a rebuttal (athiest response 1)
quoting gene:
Very interesting story.
However, I have to say that the points made by the Christian are mostly flawed.
The fact that the Christian cannot observe or see the professor's brain doesn't give him the right conclude that the professor has no brain, because nothing has been proved. This merely introduces a doubt of his brain's existance: we are not sure whether he has one. But this can eventually be proven when we break his head open the moment after he dies, which is just a matter of time. For the time being, a THEORY that says the professor DOES have a brain will probably be closer to the truth, as indicated by observable evidence such as his ability to speak, and to feel embarrassed.
On the other hand, the existance of God HAS been disproven. It was disproven by the "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good" paradox explained so well by the professor. (ex. God is omnipotent and omnibeneficient. If God exists, then he wouldn't allow suffering to occur. However, there are people who suffer in the world, therefore, He does not exist. End of proof.)
Secondly, the Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory. There IS a difference between scientific LAWS and scientific THEORIES. A theory is not necessary the truth, but it holds as long as nobody can disprove it. Scientific theories are scrapped all the time because of new evidence that can disprove them, but new theories quickly replace the old ones that were scrapped. We may never reach the truth, but we get closer and closer to it. The Theory of Evolution is DEFINITELY truer than Christianity, for it is supported by more observable evidence, and it has not been disproved (note: although some points in the original darwin's theory of evolution may be incorrect, variations of the theory are way better candidates to replace the original one than Christianity), whereas Christianity can be disproved in a dozen ways. (ie. By disproving God, or by disproving passages in the bible such as the one that says Earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around Earth, etc, etc...)
Another point the Christian made was that God did not create evil, because evil is not a "something"... evil is merely the lack of good, or a state of "nothingness". He went on and used examples such as dark is the lack of light, cold is the lack of heat etc. His examples are biased, and so his argument is false. He purposefully picked the phenomena that can only be quantified in a positive manner. However, there ARE other observable phenomena that have both positive and negative quantities. Such as having money or owing money. Something speeding up or slowing down. Above or under ground. Positive or negative economic growth. Matter or anti-matter. The list goes on... And good/evil is one such phenomenon. One can do nothing and be neither good nor evil, which is kind of like sitting at a 0 position. One can move towards the positive side by doing charity and good deeds, and towards the negative side by killing, robing, raping. So evil IS something substantial that exists in the world and God, if there is a God, is letting that happen.
This is the best I can do at 3:30 in the morning. I am not trying to bash the believers, I just hope that people will have some sort of objective thinking before succuming to blind faith... But I understand that this may be hard for some of you because you have been overwhelmed by Christian teachings from your church/school/parents since the day you were born.
Gene
of course. this doesn't ride well with christians..
