on this. Hopefully I've effectively (finally) made my point.


Blogger 02 said...
boomslang:

Right on, spot on.

webmdave:

Also, right on.

Now, *rubs hands, smacks lips* where might I find a fundamentalist to abuse? *jpk*


Blogger WhateverLolaWants said...
Some very good posts here debunking these arguments. Another thing- I've only taken 2 philosophy classes, but I immediately spotted an untrue statement by the "student":
"My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."
UNTRUE! Take a basic logic class (I just did) and you'll find that's not true. You can have false premises and a true conclusion. Geesh!


Blogger Trancelation said...
*sigh*

This urban legend exists in many forms. My favorite one is the one where a Navy SEAL is apparently taking a science class, and guess what? At the very end, after kicking the professor's ass with his words, he punches the professor. AFTER the professor waxes philosophical. In a science class. Yep. And I could be wrong, but I believe there were machines guns, a Blackhawk helicopter, and a nude Angelina Jolie involved.

Gotta love bodybuilder mentality. Just gotta love it.

The problem with these Christian urban legends, aside from being vague and anecdotal, is that they rely entirely on logical fallacies. The professor speaks of using the five senses to detect and understand the world around us, and in the end the student relies on ONE sense, as if that one sense (sight) somehow overrides the need for detection through any other sense. The student says we cnanot see the professor's brain (as did the SEAL), so therefore the professor's brain does not exist. Therefore, the professor is wrong, God is real, as is Original Sin, unicorns, talking bushes, and angels hell-belt on sodomizing the SHIT out of some villagers.

Right. Makes total sense.

The problem with your parents' reasoning is that everything the student lists as not being "real" because it can't be "seen" is that the EFFECTS of these things can be seen. It's a lot like the logical fallacy that we use faith when we turn on a light switch; we don't know that the light will turn on when we flip the switch, therefore we have faith that it will, the same way Christians have faith that God will answer their prayers and be present in their lives. at best, Christians can only offer vague, anecdotal, inconclusive evidence that can be explained by other factors. God is never present in human life the way it says it will be in the Bible. The effects of flipping a light switch are obvious; praying to God to move a mountain or dry up an ocean will not work. th logical fallacy there is that our faith is the same as theirs because we don't know if it will work. But with God, it NEVER works, therefore the two "faiths" cannot possibly be the same.

Another fallacy: your parents speak of the absences of things, and by making assumptions about the nature of absences of OTHER things (heat, light, etc.), these things being fallacies themselves, then proceed to equate them to the scientific principle they have jst spoken of. These are great and all, but they still haven't shown that the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, unicorns, or reanimated corpses exist. In order for their comparisons to be true, they must first show that their God is true. Otherwise, the comparisons are moot.

I don't know if anyone else brought up those points, but those are the problems I saw. I'd love to see your parents' reaction. At some point, they have no choice but to be silent or start preaching some emotional nonsense about how you HATE GAWD or some shit.

And yes, your parents are fucking delusional. I might even be moved eot say that they are delusional FUCKTARDS.


Blogger 02 said...
trancelation:

Good analysis.

Parents' status as fucktards depends entirely on how loud they are, I think, with the three basic levels being: Fucktard, FUCKtard, and FUCKTARD.


Blogger godsfavoritecolor said...
I think that one of the most sinister things about this anecdote are only hinted at in the above criticisms, to wit, the persistent and continual denigration of human morality, knowledge, education, and science by xtian fundamentalists. The xtians who promote these stories glory in their worship of deliberate ignorance. This is for me the chief reason why I believe that xtianity should be extinguished from the collective mind of humanity.


Blogger Edward T. Babinski said...
The Snopes article on this "atheist professor" story is well worth reading:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

It explains that such stories function as modern day parables repeated by religionists because they show them being able to win arguments with those who question or oppose their views.

But might not the same thing be said about some of the parables of Jesus in which he and the Pharisees questioned each other? Maybe the straw man atheist in the modern day parables is an echo of a straw man Pharisee back in Jesus's day, and many some of Jesus's own followers enhanced Jesus stories, or even invented some parables, in order to make Jesus appear like the man with all the answers who could win every debate? I'm sure various scholars have already asked such questions and doubt that every word attributed to Jesus in the Gospels was necessarily spoken by a "Jesus of Nazareth."


Blogger clair said...
I've seen my brain lots of times with MRI. Also, I had an EEG a few weeks ago and saw my brain waves after. The technician enjoyed pointing out the way the waves looked when I almost fell asleep. It's always exciting, my brain. Yes, I got this tripe e-mail a few years ago also, it actually satisfies those feeling so beneath the intellect of an authority figure. This sweet story is passed among those with a deep need to pat one another on the back, and say, "See, we are even smarter than this proffesor" and they push back the nagging feeling of doubt for a time.


OpenID the-walruss said...
It's a game of semantics... cold is both the absense of, and the opposite of heat. Cold does actually exist, we just define it as the opposite of heat.

A God who allows an "absense of good" has effectively created evil, no matter how you word it.

We've never seen evolution at work, but we've seen the evidence of evolution. Dinosaur bones we can see and touch, thousand year old skulls that look eerily similar, yet slightly different than human skulls. DNA that is almost identical in all mammals, similar bone structure, plus the observable micro-evolution in certain bacteria that make them resistant to medication, plus the whole thing makes sense if you think it through, those animals with the greatest ability to survive would continue to survive.

As for the brain thing, something has to run the human body, we have to assume it's the same thing for everyone, since most other parts of the body are the same, and I have actually seen a human brain before.

Any of the things he mentioned, you can go back and find a rational explanation for. There is no rational explanation for a man dying on the cross to save people from an evil that their creator supposedly thrust upon them, nor is there a rational explanation for our having to rearrange our lives to accept his "free gift."

It would be SO nice if people would think these things through so somebody else doesn't have to.


OpenID heavenslaughing said...
To summarize the point of the dialogue: the existence of "evil" does not disprove the existence or the goodness of god; rather, evil is the absence of god. This is likened to the way that cold and darkness, which by human sensation we might mistake for forces in themselves, are known to modern physics simply as the relative absence of heat or light.

If we accept that god gives us the option of accepting him or not, the dialogue presents one reasonable way of addressing the problem of theodicy, or how an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god allows evil to exist. Disassociated from Christianity, I would even call it a reasonable argument, with the straw-man treatment of empirical reasoning being an irrelevant side-note.

Associated with Christianity, the argument falls down here: evil in the world does not correlate with the absence of Christianity. The god to which the student in this story attests is thus not the Christian god, or at least not exclusively that god. Tell your parents that you appreciate their sharing thoughts on the nature of divinity in the universe, and how if they believe what they have just sent you, they might want to consider branching away from evangelical Christianity.


Blogger webmdave said...
Some good concise responses to the various theodicies regarding evil are located here: Theodicy: The Problem of Evil


OpenID heavenslaughing said...
Thanks for the link, Dave. I checked the page on Absence Theodicy, which it turns out is one of the site's weaker links. His refutation relies on attributing the theodicy with exactly the dualistic concept of good and evil it rejects.

Lance wrote one of the clearer parsings of the argument above, though I would disagree with him that the story makes an argument by analogy. Strictly speaking, it does not make an argument that god exists at all. It uses an illustrative analogy to introduce an argument for how god and evil could coexist, if believing in god is something you do.

Many a Fundamentalist might use this argument in combination with other concepts about god which contradict it. However, there are ways of conceiving of god (even within Christianity!) where this theodicy is logically consistent--for example, omnipresence can mean having no spatial boundaries, but only existing in places where it is accepted, or called, or whatever. It's not provable, but it's not delusional or transparently false.

The Fundamentalist who wrote this story felt willing to make straw-men out of arguments he or she disbelieved. I'd like to think that my unwillingness to do the same, rather than my disbelief in Jesus, is what separates us.


Blogger webmdave said...
Well, then light must be the absence of darkness and sound must be the absence of silence. A head of hair is probably the absence of baldness. As soon as you set up any kind of "either/or" comparison, you are setting up a dualistic model. This "absence of good" theo-idiocy is every bit as dualistic as any of the other black/white "odicies" in the theist brain.

Evil acts are not the absence of good acts. Well, perhaps some evil is "not doing good," but there are plenty of activities that could be labeled as evil and no matter how much good detergent you pour on them, they won't lather up.

This apologetic is probably one that helps some Christians feel confident in knowingly nodding their heads in complacent unison for a few minutes, but any thoughtful person will eventually realize that since God is supposedly omnipresent, there can be no such thing (in Christian theology) as Him being absent from anywhere. If one of HIS attributes is omnipresence, then that's one of HIS attributes. You can' just shed that attribute when it's convenient to the argument. Therefore, the theo-idiocy of the absence of God is self-contradicting.


OpenID heavenslaughing said...
First, to review the physics, darkness being the absence of light and cold being the absence of heat are not reversible statements. Sound is not the absence of silence in any physical sense; sound is a form of energy, and that energy can be more or less strong, with its total absence being called silence. There is no energy of silence whose absence is sound. I suppose I'm surprised at how many people never learned this, but I guess high school level physics isn't necessarily common knowledge.

About the physics, the Christian in the story is correct, and our fictitious professor surprisingly ignorant. Note, however, that this correctness in no way builds an argument: it illustrates a kind of relationship between terms. This relationship is not "either/or" between two terms; it is "how much" of a single term, with a word that we're accustomed to thinking of as its opposite signifying only a relative lack. So no, it is not dualistic.

The story presents no argument whatsoever that good/god and evil share this same relationship. It simply asserts that they do, with the implication that if we think of them in this way, the presence of evil (how humans experience the absence of god) does not disprove god.

In the particular example I gave, omnipresence is not shed; it means in as many places at once as desired, unrestricted by space. Insisting that omnipresence can mean only what some Christians say it does imputes them with a uniformity of belief which is oversimplified and easy to falsify. American Fundamentalism removes reason from faith, but do not confuse Christianity for idiocy; doing so allows the Fundamentalists to win.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
H.S....If we accept that god gives us the option of accepting him or not...

This is ambiguous at best; equivocation at worst. For such a statement to be meaningful, and/or, for it coincide with the "cold is the absence of heat" analogy, you would have to first establish the existence of this "God".
Obviously, if I say, "You know folks, if we accept that St. Nick gives us the choice to be good, or naughty", such a statement is meaningless to those who disbelieve in "Santa".

continues........the dialogue presents one reasonable way of addressing the problem of theodicy, or how an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god allows evil to exist.[bold added]

That's the whole point---if god "allows it"...then god allows it. You can slice it, dice it, splice it any way you choose---if "God" exists, it either "allows" what theists call "evil", or it is unable to prevent what they call "evil". Thus, god's "free will" is limited, and therefore, god cannot be "all-powerful".

H.S...Insisting that omnipresence can mean only what some Christians say it does imputes them with a uniformity of belief which is oversimplified and easy to falsify

In my view, the only "insisting" going on is Theists insisting that their respective deities exist. Obviously, the "student/Atheist professor" parable isn't limited to one "Faith". However, if said analogy is being offered up by a "Christian", then it's not about "insisting" word meanings; it's about holding them to the very attributes to which they insist their biblegod has. "Omnipresence" is one such attribute. They insist their biblegod is everywhere possible, at once. This crushes the the "evil is the absence of God(i.e..biblegod)" argument.


Blogger webmdave said...
HL wrote, "I suppose I'm surprised at how many people never learned this, but I guess high school level physics isn't necessarily common knowledge."

My point, which apparently went way over your superior highbrow, is that natural physics don't mean diddly-squat when you're talking about a meta-physical-super-entity! So, in GOD-REALITY, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, including hair being the absence of baldness. The dualistic comparison of god/no-god is still there in the story regardless of the verbal gymnastics.

One of my personal attributes is being 71" tall. I cannot shed that attribute at a whim. If your god can shed her attributes at will, then those aren't really attributes, they are preferences. Do not forget that Bible-God never changes.

I am shocked at how many armchair, philosophizing Christians are theologically impaired. But I guess actually learning about one's religion is not a common practice.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
Some additional thoughts...

If what Christians insist is true, in this case, that "God" simultaniously occupies every possible/conceivable space - commonly refered to by them as "omnipresence" - then, of course, the "absence of God" philosophy crumbles.

If there are some special "physics", a special philosophy, or some other "loop