So a better word would be epitomises.

Something, something, dictionary before you post again, etc...

from Wei Wu Wei:

Man is a River

A river has a name, a character, a personality; it is liked or disliked as an entity. This is due to a variety of factors: its rapidity or sluggishness, its breadth, depth, length, its form and course, its smoothness, number of islands, and the vegetation and topographical character of its immediate environment. But it flows; from whatever angle you may look, it is never the same for two consecutive seconds. It is just passing water, each ripple, each drop, resembling its predecessor and its successor but never the same ripple or drop.

There is no river. There is no man.

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, smell 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 theatre 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. (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, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?

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. 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? (The class was in uproar.)

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? (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. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN

Got to love urban myth propaganda.

And here comes the continuation...

The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.

"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."

"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."

"Oh," said the Christian.

"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."

"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.

"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.

"I guess not."

"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."

The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."

The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"

"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"

"Uh, no."

"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"

"Well..."

"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.

"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."

The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."

"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."

"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"

"I didn't know that."

"In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley's 'Firing Line,' which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact."

"Really?"

"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"

"I guess not."

"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."

"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."

"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."

"I'm guess learning already," said the student, looking at the floor.

"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"

The student said lifelessly: "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil." It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"

"There is the absence of good," said the student.

"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."

The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."

"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."

The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."

"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."

The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."

"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.

"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" "Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."

"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"

"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."

"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."

"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."

"There you go," said the professor.

"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."

"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.

"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."

"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"

"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."

The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"

"Yes, yes," said the professor.

"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."

"So it would seem," said the professor.

"I'm going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn't tell me the truth about evolution!"

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person's life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

So it was the absence of god that created satan? When a 10 yr old gets cancer, it's because god is absent?

I normally don't do religious discussions, but I've seen your post before and find it extremely flawed. It's also a myth that this student was Einstein (who didn't believe in a personal god btw). In fact, this student/professor discussion is most likely a made up story. Kinda like something else I'm thinking of.

Satan is a result of God's absence, yes. God didn't created the absence of Himself...ppl did, with their own free will God gave them.

There could be a number of reasons a 10 yr old gets cancer.

BTW, i don't see God as a human being or believe God is limited to personal relationships either.

And i am well aware how over time everything tends to become a myth.

Can you give us some of these reasons a 10 year old gets cancer?

I've never seen anyone top this:

But God knew that humans will create his absence with their free will before even giving it to them.
Knowledge of humans creating absence of himself>creation of humans>punishment of humans for doing what he knew they will do.

Must be fun creating beings capable of sin and then punishing them for it. I'd do it all day long if I could.

That one is a good version too.

Quoted from wiki:

Cancers are primarily an environmental disease with 90-95% of cases attributed to environmental factors and 5-10% due to genetics.[1] Environmental, as used by cancer researchers, means any cause that is not genetic, not merely pollution. Common environmental factors that contribute to cancer death include tobacco (25-30%), diet and obesity (30-35%), infections (15-20%), radiation (both ionizing and non-ionizing, up to 10%), stress, lack of physical activity, and environmental pollutants.

I believe all of those potential causes can ultimately be linked to an absence of God in some way.

Not gonna lie, i have been stuck on this for a while. There are many days where i feel it would be better if i didn't exist or was never born into existence. And i am always questioning and searching for answers even in times when i probably shouldn't be. But because i know God to be true, it is not a stretch for me to see that this life, no matter how bad/repulsive it could be, is miniscule to the grand scheme of things. ~100 years is nothing compared to eternity. Nor is a stretch for me to believe that the reasons for my existence outweigh the reasons i shouldn't, considering i have very limited information compared to One who knows all.

1 Corinthians 15:35 explains my belief here in more detail.

Why shouldn't you be questioning and searching for answers?

I'm not sure I'm getting this correctly. You are saying that the problem of evil makes you feel that it would be better if you did not exist? It shouldn't. The problem of evil should make you question the morality of God. According to the argument, God can not be good.

Now I think that the continuation of the atheist professor and christian student story deals with this quite well.
Cliffs: According to our logic, God is not good. He could be good in some other definition (according to his moral standards), but that changes nothing. Unless you learn to think like God, you should not just blindly believe and try to skip what human logic tells you.

There are times when my questioning/searching conflicts with faith. Maybe/possibly most or all of the time.


God did not wish evil on us. It was disobeying God's order that brought evil into the world. It is my understanding that God ordered Adam and Eve to stay away. He warned Adam and Eve before it even happened. It was questioning this warning that brought upon evil. Just because evil is a result of a choice man made with freewill doesn't mean God created it. If that was so, then man would have no free will.

Are you saying that if you were to rob a bank right now that your parents should do the time? (i'm assuming your parents taught you that robbing banks is wrong)

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

A friend of mine is revising for an exam in philosophy, and a part of it is the cosmological argument.
One argument the textbook put forward in favour of the cosmological argument was that as we can measure time it must have a beginning and can't be infinite... HAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

I'm no biblical scholar, but I did attend religious school when I was a kid. Wasn't Satan a fallen angel before god even created people? How was he created in god's absence?

And if he was around before Adam & Eve, how does it make any sense that it was people disobeying god that brought evil into the world when Satan had already fallen (and was presumably already evil)? It would be great if you can explain, because I'm curious how you arrive at this.

Head in the sand much? Cognitive dissonance is not your friend.

Did God create some pure evil monster type entity or did God create an angel? Is free will stripped from those who are angels or are angels those who choose God with their free will?

It is my understanding that if Adam and Eve listed to God, Satan would have no power in this world. Not sure why Adam and Eve were able to see/hear Satan, perhaps it was a test or perhaps it was a result of questioning God's Words for even a second. Wish i knew more.

There is a parable about an empty boat that goes something like this....A man is rowing his skiff and an empty boat bumps into him. He steers away from it and goes on his way. But, if there was a man in the boat that bumps into him, he gets angry and yells at the other man.

I'm trying to put together something with a similar theme. Here's my rough first draft effort:

After supper, a man rinses off the plates and cups and silverware. He hears the sound thereof. He finishes and goes on his way. The next night after supper, the man's wife belittles him. He hears the sound thereof. He gets angry and yells at his wife and they argue.
=========
Why does the empty boat not offend and the manned boat offend?
Why does the sound of washing up not offend and the sound of another offend so much?

Wow. Possibly one of the worst posts on 2+2 in awhile. We have a Christian who doesn't know the Bible, makes up stuff and is a complete logical mess. Another so-called Christian who apparently has never read the Bible.

He claims that that people created the absence of God with the free will God gave him.

He says that Satan is the result of God's Absence (which, remember, is created by the free will of the people.)

Only problem is that it ignores Christian mythology and the Bible.
FROM http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-fall.html

Timeline (Gunth style)-
Satan Falls from Heaven.....
Genesis (creation of Adam & Eve)
---- Now... with the creation of Adam & Eve with freewill... evil is created.
Satan is created.

YOU'VE BEEN GUNTHED!

Speaking of Satan / Lucifer, I've always had a question about this to which no Christian has given a straight answer. Please correct me if my understanding of the facts is off.

1. Lucifer convinced some of his angel buds that they should rebel against god.

2. This was squashed and god threw them out.

This seems to indicate that in heaven there is free will and potential disagreement and discord.

If so, couldn't there also be some "current" or future rebellion of the same sort?

Whaddya think?

Sry FYP to better show what i meant.

If God is all knowing and knows everything that has happened, and everything that will happen, why didn't he see the whole Satan rebellion coming and just not create satan in the first place? or just kill satan now?